"But why?" Possible Implications Of New Firearms Laws. And yes "But why?" indeed

 A mate who lives and works on a remote property got in touch. If just the section on a rifle/shotgun stock becoming a Major Firearm Part goes through, he could be in trouble.

Long ago he bought a 2nd hand rifle that is chambered in .308
It is a fairly good rifle but was factory sold with one of the cheapest polumer/plastic stocks.
He either had to pull it apart & "glass bed" the stock to make it more rigid & therefore more accurate or replace the stock. He did the latter & replace it with a Magpul stock. He undid 2 screws, swapped stocks, did two screws up using a Torque Screwdriver to the required torque rating in the simple instructions.

Job done.
Superior stock, better ergonomics, easier to hold (safer).
It also meant he no longer had a fixed floorplate magazine which has to be fed in from the top. 
It held 4 rounds was hard to clean thoroughly because some partial disassembly is required.
Now on the new stock it has drop box magazine or detachable magazine that legally hold 10 rounds but he never puts more than 9 in it (thats just his thing).
Magazines are simple and easy to clean, no rifle disassembly required.
If he needs more than 4 shots for a mob of ferals he's now able to do his job.

New stock is better for recoil & all round is a better, safer set up.

If the new laws pass on a stock becoming a "Major Firearms Part" he's in a jam.
He asked

"Do I destroy the old stock or will I have to drive a few hours to the nearest police station to surrender the old bare stock or drive it 800+ kms to the nearest repairer to surrender it or drive even further to the nearest gun shop to surrender it?"

As he said, "Because if I continue to keep the empty stock I'm breaking the law"

I said my understanding is you can apply to the Police Commissioner to get retrospective permission to keep the stock and he quite rightly replied...

"But why? We all clog up Firearms Branch over a lump of harmless plastic or wood, we have to wait for approval & it may actually cost us to apply. We do have better things to do and the fact remains, I'm not from nor do I know of anyone in an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang or a Terrorist or a Domestic Violence Offender. Why are they coming after me when I do everything by the book?"

At this point I changed my mind. I figure this particular change was a pain but gotta do what we gotta do. But he's quite right its not proportionate, is unnecessary, unwarranted, served no real purpose, reduced no risk or hazard, was not reasonable and really was about over reach on lawful people & would reduce the effectiveness of the Firearm's Branch's clean up rate of applications.

I said  the first thing they might ask is why do you need to keep it.
He said its kept for two reasons.
One he needs a spare even if its not as good as the updated one. He needs to be able to make the rifle usable if the new stock is damaged. He cannot jump in the car & drive for hours, hire a motel room if he's lucky to get it fixed straight away and then drive back the next day. Other reason, if/when he goes to sell the firearm, he plans to refit the original stock which looks brand new & keep his old stock for either just a barrelled action or swap out on a new rifle.
Makes perfect sense.

I said playing devil's advocate he need only apply to the Police Commissioner for permission to have both stocks. Apparently the minister say approval would take a few days, no longer.

My friend clearly & quite rightly said.
"But why? Doesn't matter if it takes 12 seconds over the phone, why? Its a part that is not involved in OMGs, Terrorism or Domestic Violence. Why are they not going after OMGs, Terrorists & Domestic Violence Abusers as they'd get my full & complete support. I'm not those dregs, just target that scum"

He went on to succinctly say
"So if there's a spate of OMG crimes, terrorism or domestic violence will they be checking the Police database to see who has a spare plastic rifle stock to build a picture of potential offenders? It's off the hook mad. They didn't consult with anyone from a firearms background, this is off the hook stuff and is rules for rules sake, no real purpose is served, no advantage is gained"

He's right & that ought to be enough to drop the stocks becoming a major firearms part. Ought to be.

He then said.
"There's a number of us here on this place with licenced firearms, no one at all has anything illegal & unlicenced, its not allowed. We have to to be 100% law kosher on everything. That's a good thing, it protects all of us. Pain is, we all have to have our own seperate gun safe. There was a big gun safe here and it's as old as the hills. It was here long before gun safes were even required and all guns on the property were always required to be stored in it. Now we all have to have our own safe with our own keys. It's not a problem, a pain sometimes, but its the law & its no problem. Trouble is I have several rifles & a shotgun. I have spare stocks for all of them for the same reasons. I wanted better, safer more durable ones & the old ones are kept as spares or for the day I trade them in or sell them outright. The shotgun has 3 stocks. One is the crappy original, one for shooting ferals out the ute window & one if I'm standing, on foot. If I know which is more likely I just undo the detach screws and swap them over"

I thought I knew why he does that, but to be clear & certain I asked why
"Well simple in the ute you have a different 'length of pull' than when you're on foot standing so you need either a stock with an adjustable length of pull or you just swap the stocks out beforehand. So much easier on the shoulder and makes it easier to safely aim"

For those unaware, length of pull is the term for the distance between the rear of the action the shoulder pad. When you aim sitting down facing out a ute window you need a much shorter length of pull than standing where you can get to the proper standing position. if you have a scope or other optics its even more of a thing. It means in a ute you cannot get behind the scope and sometimes when you do with the incorrect length of pull your eye is close to the scope but the guns shoulder pad isn't in the pad of your shoulder.
That means very poor "recoil management" (shooters term) which potentially means you're at greater risk of get "ring eyed" or "scoped eyed". The recoil pushes the scope into your eye socket.
Yes its a thing.

I then asked the question  I think most non shooters are unaware of.
What about an adjustable stock with adjustable length of pull and he sensibly said.

