Albany's Race for a New MP

 Peter Watson MLA is stepping down at the next election in March 2021. It's going to be a stange contest with several people well credentialed with Community Involvement. The probable 3 front runners are Delma Baesjou (Nationals), Scott Leary (Liberals) and Rebecca Stephens (Labor). 

Scott Leary's chances are said to be improved by the rise of Zak Kirkup as party leader but whilst that's possible Liza Harvey was a good leader & in any case, she's staying on and is backing Zak Kirkup by all accounts. Both Liza & Zak visited Albany as Party Leaders. Scott has had a long history of community involvement in business & sport as well as the local TAFE,

Delma Baesjou is in a similar spot but her party's leader Mia Davies had visited Albany more times in the last 18 months than both Liberal & Labor leaders combined so they are serious on elevating Albany. Their party's State Conference in Oct 2020 was in Albany & add onto that Delma was the successful candidate in a political first for WA "Community Pre-Selection" so Delma really is a political candidate put forward by the community & voted in by the community...not a Perth based pre-selection committee and she's had a long linkage with local community groups, developers and community groups.

Rebecca Stephens also has a good history with local community groups and has run a local small business as well as sitting councillor on the City of Albany. She's going to have trouble building upon Peter Watson's legacy because for the last 4 years he's been Speaker of the Hourse so he hasn't built much at all. As Speaker he cannot have any part of cabinet decisions, has no part in Government business, cannot represent & speak up for Albany on the floor of the Parliament so Rebecca is starting off on a blank slate just like the other candidates.

She also has a few other barriers that only a well funded campaign can over come. In an ABC Radio interview she was asked about Deregulated Trading Hours and she said "No comment" which was a most curious reply. When further pushed she explained she would have to see what the electorate felt about it. Now this is curious because as a City Councillor she voted against it. Either she knows what the community wants or she doesn't or she voted without knowing what Albany wants or doesn't.
It's actually what is best for Albany regardless of what some do or don't want.

There's also some other differences that only an expensive campaign with lots of visits from the Premier can over come.

If Rebecca wins you can guarantee the Labor Party will celebrate her as the first woman to represent Albany in Parliament. It's odd because WA Labor has a stance, according to Simone McGurk MLA the Labor Minister for Women's Interests that a woman is someone who is a woman or lives as a woman. In other words anyone of any gender. Unless they can check to confirm all previous men lived & identified as men not women they have a funny claim to make. If you're a woman, your "interests" involve allowing anyone to be a woman. Ironically by elevating women's interests as they do, they're de-womaning the gender completely.

Rebecca has several other obstacles. She cannot cross the floor and vote on a matter in the best interests of the Albany community. If she does, she will be expelled fromt he party. This isn't such a problem for the Nationals & Liberal Candidates. Nationals MPs have put their electorate first & crossed the floor and indeed the Nationals have an ex-Liberal MP & an ex-Labor MP in their parliamentary ranks, but very renouned for putting their electorate first and they can cross the floor now.

Rebecca on that front is required to be a Labor representative in the electorate, not an electorate representative in her party, the government or the floor of the house. Its very unfair and will restrict Rebecca from the best results Albany needs to move forward.

Then there's yet another problem that only an expensive campaign can gloss over or distract from, Labor's close affinity with the Chinese Government & the prerential treatment for WA billionaires when it came to COVID quarantining. In amongst this, Labor has not been very regional friendly. 

Labor's plan to abolish the School of the Air without any stakeholder consultation, indeed even their own far north MPs only learned about it via the press. Labor's plan to shut Moora Residential College because it wasn't worth the money & under used (?)...federal money was sourced and it's been kept open, renovated and now fully booked.

There was also the additional problem that in their first budget Mark McGowan's Labor Party pent more money in 2 years on Rockingham Basketball than 2 years of drug rehab in Albany. You won't remember Peter Watson raising this in Parliament or crossing the floor over it. He represents Labor in Albany so golden silence.

Labor also said they would not bring in a Gold Tax, soon as they were elected Mark McGowan went back on his pre election committment & tried to introduce one...TWICE. Rebecca will need to rely on an expensive campaign & the old "that was before my time and I'm not familiar with Kalgoorlie". Well she'll have to vote on many things outside Albany & had that passed, Kalgoorlie would ahve gone into a serious economic slump and the entire drilling & exploration sector would have closed.

Royalties for Regions...many hundreds of projects, some were duds but now, its been skinned & gutted and used to pay for normal items within general expenditure and basically cost shifted a billion dollars a year from the regions to Perth. 
2.6 million square kilometres outside the Perth/Mandurah/Metro Area & R4R was to ensure a small portion of royalties was quarantined into the regions. The programme is effectively dead and you probably shouldn't be surprised.

As people starte getting the picture, expect the Labor money poured into the Albany Campaign to increase greatly as rural people including those like us in a rural city have been short changed badly.

Would you vote for a Democratic Communist Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Fascist Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Dictatorship Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Khmer Rouge Party?

Assuming you would answer no to all 4 questions, ask yourself why on earth would you vote for a Democratic Socialist Party? That is what Labor is, the ALP Constitution says so in black & white.

So my expectation for the State Election 2021 in the seat of Albany...expect a massive campaign from Labor, a very costly one the other parties can't match to try & white wash over the facts you'll get & the poor results we've had. Expect the Premier & ministers to jump on the Lear Jet WA used to hire but then bought and head to Albany. They've had plenty of campaign flights Perth to Albany to Denmark (or Manjimup) then back to Perth. Whirlwind face dropping.

Drugs, hard damaging drugs...possible approach?

 Background, I'm no expert on drugs or addiction but there is a general push for drugs to no longer be seen as a criminal matter but as a health matter. That sets up 2 sides, the yes, the no but there's also another.

Both.

There's some pushes to decriminalise illicit drugs and drop it all fairly & squarely within the health realm which I'd politely say isn't coping with it now.

I knew a couple with kids and small business, successful small business. They smoked a bit of dope and when that happened I would go home, it increased and we drifted apart. What I didn't know was they were also beginning to use Methamphetamine, in fact it turns out they were high functioning addicts for a number of years before finally the unavoidable decline began. The decline was horrible to say the least. The husband was attacked and went to hospital several times. It ended up with a lost business, they lost their house and all assets, a divorce followed, then came prostitution, violence against police and medical staff, theft from family & strangers. It's ruined their lives, their parents lives, their children's lives. It is an utter shameful mess and I can only say I'm glad I wasn't close by to watch it because I would've been lost as to what to do to help.

In the end one of them is on the road to recovery health wise after a jail stint but there is no way to repair the damage that's been done.

Now if its solely a health matter, I need to see how that looks on paper because at the time when an intervention by medical professionals might, stress might have helped I for one thought they were just smoking dope & had no idea they were on hard drugs.

Crime, it isn't a sole answer either but somehow we have a problem because if we as a society were able to cut supply tomorrow, then drugs would be in short supply and addicts would jump over to another type of drug to fill the gap & the demand for the missing drug rises, there's more importation/production incentive.

I think there is no one answer, I think society needs a dozen keys to this puzzle. One of them might be doubling the penalties with each repeat offence. Get a 50% reduction in sentence for helping to prosecute & convict the next person up the line BUT the person convicted must go into a rehabilitation programme, regular drug testing and be found clean at the end of it. to get their reduction.

There has to be a serious penalty joined with a serious incentive to get clean and point the finger at the next person up the line. Can't have just a harsher penalty, there has to be a genuine incentive offer with set treatment.

Hopefully the random drug testing that happens ocaasionally with RBT becomes common place, test for one, test for the other.  
No, its probably correct that penalties will not solve the problem. we see that in Asian countries that have the death penalty for drug offences and the Phillipines where it's alleged drug dealers and addicts have been gunned down as well clamped down harshly by authorities. Drugs remain no matter what becuase I think the addictive nature of humans is never going away and the lure of big money still draws people in despite the incredibly high risk and brutal penalty.

But I think taking people out of the game by penalties & rehab on a larger scale is one of the keys to the puzzle not in eliminating drugs but at least reducing the number of addicts.

I don't know if there's the political will and the other trouble is the meth epidemic is only starting to become readily apparent to those outside the realm of these drugs. When it gets to this point, we've lost a big chunk of a generation and we need to move very rapidly & decisively to curb the damage for younger ones still not thinking of dabbling.

I think the entertainment industry has a big hand to play in demonising drugs but empathising with addicts. The Hollywood effect of glorifying drugs or mocking the dangers started before Cheech & Chong.

