Political Anthrax & The Real Bomb Drop of George Christensen Not Recontesting

I don't always agree with George Christensen but he is very agreeable because he will stand up, lean in & punch on for his electorate, his state and his idea of a fair go. Often the ones like George are targeted for demonising because they punch on & go for the cut through whilst railing against the dodgy.

He has no more controversial views than any other politician, but the media have sought to mine his and amplify his for page spread and paper sell. Labor MPs guard theirs as if their political lives count on it, because their political lives do count on it. Their organisations structures are totally top down management and you cannot be a free thinker or anything else. You must be a party robot, fully compliant to those above. You must serve those in power of the party, not the party, not the lay members.
George is the coal mine's canary. Its there, its happened. Time to wake everyone up, get them to safety before its too late.

Whilst Labor members or elected apsirants are fine with this, it is not the way of conservative parties. They go with proper structure and due process, however in recent decades whilst this has fallen down, its gotten far worse than it ever has in most parties...arguably all parties.

This creates a great danger for all involved. It means corporate governance is in rapid decline, fiduciary duty (required by directors under the Corporations Act & the Incorporations Act) is ignored.
If you are on the board (whatever its called) in your political party YOU are a director. 
YOU are personally LEGALLY liable for decisions made.
YOU are personally FINANCIALLY liable for decisions made.
Saying you didn't make the decision is not a defence, ignorance is not a legal defence.

So let this be very clear. If you have "TOP DOWN Management" you have a perverted governance model which is not going to pass the pub test let alone pass any goverance test. If the "TOP" make a decision in your absence then can be fine & reasonable, BUT they must at some point report it to the board & get it ratified otherwise...

You have TOP DOWN MANAGEMENT where are group of people are making decisions & directing the organisation without lay members involvement or the involvement of their representatives on their parties actual board.

If you're on that board all I can say is, do you like your house?
Like your assets & savings?
Like your reputation that will affect how you might improve your employment chances?
Well if the TOP DOWN group go too far, there's a complaint to ASIC & court action results... kiss "your stuff" good bye because as a director, YOU are FULLY personally, financially, legally liable.
Not making a decision IS a decision.

There are several political parties in several states that I'm aware of who have finally beginning to wake up and looking at getting things fixed. With one its slow going and sadly with intense opposition & under mining to maintaining the TOP DOWN control.

If you're wondering which parties I'm talking about and in which states just watch to see which ones disappear in the next 12-18 months. If they cannot over come the TOP DOWN they're dealing with then their party will be gutted and likely to either remain in political wilderness or disappear completely. Look for the parties that burn out good people at a fast rate.

This is almost solely a problem affecting Conservative Parties.
Don't expect Labor or Greens in amongst this "lets fix it" space in any state or federally...they seem to accept the tribal TOP DOWN control of factional shifts & power plays.

Here is the problem from the helicopter view. Whether you vote for any of these parties or not you're set to suffer if the various parties are unsuccessful in ousting TOP DOWN CONTROL. It will lessen the temper of the steel of conservative parties & leave them very exposed with lesser support and declining prospects against the left holding government.
Bought, punched & presented ticket on the express ride to Political Wilderness City or lessened opposition. We all suffer if this is not fixed.

Hopefully the board of directors of all these conservative parties are shown the massive personal exposure they're stuck with & how the number of lay members will slowly lessen because they're not halting TOP DOWN. Sad part is large numbers of good people who try to fix things will continue to go under the bus.

This also means these parties will encounter (or already have) an unexpected Identity Crisis because the TOPs control the party, its identity, any strategic direction, thinking or planning. And lay members will be excluded and told rubbish like "we have to move fast, things move quickly, we need support and people should stop undermining us"
Call that out, its rubbish.

A board does the strategic thinking, the management does the strategic planning. That is they make the plans to acheive the goals the board sets. If there is no efforts on that part, you open the door to TOP DOWN controllers.
People at the top can make decisions as required but they must justify them to the board, the party, the members who pay fees & give support as volunteers. 
If the TOPs have done right or wrong but it passes the "reasonable person's test" they're fine.
They need to own whatever penalty or consequences follow.

If there is no ratifying, no reasonable person's test you have the TOP DOWN framework.

What is a reasonable person's test? What would a reasonable person do in the same situation.
For starters they'd avoid TOP DOWN management control.