"But why? On the rifle I'd have to buy an expensive chassis system as a stock. Which is fine but then I'd have to fork out extra money, get it posted here & fit it. And guess what, if this goes through & stocks become a major firearms part, it can't be posted to me, I don't have a dealers licence. If this legislation goes through I'll have to get permission now before I buy it & hope I get it, work out how to get it to me, then apply to keep the old stocks as spare parts or hand them in. Its a mess no one needs, it serves no purpose & puts us where we don't need to be to raise public safety. I mean mate, I gotta say again, I'm not a bikie, have nothing to do with them or terrorist or wife beaters. Nothing. Same with the others here. Why fix something thats not broken and make it more costly & more broken in the process? Why target us and not the bad scum?

On the shotgun, I'm not sure if stock with an adjustable length of pull is legal in WA. It is in most states but not in NSW. Got to have a fixed stock there but adjustable is ok in Queensland. A mate that straddles the border genuinely has a NSW Shottie & and Queensland Shottie so he doesn't break the law. How dumb is that, got to have more guns to be legal?"

And as he said, this is just the rifle stocks. Somehow this is only targeting Bikies, Terrorists & Domestic Violence Offenders but applies to ALL LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNERS.

Here's a crazy idea. Get caught in possession a single illegally manufactured firearm, a single stolen firearm, a single smuggled in firearm...10 or even 20 years jail minimum, no parole.
If there's more than one illegal firearm, double the penalty for each addtional firearm. 

Get caught committing a crime with any firearm at all, 20-25 years jail minimum, no parole
If you're committed multiple offences double the penalty with each convicted offence and that is in addition to the possession penalty.

Does not impact on legal law abiding firearms owners, does not tempt lawful owners to secretly keep a newly unapproved harmless stock which technically has now converted a lawful person in to a criminal.
If you are targeting Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, Terrorists & Domestic Violence Offenders who are committing crimes with organised crime, terrorism or Domestic Violence with a bare plastic stock, charge them not those who obey the law. Target the criminals with no effect on law keepers at all.

************************************************************************

Late edit, I have no problem with a Station Owner or Station Worker having a sidearm for work, for safety. For those unaware, they can apply for a side arm or in other words a pistol that can only be used on the property due to the highly dangerous nature of some animals.
Some station people have them, some don't. Their choice. I'm fine with that.

Here's where it gets odd. If they have for example a Smith & Wesson .357 revolver at work they cannot take that revolver & compete at a club. No, they have to apply to the Firearm's Branch and get another firearm. Why would they compete? Many reasons for both social & competition benefits but in doing so, they become far more proficient & safe with the firearm. If they were fairly safety focused before joining a gun club, they'll be super safe once they join.
They'll pick up better maintanance & safety training.

But now, Joe Jackaroo & Jane Jilleroo will have to join the club, stay in the club 6 months, then apply to get a gun, wait for permission and then pay & pick it up. It will be an identical firearm. That new club only gun cannot be used on the station, its club use only.

That additional gun will cost him retail around $1700.00 without extra costs, application fees, freight etc.

Imagine that, to be safer for the public a person wanting to compete at a club has to spend $1700+ they didn't need to, ending up with an extra gun they may or may not want.

The Recent New Firearm's Legislation

There are links below to both the Written Hansard & the Video Hansard.
As always, don't take my word for it, go see & check for yourself. We'll outline some points but only some of the bits that stand out.

Like, the original idea of the new Legislation...It was originally portrayed as giving the WAPolice all the tools necessary to combat Organised Crime/Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. It was mostly portrayed as the latter but think we can assume it could also quite rightly be applied to any organised crime group.

Interesting that the first few parts the Minister for Police Paul Papalia MLA mentions are on crimes/alleged crimes committed by legally registered firearms owners & end up with the statement "Many incidents of this nature confirm that being a licensed firearms holder does not prevent someone from offending."

At this point I take exception to the intent or possible inferred meaning here. If he says many, and we're to be rather specific & focused, he should say exactly how "Many incidents of this nature..." is...exactly, unless his intent is to suggest that many and any legal owners can & possibly will commit gun crime.

If we were to follow that effort, I'll list all the legal breaches of anyone having served in the Navy or in the WA Parliament & say he should be on notice because the "Many incidents of this nature confirm that being a ex Navy person & a Membeer of Parliament does not prevent someone from committing all manner of crimes"
He used a theatrical mechanism...and he should know better and not do so.

He went onto say in Parliament "I reiterate that the focus of this legislation is on outlaw motorcycle gang members, terrorists and serious domestic violence offenders."
Well I have no problem with that, if that indeed is the target group you intend to capture & no law abiding firearms owner is affected in anyway.
Now if a licenced firearms owner breaks the law within the Firearms Legislation...watch closely Minister, nice and closely...

THEY'RE LAW BREAKERS, CRIMINALS. NOT A LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNER LIKE THE REST OF US. 

SO WITH THAT CLEARLY POINTED OUT PLEASE ENSURE THE AMENDED LAWS YOU WANT TO BRING IN TARGET THEM & OTHER CRIMINALS. MAKE SURE THE NEW LAWS DO NOT AFFECT US IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. NONE, NADA, ZERO.

Now lets look at the positives recorded in Hansard.
Minister Papalia said...

"If the Sporting Shooters Association or any individual legitimate and responsible licence holder finds some unforeseen implication, we will have the capacity to respond by regulation."
That's positive but its not drum tight yet but it does say "we will have the capacity to respond by regulation." Yes Capacity, but the promise to address & correct it would be a nice additional concessional assurance. I trust in the Minister's good will.

The minister went on to say in Parliament...
"I recognise that the Sporting Shooters Association is a representative body and that it actually has paid-up members. The Western Australia Firearm Traders Association is also a responsible body. I will, as will the police and my office, continue to engage with those bodies as we move down the pathway of implementing the bill, and into the future. I already have talked to them about regular meetings with respect to discussing how firearms are managed in Western Australia, which will enable a two-way flow of information"

In highlight, another positive point.