And yes, I don't think a shaded tent prison in the desert is such a bad idea either

The Left & the Right of the Political Spectrum

 For years we've heard of the Left vs the Right on the political Spectrum and even the Left, Centre and Right within each Party. The latest term to front up is "Sensible Centre" or "Centrist" which everyone seemed to claim for a while but it lost steam in Australia. Well it seemed to when the Independent MPs prior to the last Federal election claimed to be Centrists, Dr Phelps et al & running for election Zali Steggals. They weren't any compromise between Left & Right, they weren't any middle ground. They were trying to create a unique marketing brand whilst remaining leftists. It largely flopped.

The sort of traditional view of the political spectrum is somewhere like the following linear idea.

That's kinda roughly the current view of what the traditional political spectrum is. The Conservatives on the right of whatever the real dead centre is, the Progressives (or in America the Liberals) to the left. That may not be very accurate, but among many people thats the current view of what the traditional spectrum is.
Between Conservative & Hard Right there's Alt Right and other groups or ideologies with gradually changes towards the Hard Right. Between Progressives and the Hard Left will be gradual increases in ideology like the Antifa etc until you get Communism.

Its not the only view and some of the other views might be contentious to some, but they do have support and some supporting history on their side. Then there's this...

Now how on earth would this even be an idea that people might even consider being accurate. One reaction is you cannot lump Fascism/Nazis in with Marxist Ideologies like Communism, Socialism. They're thought to be polar opposities, one extreme right, one extreme left. They were enemies during the war & share no common traits.

Well ok, thing is that's the argument, except they do share a lot in common. Communism/Socialism has a Father in Karl Marx. Fascism has a Father in the Italian Philospher Giovanni Gentile who was a close ally of Mussonlini. Here's the thing, do your research on Gentile and his work and it soon becomes apparent he started out a strident Socialist then created Fascism which is an offshoot of Socialism because Gentile himself said Fascism is the ultimate form of Socialism. Both took away individual rights, individual ownership of the means of production, both vested decisions on how the individual lived into the State. Both had the State as the supreme goal, aim and governor but Socialism is based on getting rid of class, fascism is too that but more Nationalistic and expansionist. Both required full totalitarian regimes who were ruthless and prone to killing anyone who stood in their way. 

Hitler and the Nazis regime can never be trivialised nor over looked in their rank brutality that made them rightly considered by any religious or non religious worldview judgement as being totally evil.
Well, Stalin's Communist/Socialist regime actually shared many traits with the Nazis and over time they killed or rather ruthlessly murdered more innocent people. No Communism/Socialism isn't worse, they're both supremely evil by any measure. Nazism was lost & destroyed as a regime at the end of World War 2 and the Russian regime continued on. They were competing with one another and both wanted to crush and take over the other. (Before marching onto Capitlist countries and conquering them)

But don't forget the West opposed Socialism/Communism/Fascism during the War & after. With Nazism gone, we had the Cold War. The West versus "the East" and had the Nazis defeated Stalin, the East would have been Germany and every country it conquered or annexed.

Pick a conservative country during the War...or before or after. It would have fought both totalitarian regimes, it would not have set up gulags or concertration camps in the West.

Now somewhere on that second line graph is the Alt-Right. Now considering the Right is over there on the right, the Alt Right must be to the left of the Conservatives. Why? Because they're not of the right. They are "Alternative right". They're considered far right, but they're regarded as White Supremist Nationalists. They often tend as a group to relate to Nazis & be anti Communists. They're quite correct in being an alternative to the right. They are often over there by the Fascists & Nazis. They are not conservatives. Most religious conservatives consider all people are God's children, racism is wrong. Alt Right is not conservative at all. It like all other hard right are not conservatives and share more in common with the Hard Left.
Even Antifa, Anti Facist are not of the right, their followers are generally of one of the Marxist stripes. Oddly though they are very communist like, some are very racist and prone to violence to get their way like fascists and many communists.

This is probably why we see some sets of Antifa clashing with some sets of Alt-Right...meanwhile Conservatives are not a fan or connected to either & oppose both Antifa & Alt-Right. Both Antifa & Alt-Right oppose the West, capitalism, individual rights & want the State to rule the people, not serve them. Every that is the very opposite of Conservatism.
This is why it sure looks not to be simple linear spectrum, Conservatives & wise Progressives are not really of the left or the right. That linear distinction only applies to seperate those that support authoratarian rule & equal division of assets, money & the State owning the means of production & distributing wealth evenly amongst all.

Yes its very uncomfortable for some who wish to demonise conservatives by creating the illusion that Fascism and Nazism is of the right, but they're not. They're of the right compared only to Communists & Socialists. The Communists are of the left, but only to the left of Nazis & Fascism. For Nazis the clue is in the name "National Socialist" and they were brutal totalistarian regimes...that is not from the conservatives any more than Communism is.
If its in favour of authoratarian rule, loss of individual rights, control of all manner of lifes aspects its the Left/Right alright...but not of & opposed by conservatism & real progressivism.

Now progressives...they're looking to change things for the better, Conservatives looking to conserve things for the better. Having them both in a society is not only admirable, its desireable as long as they don't go to far into removing individual rights, over taxing, over legislating the people and not changing from the goevrnment serving the people to pushing the people to serve the government. Real progressives won't support authoratarian rule, loss of individual rights, private property rights, individuals freedom of speech, worship etc.

Yes, I think the second representation of the political spectrum is more correct than the first.
But the first one whilst being intellectually corrupt, morally bankrupt & unsupported by actual history...yes it will live on. Usually by those that will try to not mention progressives but need to condemn conservatives to help falsely bolster any level of Marxist or Fascist validation.
Desperates being desperate.

Trump or Biden - Disaster or Relief?

 Whatever happens, the sun will come up, the sun will go down. Night & day will go on, its a fair expectation that the sky won't fall but there probably is potential fall out.

The NY Stock market recently hit another record all time high whilst there is no new President. Some have pointed to this meaning that stability in politics leads to stock market confidence and to be fair this is very true but the stockmarket probably wasn't going to crash or dip markedly had either candidate been declared winner already.

Its still late November now & there is still no official, certified result on the 2020 Presidential election is yet. It is clear who the President Of The United States (POTUS) is now. Its Trump & it will be Trump until January 20th regardless of the election result. He remains President in title for life, but he also remains in office until the inaugeration late January 2021.

Trump isn't going to refuse to leave the White House. Some media have been pretty mischievous with this claim. Trump has said he will leave office if the Electoral College usher Biden in & all legal avenues are closed off. So the real fact is, whoever wins is still undecided and Trump is exercising his right to legal avenues as other Presidents before him have. And like or loathe him you cannot blame him, the claims there was no evidence of electoral fraud or irregularity is not correct. The vote counting was flawed and compromised. Enough fraud to steal an election? No one knows just yet but if the process is to be cleaned up then  legal avenues aren't just ok, they're vital.

One thing is for sure, Trump cannot lock himself in the White House if he loses, he won't, he can't. Its likely the US will be guarded against real hard left legislation like the New Green Deal as the Democrats won't control the congress but it will be ugly and Biden as POTUS will need heavy media support to carry him.

Other things...

1) How long would Biden as POTUS last? Would he go full term or would he have to be replaced by Kamala Harris mid term and what would that mean for their country and would their be a rippling effect world wide?

2) Which is more likely to result in rioting, civil unrest, violence? A Trump loss or a Biden loss. Well I'd guess less likelihood or violence if Trump loss. On election night and the day or so after with Biden numbers looking high and a win likely the only people who seemed to defy social distancing and take to the streets were democrat supporters celebrating. No pro Trump people clashed with them, no violence, no looting, no burning of building.

3) Trump is more likely to stand up to China whereas Biden more likely to break bread with the Asian trade aggressor. Both their respective media statements support this.

4) War - This is the big worry, Trump is one of the few POTUS in recent living memory who hasn't started a war overseas. A point lost on the "progressives" and when known, they often reject or hide it. Interesting too, Trump copped flak for the barrier wall with Mexico. He has actually been building it at a faster rate than anyone and yes, Democrats called for it when they were in power too. Trump appears very guilty of doing what he said he would. Then again, he also did move the US Embassy in Israel to their nation's capital Jeruselum. All Trump's predecessors have promised that but not done it. Jeruselum is Israel's capital, it's parliament is based there, their PM's residence is based there. All their main government heads & their offices are based there. Makes sense

5) But then Trump was pillared for children being locked in cages away from their mothers, the illegal aliens crossing the US/Mexico border & yet THAT was brought in under the Obama administration but total silence & fingers on pointed Trumps way. Since then Biden/Harris have said all illegal aliens will get free health care under their reign. They will not be deported, they will be allowed to remain with no criminal charges AND they will be granted citizenship. Now I don't think they can actually get these things passed. It'd be a disaster if they did so I don't think these things will happen. I think these are promises made to get elected, to get votes and people who voted Biden/Harris/Democrat on the basis of these promises are going to be very disappointed. Strangeest of all, the democrats will be forgiven by many of their voters. Its very odd.