If the political landscape is to ever be improved, fair factual progress achieved then ALL parties whatever their stripes MUST have TOP DOWN removed. 
Labor will not, Greens will not. Leave them to choose their path. It will lessen their future.

If TOP DOWN continues, identity crisis in parties continues then the distrust of all politicians will go through the roof and society will decline further without doubt.

In the case of at least 2 parties, they had domineering & autocratic leaders because they dearly needed such people but when their lay member base began to grow both the leaders, the TOPs, they could not convert to Statesmanship and return ownership & control to the lay members except in visible pretence.

If STATESMANSHIP isn't paramount, we as a state or nation are done. Stick a fork in, we're done.
Some TOPs will continue to gather some wealth but the claims of a vile swamp are going to be very very easy to prove...

DO NOT WAIT UNTIL ITS FAR, FAR TOO LATE.

Directors, regain control of your political parties for the lay members. Install proper corporate governance, set strategic planning, performance reviews, ratify all decisions and put everyone into their proper place for the benefit of all.

Remember...the quickest and easiest way to do anything is to do it properly.

LGBTI+ perspectives & Conservative Parties

 A person I know got onto me on a particular topic. They said they knew I was or had been tangled up with a conservative political party at some point & wanted to tackle me on a topic. I said sure, I was fine with that, out of the blue is fine with me...fair bump, play on.

The topic was clear, so was my view & I think it may have been they that were surprised. Perhaps pleasantly surprised.

The Topic? The anti-LBGTI & pro Gay Conversion Thereapy stance of the Australian Christian Lobby, local political parties/branches and churches. I just assumed that this was going to be a short chat, easily outlined and sorted. I think they were thinking it was going to be an uncomfortable spot for me as they suspected I'm also a church going Christian.
It wasn't, still isn't.

I pointed out if there's any genuine examples of a person being discriminated against I would stand next to them & argue with them, stick up for them. I pointed out that at this point I haven't seen anyone support or defend Gay Conversion Therapy (GCT). Not churches, political parties not anyone. I said that it should be set out what people mean by GCT first. What I think some will be opposed to, me included is that some legislation in the making has serious penalties for parents who talk, parent & direct children on their gender, sexual matters. I hadn't heard the details but likely I'd oppose regulating what parents can & can't say to their kids when parenting.

On the matter of the Albany Baptist Church holding an event with 2 people public speaking on their life journey from a gay lifestyle to a hetrosexual lifestyle and becoming Christian I had no view before or since that was against that. It was their life, their choice, their free will. It cannot be criticised just as it cannot be criticised if a young person came out as gay or any other part of the LBGTI+ identifier. 
The claim there was hate, hate speech & promotion/support for GCT so far had proven to be quite incorrect so I was fine with the event but saddened by some people stretching towards activism & wanting the event cancelled when no discrimination or hate had been proven.

I was asked what about Gay Conversion Therapy & I pointed out it wasn't any part of the persons speaking nor the church involved. I don't think something unconnected to them should be weaponised against them. If there's any real genuine discrimination I'm happy to stand next to the affected party or parties. I pointed out I would stand next to them and join them in making noise against the discrimination.

I asked is that not fair & reasonable and was told yes but they believed the political party & churches were pro Gay Conversion Therapy. I pointed out, there is so far nothing to suggest that is correct, I'm not getting stuck into anyone over something that is unproven or just a few people's opinion. 

Thats over reach. Its over reach not based on truth so its doubly wrong.
They seemed to accept that.

Next I was asked about the Australian Christian Lobby and the ban on their use of the Albany Entertainment Centre. I said I was happy they were now "uncancelled" and able to use the publicly owned venue. I pointed out it is publicly owned, not government owned and there were really no grounds under WA & Australia's discrimination provisions to deny the ACL to hire the venue.

It was pointed out to me, the Australian Christian Lobby was a religious & political lobby group and they should be banned from speaking. That they had a history of hate speech. I pointed out that if someone can point out actual provable hate speech, hate agenda I would stand with the accusers & make noise in opposing any group that is in breach of what are discrimination provisions in WA & Australia.
But so far there's lots of claims, no proof. Most borders on false smear & I and the party I've been connected with would not support that sort of un-democratic attack.