Another positive point, RELOADING.
The minister made a statement that is very clear.

"There has been no change to the provisions that would prevent a personal firearm licence holder from continuing to reload ammunition for their own personal use."

I take this on face value with the good intent I believe it clearly appears to have. If you reload your own ammunition, you still can. No changes. Relax.

There are sections that will have to be looked at and I hope the Minister decides not to define a spent casing or new casings as "ammunition". 

The minister was asked about folding stocks to which he replied...
"I am in agreement with Inspector Walker’s observation that people do not have a device with a folding stock so it aids them in cleaning a firearm. It is so that they can shorten it and potentially conceal it. In our case, that is what we are concerned about. The reasoning behind prohibiting a device with a folding stock is that it could enable someone to conceal a firearm and employ it more readily in a criminal act."

Folding Stocks should be referred to as the proper term "Folding Butt Stock". were already illegal here. I think it was an oddity to do so, especially in the case of bolt action rifles because if it folds sideways the same direction as the bolt, the stock will prevent cycling the bolt or interfere. Also, a folding stock has no ability to mitigate recoil. Very rarely are they more accurate than a fixed stock. Their best advantage is storage. in vehicles etc. If criminals favour folding stocks when executing a crime, they will have a folding stock on their illegal firearm. Most firearms used in gun crimes are illegal.
This is kinda trying to prevent lawful owners having a type of stock they're mostly unlikely to want to use, that is legal in other Australian states so it lessens the chances of a criminal having one on his illegal gun. For what its worth, rifles are not the most common criminal choice, let alone rifles with folding stocks. Lot of statistics on the Criminals choice...but hey, jump the shark.

The minister was asked to define Stock. This would have been the perfect opportunity to clear things up, the difference between a Stock, a Buttstock and a Folding Butt Stock.
What he said was...
"I am in agreement with Inspector Walker’s observation that people do not have a device with a folding stock so it aids them in cleaning a firearm. It is so that they can shorten it and potentially conceal it. In our case, that is what we are concerned about. The reasoning behind prohibiting a device with a folding stock is that it could enable someone to conceal a firearm and employ it more readily in a criminal act."

The problem shooters have been trying to get across is all "stocks" are detachable. Many Stocks are held to the Barrel/Action by 2 screws. If they ban detachable stocks are many are thinking it makes no sense. All guns would have illegal stocks. Nonsensical.

A Buttstock and a Stock aren't the same thing. Some firearms with detahcable buttstocks, like some lever actions. They are then inoperable as a firearm. If he's keen to nad Folding Buttstocks, they already are. This was an opportunity to clear this up. Pity. Many "take down" long arms & they are inoperable when split. I hope owners of these aren't going to get caught up in stock, butt stock issues & owners being banned from changing the stock or buttstock as they always have.

Some of the downsides and cool your jets, its not all over yet...but maybe it is.
If you need to replace a stock or a trigger mechanism you will need permission of the Police Commissioner. If you think that is going to be cost free, you're easier going to me because I'm quite sure instead of you buying a new replacement stock, undoing the 2 screws, swapping stocks & doing the two screws up is being down by you...well way I'm reading it NO.
You're going to have to take it or send it to a repairer, apply for permission, when permission if granted, its changed in the best part of 15 minutes then you pay the bill & probably the application to replace fee to WAPolice, then pick it up...because lets face it, if it has to go via courier or post in regional WA its probably not getting fixed.

The only part that should require permission & a Gunsmith or Dealer/Repair is the barrel & maybe some triggers and definitely the barrel as its a serialised part. The Stock? No. If this goes through, it will have to be reversed & removed by a future Govt. I cannot fathom how made most if not all firearms owners will see this as.
Not to mention, I cannot see how this has any bearing at all on OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS, TERRORISTS & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS whilst leaving lawful firearms owners unaffected. None of this targets criminals who mostly use illegal firearms.

The minister and opposition MPs waxed lyrical but the fact is, you cannot replace the stock on a firearm UNLESS you are a licenced repairer AND you have permission of the Police Commissioner.
Undoing those 2 screws, swapping the stock, doing up the 2 screws will be breaking the law. Possessing an used Stock will (as a major firearms part) be illegal. 
Now if you think that is weird, get your head around this.
A rendered firearm is not a licenced firearm. You can remove & swap stocks on a firearm rendered innocous. So with that logic a stock from a rendered firearm is not a major firearms part. Possession of an used stock from a rendered firearm is not illegal but a stock that is from or for your working licenced firearm now has to be handed in or seek retrospective approval for it.

The simple, sensible thing here, is to not classify a stock as a major firearms part. It cannot be, it sould never be. If I had to replace a stock I have to apply to the Police Commissioner, await approval, then drive to the nearest repairer because I cannot post it and wait. Then pay the bill I've incurred for travel, lost time waiting for permission & freight and the cost of the repairer unding two screws, swapping stocks, then doing up 2 screws. In the case of Mosin Nagants, polishing the trigger sear is wise thing to do. You have to remove the bolt, the magazine, its housing, seperate the barrelled action from the stock, then polish the trigger sear, re-assemble. That maybe illegal for just removing the stock. 
Its even weirder if thats ok to do as long as the same stock goes back on.

Then once you've consumed all this, stopped your head from spinning...
Ask yourself this.


HOW IS THIS TARGETING OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS, TERRORISTS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS WITHOUT AFFECTING LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNERS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, COST OR DETRITMENT? HOW?