6) President Elect - Biden has built himself a large pedestal to fall from. He built this "Office of President Elect" which doesn't actually exist. He started installing people to positions under his administration but officially he's not elected to office yet, he isn't even able to call himself President Elect. He technically hasn't won the election, no one has. There is no certified official result yet. 

Will Biden or Trump be President? Who knows, I don't but I do know the process is still in play, Trump hasn't left the office or preparing to transition because no result has been officially called and he's pursuing legal avenues.

If Trump wins via legal avenues he won't have stolen the election, he will have won it. If he loses the election despite legal efforts then he will have lost it fair & square and the voting fraud whilst shown to be real, wasn't enough for him to retain office.

Whatever happens, happens.
It hasn't happened yet. The fat lady hasn't sung, she's not even stageside. She's still home getting ready to go to the theatre.

Right now the best thing for their country is for leaders in each state & major city with civil disorder, chaos, looting rioting is to come down hard on anyone who is not a peacful protestor.

Trump nor Biden can over come that without over reach.

Industrial Manslaughter Laws Controversy in State Parliament

 It's a funny controversy, Trevor Whittington the WAFarmers CEO & the WAFarmers President Ryhs Turton gave a bit of a kicking to the WA Nats for voting with the Greens and the Labor Party. To a lesser extent Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party, The Pauline Hanson One Nation Party MPs were reported as being very miffed at the Nats.

So what's the go? Lets go dot points but firstly it all revolves around, not a clause but an amendment to a clause that the Nationals voted against. The unamended clause would have maintained the current status quo. The amendment would have changed things...

1. If the amendment was so needed & without it such a cruel travesty would be delivered upon WA then why on earth did all those yelling at the Nats not oppose the amended clause. It went through without dissent. Did they relish the chance to use it as political fodder outside of Parliament or were they a bit missing in action thought wise and staple themselves to something interllectually bankrupt. For me, kinda looks the the latter at least, but possibly both.
   
   
2. If you were compliant before that clause was accepted, then you're compliant now. It is now the status quo. There is no extra or legal exposure with the amendment lost & the clause left untouched.
   
   
3. My understanding was the supporting report used to bolster the amendment was from interstate and refers to "gross negligence" which has very poor definition in WA Law so what happens over east wouldn't automatically transfer to WA without extensive reworking of other Acts to add to "gross negligence". In fact if it were passed as is were might have ended up with legislation that contains a poorly framed term which then relies on a judge to interpret it and it may get very subjective which increases variance in penalty & judgement. Not wise.
   
   

So this is a very complicated bill. It's currently in Upper House Committee. Its not law, they're review & where needed reviewing it, correcting it. I'm told there's over 400 clauses so goodness know how many amendments there'll be when all's said & done. If they conclude it this year with the small number of sitting days left it'll be a miracle.

So did the Nationals do good or did they go over to the dark side of the Greens & Labor to the detriment of Western Australia.

No, they did good. Its not Law, its in committee & that particular clause remains unamended & it remains fact none of those complaining voted against that then unamended clause. They could have shown their disdain & called for a division to have their opposing vote recorded. They didn't oppose it.

This maybe an example of Wedge Politics in 160 days left before State Polling Day but it was certainly a strange move by the WAFarmers CEO & State President. Very little media pick up on it so I think some are looking at it as a grumpy pot shot by a disaffected complainant. Who knows, its very bizarre and I look forward to hearing a better defence of the position by WAFarmers. 

Perhaps, and its only speculation, we should be reminded that the pivotal relationship in an organisation is that between the Chairman & the CEO but it is actually the board's role to over sea that relationship and their individual & combined performance. They need to keep everything in check & accountable.
Not  sure were this is at, but does look a bit adbsurdly ominous at present.

No, I'm fine with the Committee direction and the loss of that amendment & the passing of the unamended clause. No worries at all.

As that weird song goes, "How bizarre, how bizarre"

The "Seal of Confession" & Child Sexual Abuse

 Yes the title has 2 seperate things that should be a million miles apart but they're sadly not.
There is currently a Bill before the WA Parliament. Below is a link to the Upper House Committee Report. It's pretty thorough but not completely exhaustive, there is more to add. 

But one of the key points that will end up stirring controversy for some through not being fully informed is the sanctity of the "Seal of Confession" that will allow a priest in confession to keep what details of serious crime they learn of in confession exempt from mandatory reporting. AND an exclusion from criminality should they keep those details secret.

Usually on religious matters whether supporting or opposing a matter I endeavour to argue from a secular point of view. Deliberately. Reason is whilst many laws of the land may trace their roots back to Judaeo Christian origins, the fact is the law of the land in Australia is secular. Many people are secular, or of differing denominations or completely unrelated, different faiths. You can quote chapter & verse with proper in context exegesis but it's pointless if the person you're talking to is either of a different paith, an atheist/agnostic or indeed could be very anti whatever faith you moght be. You cannot change their mind by citing things from a religion they don't follow or possible deeply oppose. Secular reasoning is the only  way more often than not.

The second preamble point is the "seperation of Church & State" argument. Probably one of the most misunderstood notions we see even in our free nation. It refers to us not being a theocracy or caliphate. 
Our constitution is very clear on this, the government cannot start a religion or faith, cannot enforce observance of a particular religion. Freedom of choice is paramount & immovable.

TO A POINT.

The Waco Massacre, the Jonestown Massacre were all avoidable, had authorities stepped in earlier its debatable what might or might not have happened but one thing is very certain. In Australia there is NO LEGAL PROTECTION for any religion, faith or worldview to allow any seriosu crime to be committed. NONE.

There have throughout history been world views that included human sacrifice & cannibalism to name 2 atrocious vile acts. Neither can be protected, allowed or ignored under "freedom of religion" tenants.

Add into this, there is under Common Law absolutely NO authority given to any religion, no law that delivers legal privelege to the idea of Confession. None. 

As a result there is no legal argument allowing confession to be excluded from mandoatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse. The argument that little or no people will come forward on Child Sexual Abuse in confession is irrelevant and a devious distraction. A victim might come forward, a perpetrator might come forward, a 3rd party who is aware of others victim of child sexual abuse might come forward and if they do, it is potentially hidden from the blind justice of natural law because some worldview believes it has the authority to have a safe harbour or blind eye option.

No, priests must not be excluded from mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse or indeed any serious criminal acts. 

That's a partial secualr view, now the often avoided faith based view.
Confessional is a cultural mechanism of the Roman Catholic Church & some Orthodox denominations.
There is no Biblical support for the practice at all but I do notice that some selective cherry picking of Scripture does occur. 

In the case of some churches the qualifications for the office of church elder, teacher, pastor is quite clear. They must be married, have children, not be a drunkard and there's a longer list. An unmarried celebate preist is not on the list, in fact Scripture is quite clear they need to be head of a married family due to them needing the skills to run a household if theyre to oversee a flock.
A church with unmarried preists is anti Scripture. Using the false statement that "times change and the church evolved" is factually wrong, there are covenants that supercede others WITHIN Scripture and there are some thigns that do not apply due to the destruction of the Temple in Jeruselum around 70AD and many of those things didn't apply before or after that point to Gentiles and Christians.
In any case, if the church were allowed to "evolve" then it means its man made in its aws & canons, subject only to man. 
Evolution of the church renders opposition to mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse interllectually bankrupt & corrupted.

Confession is a cultural mechanism, people can partke in that if they choose but it is not, nor should it ever be a legal safe harbour.

Members of whatever church should be allowed to prusue whatever part of their faith or worldview they want unhindered and without penalty, with the exception of where criminal activity occurs. Church followers and the church should be freely allowed to take part in confession but with the knowledge there is no exclusion from mandatory reporting exists. There is no exemption from God, there should be no exclusion from law.

As a result on both a secualr or Scriptural perspective there is no sensible support from Recommendation 17 on Page 60 of the report.. None.

Also be aware of the recommendation of the Royal Commission (7.4) is that:

“Laws concerning mandatory reporting to child protection authorities should not exempt persons in religious ministry from being required to report knowledge or suspicions formed, in whole or in part, on the basis of information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession." 

Confession, the seal of confession are all cultural mechanisms, they're not Scriptural, they're not defendable as safe harbours for criminal acts for anyone. 
The Minority recommendation immediately following Recommendation 17 insists that Clause 53 be enacted in full (without any criminal exclusions) and I cannot agree more.
It will as it gets closer to being voted on as a Bill get contentious, but it's not. Its straight forward. There is no secular nor Scriptural defence for excluding preists from criminal or legal responsibility. NONE.

Don't be fooled, it is not over reach of the religious freedom of citizens at all. 