I was told that there should be a seperation of Church & State and that the ACL breach that. I said if that was true I'd join in opposing it but its not true. I pointed out there are legal provisions to seperate Church & State otherwise we'd have a theocracy. I pointed out we do not, we cannot, that I don't even know if it ever can be done but if it could a referendum of 75% in favour would be required. I pointed out Christianity has non theocracy premises in its Scriptures & probably the only way a theocracy could ever happen in the this country would be an brutal deadly genocide laden armed uprising. 
We have seperation of Church & State now, that is definitely not under threat & there is no proof of any Christian group having that as an agenda or goal. None.

It also happens to be the case that no one operates without a worldview, no person in Parliament is without a world view. Some are of religious faith, some of non religious faith or belief, some of anti religious faith but there is no possibility of any of those worldviews can take over a government.
We have freedom to worship (or not) whoever we individually choose.
They accepted those points as well. They were getting an explained view, not siege mode attacks.

I was then told ACL has commited hate speech and had a hate agenda. I said if that had happened I and the party I'd been connected with with stand next to accusers and condemn the comments that would breach discrimination & hate speech provisions in this state & country. So far that hasn't happened.

I pointed out that most people whether they're in a church, in a political party or not in either really don't care who your personal relationship is with. Its your choice & as long as its not breaking the law & is concensual no one cares. Its probably a bit like religion, no one wants religion or the sexual preferences of others rammed down their throat. I said its unfortunate that people who happen to be LBGTI+ use their sexual preference as their identifier. Most people I know who are gay are older people, in my age group or older and they're Australian citizens in relationships. Their bed partner's gender or how they identify isn't their sole identity. Its a bit like farming. I'm a farmer, but it's not who I am, its just a part of who I am. I'm also a Dockers supporter and a number of other things...I'm just a bloke.

I repeated the call, if there's someone copping discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age or other lines in the sand there are anti discrimination provisions in WA & Australia and I'm happy to stand with genuinely targeted people. However first port of call is not social media or Officeworks to pick up supplies to make protest signs. First port of call is the discrimination provisions in law.

I genuinely don't care what people choose or don't choose if its within the law &as I understand it the political parties are the same. There are non hetrosexual people, young people, people of various races and mixed races in conservative parties. Those so called "markers" or identifiers are usually ignored but certainly not targeted or discriminated. I'd stand alongside anyone discriminated & make noise.

I won't stand against a person of differing sexuality, age, race, religion because someone says they are a group of depolarable agenda holders when there's no proof. Nor should we rally & protect because some people's views or claims cause others to be offended but no law is breached.

I pointed out, most people don't care to know whether someone is straight or whichever. They genuinely don't care & have zero interested knowing unless there's some discrimination. Until then most of us have reached the point of staggering indifference to a person's personal persuasion or views.
Free choice, free will, free speech must all be protected.

Then the turning point.
I said, join a political party & have a say but be sure that the claims some are making to you are substantial and able to be substantiated. Mind you if they can, you won't have to join a political party to get them to stand alongside the discriminated. I got agreement.

I also pointed out many believe that when people are young they tend to be heart led & lean left. As they get older they tend to lean towards conservative or less left & use their head not emotions (a contested idea amongst some though). I added that some of the ones who have gone away from LBGTI+ Pride & towards activism are younger ones & have made claims that don't stack up & that does no one any good. They won't get me standing alongside them making noise if the claim is false, untrue or emotion battle based.

Discrimination does not work along political party lines. But it has to be substantial & able to be substantiated, otherwise no one cares about a person's life style, political views, partner choice, sexual orientation, gender identity. No one really cares about other peoples unaffected place in the world.

It was then they said yes some of the younger ones are spoiling for a fight.

I repeated, if there's discrimination thats substantial & able to be substantiated I and probably every member of the political parties would stand alongside them...but they'd also say its wise stay off social media & picket lines, use the legal channels that oppose discrimination.

I will however definitely won't stand next to people trying to silence anyone or cancel views they simply don't like or disagree with & there's no actual proof of hate laden discrimination 

"Yeah fair point"

There are non hetrosexual people in Conservative Parties, but frankly I don't care about their sexuality & they genuinely don't care about mine. Its a private matter & no one is hard done by. There's even people who are Collingwood supporters in consevrative parties and no one cares. Now if anyone was going to mock, discriminate or exclude someone it'd be against them but even there no one cares if you like the Magpies.

Test claims, side with truth & facts. Stay within the law & support those who are wrongly targeted via the legal process.
Simple conservative approach.
Simples.

Free Speech is Being Crushed Near You. Government Selects What Is Said Near You

 

No I kid you not, it is extremely serious.  