The inherrent faults within this bill are staggering as they are breath taking and I've only gone through stocks. It is clear that this bill must go on hold & be referred to committee or be widely amended.
It's staggering when the rules do not seem to understand the difference between stock, butt stock & folding stock and that a innocous part like a stock is now considered a major firearm part,

There's some reasons to relax. But wow...there's some other breath taking dud balls that are mind blowing.

1. The Actual Bill before Parliament -
   Link -> Progress of Bills (parliament.wa.gov.au)
   
   
   
2. The Law Reform Commission's  REVIEW OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA) PROJECT 105 FINAL REPORT 
   Link -> LRC-Project-105-Final-Report.pdf (www.wa.gov.au)
   
   
   
3. And an older report from the Auditor General in regards Firearms Control but this had recommendations on the WAPolice side which I hope have been addressed in full - 
   Link -> Firearm-Controls.pdf (audit.wa.gov.au)
   
   
   

Kimberley Crime Wave

The Kimberley Crime Wave gets mentioned but amongst it all is the now most high profile.
A 17 year old & an 18 year old allegedly stealing a motor vehicle and deliberately, wilfully chasing police vehicles with a view to do damage and/or harm...with easily proven prior intent.

What was said on the radio was...

• There are other members of their "crew" that range from 10 to 18 years of age
  
  
• They film their exploits & post them on Social Media (apparently on FB & TikTok)
  
  
• There is not argument that Police are doing the best they can with what they've got.
  
  
• They do not consider themselves un WA Law nor Aboriginal Lore
  
  
• They are out of control, a police officer has been injured
  
  
• It is consider the judiciary response is problematic and there is no consequences. No real lasting punishment, not real lasting deterrant, just very small amounts of time spent in remand where the offences by those held is on temporary pause.
  
  
• Aboriginal elders are unable to intervene and control them
  
  
• Other younger kids are on the streets all hours
  
  
• There are large & very real fears these offenders may cause the death of themselves, a member of the public or the police
  
  
• There are very real fears frustrated locals living in fear may take the law into their own hands and the offenders may get injured or killed, or the vigilante might get killed or injured whilst trying to "deal with them outside the law". It also means its possible a frustrated member of the public may end up in court or court & jail.
  
  
• Everyone is asking where are the parents, what consequences should the offenders & their parents face. In the case of the 17 & 18 year old, it's likely the parents, especially the 18 year old's parents will have absolutely no legal responsibility. The 18 year old is a legal adult.
  
  
• 
  

So in the WA Upper House the Hon Rosie Sahanna MLC (WALabor member for Mining & Pastoral) said 

"I refer to an ABC interview given by the Leader of the Opposition, Mia Davies, in Broome. She was asked if they were in government, where they would start, and she responded, according to my notes, “We are solutions orientated. We want to talk to the community about what they think will work, what we have seen work in other jurisdictions and meet other people to gather the information and provide a report.” I think everybody does that. It is just all a talkfest—report, report, report"  

Odd thing for Hon Rosie Sahanna to bring up, she is in the Government, a government that has been in power since March 2017. She has been in Parliament herself since March 2021. She has had every opportunity to do or say something both within & outside the Parliament on Youth Crime in the far north. Its the opposition's role to take the Government to task, to see the best results occur. 
Hon Rosie Sahanna MLC should probably take the government departments to task, the minister responsible or have been on board with them and shaping the solutions in her nearly 12 months in office or in her previous employment just prior to joining Parliament as Student Support and Counsellor, Djaringo RTO, 2014 onwards & Operations Manager, Nirrumbuk Aboriginal Corporation...in that capacity with & to the previous & current Mining & Pastoral members

For her to say "I think everybody does that. It is just all a talkfest—report, report, report" is rather telling. Its someone else's fault but she's just admitted the current government that she's a member of has for the last 5 years has done nothing but do talkfests & reports with seemingly no positive outcomes at all. 
Straight away I knew she's going to have to have a follow up commentary the next day to try & lessen the flak she unwittingly fired at her own party. Other members will have to make sure they give up time to allow Rosetta to try & fix this for Hansard.

She went onto say the very telling words

"Aboriginal people have been the most microscopic people on the earth. Everybody wants to have a bit of them. They want to write reports, and where do they end up? They end up under the carpet, mate."
Well whats the solution Rosie, there's the unlawful behaviour that will highly likely result in a death or deaths & there's your claim nothing is done except produce reports that go "under the carpet, mate."

So there's a problem that goes back a long way, long before she entered Parliament but have not been addressed or fixed since WALabor formed government nearly 4 years ago.
Intruiging view.

She went onto say...
"Anyway, one thing that has been raised during these forums is funding cycles. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has said. We have lots of non-government organisations delivering funding programs in the region, but they are only provided in one or three-year contracts"

So the problem is funding is only on 3 year cycles. There's lots of "non-government organisations delivering funding programs in the region"

Really?? Well who are they, what are they supposed to deliver apart from delivering funding programs, what are the programs & why are they not working? Because no progress can be made in a 3 year timeframe? So the 17 year old only began his/her alleged crime spree in the last 12 months and it can only be saved over an unspecified time that exceeds 3 years of funding?

Which NGOs only had a programme with 3 year funding, that ran out & wasn't renewed that then caused this current crime spree?
You have to remember, WALabor has been in power since March 2017 and they could & would have have renewed funding whenever it came due in the last (almost 5 years).

Hmmm, WALabor pointing the fault of inaction & funding timing at WALabor & then blaming the opposition. Pretty incredible position for Rosie Sashanna to not only hold but to say out loud

She then finished off (as time had run out) with "These are long-term problems and need long-term solutions. Did you just wake up from a deep sleep? It has always been a one-year to three-year contract."

Long term problems are they? How long? Map them out so they can be followed, measured & reviewed. How long does it take to get a child not yet a teenager to stop breaking the law? 
MORE THAN 3 YEARS???