The Upper House Committee Report link ->

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/D1E72E9FA7E26C2C482585DF000E56A7/$file/ls.ccs.200902.rpf.044.xx-%20web%20version.pdf

Clive Palmer - Sticking my neck out

As I type (13th of August) the so called nicknamed "Clive Palmer Bill" has passed the Lower House of the WA Parliament. I didn't watch all of it intently but I did watch some of it.

I'm not a Clive supporter. There may well be 2 sides you can choose from to support on this but there's a dozen aspects that this opens up.

I'm very uncomfortable that a bill like this was required at all. Only reason I'm even likely to become even slightly comfortable with it is...well to be honest I'm still looking to see how I can support such a bill. Can't find a reason to support this bill.

It targets Clive Palmer based on the idea he is a threat to WA. 
BUT...it's still potentially dangerous in intent & in action as a precedent.

I'm not the shadow of Lawyer's bootlace so it's untrained thought here...I'm not sure we should be dissolving a person's right of law to pursue through the courts. It prevents Mr Palmer from taking the WA Government to court whether the WA Government is in the wrong or not. That's a strikingly dangerous jump. (Understatement on over reach)

There's only one reason why I'd be comfortable & I'm not sure it's enough to get me over the line to supporting this bill. I'm hoping there is very heavy Legislative Council scrutiny of the advice driving this bill and whatever sunset clause is put in it. As it names Mr Palmer, any transferees past or present, his companies etc it is very much targeting him and only him (and his interests) This is THE Clive Palmer Bill. So perhaps THAT is the Sunset Clause. 

The concern is we need not only a serious push for Upper House oversight, but later after its all over full scrutiny. Nope even with that I'm still thinking it's a very bad idea taking away someone's natural rights under law.

The danger not explored here is this opens the door to this type of legislation where we can legislate away the rights of anyone. We're entering a VERY dangerous place. By all means the government can state this is large & unique threat however there is no mention what is stopping this being applied to others of a not so large, not so unique threat. Where is the prescriptive cut off line?

Legislating away a persons legal right to damages is probably a way bigger milestone bill than Voluntary Assisted Dying ever was. No...correction, it is certain not probably.

So yes I am all about protecting Australia or in this case Western Australia. I am largely disappointed that some rules, laws penalties were not enforced without fear nor favour during this State of Emergency some of which set Palmer on his course of a Constitional Challenge and now this latest claim. He is a unique challenge to WA and required very unique (and I hope a...) one off resolution.

Yes I think the McGowan government and Mr Quigley should have been able to prevent it getting to this point but alas, here we are.

Don't be over joyed just yet. Once passed, it isn't over. The likely result is a High Court challenge and as we know, Mr Palmer has never been afraid, indeed possibly been very keen to launch legal action.
Expect discussion using the phrase Sovereign Risk & Over Reach to pop up regularly

Now this is central to a consitutional democracy's rights and it is a pivotal moment in Australian legislation. As huge as it is I'll be sitting with the stopwatch to see how much time is devoted to this on ABC's Political Programme "Insiders" on Sunday. I'm thinking close to 8 minutes, maybe 12 minutes tops...actually I'll be surprised if it snares a total of 5 minutes. It's WA afterall & a Victorian or NSW state election would take up half a programme.

Wait n see. 
In any case, the bill has to pass the Upper House & probably go to an urgent committee, soaking up more time but at least some explanations.

Like the COVID situation, the fat lady hasn't sung, she's not even in her dressing room, she's at home & won't be leaving for the theatre for a very long time.

I think those that voted in favour of the Bill will regret it dearly. This is politically toxic and will probably result in a number of political scalps.

Late Edit - (Sept 2nd 2020) -  I did tell one MP I know (after it passed the Lower & Upper House,

 "I'm not in Parliament but I would have voted against this very very dangerous Bill"

Late Edit - (Nov 6th 2020) - An MP has told me it was rammed through with such urgency with opposition MPs told about it "just as Mr Quigly was presenting it in the Lower House. Even though it now turns out the Government had been working on this action for at least 3 months. The West Austrlian went into full Attack mode to demonise & mock Mr Palmer so public support gathered around the Act in the weeks that followed it ascension. Love or hate Mr Palmer this is a very uncomfortable spot WA is in having passed a Act that effectively removes all legal avenues on a contract & removes all Freedom of Information access afterwards. Its a dark day of dangerous over reach. I'm not a Palmer supporter at all, but he needs to win this case for proper natural justice for all of us. So again  "I'm not in Parliament but I would have voted against this very very dangerous Bill"

Conversations with interesting "thunking"

Probably a few edits and/or additions to come into this...

Went to a fellow's 50th birthday last night, wide range of interesting people there, diverse thinking. Among them city dwellers, grain growers, political nerds and good ol' common sense thinkers & question askers.

CBH came up & I was asked about my view now I'm an ex-grain grower. Yes I think it's a stellar outfit with some problems. If I was still in grain I'd not be in favour of privatising it but now I'm out with no skin in the game so its up to all its owners. But interesting thing was I was sounded out by a mate who's a shareholder/member & what he wanted to know was my thinking on the board, the way they do things, who was a good director who was a numpty & who was where in between.

Legal Actions - Fact, I couldn't give a very accurate view on the pdirectors involved, most I've never met. Yes I have a view on legal actions pending between directors, ex-directors or possibly between CBH and previous directors. Most of my view there I'm not sharing but I think it's likely CBH's D&O Insurance needs cleaning up. Director & Officer Insurance is a funny area with traps and pitfalls with many boards not reading & understanding their agreement. They could very easily find themselves having little or no financial protection if they're not following it properly. Personally I think its fair to expect any ex-director to be copping legal action by the board/company (or in this case Co-Operative) to be covered by the D&O insurance if the action is over something that happened whilst they were on the board. Legal action between 2 parties covered by D&O is not uncommon & its probably not popular with Insurers but it does prevent one party or the board employing 2 Queens Councillors & pouring 100s of 1000s of dollar in a deliberate thuggery/bullying campaign.

AGMs - Other point discussed was AGMs and I gave my view and staggered to hear my friend say "Yeah but we haven't got governance training, we don't know what questions to ask, how to ask them and if we go close to doing that we get shut down". Now I don't know if this is a legit thign or someone just sounding off because they've had a few beers & are grumpy about something...(??)

True or not I don't know but there is this. The AGM is the "Member's Meeting". The board runs the company and once a year the board, all of the board must give an account of their year, their actions and their chosen strategic thinking. So too an account of management's strategic planning and the resulting outcomes.
Board does the strategic thinking, management builds the strategic plan of that instructed thinking by the board and they set about to enact, report back & hopefully acheiving.

At the AGM a lot is in the annual report/s (or should be) and the meeting is where members have the right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to information. If the chairman and /or the board are shutting you down, time perhaps to consider wiping sections of the board out if they can't be persuaded to pull their socks up.

What members should be asking (and not limited to this list) is...

1. Do you do regular board performance assessments
2. Do you do regular chairman performance assessments
3. Do you do regular individual director assessments of skills missing & needed
4. Do you have a regular Director Education Programme driven by the results of number 3
5. Do you have a set Board Training level or qualification and equally importantly how often is the regular refresher courses? Because skills perish/
6. Do you have regular CEO performance evaluations, education/training requirement assessment
7. Do you list directors attendance record for every board meeting & every committee meeting 
8. Do you have a Conflict of Interests register and is it working as it should
9. Is the Chairman selected by the board or by the members. (if its by the members a board with a poor or poor & corrupt Chair is stuck with him/her until the next AGM. Not a good practice)

And if not any of the above...why? (Don't expect assessments to be made public, but you should expect the board to freely explain what issues they found and what improvements they put in place.

Members should know that Directors are personally, legally & financially responsible for every decision they make on the board & heaven help you if any director isn't keenly aware of this.
Be aware also, not making a decision IS A DECISION.
Be aware they have a fiduciary duty, they owe it to the perpetuity of the organisation and the shareholders. Whilst they're to take into account other stakeholders and always work with the law, the primary interest is the shareholders interest...always.

The Chair does not control the AGM, he/she chairs it, they control traffic. But if the members want answers they are entitled to ask questions and if there's insufficient time according to the Chairman, then the chairman needs to think quick and work out how to extend the AGM or address those concerns out of session with everyone's agreement. He/she cannot shut down debate just because they have to be somewhere or don't want to be there anymore.

Yes I got asked about zone based directors and only my no-skin-in-the-game view but I think they'd be better served by dropping the zones & just having any eligible aspiring director applying for a board seat irrespective of where they grow/deliver grain. You want the better applicants & not siloing them into small contests which means potentially good directors might miss getting elected in the their good director crowded zone and a dud or factional plant might get in via another zone. Unwise.

Many are protective of the zones as they see their zone needs representation on the board. Well all zones must be represented by all directors. The currect system is akin to nominess directors and whilst they have in the past got things done for their own area, its not what a nominee director can or should do. Their fiduciary duty is to the entire membership not to a select home crowd.