About as serious as any Free Speech issue can get and it's in Regional WA

On Mount Clarence & Mount Adelaide in Albany are the solemn memorials to those who gave all, their lives so we can live in freedom. In the shadow of these memorials is the Albany Entertainment Centre. A flash venue that was controversial at the time of planning & to this day. It's not run by the City of Albany, its run by the WA State Government because it's likely (as predicted) it may never be run at a profit. Having said that, the City of Albany contributes $400,000 per year to run it.

That aside...

Martyn Iles of the Australian Christian Lobby has a video podcast show. It's worth a watch, up to you if you want to watch it or not. Yes it's a look at the world and life, politics, issues through a Christian lens. Some don't listen, perhaps never will. It's the choice of citizens to decide what they want to listen to. No one is forced to listen to anything, it's free choice, freedom of speech.

Until now.

Martyn has taken his show on the road. A road show. He needs a venue, a good size venue. They went to book the Albany Entertainment Centre to hold "The Truth of It" show with the opportunity for people to sit in as an audience. Possibly ask questions. All good. You'd think.

The management of of the Albany Entertainment Centre have said it a no.
Martyn Iles & ACL are quoted as saying...

 "Asked why, we were told it's because our views are not the WA state government's views." When they asked the management for a copy of the policy upon which this was based they were told sorry that's a "work in progress" Yes, for some reason which is unable to be explained or supported by an actual Government Policy. Is it Government Policy to stop Conservative Views to be hosted in a WA State Government venue or? The same venue hosted "Puppetry of the Penis" which I personally find a disturbing disgrace. However I have not picketed the venue, I left it to the individual to decide if they want to go. Its their choice, depraved as I personally believe it is. Personally as long as there's not dangerous hate speech or an event calling for violence I''m unable to approve censorship by a government. There have been comedians & music performers with differing political views than me, different worldview than me who told jokes, sang songs mocking concepts & beliefs I hold dear but if others wish to pay to see it, its up to them to decide to go or not. It's not my nor the Government's place to cancel them. The line from the management is possibly overlooked. Its a stunner. It's because the ACL's "views are not the WA state government's views." Which means this WA Government can & perhaps will cancel ANY EVENT WHICH IS NOT ALIGNING WITH "THE WA GOVERNMENT VIEWS"

DID YOU GET THAT?

THE STATE GOVERNMENT WILL CANCEL ANY PERFORMANCE THAT IT DECIDES DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE WA GOVERNMENT VIEWS. There it is. The Democratic Socialist party called the WALabor Party will cancel any views that do not align with theirs & will not produce the policy that supports that move because its a "work in progress". DID YOU GET THAT? THERE IS NO ACTUAL POLICY TO SUPPORT THE ACTION, IF IT DOES EXIST IT'S STILL A DRAFT POLICY WHICH NORMALLY MEANS UNAPPROVED AND NOT POLICY AT ALL. I think there is no such policy, this is a decision at the whim of someone yet to be identified to cancel an event that might be contrary to one particular political party. Take note. It now seems the WA Government has decided it can cancel any act, performance if & when it suits. You will not be able to attend, you have no choice. You choice is removed, gone. The Government Will Decide What You Can Have In Albany.

I'll wait, in the shadow of The ANZAC memorials...I'll wait. 1000s of Australian Citizens saw Albany as their last sight of Australia before shipping out to a World War overseas that took their lives so we can live in freedom, with freedom of association & freedom of choice. The Albany Entertainment Centre has fired a cold hard face slapping salvo at the Albany ANZAC Memorials. Utter Disgrace. I will await to hear the Minister for the Arts Mr Templeman to comment as I suspect the Premier and the local member will be silent

LATE EDIT #1 - We heard that Peter Abetz requested the policy upon which the decision was made. It finally came & when it did it's last "update" was the day after his request. Would that be one incredible coincidence? The rejection of a booking was said to be on "political grounds" now... LATE EDIT #2 - Turns out the WALabor Party held campaign fundrasiers in the venue but since the election the policy was changed & now political parties can't hold events there. Well maybe. Look what the policy actually says...