Who exactly is asleep because those wanting longer funding cycles seem to want an open cheque with no performance metrics & no expectation of results under 3 years because its a "long-term problem & 1 to 3 year funding is not going to work.

Hon Rosie Sahanna MLC went onto say...

"Always. It has never been any different. We are talking about issues that have been around for a very long time. They did not just happen in the last six months—a very long time. All of a sudden, there is an election coming up, and members of the Liberal and National Parties are out there canvassing the Kimberley, trying to see if they can find solutions to the issues. They are not going to find them. As an Aboriginal person who has been here, working with the youth, I can stand here and say that this is the result of decades of failed social— can I finish?

Issues that have been around a very long but not determined time but long than 6 months. 
WE KNOW

If politicians heading up north to talk with locals to try & find solutions is electioneering then her own minister is doing what up there? By her own account it must also be electioneering and he hasn't fixed the problem causing funding cycles if Rosie can be believed. He's going up their to talk, talk, talk and put reports under the carpet.

I am amazed she is so angry at governments about funding long term solutions to long term problems when its her government that she is a member of who have been responsible for nearly 5 years...and yet somehow tries to blame it on the opposition or the previous Government that left office as the Government nearly 5 years ago.

So apparently "this is the result of decades of failed social..." 
Failed social what?
If parents have no role in a child's raising, no parental guidance, structure, instilling values of right & wrong it's decades of failed social what?
Social funding? 

It may well be a result of decades of failed solutions that perhaps should not have began in the first place. 

If there are no parents, no structure, no respect for the law, no respect for traditional lore, no ability of the elders to step in & get kids back on track then changing it from 1-3 year funding cycles to unlimited money until the 12th of never is not going to help.

If there is no strong family units, parenting and raising kids well and the kids turn to US Gang culture as an outlet for belonging, worth, direction & purpose then no funding will help anyone except those wishing to be a regional bureacrat managing the funding, delievring the funding...the funding that won't help.

If a strong family unit is not a solution then just stop now.
Send a message to the elders & whoever in the community is also interested and tell them...
You have 6 months to get together & get your solutions sorted. If after 6 months you cannot agree on a suite of solutions, then the authorities will enter the region with massive Police Task Force just as they would if it were an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang in Perth and resolve this matter quickly & decisively with brand new tailor made legislation for Northern offenders just as the Government is doing with Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.

Set a date, ensure its spread throughout the region. Let their be no mistake, no surprise the hammer is coming. You want to prevent that, get it sorted yourself before someone gets killed. 
We do not have the luxury of time & long term highly funded cycles. Someone could get killed today or tomorrow. YOU CANNOT WAIT FOR THE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS. 
May already be time for Rosie to resign because being an Upper House legislator may not be her thing.
She may sadly be nearly as useless as Kyle McGinn MLC.

Hon Rosie Sahanna MLC's comments below from Hansard.

WA's Tier 3 Rail - Where it should go from here...

There's a blog write up from November 2021. It follows a long push from many over a very long time to get Tier 3 repaired & rebuilt. It also remains fact that many of these people pushing for rebuilding the Tier 3 Rail lines by pressing political parties to get on board & make this a part of their policy platform.

The WA Nationals passed a motion at the 2021 State Conference to support the rebuilding of the Tier 3 rail lines. The original motion read...

 "That this State Convention of The Nationals WA calls on the State and Federal Governments to rebuild the major Tier 3 rail lines in WA.".

I am advised it was not amended & it was passed.

So where is the Private Members Bill?
I know there's a lot going on, but you'd think someone in the grain areas might at least put their hand up & tell WA Grain growers "I will put forward a private member's bill by..."

In discussions over there years to try & get this up and running I was told in a kinda gas lighting style "Oh it's a bit more complicated than you think. A lot of nuance in it, it's not somethign we're against it's just unworkable to pursue it due to all the complexity"

Same MP years later, at last years State Conference didn't speak against it & I'm told didn't vote against it.

Now the political dance begins, well it should but right now, it very much seems it's shelved now in a deep, dark bunker, on a dusty shelf, below a back room with the custodians or those who should be pushing it in parliament hoping it will be forgotten. Or at best they only get to decide what priorities are or what plans are with each passed motion. The ether is thick with many100s of motions on policy matters passed & routinely ignored.

You pass a motion.
You refer to a few for a timeline plan
You Plan, Act, Review & where needed 'repeat cycle' and routinely report the status & progress to the lay-members so if/when needed the lay members can remove it from the list if things change. 

Instead MPs rule the roost, they decide what they act upon, what they plan upon, what they report upon. They go to annual conferences, do the token gloat & buff, sprinkle glitter on the vineer, listen to the token engagement, attend the glitzy suit & gown dinner and then...walk away not worrying about outcomes decided.

One MP also told me "Look its just about engagement, let people feel involved, it doesn't mean anything"

Why did he end up saying this? Because I was livid about a motion being changed & then lost.

It was when a good motion from a branch was amended BEFORE the Conference, presented to the Conference, the branch was never involved nor consulted & the original intent of the original motion was completely missed and thankfully the mangulated motion was lost.

It was to make push for signs on over taking lanes directing people in the left lane to slow down to 90km/h & stay in the left lane unless overtaking.
It was mangulated & not sure anyone voted for the totally new & wrong motion.

Now many fear Tier 3 has been passed as a Party Motion after years of MP opposition or indifference and now it might go into the dust of the ether.
Passed at Conference, fob off any queries where its at.
Again should be...

You pass a motion.
You refer to a few for a timeline plan
You Plan, Act, Review & where needed 'repeat cycle' and routinely report the status & progress to the lay-members so if/when needed the lay members can remove it from the list if things change. 