At any rate, the cases in the past where directors intervened and got a new wheatbin or extensions or whatever, was a crossing of the governance line between board & management. Its indefensible for a director to do anything more than approach the CEO with the concerns of home town growers & stand the hell back, leave it to management to decide and for management to report back to the board.

You look at a company's books and once you learn how to recaste the numbers in an annual report you can generally see where the red flags lie, where the company is failing or killing it, no matter how well the management MIGHT try to cloud it in smoke & mirrors. The red flags pop up clearly with the right ratios & equations. So too red flags can pop up about the board and how they operate with the right questions from the outside.

A smart board will seek out the best training, the best refresher courses and set about trickling down learning and training to the members to keep them better informed and better assured. Also keep a number of them interested enough to consider running for the board.

Away from CBH, Politics - Politics and things. This was interesting what people said they thought, thought they knew and weren't sure about but took a guess.
I define politics as anywhere where 2 or more people gather to discuss things, debate things to try & improve things. Could be the local footy club or Federal Cabinet.
Politics has some angles to it...

1. Sometimes politics is the elegant form of tribal thuggery. No spear or hammer, but sometimes devious plans are hatched, sometimes fair and common sense.
2. Sometimes in life we have to do deals with people we wouldn't have dinner with. Its a fact. It's not a wrong thing. What is fact is all political parties have run cloak n dagger stuff in or around Parliament ticking along with some techiniques of undermining, tricking, deceiving etc. What & where this goes pear shaped (and it has in every single party ever) is these darkened tactics spill over into their own party room (factions) and even to the operational side of their respective organisations (branch stacking, ambush motions, conflicts of interests ignored or hidden etc) - Yes fiduciary duty exists and is sometimes ignored in the party machines.

And thats some of it.

No I haven't done the science, I haven't done the physical trials but I think its fair to say that sometimes it's easier to herd a 100 cats into the yards with a bull whip than getting humans to work well together for the common interest...egoless, self interest aside etc. Humans...world was a perfect place until they got here. One of the greatest things I miss from my youth is not good working knees, back, stamina, eyesight, hearing etc, what I miss most is the naivety I had thinking everyone did the right thing all the time.
Not to be mistaken, I have great faith in humanity and its remarkable how crime doesn't pay, integrity is for the real win everytime and most people are good and understand this.

The Left, the Right & Fascism

If you're of the Hard Left, then EVERYTHING differing is hard right, oppressive, greed & fascist.
If you're of the Hard Right, then EVERYTHING differing is hard left, incapable of needed hard decisions, keen on public theft & communist.

Both seem to declare themselves as enemies of Conservatism.
I don't think Consevratism sits in the middle. I don't think it sits on the same spectrum as the Left & the Right.

Both hard Left & Right are keener on state control, oppressing someone, high taxing, state ownership and against individual rights, responsbilities. Both have failed business plans as a form of governance.

Hard Left use the word fascism as a derogatory attack word to replace a proper argument even though strangely it's origins are of the very hard left (see its founding philospher Giovanni Gentile). Its made even stranger as some of the very Hard Right actually embrace the term Fascism despite it's origins being of the Hard Left. Fascism is state control, state ownership, state declaring what is good & bad in society and the people do not get a vote, a say. 

You cannot have fascism AND a Westminster System, a Constitutional Monarchy, a democratic republic. From those positions call it Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism or Tribal dictatorship...its anti the people, it crushes dissent, free speech, individual rights and explodes the size of government & taxing.

Call it Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism or Ceramic Unicorn Figurines...it doesn't matter what the name is, its what the intent is. If its authoratarian, state controlling the people & their way of life it is not consevratism.

As a conservative I don't think I sit on the linear left to right spectrum. I sit in a camp that sees a spectrum that is anti conservatism, anti the people, their individual rights and left to its own devices will turn into a brutal murderous regime.

Where have the Hard Left or Hard Right ended well?
Where has it ever worked without brutal murderous oppression and other people's money?
Where?

There is a Left-Right Spectrum but the huge cavernous void between the Left & the Right isn't filled by Conservatism. There's is a spectrum of hate & oppression and the only thing that happens in the middle patch is less state sanctioned theft & murder.

So no, I'm not of the Left or Right. As a conservative I'm actually the direct opposite of the Left & the Right.

Remember the "Left/Right Political Spectrum" comes from France,  French Revolution where with 1500+ members it was easier for counting to put the supporters of the King to the right of the Speaker & the supporters of the revolution to the left.
Things changed over time but even after the revolution & the guillotine began to rust the Left & Right division remained.

Pity in a way, there's more of a triangle shape than a line spectrum. Its more Right & Left vs Conservatism but the more moderate either side, the closer they are to the Conservative point. Regardless if them have some differences, Hard Left & Hard Right are both authoratarian, distatorial leaners and against the conservatives.

Me disagreeing with Jane Marwick

I get crabby with new buzzwords that pop up from time to time. Probably more peeved because at the time they begin as good words to use when describing things even though they get over used. Here's a few... drill down, narrative, optic, paradigm. And now here's me using them.

I really enjoy listening to the podcast called The Jane Marwick Show. Yes its great for long car trips but try as I do to save a few up for the 4 hour drive to Perth I generally end up listening to them long before a car trip. Why is it a good podcast. (enter catchy buzzwords)

Its due to the length of the show.  Which although it varies greatly its generally way longer than a radio show or TV slot, there's no adverts. That and (brace yourself...) because it's got little in the way of time constraints it has the ability to drill down past the usual sell optics, past everyone's own personal bias or narrative and crack open the shell to see the real contents.

The podcast with Jacinta Price was Walkley Award winning stuff. It was real, raw, confronting, challenging but it had to be said & done. Without full rigour in a debate, without all the facts no matter how shocking they are, without this we lose to a better prepared argument that might actually be hiding facts.
Its tough to be fair. But its right.

Now where do I disagree with Jane, well 2 places. 
Firstly, Beverley is better than York.

Secondly, debating is a great learning tool. Why did I disagree with her? 
(And yes I have changed my mind).

Well firstly, yes I did debating in school. I kind of liked it but the thing that stunned me was you could win the argument even when you were wrong, very wrong. That began my dislike of debating.

I remember the completely one sided argument of "Is breathing oxygen bad for you"
The affirmative won. Amongst it was cited research of a mouse being kept alive breathing nitrogen...not for long I suspect. A liquid nitrogen which contained just enough oxygen from memory. Then the angle of how many carcigenes are in the air, acid rain, radioactivity and on it goes. Slim pickings but the affimative won. I became very cynical. It was wrong I thought that the right premise didn't win.

I could have studied law or become a police officer. I still maintain they were two of the biggest mistakes I NEVER made. As much as they can do good, I probably wouldn't have been flexible enough in my thinking as a young person to cope with good people losing and bad people getting off.
That wiring I had meant the right & correct has to prevail, always. 
Which is not how life works sadly & I too have been as wrong & incorrect as anyone.

The English teachers back then I thought were brilliant...except for their love of debating.

On her Podcast I heard Jane speak highly of debating in school and whilst I didn't cringe I was having a real "Yeah nup" moment with Jane. 

Then I accidently drilled down as I heard why it was a good thing in her mind.
Its not that people lose because some other people are bad or compromised...well not always. Debating teaches you to prepare very well and to do that you have to find all the facts..WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR.

Now debating does mean you have 2 sides with predetermined positions and they respectively THEN have to find the facts, but whilst that happens in life a BIt, that's NOT how life is supposed to work.
To counter that interllectual bankruptcy we have to be prepared very well when making decisions, get all the facts we can and never rely solely of debating or oratory skills to outspeak the opposing view...OR OUTDO US.

It is still only about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts...in proper context.

The penny dropped. Those brilliant teachers I had that craftily taught us how to learn and not what to think just went up even higher on taller pedestals. In my 50s I now look back & think they really were the teachers in every sense I thought they were & then some. I learnt how to learn with them & I'll stop demonising debating now.

Debating is a learning tool, it teaches what mechanisms you must use in discourse and discussion but you will never actually discuss things in real life in a debate format.

The mechanisms are all about finding the fullest facts, the proper context and extinguishing ego. Edward De Bono wrote that there was arrogance arguing, where one side will not bring up facts that will destroy their argument and that was my real problem with debating. That is what many employed.
But the way to head that off at the pass we have to be very prepared, gather all the facts we can, apply them in proper context, don't let it get personal and find what determination the facts point to. Its not my position, its just facts & truth.

So Jane unknowingly caused me to see a school activity from 30+ years ago in a different light and yes now we agree on debating.

However Beverley is decidedly the better town because home pride can be excused for over looking facts a little...so I respect her decision to wrongly choose the wrong town to love :-) 

Quite rightly, out of this whole blurb, I'm only going to get into trouble for that last sentence...fair bump, play on.