Look at it very closely. It includes TWO seperate options for denying use of the venue in one sentence 1) "Where the content of the event does not represent the views of the West Australian Government"

OR

2) Where the content of the event does not represent the views of "the vast majority of Western Australians" At that rate someone unknown & un-named somehow (we don't know how) decides what the view of "the vast majority of Western Australians" is and then decides based on that that access to the public asset is denied. Or someone unkonown & un-named somehow decides that the hopeful hirers does not represent the views of the West Australian Government & decides to refuse them use & access to the public venue. Now if the Premier or minister want to hire the event to celebrate anything to do with WALabor, technically they cannot be denied because they represent the views of the WA Government. Any other party can be declined. Holders of any other view can be declined access and use of the venue. If you think this is not Censorship, favoured Iron Fist Rule to deny some over one favoured party...sober up. Who's to blame or should answer, you'd think the minister because well, ummm, y'know it is his portfolio but nope not his policy, not his wheelhouse. Well if its not him asleep & drunk at the wheel then its the Premier. Based on what you say? This...

LATE EDIT # 3 (20/07/2021) - You may want to check this

(47) The Truth of It | We Were Uncancelled! | The Fear Factor | Vaccine: Yes or No? | Ep. 77 - YouTube

Who are the Far Right and Are They of The Right or Conservatives?

 I'd argue the Far Right & the Far Left are both different shades of the same evil colour. I'd argue they have far more in common than either would like you to know and they both oppose the normal Left & Right of politics.

I think the labelling of Fascism & Nazism as being of the Right is a deliberate political tactic to demonise anything considered right of centre. Its not based on fact or truth but it has been working with many people for a long time.

Is Fascism of the Right? No. Its easy to work out. It's roots can be traced back to one central point in Pre WW2 Italy to a Socialist Philosopher named Giovanni Gentile. The short version is, he was a cohort of Mussolini and Gentile himself was a socialist and referred to Fascism as the purest form of Socialism.

Nazis were a little more complicated.
The Nazis considered themselves to be the 3rd Reich (or Empire)
1st Empire being the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806AD) 
2nd Empire being The German Empire (1871-1918)
3rd Empire being Nazis Germany (1933-1945)

Problem for Hitler was he had legal process in his way. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis), and by 1928 it had 100,000 members. At that time, Germany was a Republic but for Hitler to rise he had a problem. His main rival were those in the communist party who were lesser in numbers to the Nazis but slowly rising. Ironic because both were totally against the idea of a Social Democracy or any democracy. By 1930 the biggest party were Social Democrats, more conservative than 2nd place Nazis (18%) or Communists(10% and growing)

By 1933 the Nazis had gained full control, sort of legally & then once the dominating power brought in new rules & powers. It outlawed all Unions & brought them under one banner. It outlawed all political parties except one, the Nazis party. There were no conservatives, no communists, no social democracy leaners...
By 1934 Nazis were openly beginning executions without trial of political opponents. 
As the purge had begun and as Hindenburg died Hitler had merged the Office of President & Supreme Commander with the office of Chancellor & assumed the title of Führer und Reichskanzler. On August 19 a plebiscite confirmed his new office with 88 percent of 43,529,710 votes cast.

He & his party were the only party, the only government, the only rule. There were to be no communist, no social democrats, no conservatives, not other party than the one party, the Nazis Government with full integration with the military. That was the turning point. In a short time, all other political views destroyed & outlawed. Anyone defying was jailed and faced execution.

This is not a notion supported by "the right" or Conservatives. Hitler had allied with whatever political rivals he needed to get numbers then threw them under the bus. It was then the state and only the state who decided anything.
In the years between 1934 & the outbreak of world war 2, German became a totalitarian police state.
Places of learning  universities & schools, and any sector that had any chance of influence such the theatre, the arts and of course the Press were forced to follow the pattern of Nazi regimentation completely.
Any real free speech was over. It was totalistarian, the state could not be challenged, defied, questioned or ignored. 
Nazi Germany had so many traits in common with a Communist regime it wasn't funny. Its main difference was it claimed to be doing it for the people against a threat. That threat was everyone else.

Now if Fascism was of the right you'd expect England, France, Spain, USA and every other nation of a conservative bent, be it a Monarchy or Republic to follow suit. They didn't. 

