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.
Wednesday 18 March 2020
Monday 2 March 2020
Rego Reduction For Retro Rides - What's Required, Plain & Simple
Several months ago the WA Minister for Transport, Rita Saffioti MLA announced the "Rego Reduction for Retro Rides". It was a concept announcement with details to follow with a full announcement later in the year. (See more below *)
In broad terms it is a 75% fee reduction for classic &/or modified cars 30 years & older. Its a great initiative. Long overdue & installed in most other states.
1) There is some time before the final structure is unveiled but there rough outline seems to be this.
a) Cars must be 30 years and older
b) The scheme has nothing to do with the vintage/veteran car club scheme people refer to as the "404"
c) Owners will be restricted to a set time useable in a calendar year, generally accepted to be 25% of the year (roughly 90 days)
d) It will be a club based scheme, administered & policed by clubs and their officials
e) Log books may be required or registering the club runs via an App may be introduced
f) People will be penalised for falsifying their log book or driving over their allotted days or driving without club sanction
g) Cars must only be within their allowable 90 days use & then only on club organised runs & events.
h) Cars must still be legal & roadworthy.
i) Cars in the scheme will have an "identifier" which is said to be an attached bar on the number plate with the words "RESTRICTED USE ONLY" or similar.
Some of these things are already being touted as "Not Negotiable" which can be rejected straight away as no department has the ability to declare what is and isn't negotiable. The Minister might and the minister will have to account for that position in the Parliament. No one else has supreme ruling authority to tell the public to "hush now, do as you're told".
Lets please not forget the wide chasm of definition between the two phrases "Public" and "Public Servant"
(2) Things which are acceptable and easily wise decisions for inclusion.
a) Cars must be 30 years or older.
b) Log books may be required
c) People are penalised for non compliance. Steep fines, impounding the vehicle for 30 days & delicencing the vehicle and exclusion of the individual from entering into the scheme for 5 years (as examples only) would not phase most right minded people who don't break the rules.
d) The cars must (like any other vehicle) be kept in good order, be roadworthy and street legal. This means complying with VSB-14 or the engineering certificate that belongs to the car or the Street Rod National Guidelines. Very straight forward & simple.
e) The "Identifier" - Whatever the department defines as being attached to the number plate to signify to authorities that its on the scheme is not only fair but actually required and wise. If its as is rumoured I doubt anyone right minded will care too much. Plenty of cars run the Vintage identifier or the Veteran identifier on the number plate.
3) What isn't required and why...
a) "Club involvement is required" - No it isn't at all, clubs do not need extra burdens such as organising events, runs & cruises to keep members happy as well as policing & enforcing compliance to the scheme and extra administration to keep the department happy. Forcing people to join a club to access the scheme when its not required is what's referred to as "Third Line Enforcement" - its an ugly solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
The scheme would largely be taken up by those already in clubs and those borderline thinking of joining a club. People in country areas cannot. I spoke with 2 people from Jerramungup who are 160kms from the nearest club. I received an email from a chap from Carnarvon today, again no club. Got emails from 3 others across the Pilbara & if you think they can form a club, no you'll need 10 people and those 3 are 200kms at the closest. This scheme if connected to club membership will be appealing to metro car owners only & then only those who are keen to join a club or already in a club. There are many people who do not want to join a club. Start your own club? Well its likely a eligible club will have to be an incorporated body.
There's also the case that this is for personal reduced road use, not club life. If a person wants to duck down the shops, go for a joy ride on a great day, drive their daughter & date to the school ball, take the wife out for an evening meal, attend a hot rodder's funeral or go for an impromptu run anywhere they have limited or no ability under the club only prospect. Its dictating use of personal property.
b) "Extra administration is required." No it isn't at all. With a simple logbook (or App log book) a car owner can record their allotted day's driving before leaving and they're done. With the number plate identifier the police can pull the vehicle over for a log book check if they need to, all in order and their on their way. With it being a Logbook App the police don't even have to pull them over, just access the App system, punch in the number plate and see if they're on a pre-logged day of use or if they're outside their 90 days. Simple. No onus on a club, its left up to the individual to do the right thing or suffer the consequences if they don't. It really is that simple
Its does not need to be a club managed trip on club organised event, they can go to the shops to get the paper, go to a family outing, take the wife or significant other out, do the school ball, the wedding because its about life on limited days of road use, NOT club life.
c) "The Indentifier means police will hassle car owners" - No. Flatly No.
Its a small price yet wise price to pay. Already we have Taxi plates in WA, we have Vintage identifier, Veteran Club Identifiers and we also have Farm Plates for limited road use of tractors, trucks, farm utes & fire fighting units. None have resulted in unfair police scrutiny, none require a club sanction, policing or approval, NONE. The individual is solely responsible and if they break compliance they & only they rightly suffer the consequences.
d) All other states have this as a club based registration scheme so we have to as well - Well no.
I'm not certain all states have this solely as a club based scheme but even if they do, they are other jurisdictions, they are not Western Australia and we can design and implement a better, simpler scheme that is available to all Western Australians no matter where in WA's 2.6 million square kilometres they live.
At the end of the day, if the car is unroadworthy on the scheme, it would be unroadworthy on a normal registration. Don't keep an unroadworthy car.
At the end of the day, if you drive in a reckless or unsafe manner on the scheme, it would be unsafe and reckless on normal registration. Don't do that.
Its not rocket science, it doesn't have to be onerous and cumbersome to adhere to or comply with. It can be simple. It also can not only be made simple with consequences laid at the feet of transgressing individuals but with the smarter, simpler scheme framework rural & regional people will be able to access the scheme instead of being unfairly disadvantaged.