Twitter Court - Online Version of Angry Mob Rule

So a WA Government employee, in his own time went overseas and paid to take part in a Safari Shoot. The ABC in its wisdom spotted the Twitter Mob go ape over it and sought out some extra facts. The result was "All Rise, Twitter Court is Now In Session" and it got quite ugly.

Facts we do know that the mob don't like is there are probably good Trophy Hunting operations and bad, but no one bothered to check which is which or explore what each do really well or really bad. Basic mob line is, "All Trophy Hunting is Evil"

Anyone supporting it, asking for more facts, cutting the guy some slack because facts are few or even being reasonable with the small amount of facts presented is intolerable, evil, disgusting, immoral and on goes a list of emotional personal attacks.

Many overseas Torphy Hunting operations operate, mainly on the African Continent. No I've never been on one, not going to go on one because whilst its not my thing they exist for a reason and each to their own.

The contention is they're evil and villagers suffer but no one says where NOR how widespread that actually is if that claim is at all correct. There are a number of hunting outfits & the ones I could find were heavily government regulated. They provided jobs for people who otherwise had little or no job opportunities. The meat is distributed to local villages. Taxidemists find a market. Local accomodation and transport have a new market. Poachers have no market because poaching is opposed by locals & officials. The animals targeted for destruction are not Alpha males but generally outcast bulls or rogue bulls & sometimes others to keep herd numbers within the determined sustainable numbers.

By applying a legal market value, the herd is managed, its part paid for, in places fully paid for by the Hunter Tourists, jobs and small satelitte industries pop up & poachers have no market at all. Local villagers can still hunt, their life isn't changed because they generally aren't hunting rogue bull elephants, lions, big cats etc. It means though that the rest of the animal food chain slips into sustainable numbers & populations roam less. The boom bust population numbers becomes far less common.

Present those views in Twitter Court and you will be attacked, mocked & vilified. Indeed many shouting Karma will have its day, others saying the person should be hunted & killed in the same fashion. I mean how the hell have humans descended to this point of vile moral superioirity that they wish others dead who partake in a legal, lawful, government regulated activity...in a foreign country?

No the mob rule slipped into action. The person at the centre didn't lose his job but he was demoted & then he was described by the WALabor Premier Mark McGowan as "depraved, disgusting and disgraceful" which really sounds like a very personal attack.

Lesst han 240 days to the next State Election and of course the Premier is quickly trying to politically weaponise everything possible. The minister of the environment said he was physically sick. Really? Then clealry he hasn't seen or heard of the pastoral stations that Alannah McTeirnan doesn't want to talk about with masses of dead livestock. There are some brilliant Aboriginal stock operators, station operators but these 2 were mind blowing bad & for the most part absent causing death by starvation & no water. Grab a bucket Minister Dawson sit down with the Premier and see if it is "depraved, disgusting and disgraceful" & what is to be done, who is to be held to account, charged etc.

I think in the meantime the WA Government employee who went on the legal, lawful overseas paid hunting trip has a very good chance of an appeal for his demotion. He has a very good case for damages & the Premier has opened up a big can of worms which for him probably won't go through the courts until after March if it goes to court which is after the election. It's a calculated move but in the meantime someone's life & career is destroyed.

Cancel Culture, Post Modernist Marxism on display...all for political votes.
But go view the ABC Post, then go to the Twitter post on it & see the angry mob.
It's quite ugly, it doesn't ask for facts & it attacks anyone asking for any or offering a differing view.
The Mob Rule thing is now in Australia. Its growing and its a very worrying sign when Feelings crush Facts.

Twitter post on the article - https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1283498717044043777?s=20

ABC Article - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-16/trophy-hunting-esperance-wildlife-officer-fair-south-africa/12457884

What the...

Bit blown away. I ocassionally post on FaceBook something that peeves me and it'll usually be something that has added absurdity of being a problem easily avoided.
I did this on July 1st and its a bit...WOW

It caused a little stir & surprised me in that so many folk I know got in touch by messaging, posting, ringing, emailing...because they saw a similar problem but worse, a good number thought I was talking about the club, group, board they're on. Think as of last night we're up to 11 different groups that have problems according to those who got in touch.

But it brings on a common problem I've seen with several large groups with boards/management committees. They have unknowingly formed factions & power bases and it's holding them all back.

Some of the common things they have in common, not all but most common...

1. Dry Powder - Not fully sharing all the information BEFORE a board/committee meeting & keeping information aside ready to blindside others or ambush motion where the opponents have to make a decision on the spot without prior knowledge of all the information or knowledge of any other relevent knowledge they may need.
2. Probably before the Dry Powder point should be, who is the board. Yes even if you don't use that term those running the organisation in the best interests of the organisation ARE the board. You have your AGM, your BOARD meetings and underlying committees & executives. That's the rough outline of the line of authority, all reporting back up eventually to the AGM, the members. Know who the board actually is, know your legal rights & responsibilities, exercise them fully & don't let anyone silo information or decisions away from anyone or you lose transperancy, accountibility and have installed a wrong & distorted governance model that suits the crafy and/or corrupt.
3. Personally undermining - Getting personal. Logging others as aggressive or untrustworthy behind the scenes to try & undermine their credibility without touching facts or core central elements of a debate.
4. Silo formations - Locking up information within hard to access cells. If a serious decision is required ALL must have what is reasonably all the information. If you cannot ask questions or information is hidden you have a problem..Remember the Corporations Act is very clear on this, a director has the right to be heard, the right to information & the right to ask questions. If anyone hampers or denies you the ability to exercise these rights they are breaking the rules. If you yourself fail to exercise these rights YOU are failing in your responsibilities.
5. Play well with others - It doesn't matter if you hate someone or they hate you or both. If you're on a board or management committee you must work well with others no matter what your personal view of them is. You must have their back, they must have yours because its in the best interests of the organisation & thats what your fiduciary duty is. Keep it.
6. More to come no doubt... 3rd of July as I type, no doubt over the next few days more "things" will cross my mind that are things holding groups back. Future edits to come
7. 7th of July as I type, Board Culture. It needs to be healthy, non toxic and collaborative. To get there you must have a good board structure. A widely known understanding of the rules, everyone's role, their rights & responsibilities. No over reach or micro managing. Work together no over one another. Some outfits have a toxic and/or inefficient workspace, it'll often stems back to poor knowledge, understanding of the rules. Some outfits will need tighter fitting rules. As per the old saying "The Easiest Way To Do Anything Is To Do It Properly"
8. 9th of July Addition - If you or you & a group of others try to implement change, those previously at fault may not agree with you trying to install proper due diligence, good goverance and some tighter fitting rules. You may end up solidifying 2 (or more) factions within. Key points here...stick to the plan that promotes good rules & sticking to them without fear nor favour...good corporate governance. Let those who oppose do & say whatever they want. Then you end up with 2 factions all right, one that's trying to install proper good governance without fear nor favour & those who oppose it but at least you don't have one rule dodging faction replaced by another rule dodging faction. YOU DO NOT NEED AN ANIMAL FARM SCENARIO WITH ONE GROUP OF PERSON INTERESTS REPLACED BY A DIFFERENT GROUP OF SELF INTERESTS.
   Go for change to proper good goverance and let critics do & say whatever they want, they have a right to. Do not hamper their rights as directors or part of your board. Let them argue their case for less rules, for lesser rules, higher legal exposure & low levels of compliance, fiduciary duty & new efficiencies. Go to the rules that protect you & everyone and avoid the sieges that prevent compliance. 

Governance Issues - Board Culture

Board culture is a thing but the main way to developing can take many paths but there's some key elements a good board will look after to gain the good culture. And its all due diligence and often simpler than you think.

You need to avoid factions, you need to avoid the presence of people having power & control. You need to be operating in the best interests of the company & the shareholders. Once you make that the foundation, everything else will fall into place and add more strength & efficiencies.

Board Training & refreshers. Essential

Director Assessment Programme. Essential.

Essential to see which Directors have which skills and which skills are lacking in the board overall. This helps the Director Education Scheme (or whatever you want to call it) to work well, add strengths and skills to the board & the individual directors.

Chair, Board & CEO Assessment. Essential
I've seen these as simple as a short checklist a different director each meeting fills out by ticking boxes. Goes back to the chair for consideration and councilling where required.

The Governance Line, knowing it. Essential
Every entity is different. The local company that runs your Bendigo Bank will have a different Governance Line than the local footy club committee or Wesfarmers. Most community companies that run a Bendigo Bank branch are generally an entity of locals running a franchise from the Bendigo Bank. That company & its directors owe their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not Bendigo Bank. They will have a Chair but probably not a CEO and in some cases the local Bendigo Bank may not have a Manager. That governance line will differ from say Wesfarmers that has a more organised structure with directors on the board doing board business and executives who do day to day things and answer to the board.
There is no one size fits all, they vary and its accepted that you have the Governance structure/line that most reasonably suits your entity whilst adhering to law.
Still not sure, spend money, buy advice.