Nazism was fascist. It was a form of Socialism, Gentile its father says so. Hitler used any trick, took any ally he could to climb to power & once there crushed & killed anyone or thing that was even slightly looking like a threat. He created a brutal totalitarian regime, built large on abolishing individual rights, individual views or expression. The state controlled everything and kileld that which it couldn't. Communist regimes had more in common with fascists & Nazis because they were all about complete state control of the citizens and they were eager in killing them if they opposed the state 

Fascism was founded by Gentile. He called it the purest form of Socialism. Socialism is about totalitarism, full state control of the individual & the complete abolition of political freedom, individual rights, individual free voices. Nothing is free, all is the state's.
It is clear Nazism is a form of Socialism.
They are all enemies of capitalisim, moderate views, free speech, individual choice & rights and they are both very keen to kill millions to get their way & remove any differing views.

Hardly a notion of the right or of conservativism.

But the slur remains to be used by the left that Fascism is of the right, that Nazis were far right. Nazis were Nazis, they did prior to seizing full control ally up with the then far right & others. After the Nuremberg Rally it was the beginning of the end of any political view that did not comply with Nazis edicts. There was no left or right after the Nuremberg Rally, no conservatives. There was the Nazi state and enemies of the Nazi state to be exterminated by the Nazi state.
Hardly a tenant of the right.

Still it remains a smear to be used on the right.

Those using it can be challenged.
"Do you oppose totalistarian rule?"
"Do you oppose capitalism?"
"Do you support individual freedoms & rights?"

"You cannot oppose capitalism without supporting totalitarian rule like that of  Socialism, Communism, Fascism which opposes individual freedoms, individual rights, individual freedom to buy & sell and gather assets, express political opinion and will crush any opposition to state control"

"Yeah but, splutter, spit blah blah...you're a fascist"

Marxism is on the rise, it has far more support than its supporters have understanding. They think they will get a financial boost, that the wealth of others will flow their way. No Communist, Fascist, Socialist, Communist (or any other totalitarian) regime has done that without enslaving all its people under brutal state control.

Oppose all those stripes and be grateful for Capitalism & Conservatism. The alternative will rob, enslave & finally kill you.

Massive Fee Hikes in WA Despite A Supposedly Handy $5 Billion Surplus

Western Australia, during the early days of the COVID Lockdown one of the first things the WALabor Government did was shut down Gun Shops. Which included all camping stores or general stores that sold ammunition on the side. Closed or massive penalties.

Odd thing was we were told they were shut down for "safety reasons" but we could never find out what the actual hazard or threat them being open posed. We were never able to get an answer to why there was elevated risk to safety by having dealers, repairers open.

Recently Gel Blasters were banned & if you get caught you could receive a fine of up to $32,000.

FOR POSSESSING A HARMLESS TOY THAT CANNOT FIRE A BULLET OR DO HARM

(You think that's odd, at the same time if you were caught using a Rapid Antegen Test July 2021 when this was written an individual could be fined $25,000 & a business $100,000 - try & make sense of that, no one else has yet)

Now here's the latest, application fees and indeed a raft of fees to do with applying or owning licenced firearms has gone through the roof. We sit with a supposedly $5 BILLION SURPLUS and application fees are raised by 13%.
(MOST OF THE RELATED FIREARMS FEES HAVE SOARED, BUT WE'LL JUST FOCUS ON THE APPLICATION FEE)
We're unsure if the reasoning is productivity has dropped 13% and someone has to pay for it or if its a blatant cash grab from a sector they dislike. Latter presumably because whilst the 13% certainly out strips any possible CPI indexing. The actual amount was over the top before it went up. 

Just the application fee, not all the other risen fee, just the application fee...

WA -------------          $221            (Before the rise it was $192)
Qld----------------       $41
Vic-----------------      $9.20
NSW---------------      $40
NT-------------------     $57
SA-------------------     $41

Get your head around that and tell me why that is the case. Tell me why fees are through the roof.
Tell me why a virus hits and some small businesses were completely shut down.

It's likely you have a WALabor MP as a local member. Ask them why the fees are so high & why the exact same fee for the exact service is between $164 and $211.80 more expensive in WA than other states.

Bizarre and although its maybe a bit of an emotional stretch I get why some claim its very pro CCP.

Weaponised Public Square Allegations vs Proper Due Process & Natural Justice

It seems accusations & allegations are the lastest go-to cudgel to blunten the nose of one's opponents. Made worse the preferred forum to regulalry air claims is primarily the Court of the Public Square...media, social media. We've seen it time & time again and it does have some history prior to the rise of Social Media.

Parliamentary Privelege.

The old classic I heard as a kid growing up was (paraphrased) "If you're not going to write it, sign it, stand behind it in court...don't say it"

That's gone. Long gone. The usual idea of pursuing a matter via due process, ala natural justice where everyone is considered innocent until proven otherwise is falling away.