In organised companies boards have Action Statements are essential & standard.
A matter is decided, its date recorded, person/s are listed as the responsible people, status is recorded & updated & when completed its removed. That way people know a matter is being attended to & progress is being made & people put in the required effort. Just saying.

My concern is Labor will say "You Liberals & Nationals killed it, its your fault, you destroyed it for country people"
And yet, Labor has been in power several times since it was dismantled and as pro Tier 3 as they pretended to be, they never ever did anything to reverese and fix what they so loudly opposed.
Now they have the chance seeing Nats support it, although they don't need Nats because WA Labor has the full control of both houses of parliament. This is a simple thing, what are they waiting for.

Liberals & Nationals will have to swallow their pride & look at this as a point of ensuring the future of grain growing. Is it anti Conservative values? No not really. State Agreements are a perfect example of producing benefits to get an industry up & keeping it going.
They can do this. 
Will they do this?
A private members bill can start anytime now. Who will do it first?
Labor?
Liberal?
WA Nationals?
Non major parties?
Gotta a guess, I think a miracle is needed.

With Tier 3 here is the thing, people will argue but when it was shot in the neck, it was a Conservative Government that did it. It was the then opposition spokesperson Alannah McTiernan who loudly opposed it. I sat in a meeting with the then Minister Murray Criddle, opposition spokesperson Alannah McTiernan, 3 members of the Pastoralist & Graziers Association, 2 Union members, a husband & wife grain growers delivering to wheat bins on a Tier 3 line & myself.

That was it. That was the entire attendance of a public meeting.
The 3 PGA chaps were not well organised and rattled off wagon stats they actually didn't understand & everything they brought up was muddled up. The locally based train driver/union members sat silent execpt when asked if Unions had been consulted they said no. Whether further up the union chain had been we'll never know.
The couple sat silent & did comment about what this would do to costs & efficiencies and it was put that "you the grain growers..." will be the greatest beneficiaries. That it would lower handling costs to the CBH & therefore to growers. But again that was a completely unsupported pronouncement. Nothing was on offer to prove, back or suggest that.
Mr Criddle was among the era of when Nationals MPs who were regarded as Liberal MPs with different colours. 

Not Mr Criddle but another Nats MP who had been Agriculture Minister in the same era was asked at a public meeting "On what issue or matter would you cross the floor as a Minister in the best interests of Regional WA or your electorate?"

Paraphrasing the reply was 'I feel more change can be achieved within cabinet not leaving it and we are makign great changes within cabinet when we prosecute the case which best represent regional Western Australians, Agriculture & the entire state"

In other words, "NONE, I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE CABINET, I DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE BACK BENCH ON A LOWER SALARY WITH A MUCH LOWER EXPENSES & ALLOWANCES PACKAGE, LESS STAFF, LESS TRAVEL, LESS CHARTERED PLANE USE...I DON'T THINK CHOOSING A HILL TO DIE ON IS PERSONALLY A GOOD OPTION"

And this is the problem. We do not have a parliament where its Real Conservatives vs Wise Progressives. We have quite a number of people not really fit for office. People who are there to restructure their finances, have a lofty career to replaced the failed and/or stagnant one they were on prior to politics & some just there to get attention whilst securing a good retirement package and the possibility of having a suite of Director positions on offer after politics.

Considering some MPs I know of are already Shadow Directors/DeFacto Directors then I'd be very careful who you engage as a director if they're an ex-Politician. Most use their "links to Cabinet and sitting members" as their trump card to a board seat.

Some I would not leave in charge of a disconnected tap & before you jump to the conclusion I'm talking pure corruption...

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE LENGTH, DEPTH & WIDTH OF INCOMPETNENCE

And it will be covered with a thick vineer of bulldust, glitter, tactical replies, profoundly vague..."full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

WA Politics, The Cabinet & Opening the Borders.

 First Day Of WA Parliament, the Lower House.
They go through procedural things & the Premier sets out their aims for the year.

All that aside just look as a few of the things in the matters of Government Business - Orders of the Day.
Just look at three...

The first one pointed to above, being rammed through with no warning, no consultation & in vast contrast to the minister's own official comments not long earlier. Somehow it went from being a widely recognised "Certified Sustainable Industry" into a sunset industry with a massive financial package for workers, and virtually none for business owners, all deliverd 4 months AFTER the reckless closure was announced. 
It gets worse, we now have cabinetry business in WA who are having supply issues for wood already & the industry hasn't fully closed. Where will it come from? Unsustainable, non regulated foreign forestries. We have just exported $200+Million of industrial activity to zero & exported jobs and profits to foreign workers, foreign businesses. 

The second one pointed out above, without saying its good or bad the fact is, it will pass as the Government wants it to pass. There will be no Amendments entered into by any Labor MP unless cabinet &/or the Minister apporves lest they be expelled from the party. I am not at ease with the fac that factional leaders will fully rule what amendments can be considered or squashed. It has been a very long time coming, it was promised some years ago by the Government early in their first term. Now, years later its finally here whilst the Electoral Reform legislation was quickly passed, with little alternate views entered into with what can be regarded as either record time or very close to that...and still remains odder still when you remember the Electoral Reform legislation has been 100% fully passed, it is now law BUT it won't actually be used until the next election...AND THAT IS IN MARCH 2025
WHY WOULD A GOVT TAKE YEARS TO GET A VITAL BILL PASSED THAT AFFECTS ANIMALS, FARMERS & STAFF OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY THAT COVERS THE LARGEST SECTION OF THE WA LAND MASS...AND THEN IN A MATTER OF DAYS PASS A BILL THAT WON'T ACTUALLY BE USED FOR ANOTHER 3 YEARS. 