Secession Planning. Essential
Do not fall into the trap of having "Brezhnev directors" or a "Brezhnev chairman" that is, one who's running the entity and will be there until they physically cannot do it any longer. First two boards I was one were a little shocked when I said I'd probably not be on the board in 3 to 4 years time. By then I will have taken the board to the level they wanted of me & I'd begin looking for a someone with the right skills to fill what's missing or help the board steer the next move. Engineering my own obsolescence struck them as unusual, but when the time came for me to resign I had already put together my view on what the board needed now, what skill set. It worked really well. Both those first two were converting governance structure from a heavily committee based structure to a proper full blown board. Within 2 years we found areas we need for the next stage & I left but stayed in contact & gave my opinion if I was asked.

There's other essential house keeping matters that many entities get less than perfect. The Chair & the CEO have the most important relationship in the company. That's the usual first meeting point of board & management but they also put together the meeting agenda. Directors may put in their 2c worth and should but its the Chair/CEO domain to actually do it. Hope your board papers arrive in a timely fashion, that they have all the required information, that there's enough time to request more information BEFORE the board meeting. DO NOT miss the chance to be 24 carat gold on the aspect of out of session work & never let matters get dumped on you at board meetings with no warning as this leads to ambush decisions. That's an open door to manipulation & guarding of information.

Directors have the right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to information. Failure to exercise these rights is failure in your responsibilities. If someone denies you these director rights, they're breaking the law.

Facts not feelings at every point. Essential.

Its not a contest, if your idea fails to make it, its not a failure. Its a decision. If a fellow director opposes your idea or questions it...its not a personal attack. They're exercising their rights & responsibilities in the best interests of the company. If you're going to call it wins & losses or a personal failures or triumphs you are in the wrong game. You should consider committing arguably pure evil and take up golf.

Be wary of taking things personally. Not all people who take things personally cause trouble, but all people in controlling factions or power groups tend to take everything as a personal attack or use a personal attack to derail an issue to their own benefit.

Board Culture is determine by the presence & absence of all these things and more. Board culture centres on doing the very best you can, to the best possible standard whilst remaining fully compliant and adhering to one's fiduciary duty and developing good strategic thinking within those confines...

The old saying rings true.

THE EASIEST, QUICKEST & SAFEST WAY TO DO ANYTHING IS TO DO IT PROPERLY

Governance Issues - Fiduciary Duty

Even if you've never heard of Fiduciary Duty, once you understand what it means you might marvel at how simple it is and how straight forward the common sense its basis is.

In short as a director you owe a Fiduciary Duty to someone, but whom?
Simple, you have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders or owners of the company. Some might say you owe a duty to preserve the perpetuity of the entity & the best interests of the shareholder which is also right.

There maybe a point one day that the best interests of the shareholder is to wind the company up, sell it off to outside buyers. The shareholders aim is to make a profit and there are times when the best result is to shut an entity but hopefully that's not your company or entity.

What about Nominee Directors? Also quite simple. Nominee directors, where they occur, are generally appointed by stakeholders that have mutual & separate interests to the company. Yes they may be there on the stakeholder's bequest, but that's where that link is supposed to end. Nominee directors may be appointed by an outside group but it does not over ride their director's role as a board member under the Corporations Act. They must act in the best interests of the shareholders...not who nominates them.

Their fiduciary duty is the same as every other director on the board.

Remember on a "board" may not call themselves a board nor consider themselves a director...but if the Corporations Act does, then the courts will and so will the shareholders.

In the case of De Factor Directors, they are people not on the board who have undue control, effect or power over decisions being made by the board. There's legal precedents on what they are, be sure you are not one & your board has none behind the scenes. Its illegal, hence big penalties

Not far away from Fiduciary Duty you should also store your understanding of a "Reasonable Person's Test" or in other words...

What would a reasonable person be expected to do in the same situation?

Be aware of this, be aware this can extract you from or land you in trouble. Remember ignorance is not a defence if indeed the matter in question is something a reasonable person should be expected to know, adhere to, avoid...whatever the case maybe.

Not only is ignorance not a defence do not rely on 'not making a decision' as being a game breaking safe harbour. It isn't.

NOT MAKING A DECISION IS A DECISION,
YOU AS A DIRECTOR ARE LIABLE FOR ALL DECISIONS. 

Short extra lesson, if the board majority makes a decision and you don't like it you have 2 options. You can support the decision you opposed as a united board or you can resign. The old "Let the minutes record I voted against this" is pretty silly as it doesn't really mean much if you didn't resign. If you don't want to be liable for the decision, resign. There is another option, ask for more research, data for a review of the decision I guess but you'd hope much of the work was done the first time. If you have a board that is controlled by a set faction & bad decisions are being made you have 2 real choices...

Decide if you want to stay and get things fixed or if its too far gone, resign.

Do not make yourself a Martyr nor a Slave. Count on it, it never ends well for slaves or martyrs.

In all your travels with boards as either an Executive or a Director...GET TRAINING.
Skills Perish, Get Regular Refreshers. If nothing else it will bump people to reminding themselves what Fiduciary Duty is, to whom it is owed, what the Reasonable Persons Test & remind everyone that a director is personally liable, legally liable for every decision they make whilst they're on a board.

Personally Liable. Both legally & financially.

Governance Issues - Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of Interest (C.O.I.) put the wind up people unnecessarily. Declaring a C.O.I. or suggesting others should isn't a threat. It actually protects an organisation, a board, the directors with or without the conflict.

If you run a meeting then chances are you have an agenda item named "Conflicts of Interest" and the prime point here is its better to over declare than not declare when maybe unsure if you should.

Next point to remember, C.O.I.s are inevitable if not unavoidable. Talk to a Shire Councillor.
Its not the C.O.I. itself that is the problem to worry about, the problem arises when its either not declared or its is declared and not managed diligently.

In the event of a legal disaster the first port of call for a judge is to determine who the "board of directors" is or in the absence of that term being used find who fulfills the role of board & directors. If there is a legal disaster the next thing the Judge will do is look for minutes of meetings.

That's why in director training they often refer to meeting minutes as being...

 "THE LETTER TO THE JUDGE YOU HAVEN'T MET YET"

Whilst there, there's a checklist the judge will progress through with a prominent one being "Declarations of Conflicts of Interest" or "Conflict of Interest register" or similar.

If there are none, expect him/her to dig deeper to discover if there are any that weren't declared.
If there are some, expect him/her to dig deeper to discover if there are any that weren't declared.

Hint, the person with the undeclared C.O.I....yeah don't be that person. Just don't.

Once the judge is satisfied, expect him to go deeper into ones that are related to the complaint.
If they're missing it is not a good look at all for anyone on the board, the CEO or the Chair.

C.O.I.s are inevitable and pretty much unavoidable but sometimes just declaring them might be the only action required, other times leaving the room whilst a connected issue is being attended to, BUT...in any case it is far better to over declare than not declare at all.

If your board is hesitant or worse still resisting pursuing proper declarations of Conflict Of Interest then the board probably needs proper training on Corporate Governance. My advice for whatever its worth is push for proper governance, push for proper corporate governance training of directors, the chair & the CEO and if they're hesitant to that...well its up to you but I'd resign on the spot, then get down to ASIC and register your resignation rather than wait until your CEO or Company Secretary gets around to it. If they're sloppy & lazy in basic governance remember if they take a week or 10 days or longer to inform ASIC. Heads up you're technically still liable for their decisions in your absence until ASIC is informed.

Protect your members, your board, yourself...push for a proper Conflict of Interest Register because it's proper good governance and it protects everyone. If someone deliberately fails to declare a C.O.I. whilst sitting on a board they've breached their fiduciary duty & the reasonable person's test or "the business test" - Fix it or get the hell out of Dodge AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

If you're unsure of C.O.I. try the attached link to a resource from the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

http://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/resources/not-for-profit-resources/nfp-resources/5-tips-for-dealing-with-conflicts-of-interest

Workplace Dispute During COVID19

There's a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) I know, a non metro based engineering firm that engineers & manufactures all sorts of industrial products & does general heavy repairs. A family owned & run operation employing half a dozen staff.

Times have been tight, the business has buckled under and has soaked up some of the slowly decreasing margins. COVID19 hits and now, they need to stay in the black, maintain some profit buffer to maintain their loan repayments, pay their suppliers, the higher freight charges they get hit with and look after their staff.