Now you can sully a person's reputation, damage or destroy a person's standing or career by flying an allegation publicly & reissue it regularly long after it's met its furtherest point. Now if someone is convicted by a court, then it seems pursuit is over and the convicted person has to live with the result or appeal but the personal pursuit is largely over. It seems now if the accuser is dead or has no way to prove their claim beyond one person's word against another then the accusation can linger. Once it might have lingered as a cloud above them, now it's blunt instrument to pummel the accused forever more. Reactivate regularly apparently. We've seen a handful of high profile cases that fit this criteria very easily. You've seen them and some appear to have no possible likelihood of a legitimate outcome via natural justice.
As a result it seems the only outcome now is to continue "un-natural justice" to pursue the person accused until they are removed from whatever position they hold. Until their name & reputation are destroyed and they are no longer seen publicly again.

This truly is akin to mob rule with lit torches & pitch forks storming the town square preparing for a lynching outside the legal system.

This is made worse by a recent incident of late where some MPs of varying stripes have deciding to not only fail to condemn this mob rule tactic but worse still, partake in it. This is not the hill they should decide to die on. They ought to be careful using or supporting others using Parliamentary Privilege to target another without any legal ramifications. They should never with good conscience decided to side step due process and proper justice. Unfortunately this part of the Parliament has been weaponised over the decades & it will be again. Worse is the Machivellean types who roam the halls of power & will argue this is a fine thing to do. Next election, vote them out.

Anyone pushing weaponised allegations is not to be trusted, especially if they pursue the destruction of a person without using a proper legal method. I saw one person in the Social Media who was taken to task over their use of an allegation. They were told to use the courts, that you cannot constantly hound a person with an unproven allegation.

The reply was perplexing...

1) The accussor is their friend, they will not back down
2) The only legal course of action at hand is a civil action which is costly, complex and difficult to win
3) The only option left was to raise awareness

Firstly, friendship is not a part of legal process, guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the only legal option for a reason.

Second, it probably is true that a civil case is very difficult. That is a likely fact, not a reason or excuse to pursue a person outside the proper process of Australian Law.

Third, I think the awareness on the several cases (4 I can think of) is very great already. I think some see "awareness" as code for constant weaponised attacks on a person outside any legal process.

No one wants anyone off the hook, but you cannot subvert proper due process, deny someone proper natural justice nor in any way condemn them without their day in court.
The reason? Its so innocent people aren't condemned and reputations wrongly destroyed. 
Will some guilty people get away with something? Its possible but if we cannot have a dirty & unclean tactic of knifing someone without proper defence as being in anyway acceptable

Anyone exercising, supporting, not publicly opposing this sort of weaponsed character assassination is unlikely to be a fit & proper person within parliament, a board, a place of great responsibility and probably belongs in a violent communist hate group like Antifa

For those seeking a preferred scalp, please ask the accusor to take it to the authorities.
It is their business afterall.
If they don't & you somehow decide to keep in pursuit, I think your best bet is to make details public. 
I think if you're not prepared to take the matter to court, someone else soon will.

Of course it may well be that some have political motives. In any case it still comes down to and returns us to that earlier advice...

"If you're not going to write it, sign it, stand behind it in court...don't say it"

The "Concesssion for Classics" Scheme (C4C), its rigid unfairness and a solution

 From the Government's own website, the breif explainer...

 "The Concession for Classics (C4C) scheme is a voluntary concession which is available to owners of eligible street rods and vehicles manufactured prior to 1990. The scheme commenced on 16 April 2021."

Further details at (Click there->) Concessions (transport.wa.gov.au)

Now it seems great, its been in the making for a number of years and seems like at least 3 parties were pushing for this as far back as 2015-2016 with at least one group pushing for a nin club based framework. All entities however seem to have gotten nowhere tangible until recently it was taken on board by the current Labor Government's Minister for Transport Rita Saffioti MLA embraced it.

Originally it was roughly going to be 90 days for $90 with all days quarantined within club use. This didn't take into account that many people who own classics use them for private ocassions like School Balls, Weddings, birthday outings or just going for a cruise with their family and/or catching up with friends...outside of a club. The minister in her wisdom accepted this was indeed a problem and it was moved to 90 days use, 60 within a club & 30 private use. Now that is a good concession, it will work for the majority of people except it still isn't quite a perfect framework. Perhaps we should all agree there is no chance of a perfect framework but to say this system is as good as it can get is incorrect.