Get your head around that, one bill that was needed immediately YEARS AGO, was hurdled up & delayed roughly the same amount of time WA will have to wait before the Electoral Reform legislation can actually be used...and the Animal Welfare/Trepass Bill isn't even passed yet.

There are serial & vexatious activists committing civil disobedience & financially profiting from it.
I hope lengthy jail terms are handed out & criminal records stand out.

The third one pointed out above doesn't look as much as a result of the Law Reform Commission recommendations, or more likely possibly enough of them to become the vehicle for bringing in a range of other measures that can target people who by all reasonable basis are Organised Crime Members or assist those who are in the area of illegal firearms.
This legislation was introduced with no consultation with the Firearms Industry or Firearms Owners. There has been some since but I still wonder about the Firearms Prohibition Order (FPO) which can be applied to a person but the person will have extreme difficulty appealing it. Information that forms the basis of the FPO may be with held by the WAPolice on certain grounds removing the ability of the person knowing what matters are wrong & can be contested.
Gets worse. The person can be searched without warrant, so too their car, their home or any property and then there was the idea of any vehicle the FPOed person is a passenger in the property they're visiting. Also that if they enter the home of another person with legal possession of firearms the FPOed person maybe prosecuted.
Then it gets worse, a FPO can be applied to any person with a criminal history or not, whether they legally own firearms or not, whether they have a firearms licence approval pending or not. In fact, if the WAPolice deem the person is a person of interest or considered theat for reasons they may or may not defend or have to defend...that person can have a FPO placed upon them. 
The people within that scope means anyone within the state boundaries of WA can have an FPO issued against them without a proper appeals ability. 

Or I may have got this a bit wrong or its changed since last year...
I'm still waiting for the WA Opposition MPs to comment on. 
They better ramp up and fast...it's in the parliament and its on the Third Reading...so its about to be passed.
I'm very worried about all these matters, the way they're being handled, smashed through & the PEOPLE OF WA ARE HAVING VERY LITTLE INPUT INTO THEM and many of the 2nd & 3rd tier WALabor MPs may not all understand what's in front of them, they're not sharing any of it with their electorate & they know if they want to keep their salaries & benefits THEY MUST VOTE HOWEVER THEY'RE TOLD 

"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT"

Not a complex idea. It's very simple. Seriously simple.

"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT" 

How is this almost age old concept not just lost, it's opposed. And if anyone says stop, let's reserve judgement, put it through the proper process & look at this slowly first with the fuller facts they are attacked.
This is the part where I should say "I'm sorry but..." however there is no sorry from me. I'm not sorry. I'm defending the proper principles of a proper society, not a weird arse part of deranged corner of the animal kingdom.

Know the process, stick to the process and don't use emotion or side door false logic or lies to distract people to get a social conviction outside the law, due process & proper investigation.

I make no apology, "Believe the woman" or "Believe the victim" is not defence or valid logic foundation. Its a meant as a guilt heavy battle cry to drop the proper process.
That is a BIG NO. ALWAYS A BIG NO.
Its one of the main reasons I strongly oppose the #metoo/ustoo movement whilst opposing mistreatment of our fellow human beings. Destroying due process is also mistreatment of our fellow human beings & for a possibly small but definitely unknown percentage of cases it's mistreatment of some of our fellow human beings due to weaponising potentially false claims or a declaration of guilt WITHOUT the due process, without people remaining innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Beyond reasonable doubt in some claims has been replaced by unreasonable guilt which is applied to all people who do not accept the conviction in the public square.
Claims must go through the proper process & they must not be used on social media or the public to damage a person's reputation without fair trial.

In the case of some of the Parliament House behaviour that has been recently called out, if its even half true, its dispicable & must be rectified. It is however apprearing some of this is a Human Resources matter &/or a Criminal Matter. That being the case, the only thing the media should be centred on is the results of the HR inquiry or the Court Case result. 

Many claims have been sensationalised & turned into a wrongful Media Fodder item. One complaint was made within one organisation, confidentially with (we were told) the complainants disclaimer that "this is not an official complaint" 

You either make an official complaint or you don't. You do not lodge an unofficial complaint for the organisation to deal with. The very concept that a person can lodge an "unofficial complaint" that can damage or potentially end another person's career & it the complainant & the complaint will remain totally secret is at best the msuings of the niave & the plan of a complete fool...or someone who was used as a simple pawn in an internal power struggle.

It was leaked to the public/press & apparently not to the complainant's nor the accused's benefit, hopes & attempts. All went sideways for the complainant & the accused. Nothing went to court, no procedural justice was done, but reputational damage was done.

Was the complainant a liar? I don't know
Was the complaint 100% true, partly false or 100% false I don't know
Was the matter handled properly within a proper process. I'd contend no, not even close
Was the matter one that should have been referred to the criminal court & was it? I don't know but no it was not referred to the police.
Did anyone benefit from this, was anyone damaged from this? I think all were largely damaged from this, there were no winners & aside from the complainant & the alleged accused, it was shown one organisation had no proper process in place at the time & due to deplorable lack of understanding of "beyond reasonable doubt", the "right to be regarded innocent until being reasonably proven otherwise", due to the distinct lack of proper governance it was mishandled from the moment the first words of complaint were uttered. The organisation was appalling & I'm yet to determine one person (in any organisation/s) involved in this issue to be capable or equipped to have any involvement with such matters. To the point I would say, if a person suffered any sort of abuse within that organisation at any level & they confided in me, I would say go to either the police or to a trusted lawyer expereinced in the field. The organisation is intent on covering itself in glory or distancing itself from wrong doing or anyone accused (innocent or guilty), they have people within who will weaponise this against other people within and there are then those from rival organisations who will weaponise it against the accused that the organisation he/she is a member of. There are too many anti process thugs who wish to weaponise your misfortune. You have to go via the authorities & the police. 
(* See below, the issue of victims dropping it altogether & guilty potentially getting away with it)

Now here's the thing...I do not know whether it went public BEFORE or AFTER the organisation had completed it's internal investigation. My understanding is it was declared it could not establish if wrong was done or not. It appears (I don't know) that it ended up one person's word against another.