They're on the brink of delivering the facts of life to the staff and how they'll all have to buckle under, raise productivity to keep floating in case things get much worse, that there may be some cuts to pay rates to keep the doors open. The mum n dad owners have been putting off this "talk" but had set a date to do it when a week before one of their young staff members hits them up for a pay rise. His award for his position, at his age, at his level of training & experience is just under $24/hour.  He's house sharing with 3 young mates. They could be putting money away or should have for the last few years but they've been living high on the hog.
He already gets paid above the award, he gets paid $30/hour. He hits up his employer and says his house mates (who do the same job at a rival business) get $36/hour and that he should too...just as things tighten.
His employers explain there's no way they can afford that but they'll buy him a tank of fuel per week for his car to help make ends meet. He accepts that but still wants an extra $6/hour or rather $13/hour above his award of $24/hour.

Now in 7/11 stores, fuel stations and restaurants across Australia we hear of underpaid staff. They were paid less than they were entitled, they are owed that money and usually court proceedings follow to ensure, quite rightly, that the staff get what they were entitled to. However here we have a case where staff are over paid & want more because the rival employer pays more.

Here's what happened. The owners of the 2 businesses got together and had a chat. Turns out the other business is NOT paying $36/hour. He pays exactly the same amount. He also spent an entire day with his accountant just trying to tackle & interpret the Award. Its was a mine field.

There's some discussion now about one clause, which I'm yet to track down, one clause in the act covering payments above the award. It may be that staff may be entitled to the award but perhaps now it seems the employer has the right to expect that the above award segment is credited to the employer, that either there's a rise in productivity or a stretch in hours work to the value of the over payment.

In any case, both businesses actually knock the staff off work 15 minutes BEFORE time each day. So they're working 1.25 hours less per week than their supposed to, they're getting paid  $7/hour extra for every hour they work (and the 1.25 hours a week they don't) and now one is getting a free tank of fuel.

So now we have a business with reducing margins, trying to rationalise the costs they can and the young staff member wants more he feels he is entitled to, despite the effect on the business and they size of his current over payment.

How this will pan out I don't know, the business will either continue on tighter margins and survive until a post COVID19 economic recovery, or go broke and close. Or the staff take a pay cut, work their full hours and share in the pain with the business owners to keep open, to keep working, to keep in a place where they can survive and reposition as things improve.

I am actually not going to be surprised if the young staff member comes out with "Yeah but I need the extra money, I'm buying a jet ski"

I think its time for the Government to rationalise or at least simplify the Awards, reduce the number of awards and reduce the need for lawyers to be required at every turn. In the meantime one daft young staff member has ear marked himself as perhaps needing to be the first staff member let go when times get even tougher. Ironically this is a business where the owners have been other people's staff members so they said they would never pay below the award. Yet with this slap in the face during their greatest financial threat I think they can be forgiven for paying exactly the Award Rate & not one cent more and expecting staff to work their entire required hours each week.

Albany's State Election

Albany is in a unique spot come the next State Election less than a year away. We have an incumbent member retiring from politics and we have a very open race.
We have 3 parties who're in the box seat to win the seat but (all things being equal) it's likely to be a very slender win whoever wins it.

Labor has held it for a long time but now everything has changed.

Peter Watson is a really nice bloke, has never done anything bad, controversial or scandalous but fair to say he hasn't actually brought anything to the region either. He was openly backing the now failed Carnegie Wave Energy until it went belly up into loss mode. Even when it was above the red line the jobs were scant, all in Perth & strangely some in the UK with one in Albany. Now all gone.

Peter Watson was very loud about overcrowding in the Albany Prison whilst in opposition, talking of the need for expansion or another prison. Now he's been in office as a member of the government for 3 years & he's virtually silent enough to hear crickets chirping.

As was predicted 3 years ago, the government took power and Peter Watson was elected to be Speaker of the House signalling his forward silent announcement of retirement. He's 72, about to turn 73 and for the last 3 years as the Speaker he has no involvement in Government business at all.
As Speaker he cannot vote on anything unless there is a tie in the vote. He's not been the most strict Speaker, at times failing badly relying on direction of the clerks and has let things slip badly. Several times the opposition has complained about comments from seated Government members has said "Sorry I didn't hear that"

Yes he does the schools thing, gives away a bike, jumps in front of the camera every chance he can & dons a silly hat to entertain the elderly during the free meal he delivers. He does advocate for those who grace his door with issues, sending correspondence up the chain where required but he hasn't stood loud for any issue.

He hasn't crossed the floor & avoids certain topics like Deregulated Trading Hours.

His replacement the aspiring Rebecca Stephens has entered the fray and will no doubt find the hustings for State Parliament to be far more arduous and mean compared to running for a seat of Councillor of the City of Albany.

In her recent ABC Radio interview she refused to answer on the topic of deregulated trading hours. Why? well apparently she was new to scene of state politics & the Labor party and would have to consult the community.

WRONG.

As a City of Albany Councillor, deregulated trading hours has come before the council and the council, including Rebecca ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST IT. So she has ideas about it, she has a stance on it, she has been briefed on it and for 2 years on the City of Albany council she has or should have been engaged with the community & what they want.

So what happened?
She didn't know what Labor wanted her to say or stand for.

Now we turn to the Adele Farina Incident. Labor put forward the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation in the Lower House. The Premier declared the legislation was sufficient and that wasting time on amendments was not required, that the Upper House should just pass it.

In the end we saw a very slow passage through the Upper House with in the end 55 amendments to the legislation, none of which the Lower House dumped on when it returned to the Lower House. They were needed. Small handful were even put forward by the government. Some were put forward by Upper House Labor MP Adele Farina. All Labor MPs were given a conscience vote, meaning they could vote how their conscience told them without any political reprisals.

WRONG.

Adele voted against the legislation & now she's been thrown under the bus.
Her conscience vote was a Clayton's vote, the conscience vote you have when you don't have a choice.

If it was a normal vote, a non conscience vote and she crossed the floor she would be expelled from the party & opposed at every following election, targeted and socially ex-communicated.

This was a conscience voted where she was expected to vote with the Government by choice, she didn't so she won't be expelled, she will just be prevented from re-entering office. She is to be placed 3rd on the ticket which is virtually unwinnable. She has Alannah McTeirnan taking the number one spot on the ticket so Pierre Yang can take Alannah's spot so he, a very compliant party member & part of a dominating faction, can be kept in Parliament.

This is how Labor operates. No free thinking. No proper representation of the electorate in Parliament.

This is what Rebecca Stephens is walking into & she will not be able to navigate the treacherous waters of the state's Labor Party. Peter Watson stayed low within the party, was one of the few who stayed out of the factions but in the end he was a beige fence sitter in the party and in the Government as an MP. Never set the world on fire, never burnt anything down either. He just sat quietly and smiled nicely.

Whether or not you like Rebecca or not, she's a cooked goose before she even starts. She is a pawn & in her ABC Radio interview even came out saying "Not particularly" when asked if she was a long supporter of the Labor Party. Apparently only recently & her lack of knowledge on the vicious play pen of the state's Labor Party is showing.

This next election is one of the first open contests we've seen in the seat of Albany. Even if you're an avid fan of Councillor Rebecca Stevens, do her a personal favour, don't vote her into State Parliament. She will be a lamb unto the lions. The very hungry lions, she cannot beat the Party Machine & you will in the process lose a young city Councillor. Should she get elected Albany will lose out twice.

In her 7 minute ABCRadio interview she said no comment several times & whilst well spoken she was not telling us anything except she isn't ready for the political cage fight ahead in State Parliament. Our best hope in Albany is to change which party represents it to get more attention & focus "down here" instead of the steady as she goes, token efforts meaning nothing. She will not deliver more than Peter Watson, he didn't deliver much at all. She will be hamstrung from the get go and won't be in a position to deliver anything at all. Our best hope is she loses the state election and decides to return to the City of Albany Council & the Albany seat becomes a more swing seat where you don't get re-elected if you don't perform.

Peter Watson got re-elected but hasn't performed. His retirement has headed off his electoral loss at the pass. Peter Watson is the only winner here if Labor is re-elected. Rebecca Stevens will be devastated if she's elected into the controlling coven and so to will Albany lose through no fault of Rebecca.

Ironically both Albany & Rebecca will actually be far better off if Rebecca loses the election to a conservative. What will be hard, perhaps impossible for some to accept but there's a number of Labor supporters are thinking and very quietly saying this. I expect they'll cease comments lest they get expelled and ex-communicated from the party too.

Next March, if you have a vote, don't waste it. Some will vote Greens but their vote is already wasted. They cannot win the seat & their vote will end up being redirected to the Labor candidate.
A election loss will be a blow to Rebecca personally, but bot she & Albany will be far better off if she loses the election. I wish Labor could lose the seat without the personal blow that Rebecca will receive. So its despite Rebecca and because of Labor that I won't vote for Rebecca and hope few others will.