* Background information - https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2020/01/McGowan-Government-flags-classic-car-and-street-rod-rego-discount.aspx
In broad terms it is a 75% fee reduction for classic &/or modified cars 30 years & older. Its a great initiative. Long overdue & installed in most other states.
1) There is some time before the final structure is unveiled but there rough outline seems to be this.
a) Cars must be 30 years and older
b) The scheme has nothing to do with the vintage/veteran car club scheme people refer to as the "404"
c) Owners will be restricted to a set time useable in a calendar year, generally accepted to be 25% of the year (roughly 90 days)
d) It will be a club based scheme, administered & policed by clubs and their officials
e) Log books may be required or registering the club runs via an App may be introduced
f) People will be penalised for falsifying their log book or driving over their allotted days or driving without club sanction
g) Cars must only be within their allowable 90 days use & then only on club organised runs & events.
h) Cars must still be legal & roadworthy.
i) Cars in the scheme will have an "identifier" which is said to be an attached bar on the number plate with the words "RESTRICTED USE ONLY" or similar.
Some of these things are already being touted as "Not Negotiable" which can be rejected straight away as no department has the ability to declare what is and isn't negotiable. The Minister might and the minister will have to account for that position in the Parliament. No one else has supreme ruling authority to tell the public to "hush now, do as you're told".
Lets please not forget the wide chasm of definition between the two phrases "Public" and "Public Servant"
(2) Things which are acceptable and easily wise decisions for inclusion.
a) Cars must be 30 years or older.
b) Log books may be required
c) People are penalised for non compliance. Steep fines, impounding the vehicle for 30 days & delicencing the vehicle and exclusion of the individual from entering into the scheme for 5 years (as examples only) would not phase most right minded people who don't break the rules.
d) The cars must (like any other vehicle) be kept in good order, be roadworthy and street legal. This means complying with VSB-14 or the engineering certificate that belongs to the car or the Street Rod National Guidelines. Very straight forward & simple.
e) The "Identifier" - Whatever the department defines as being attached to the number plate to signify to authorities that its on the scheme is not only fair but actually required and wise. If its as is rumoured I doubt anyone right minded will care too much. Plenty of cars run the Vintage identifier or the Veteran identifier on the number plate.
3) What isn't required and why...
a) "Club involvement is required" - No it isn't at all, clubs do not need extra burdens such as organising events, runs & cruises to keep members happy as well as policing & enforcing compliance to the scheme and extra administration to keep the department happy. Forcing people to join a club to access the scheme when its not required is what's referred to as "Third Line Enforcement" - its an ugly solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
The scheme would largely be taken up by those already in clubs and those borderline thinking of joining a club. People in country areas cannot. I spoke with 2 people from Jerramungup who are 160kms from the nearest club. I received an email from a chap from Carnarvon today, again no club. Got emails from 3 others across the Pilbara & if you think they can form a club, no you'll need 10 people and those 3 are 200kms at the closest. This scheme if connected to club membership will be appealing to metro car owners only & then only those who are keen to join a club or already in a club. There are many people who do not want to join a club. Start your own club? Well its likely a eligible club will have to be an incorporated body.
There's also the case that this is for personal reduced road use, not club life. If a person wants to duck down the shops, go for a joy ride on a great day, drive their daughter & date to the school ball, take the wife out for an evening meal, attend a hot rodder's funeral or go for an impromptu run anywhere they have limited or no ability under the club only prospect. Its dictating use of personal property.
b) "Extra administration is required." No it isn't at all. With a simple logbook (or App log book) a car owner can record their allotted day's driving before leaving and they're done. With the number plate identifier the police can pull the vehicle over for a log book check if they need to, all in order and their on their way. With it being a Logbook App the police don't even have to pull them over, just access the App system, punch in the number plate and see if they're on a pre-logged day of use or if they're outside their 90 days. Simple. No onus on a club, its left up to the individual to do the right thing or suffer the consequences if they don't. It really is that simple
Its does not need to be a club managed trip on club organised event, they can go to the shops to get the paper, go to a family outing, take the wife or significant other out, do the school ball, the wedding because its about life on limited days of road use, NOT club life.
c) "The Indentifier means police will hassle car owners" - No. Flatly No.
Its a small price yet wise price to pay. Already we have Taxi plates in WA, we have Vintage identifier, Veteran Club Identifiers and we also have Farm Plates for limited road use of tractors, trucks, farm utes & fire fighting units. None have resulted in unfair police scrutiny, none require a club sanction, policing or approval, NONE. The individual is solely responsible and if they break compliance they & only they rightly suffer the consequences.
d) All other states have this as a club based registration scheme so we have to as well - Well no.
I'm not certain all states have this solely as a club based scheme but even if they do, they are other jurisdictions, they are not Western Australia and we can design and implement a better, simpler scheme that is available to all Western Australians no matter where in WA's 2.6 million square kilometres they live.
At the end of the day, if the car is unroadworthy on the scheme, it would be unroadworthy on a normal registration. Don't keep an unroadworthy car.
At the end of the day, if you drive in a reckless or unsafe manner on the scheme, it would be unsafe and reckless on normal registration. Don't do that.
Its not rocket science, it doesn't have to be onerous and cumbersome to adhere to or comply with. It can be simple. It also can not only be made simple with consequences laid at the feet of transgressing individuals but with the smarter, simpler scheme framework rural & regional people will be able to access the scheme instead of being unfairly disadvantaged.
* Background information - https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2020/01/McGowan-Government-flags-classic-car-and-street-rod-rego-discount.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)