I note if you discuss this online or in person about those living in regional or remote WA, or those who would prefer 90 days private use whether you're in a club or not the answers go off track 
They include but are not limited to...

1. Its voluntary, if you don't like it keep your vehicle fully licenced & pay the full amount
   
   
2. A lot of work has gone into this, your comments will wreck it for everyone
   
   
3. You want it your way & if not scrap it.
   
   
4. It has to be done via clubs for the social aspect & help with the management aspect

Of course these are shut down techniques, hollow tactical replies not answers, not helpful and not inclined to help bring in a more fair, more balanced and improved system.

They don't address these problems or answer the curious omitted details. They include...

a) What management aspect is involved with the club for those 30 Private Days?
If there is none then why does 30 days work fine without Club Oversight & Management but 90 cannot? 

b) Today with Licence Plate recognition & C4C users having to have a Rego Plate Identifier it is easy for WA Police to see if the car is out on a club run or has registered it online as a private use day. That can be done for 30 days or 90 days private use, club managed or club free

c) Because a lot of work has gone into it does not mean it is the best it can be. It must be reviewed after 12 months and improved. At present only approved clubs can be involved, you must be a member of an improved club and those clubs MUST have 30 or more members when to be incorporated you only require 10 or more. In REGIONAL AND REMOTE WA you will be hard pressed to get 30+ like minded people to form a club, let alone one that can "manage" a system that doesn't need club management for 30 days. If you live in Wagin, Hyden, Nungarin, Fitzroy, Coral Bay, Ravenswood, Jerramungup, Walpole to name but a few you will have to join a club hundreds of kilometres away. Which means in the case of one couple we know, they're a member of a club 450+kms from their home. They will have to drive 900+kms round trip for each of their club days. Unfair, unworkable and easy to solve. 90 days Private Use, No Club Required.

With Log books and/or App use with the concession this car usuage can easily happen without a club & allow people to drive 90 days for $90 anytime THEY want whether they're in a club or not, whether its a club event or not. Their car, their life, their choice.

Its worth repeating, no one is overseeing the 30 days private use. No one. Is a car on the scheme still within their 30 days, have they driven it 200 days in the year & not filled out their logbook/app?

WHO IS OVERSEEING THIS, ENSURING THERE IS NO ABUSE? WHO? HOW?

If it's the club, how do they know member 23 is driving in their vehicle outside the rules and who reports them to who so they're penalised? 
If they crash whilst outside the rules it's likely insurance will be void but some will take that risk whether a club is involved or not, and it can happen whether its "club managed" or not.

Then the other biggy...what if the person has 3 cars on the C4C. Do they have 90 days across the 3 cars? I'm assuming most fairly they do, but what happens for the club that has already installed the requirement that out of your 60 days Club use you MUST attend 4 club cruises or events to remain a club member & therefore retain your C4C licencing??? They have to go to 12 club events per year?

How does the regional person with several cars 450+kms from the club or Perth (where most clubs are) get on?

And after all that, what is it the club manages that a non club system can't manage with a logbook and/or App system cannot?

I'm concerned because the these reasonable questions are routinely met with tactical replies not genuine answers containing explanations. Some clubs have already seen this as the greatest membership drive incentive ever. They get a membership fee.

And the 2 families in the Pilbara who are 300kms apart and a good long day's drive to the nearest club & unable to form a club with 30 people without having classic car owners spread over an 800km radius.

Now if you're living in Perth, there will be an even on every weekend. You're likely to go to 4 of them. If your club has 4 events attendence required, boxes ticked perfectly.  Easy system, perfect. Outside WA not so much. People who don't want to join a club or shouldn't be in a club...too bad.

Again, if you've used up your 30 days and you go out driving & its not a club event you're driving unlicenced. Thats fair & correct but who polices this. If its log book, what stops a person not filling the log book & only filling it in when it suits them? Who spots that?
Probably the police if they get caught, only police if they're in an accident and it becomes apparent.
So why is that fine for 30 days in a Clubbed Framework & not exactly the same for 90 days in a non club framework?
Keep in mind you're 3 times less likely to run out of days with a 90 day private use rego than 30.

"Yeah but we put a lot of work into this, if you don't like it don't sign up"

Yeah. Thankfully not all Perth people are of the "I'm alright Jack" club