I firmly belive must of it was odd & infuriating but due to the following it was all very wrong, that it was I have never been so appalled at an organisation's niave shortfall in that...

1) An official unofficial complaint was made. THAT should never have happened

2) That the organisation at the timedecided to not say this or something similar...

"If you're not lodging an official complainant, there is nothing we can actually do. We do care, we are very concerned and we are keen to be as supportive as possible however we cannot depart from the law nor the reasonable person test within the set process. With great respect we urge you, if you feel its the thing to pursue, to lodge an official complaint. It can be kept confidential but if someone needs to be charged or needs to be dismissed it will probably go public as we cannot pursue a matter completely behind closed doors. We have to pursue the matter fully & properly. Both parties have to be treated fairly & respectfully until a decision is determined and at that point the matter may be referred to the authorities & it will have to be reported to all members of the organisation. We currently have no process or procedure for a complaint that is unofficial. Our legal advice is we cannot legally be a party to an "unofficial complaint" without potentiially breaking the law & creating exposure to potential defamation & unfair reputational damage. Legally that has dangerous legal precidents. We could be regarded by a court to being a willing party to creating defamation. We can offer all the support possible within the legal process but we cannot take accusations in private & act on them in secret outside legal process & fairness. We urge you to take legal advice & lodge an official complaint if you feel it warranted. We will support you with an official complaint but we cannot accept an "unofficial complaint". That would be unlawful for us to pursue."

Ok maybe not that long winded, but along those lines AND in writing.
The problem here was compounded by several things. A small committee or committees & some individuals steered the entire process they decided upon. They did not report this to the organisation's board until it hit the fan & hit the fan badly. Even after that happened, pursuing it via any reasonable process that resembled due process was lost.
Some people spoke publicly, some people fanned the fire & it got worse.
The complainant became named with people being split between supporting the complainant & damning the accused. Some people who didn't like the accused piled on. Some who didn't like the accused or the organisation piled on. It was a mess for all involved & sadly the mishandlers of it all got off Scott Free. I'm not sure, but amongst them may have been people with wider agendas

The complainant was used, denied proper advice, denied proper process & by some was vilified.

The accused was used, denied proper advice, denied proper process & by some was vilified.

As stated before...

"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT"

Not sure what part of that doesn't stack up but it was avoided by all and sundry & it shouldn't be the fall back position, proper due process should be the only process. 

Now if any person is assaulted, attacked, threatened or in any way treated outside the bounds of good common decency then they should be fully supported by any organisation that may be handling any possible complaint. They should not be encouraged or discouraged from laying a complaint, they must be properly, impartially & fully supported as they decide for themselves what to do.
BUT THERE MUST BE A FULL PROPER PROCESS...AND IF THERE ISN'T IT SHOULD BE HANDLED PROPERLY, SENSITIVELY, RESPECTFULLY BUT WITH PROPER FAIRNESS TO BOTH PARTIES. 

Where this court of public opinion, court of social media can and sadly probably will go wrong is one day some complainants will be charged with defamation they may not the resources to beat in court. That may mean a genuinely attacked, assaulted victim may go the Court of Public Opinion and lose a defamation case. Thats added onto of the other horror they may have already had to go through. The attack & the worst possible humiliation. 
The Court of Public Opinion must never replace the proper legal process & blind justice.

Or worse still, a person may as a jilted lover, angered ex employee, or someone with some other axe to grief can damage or destroy the innocent person they have accused.

Don't go for "Believe the Victim"
Go solely for "Believe the Tested Evidence via the correct process"

I really don't know why its that easy to get this wrong. In one prominent case, the CEO, the Board, the Chairman of the Board all got it wrong. Plus some high profile senior staff also failed by putting aside the chance of any due process. In this day & age, if an organisation gets such a very basic, widely known & understood legal process wrong, or ignores it or wilfully side steps it...
Well expect that organisation is probably going to be rotten to the core on other matters. 

If you're a member/shareholder, get out, sell your shares, do buisness deals with others, resign if you're an employee. And if you're in a business relationship with them, well think what you should do. I would tell them your concerns in brief & if you get no clear signs they're going to adhere to proper legal due process...open no new contracts or deals. Get the hell away from them.
They are an instituitional of bad process & probably wilful side steppers of the law 

In the case of this organisation I'm having trouble thinking of any company that has a worse corporate governance structure nor such an ingrained opposition to improving it.
I'll watch from afar to see what they fix or if they fall in the bin altogether. Those that were at the helm during that entire burnign dumpster fire, not all but most are still at the helm.
I won't take too much notice. They apparently have had at least 3 official complainsts since that were 'set aside' & the complainants were told "its been decided to draw a line in the sand & move forward"
I was told the complainants were not told who decided to disimiss their complaints without inquiry or any report to the board. 

* Then the matter of what about a victim who cannot report it, cannot go public. I do not know what to say. This is not a new thing, this will never be ok. But justice must be blind, it must be applied equally to all & all parties MUST be be given the benefit of the doubt & no justice can be served without proper process of inquiry without fear nor favour. This sadly means, sometimes bad people get away with it.
But we cannot open the door to false claims either.
This proper process doesn't just go back to the origins of Western Judiciary, it goes back to Biblical examples that the modern judiciary is modelled on.

We all have no real choice. Full proper due & fair process. No exceptions. Ever.
"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT"