Firearms Reform Coming Based on the Law Reform Commission Review

Firearms Owners are facing 2 sets of reforms.

One that is currently in the WA Legislative Council that are nearly passed. Yes the one that came out of nowhere and was put together by the Minister, Senior Bureaucrats and possibly one law firm. All behind closed doors, no stakeholder invovlement or consultation. No outside consultation at all.
You can find more detail here - Progress of Bills (parliament.wa.gov.au) 

The other that has now been mentioned coming sometime in the next 12 months & is based on the WA Law Reform Commission's report titled "REVIEW OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA) PROJECT 105 FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 2016"

There's a lot of talk about the timing & what the sudden motivation really is. Good chance there's a good deal of ideology behind it & a good chance the current political landscape pushing it.

That aside, some of the recommendations are overdue. Some of the things within the report have been pushed by firearms owners, the firearms industry & other stakeholders...for years. 

You can find the report paper here... LRC-Project-105-Final-Report.pdf (www.wa.gov.au)

Yes it's 185 pages, yes it has 143 recommendations and yes, if you ignore it you're more likely to not end up where you'd like it to be. Lawful Firearms Owners will have to lodge submissions in the coming reforms. It isn't as difficult as you think. If you're unsure, jot down things you'd like changed and improved & then go through the recommendations and add what you think. Worried it'll take days and days? Its better if it does, better to chip away & have it set out before they call for submissions.

If you're a lawful firearms owner, a recreational hunter, competative sport shooter, pest controller, work in primary production with livestock you probably need to get onto this & invest in your future, your sport & your culture.

Yes, hunting, sport shooting is part of many people's long held family culture.

Will it be a big set of reforms? Probably yes. Reason being there was a lot of flak when the first reform came out of the blue November 2021 & hit the table of the Legislative Assembly with little or no warning. Unconfirmed but widely thought that most Labor MPs were not informed about the reforms & that most of Cabinet didn't now until it was publicly announced.

No this is not the first time. When the WA Government announced it was going to close School of the Air, no stakeholders were warned or consulted prior. Not staff, parents & guardians and scarily, not even the Members of Parliament from those affected areas within their own party. It was highly embarassing & blew everyone away.

Its likely that the Law & Order problems in Northbridge, Pilbara/Kimberley & elsewhere will see the embattled Police Minister ramp the urgency on promoting their actions for "Community Safety"
Lawful firearms owners are probably going to be victims of other people's political woes. They will probably be keen to stir the pot, get LAFOs stirred up, roused up, angered & fuming and hope there will be a Protest March, protestors hopefully clashing with Police. It will sell the reforms being harder that need be & play into the over reach that will release political pressure on the Cabinet.

So cool heads are required. Proper approach is the only pathway. We need good submissions to the Parliamentary Committee that will be coming & we need them to be plentiful. We need to support any reasonable reforms that make things safer for the community and make it far too risky for the criminals. I was told it's too much, too harsh to give a criminal using a gun in a crime 15-20 years just for criminal use of the firearm and/or 15-20 years for possessing an illegal firearm. I was told that possession of illegal firearms being 10-20 years jail PER ILLEGAL FIREARM was too harsh. Well either gun crime is serious or it isn't...I know many firearms owners who have never committed gun crime and have never used any firearm as a weapon. I haven't spoke to all of them but I don't think any of them will oppose massive penalties, potentially the biggest in Australia for criminals & having no effect on the legal firearm owners except perhaps lessening the chances of gun theft to some degree.

Stay tuned, more will unfold, stay calm, keep talking & helping others.

Firearms Reforms in the WA Upper House (March 2022)

This is the short commentary on what is before the Upper House right now.

There are 2 seperate reforms.
One in the next year or so (based on the Law Reform Commission from 2014-2016 - 114 recommendations- Strangely this wasn't mentioned before but now is...suddenly) 

The other is before the Legislative Council (Upper House) now.
Its already passed the Legisaltive Assembly (Lower House).
It's up to the 2nd reading.
It isn't far off becoming law.
To read more on it, go to the link & scroll down to the bottom of Page 938.

Click Here ->    C41 S1 20220316 All.pdf (parliament.wa.gov.au)

 Below is the very small look & Labor's Hon. Stephen Dawson made some pivotal comments & said the bill contains four key reforms. Again his comments in the Legislative Council are in (black) & some views about them after (red)

REFORM # 1
"The bill contains four key reforms. The first reform introduces a firearms prohibition order scheme into the Firearms Act 1973. Under these amendments, police will be able to make an FPO against anyone who, if in possession of a firearm or related item, would likely result in undue danger to life or property; or if the person is not a fit and proper person to possess a firearm; or it is in the public interest for an FPO to be made against the person."

So this Fire Prohibition Order (FPO) put the wind up many people as it looked like Police could take out a FPO on a person, any person at all that they deemed suitable for whatever reason, firearm related or not. So as perform to search them, their vehicle, their property without a warrant at any time of the day or night. Anyone. No consultation & poorly explained...no wonder lawful people had the wind up. Should have brought people along all the way.
Well the government has no choice now,  they will have to come good, and deliver on the claim that it would have "no effect upon lawful owners"

Seems like the criteria applied a FPO is...

• "anyone who, if in possession of a firearm or related item, would likely result in undue danger to life or property"
  
  
•  "or if the person is not a fit and proper person to possess a firearm"
  
  
•   "or it is in the public interest for an FPO to be made against the person."

We have to wait, in good faith, to see what appeals process is in place for people wrongly assigned a FPO. Also what disciplinary action might be directed at Police for wrongly or maliciously applying a wrongful FPO. And also, can an FPO be applied to a person who does not possess legal or illegal firearms. It raises many questions if that's possible. It will be a "Search Anythime Without A Warrant 24/7 For 10 Years Order"


REFORM #2 
"The second reform is new, and refers to illegal manufacturing, participating—termed “take part in”—in unlawful firearms activity and firearms technology offences. The amendments will keep up with technological advances by making it illegal to possess or use “firearms technology” to manufacture plastic 3D firearms. The use of this technology has been on the rise in the United States of America, and can produce firearms capable of firing live bullets and which are difficult to detect through traditional metal detectors and scanning equipment. Although there have so far been very few detections in Western Australia, the McGowan government is seeking to get ahead of this trend."

Who would disagree with this?
If you make it with hand tools that came out with the first fleet or from the latest Metal 3D printer...who cares, they're illegal. 
Mind you if someone were to fire a 3D polymer gun with current technology they're likely to have serious surgery from the first shot or possible one very soon after the first shot. That surgery will be before their court appearance. You can't prevent stupid, but you can jail criminal idiots.

REFORM #3 
"The third key reform is a suite of increased penalties for firearms-related theft offences under the Criminal Code and the offences targeting drive-by shootings or discharging a firearm at a house or other building under the Firearms Act."

Theft, increased penalties? 100% agree. The bill suggests breaches of the FPO will result (depending on the offence) in jail for 1 to 14 years. So in regards theft, how about upending the supply and demand equation. 

Perhaps 15-25 years jail minimum PER FIREARM?
THAT IS, EACH CONVICTION SERVED CONSECUTIVELY, that is, serve one sentence, then serve the next. Get the minimum of 15 years but it was 3 firearms, serve 45 years.

I mean serious criminals & dangerous people with illegal guns, intent of committing gun crime or supplying someone intent of committing a gun crime, it is a serious matter isn't it?
Imagine if Martin Bryant came to buy those 3 illegal guns he had (he had no gun licence so they were all illegal once he owned them). Imagine if you realised 3 illegal guns is 45 years in jail, how many people would sell him the guns? How manly people would wonder is this a police sting? Would anyone wonder "Will this dimwitted person break the law, get caught & dob me in?" or just make the sale?

I see no problem having the strongest illegal gun penalties on the planet. 

I see no problem the jail terms being 2 or three times that of the closest other jurisdication.

I see no problem with that if those sentences were on top of any crime committed with those guns.

I see no problem on such a monsterous penalty that has no effect at all on anyone who is a lawful firearms owner except perhaps reduce the chances of their firearms being stolen.

It won't stop some.
Some people are deterred from importing/exporting drugs in some Asian countries with a death penalty. But many would be put off & convicted offenders do not reoffend.
A dangerous criminal banged up for 15 to 20 is causing no gun crime in the community. That is a great way of improving community safety.
 
Mind you penalties rarely deter people, the likelihood of getting caught does. With each conviction, the likeihood will increase in the minds of most criminals. If a large percentage can be deterred & some bad criminals go to jail, that's a good result.

Regarding the firing, discharging of a firearm at a building. Well throw that up to a ridiclous level too. If you do a drive by shooting & are convicted I have no problem with our taxes keeping you behind bars for 20-30 years. If someone is injured & killed, add those seperate charges with penalties to run consecutively. (That is one jail term is served, then the next and so on. Some ends up with several jail terms from a drive by, serve the complete total of time)


REFORM #4 
"The final reform is to legislate a permanent firearms amnesty." 

Well that's great. Firearms industry, stakeholders, lawful shooters have been pushing for this for...well decades. If any amnesty was announced it always had a cut off date presumably to add some hoped for urgency to get anything handed in on time. Not sure but I think most police were happy to recieve a firearm in good faith between amnesties without penalty & the only exception might be if it was reasonably thought to have been used in a crime. That was fair.

Again the main thing to remember are the 4 reforms in the Bill before the Legislative Council are above. The third reading is coming. It didn't come this week. More will be fleshed out. WALabor control both houses. So they can even snip back debate time & they have the numbers to prevent any committess & oppose any & all amendments if they want.
We wait in good faith.

BUT OVERALL, REMEMBER THAT THE POLICE MINISTER HAS SAID THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON LAWFUL FIREARMS OWNERS.

WE HAVE TO TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD UNTIL WE SEE MORE.

FOR NOW, HOLD TIGHT, TALK TO YOU LOCAL FIREARMS DEALER/SHOP.

KEEP BUYING WHAT YOU NORMALLY BUY. TRY TO BUY LOCALLY OR AT LEAST IN WA.

STAY COOL, CALM & COLLECTED.

TALK TO YOUR LOCAL MP & LET THEM KNOW YOUR DISPLEASURE & GET THEIR ASSURANCE THAT THEY SUPPORT THE MINISTER'S CLAIM THAT LAWFUL FIREARM'S OWNERS WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED. 

WHILE YOU'RE AT IT & FIRED UP, NOW MORE THAN EVER TRY TO GET OTHERS INTO RECREATIONAL HUNTING OR COMPEITION SHOOTING. BUILD THE CULTURE.

ARE YOU SERIOUS ABOUT ILLEGAL GUNS OR NOT?

Its a very simple question. I have not met a lawful firearms owner who isn't happy to see people with illegal guns be targeted. Targeting legal gun owners to reduce gun crime & increase community safety is like banning only non drinkers or anyone under the legal limit from driving so as to reduce the drink driving fatalities.

Here's the very simple answer. I'm serious about illegal guns, I support it.

Political Parties, Bullying & Reprehensible Behaviour

Yes Anthony Albonese is copping an absolute schlacking for his hypocrisy. On the radio they played his indignation out loud on the Christian Porter allegations & demanded an immediate inquiry. He pulled no punches.

On the "mean girls" its silence. No wonder there's a rise of COVID chatter from WALabor today & raising the Firearms Reform which has been on the back burner since 2014-15.

But it also reminds me that most people won't know, political parties can be great places to work together & try to fix things but the Machivellean tactics are well entrenched. There are men & women both bullying men & women. That's just within the political organisations. There are also some very poor humans in Parliament treating innocent people in the most dispicable manner. 

I have personally seen individuals weaponise falsehoods against people within their own party. I have seen false accusations made on the whisper forum to "background" (I think that's the term they use) opponents or people they want out of the way. Reputational damage, gossip.

I have been a member of 2 different parties in my adult life. One was my idea of a one off donation. The other I joined and worked hard for. Yes I got targeted, was accused of refusing to put one person on our branch's E-Newsletter list. The person told another member who rang me within minutes. I pointed out I've never spoken to them on the phone, never. Never been emailed by them & never asked. It was a lie.
I pointed out I wouldn't refuse them, I would tell them its for the branch so the branch would have to approve. The person was not a member of my branch & I was an office bearer. I said to the kind person who informed me of the liar to perhaps pursue it, bring it up or tell the liar to bring it up at State Council, I'll answer it fully & honestly. We both decided it was best to ignore it & never trust that person, never talk one on one with that person without a reliable 3rd party present.

Another privately told another I was aggressive & also said I ringing them at 4am & verbally abusing them. The person who told me was this legit & I said no. Never rang them, never been rung by them excpet when they rang using a MPs phone number, otherwise I would not have picked up. It was to visit & talk re the committee they were chairing. I said thank you, I wasn't able to due to other matters being a priority, thanked them for the call & signed off. 
Abuse is BS let alone 4am abuse.
Confused they went back to the person & hit them up about the claim. That "claimant" said they should never have said 'any of that yesterday'
I said to the kind person who told me of the false comments, "Don't ever let that person talk to me alone, if they're walking towards me, get there quick. I'll be sure to avoid them & never talk to them without a trusted, reliable 3rd party present."

Fun fact, those two liars...good friends and apparently in the fold some called the Purple Circle, the Control Crew & others said they were on the fringe of the Control Crew, they were actually Job Seekers & were keen to assist the Machivelleans to hopefully secure a job. Both did.
No one should ever be allowed to join a party & then work for the party. 
This is what happens. People play games to get prizes they don't deserve or are outside the rules.

I will never join a political party unless I know for sure the party is sensible, reasonable & professional.

Same party had 2 complaint laid against one senior persons of note. All dropped & never referred to the leading unit of management. Complainant was told "time to rule a line under it, time to move on"

Another complaint was laid against another person, same deal...move on. 

One of the people being complained about then publicly claimed they were a victim of vile behaviour & their complaint was never properly addressed. Hardly unlikely when there is a process and senior members, themselves one of them, are able to break the rulesm intervene & stop the process.

"Siri, show me irony"

One senior party person ends up with 2 official & one official complaint laid against them, (maybe there's more, who knows?) all never attended to. Then publicly says they laid complaints and it was never properly attended to.
Then the if the bizarre-meter couldn't go up any higher it turns out that senior party member never actually laid any complaint at all. Was sbject to 2 complaints that were incorrectly hidden & dropped but never laid the complaint they claimed they did.

When it comes to Whoppers, Hungry Jacks has nothing on those Machivellean types who are so deeply adverse to proper governance & standards of decency.

So there are 4 complaints I know of, 3 official, one unofficial and none have ever been attended to nor reported to the party's ruling body. 

So yeah, I am not surprised that over in the Federal Labor Party things are shonky and on the nose now they're all out in the open.

Albo should go under the bus.
The "mean girls" should be investigated & if proven to be correct, they should go under the bus.
Its the Federal Party, WALabor has federal members. The WALabor State President or Supreme Leader or whatever they're called...they should not be silent. They should be calling for an inquiry like Albo called the Liberals to do.

But they're not alone.

I have seen both men & women weaponise falsehoods to smash people out of the various parties.

And these are the people hoping to form government to draft legislation.

We're stuffed. 

Theory in progress -> Global Threat Post Greta Thunberg - No Actual Real Threats...

This won't trigger anyone because because the likely-to-be-triggered mob won't read this anyway & either way, doesn't matter. Know some folk that are so pro Greta Thunberg whilst I'm considered a bit difficult for having the view "Yeah but she was just a child, now she's an adult & she gets the microphone because of some weird celebrity ranking she earned for being an awkward but passionate activist in things she didn't really seem to understand & certainly wasn't trained in. She's really a child actor & activist"

Honestly, its time to ignore her for a bit whilst hopefully she either spends much of her time picking up rubbish, running or working in a small business or goes possibly gets trained properly in a field and adds something to society of tangible benefit beyond being a rousing indignant of the woke talk circuit. I think think she's filled & completed that purpose.

OK lessening polution is a big thing & we should all do it but we should be banning certain types of plastics & returning to textiles and products made from wool, cotton, hemp, wood, bamboo & use more cardboard & paper. When thrown out, they degrade. Completely. Unlike plastics that often turn into micro plastics and will be a huge problem.

People should be dumping all clothes made of man made materials & head back to wool, hemp, cotton, leather etc.

They should also make using wood a big priority. Trees do lock up carbon, but it's in the first 2/3rds of the life of most tree species where carbon is sequestered. Making furniture from trees is using carbon & storing it. Burning fossil fuels to process chemical plastics that cause problems or that have specifically engineered life spans...so that they're replaced by replacement products is crazy compared to having tables & chairs made of wood and lasting life times.
We should return to a vital & sustainable forestry industry. 
We keep being told we shouldn't chop down trees...well the people who are pushing that are also the people who will be responsible for pushing more products replaced with plastics. As bad as that is, it forgets the by product waste.

But even beyond that & the odd anti fossil fuel debate there's other oddities. Those that loudly want us to stop, what are they doing & why don't they do more, now...and lead the way.
Don't use hair dryers, air conditioners, grow their own food, reuse everything, don't use public or private transport...

But even bigger than that...population. BUT UP FRONT - never ever judge anyone who is without kids or a partner. It maybe their choice, it maybe their lot in life. Some have already chosen it to further a career, put family on hold or just for their own reasons not actually want kids. I don't care whether someone has kids or not...I care they have their choice & its works for them and that they don't have to explain it to anyone...just as the family with 12 kids should never have to explain it. TO ANYONE.

The biggest thing our politicians are not planning for is population decline. 
We're seeing it now, jobs are needing to be filled & over seas workers, 457 visa holders, back packers...they're vital to our economy.
Central Afican countries quite the opposite. Many of those countries have around 8 children per family.
We on the other hand are in decline. You need, as the averaging stat says "2.5 children per couple to replace the parents in a population" 
No you cannot make a "0.5", its the stat number that factors in inability to have kids or just doesn't have kids for whatever reason.

At present 3-4 kids is a big family in Australia and many of us are amazed at families that have 6 or more. Many have 2 or less.
So all people get old, even the ones bor this week. They will be in the old generation relying on the young generation to put the shoulder to the wheel, carry the load, do the heavy lifting or whatever metaphor 'floats your boat'

But as the young generation lessens in numbers, we're at risk. Not just militarily or whatever bigger scarier reason, but food security, product development, working, business owners...the lot.

China's military aged males are lessening in number. Many western nations are not increasing their population much once you remove immigration & dual citizens.

Some radical fruit cakes, and I'm using that term very lightly because they're probably a lot worse than garden variety fruit cakes, want the world's population reduced. Good luck with getting a valid moral reason to support that preposterous and grotesque idea because some of them lean towards forced sterilisation & might have genocide lurkign just below their vile surface.

Its happening already & the much feared Peak Population might have been reached or at least isn't far away. When the number descend, they will descend rather quickly & if you think about it, recovery will takes years.

If the population falls drastically, it will be harder to produce food, transport food, staff hospitals & all the essential services many not only rely on, they cannot survive well without. 
There are some tough times ahead.

Politicians are more interested in correct pronouns for now or winning a point on the four & a bit day news cycle. We have a political class dominated by theatre props & vaccuous shape shifting changlings who sniff which way the wind is blowing & have very questionable life standards outside work. Not all, certainly not all, but many are not pro family or pro individual rights in fact they live to build new innovative forms of over reach and clever ways to not explain what they do.

Peak Population is not a huge thing we need to fear, that it somehow heralds the population won't fall but will stay as some constant unsustainable groaning weight that will kill the planet.
The planet will be fine. It was here before we got here & whilst there's plenty of unnecessary mess being made, it will outlive all of us.

In the meantime, not fearing what will happen when Population Decline starts to kick in means no one is going to plan until its a bit too late.

Imagine if those in food production, food transport and all the industries that supply fuel, new equipment, spare parts, processing had their number decreased by 30%
Imagine the same happens to the construction industry, health sector, education, labourers, roadbuilders, pilots, feight networks all suffered a staff reduction of 10-30%...permanently & gradually there are less people to replace them.

Its a big issue & the simple answer is, encourage people to have kids. At least 3 & hopefully more.

The dystophia coming isn't a horrid zombie wasteland full of murderous bandits.
It will be one where electricity will be extremely expensive no matter what produces it, freight will be exceedingly high and you will have to go without an awful lot if staff are involved in making it, distributing it, maintaining it. Some countries will try to ramp up their immigration and some other  countries may support immigration to their country but ban anyone emigrating to another.

And the politcal class is more concerned with what ever is today's urgent message that might change the wind direction. When some of them wake up, it will be too late & they might sadly think their only hope is very agressive authoratarian rule. Like we saw from early China & the USSR...perhaps even worse.
Planning should begin before you get to the cross roads.

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

Late Edit. - I finished this, hit publish then googled "Peak Population"
Some are among those who think population will rise forever until we run out of resources & either die off and/or starting killing each other. A depressing set of notions

Then there's others...
Peak Population - The Decline is Near

 

Overview of the New Firearms Laws.

From the helicopter view this set of reforms was very disappointed despite the good intentions of some of its proponents. It wasn't until WA's Attorney General John Quigley MLA slipped up in Parliament last year during the OMG Insignia bill that we learned that the Minister for Police Paul Papalia MLA & Senior Police were working on new & very tough firearms reforms & the inference was to give Police more tools, better tools to deal with Criminal Gangs. Mr Papalia's face lit large with shock and on the Handsard video you can clearly hear him say to Mr Quigley "don't tell them that". This was a bill that had been worked on solidly behind closed doors with no hints nor requests to the Firearms Industry, Gun manufacturers, repairers, retailers, competitive shooters, farmers, pastoralists or collectors for input or consultation.

Indeed consultation is arguably often sought after the a Bill is already finalised & we're all keen to see when the Minister for Police began engineering this legislation & when members of learned of it. There were comments this week in Parliament about Bills being presented to Parliament without all members of Cabinet even knowing of those Bills until they hit the Lower House chamber. Until we learn what, where, who, when & why, we won't know if there are incompetent Cabinet Ministers who don't read their Cabinet papers OR if they whole cabinet is only for show & legislation is actually controlled & built by a small band of very senior ministers operating without their Cabinet colleagues. The idea of pretend ministers & a smaller control crew is deeply disturbing but hopefully that will be brought out into the open in good time.

In the menatime the Firearms Reforms are seemingly to control, curtail and jail members of Criminal Gangs, organised crime gangs, Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. Some of the legislation however has blanket bombing traits & does wrongly capture law abiding firearms owners. This is a test point.

If legislation is to be reasonable, required & proportionate then it must target those who its meant to target and cause no (or the least possible) ill effect to those who are law abiding, legal firearms owners.

Now this has already been smashed through the Parliament nearly as quick as the Electoral Reform legislation. Meanwhile the promised legislation that was a signalled priority of the Attorney General, the better protection against elder abuse is still 5+ years behind. If you can find that Bill good on you...but at present these Firearms reforms have passed the Legislative Assembly and have already been through the first & second reading in the Legislative Council.

Its nearly through & whilst it might go well in the future for the Lawful Owners, the potential for unreasonable over reach is there. And some is seriously concerning.
It might not be this government that abuses these extra powers, but the potential will be there.

This (below) is just one page of Hansard. One page. I've arrow marked it with numbers to go through each paragraph seperately. (Page 56 from Hansard Wednesday, 16th of March 2022)

Arrow 1 - activities in place of adults who have been issued with an FPO. Further, in order to give effect to corresponding laws, it is necessary that FPOs issued in Western Australia can also apply to juveniles in Western Australia. Western Australia’s new FPO scheme will be similar to schemes in other Australian jurisdictions. As five Australian jurisdictions have legislated corresponding firearms prohibition order schemes, the bill will also introduce provisions to enable FPOs issued in other states to be enforced in WA. Once enacted, WA will seek similar corresponding recognition of our scheme. Although the new FPO scheme is necessarily strong, appropriate safeguards are included in the bill. 

This concerns me (at least) that these laws can be applied to juveniles. I'm unsure of any statistics that outline the use of possession of illegal firearms by juveniles. I assume they're thinking that juveniles will be recruited to hold guns in case of a search. Who knows? Its not clear. One concerning angle unmentioned here is the item passed at the WALabor State Conference to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years of age. I don't think there is a Bill being put together on that, but past record says we might not know until it hits the floor of the Lower House. I don't mind that an FPO can cross state borders but only if the person subject to the FPO is a member or associate of an Organised Crime Gang. Yeah, that's the scratch test that has to be uniformly applied.
In any case, a juvenile, a child can be subject to an FPO whilst Labor is favour of raising the age of criminal responsibility of juveniles to (at this stage) 14 years of age.
I do hope there are a panel of senior judges signing off on any FPO taken out on a child.

Arrow 2 - Although the new FPO scheme is necessarily strong, appropriate safeguards are included in the bill. Clause 35 of the bill will provide that the decision of the Commissioner of Police, or their delegate who must be of the rank of commander or above, to make an FPO will be subject to review by the State Administrative Tribunal. An FPO decision as affirmed or varied by the SAT, or one that is substituted, may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Importantly, the bill will also provide that, in order to protect sensitive police information, the Commissioner of Police will be provided the opportunity to withdraw any confidential information from proceedings.

So Commander or above sign off on FPOs. It is subject to review (no timeline set) by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). No judge is involved in signing off on this. Police have full control on who they deem needs an FPO, they apply it, they approve their decision but the SAT will at some undetermined stage will review their decision. BUT...Police also get to decide if they need to protect the information that THEY decide what information that underlies the need for an individual getting an FPO is too sensitive & they can withdraw it.
If you're going down the path of Police being the issuer of an FPO & the controller and gatekeeper of all evidence to support the criminal mechanism being applied to a citizen or indeed a juvenile, well we're beginning to wander towards Star Chamber territory. 
If a person is wrongfully issued with a FPO, they can appeal it but they may not get any evidence for it to look at & potentially disprove. 
Nor is there any hint of what happens in the case of a wilfully wrong or vexatious issuing of a FPO, who is liable for wrongful issue, damages caused by the wrongfull issue of an FPO or would anyone lose their job for wrongfully issuing an FPO on an innocent child. 
A very concerning vaccum and this blanket bombs innocent people & that has no net benefit against organised crime.
It must target organised crime players.

Arrow 3 -  I turn now to the second key reform in this bill—the illegal manufacturing and firearms technology offences. Clause 43 of the bill inserts new offences so that a person who unlawfully manufactures, repairs or deals—“firearms activity”— a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition, commits a crime. It is currently an offence under the Firearms Act for a person to repair or manufacture a firearm or handgun. However, the new offences will provide stricter penalties for illegal manufacturing and repair, and expand the offence to dealing in firearms.

There are already penalties for these matters but if they need strengthening I am fine with that. I'm not fine though with this in that it says "manufactures, repairs or deals" which will be in addition to possesses. Well I am ok with it but the thing is "major firearms part" is being extended. An empty rifle stock will become a major firearms part & to possess it a law abiding owner will have to apply to the Police Commissioner for permission to possess it. So anyone who bought a rifle with a cheap plastic stock, didn't like it and then ordered a replacement stock with better features like full aluminium bedding, free floating barrel, better ergonomics (safer) adjustable cheek riser, drop box magazine capability, adjustable length of pull, fitted rail to better mount a scope or optic...well you could be in danger of breaking the law if you're keeping the old stock for if/when you sell the rifle. If you have short action rifles & have no licence for long action calibres but have a long action stock, then you might fail a genuine need if it becomes a Major Firearms Part...but it still makes no sense.
At present if you have a ex-military rifle & you have a spare stock for it, you need permission for that stock. If you have a rendered firearm, a gun that cannot fire and cannot be made to fire then the stock on it will not be considered a Major Firearms Part. So if anyone has an old .303 or a Mauser or Mosin Nagant, easiest way to not get in trouble is to buy an identical rifle that is rendered. You won't need a licence for it, anyone can buy one, 100% legal. You have your spare stock that can easily be swapped over. No permission required. By the way, swapping a stock over is very simple. In many rifles there are 2 to 3 screws involved. It does not need a gunsmith. Even if a person "repairs" a stock & is prosecuted, it doesn't affect organised crime.
It does not make sense, it grossly affects the lawful owner with a back up stock & it does not target Organised Crime.

Arrow 4 - The bill will also insert a new offence for a person who participates, or “takes part”, in the unlawful firearms activity. A person will be deemed to have participated in any of these offences if the person takes, or participates in, a step, or causes a step to be taken in the firearms activity; provides or arranges finance for a step in the firearms activity; provides the place in which a step in the firearms activity is taken, or allows a step in the firearms activity to be taken at a place of which the person is an owner, lessee or occupier, or of which the person has care, control or management; or is in possession of, provides or supplies a firearms precursor for a step in the manufacture or repair of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition

I'm nearly ok with this except its the intent that forms the basis of law. And governing the proof of intent is a "reasonable person's test". This is a waste of time for the courts if they have to be locked up spend a grossly excessive amount of time trying to prove each person's intent down to a minor role in the production of illegal firearms. Financing them? Yes that's good, but good luck proving that because if the guns are illegal I'm fairly sure there will be either cash or drugs or both involved and they will not appear on a ledger. Much easier, if you're a Organised Crime member or associate & caught in possession of an illegal firearm whether its stolen, manufactured or smuggled in from overseas...14 years jail per firearm, no parole. Second offence, double the penalty per firearm. had this been the case I don't think we would have seen Claremont Firearms be broken into, nor Barry's Firearms where the elderly owner was bashed. If they took only 5 firearms those criminals are effectively not leaving jail before their elderly years. If illegal guns in the hands of criminals was at all serious...that's a very desirable result for WA and...AND it doesn't affect the Lawful Firearms Owners at all...only the Organised Crime members & Associates. Just pointing to the porper scratch test again.

Arrow 5 - The new firearms activity offences will not be contingent on whether the firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition is actually manufactured into a functioning firearm. These offences will ensure that any person who has contributed to the production of an illegal firearm will be guilty of a crime, and reflect outcomes supported nationally by the former Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management to address the illegal manufacture of firearms. These offences are intended to capture anyone involved in the process of manufacturing firearms, from the people involved in financing to providing premises, equipment and materials. The penalty for these offences will be 14 years’ imprisonment. This is in line with the penalty provisions for the illegal manufacturing offences in New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. The general defences in the Criminal Code will apply to these offences.

Again, a person who makes a wooden rifle stock or is a part of that process, or finances it or provides a building, equipment or materials can go to jail for 14 years. It doesn't say they are knowingly doing that for Organised Crime Gangs, their members or associates.
Again, you can diminish the demand in the supply/demand equation by targeting those people trying to manufacture an illegal firearm, whether they're Organised Crime, their members or associates by simply implementing a new set of harsh penalties as I mentioned in response to Arrow 4, that is "14 years jail per firearm, no parole. Second offence, double the penalty per firearm." 
Thinking 14 years is a stiff deterrant & if not, go to jail for 14 years...PER FIREARM.
But if it applies to someone making a wooden rifle stock because they're now suddenly be a major firearms part...Scratch test, that does not impact on solely Organised Crime Gangs.

Arrow 6 - The bill will also insert new offences relating to the unauthorised possession, unauthorised creation or development, and unauthorised dissemination of firearms technology. These offences are aimed at preventing the increasing development of firearms through technologies such as 3D printing. 
No problem here, except there's no real need right now because 3D printing aren't making good, safe, reliable firearms yet, but it won't be long. I have no problem with this but again..."14 years jail per firearm, no parole. Second offence, double the penalty per firearm." 
The reason I would ignore this and let this section pass is finally we have a matter that applies to Organised Crime Gangs, their members or associates...or a complete idiot who is probably going to make a firearm that will explode & seriously injure them...if they're not killed.
No legal, lawful firearms owner will think its in anyway a good idea to go what they know full well is well outside the law right now & they knew that from the very first day that they heard people overseas were trying to build guns with a 3D Printer. If anyone, Organised Crime related or not tries to 3D print gun parts, good riddance to them if they're caught.

Arrow 7 - “Firearms technology” is defined in the bill to include a thing that is programmed, configured or otherwise enabled to carry out a step in the manufacture or repair of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition, or to change an object into a component of one of those items. A “thing” is a reference to any machinery, equipment, object or device such as a 3D printer, moulding device, milling device, remote-controlled device such as a drone, electronic firing mechanism, railgun technology or any other prescribed thing; any type of digital or electronic reproduction of a technical drawing of the design of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition, including hard copies; or a plan, drawing, instruction, template or computer program, in digital or electronic form, for the manufacture or repair of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition, including hard copies. The penalty for these offences will be imprisonment for 10 years, with the summary conviction penalty being imprisonment for three years. There will be a number of exceptions to these offences, including if the conduct engaged in by the person is necessary in conducting scientific, medical, educational, military or law enforcement research that has been approved in writing by the Commissioner of Police. These offences are similar to those enacted in New South Wales.

This is good & bad. And by bad I mean sloppy & lazy thinking. For making illegal guns, yes I support it 100% but otherwise it is daft. It will include all components that currently are not, sensibly are not major firearms parts but the Govt wants to include. If they're for parts that are currently legal then it should not apply. If you own a Tekmat cleaning mat you could be up for 10 years imprisonment. Many shooters have these oil soaking mats when cleaning & mainataining their firearms. It has an exploded view of their firearm. If you're cleaning or maintaining your firearm, changing trigger springs, or in the case of a Mosin Nagant polishing the sear, a gunmith is not required but the plans probably will be.
If by "prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition" they mean for one you're not licenced to have then that's almost a pass as that would not affect competive shooter in Metallic Silouette or Combined Services events who shoots a 1911 & has a Tekmat with 1911 schematics on it. It doesn't affect lawful owners. Not sure it affect Organised Crime but this legislation did lack consultation so...

Arrow 8 - In order to investigate these technology-based offences, clause 47 of the bill will provide police with the power to access electronic devices. If police suspect on reasonable grounds that a person is in possession of firearms technology—for example, electronic plans stored on a computer—police may direct that person to provide a password, device or other information to enable access to the firearms technology. The penalty for failing to comply with this direction without a lawful excuse will be 10 years’ imprisonment, and the summary conviction penalty will be three years’ imprisonment.
If this person is a proven member of an Organised Crime Gang, or an associate or it is is suspected they are involved with producing illegal firearms then yes I guess you do have to search computers etc. However, having schematics or plans is every bit as dangerous as a person who is competnent at machining & is wanting to make a firearm. Remember the most favoured firearm of Organised Crime Gangs, their associates & other serious offenders are handguns & shotguns. The latter are more often sawn off as concealibility its a high priority. They are pretty unlikely to carry something with a 26" barrel and a fixed butt stock. These usual crime guns are either smuggled in, stolen or manufactured. In the case of the latter...you do not need rifling in a barrel even though it's probably very easy for any machinist to do. If they're at close quarters as you'd expect most serious criminals to be, there's no rifling in a shotgun, a peice of pipe can be used. Even a make shift back yard version of a Sten Gun would not need rifling & for most machinists, schematics probably aren't that essential.
In any case, mere possession of schematics is now an offence whereas today any historial stories & documents on the Sten Gun or Australian "Austen" sub machine gun from WW2 may be regarded as a serious criminal offence. Quite a few WW2 buffs will be wise to go through their library collections and destroy some books...especially if they're a legal firearms owner.
I think its odd that if someone has an FPO or is suspected of involvement in or with an Organised Crime Gang and/or manufacture of illegal guns is not on the radar, subject to an investiagation and that a proper warrant cannot be sought & approved. I can only assume this applies solely to those with an FPO against them. 
If its possible for Police to lawfully enter any person's home & then decide they have reasonable grounds to suspect there are firearms schematics on a person's computer & then request a password to search it...without a warrant I'd be very concerned about the sharp dangerous turn law enforcement is turning. Its more about enforcement and less about law.
Again if it can be shown that this is to give Police extra tools to specifically target Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs and Organised Crime as Mr Quigley said in Parliament I'm fine with that. But not if anyone at all can be easily a subject of over reach...even if they have no connection with firearms at all.

Arrow 9 -  The third key reform advanced by this bill is to increase penalties in the Criminal Code and Firearms Act for the offences of stealing a firearm, being in possession of a stolen or unlawfully obtained firearm, and discharging a firearm in danger or in a manner to cause fear to the public or an individual. The former amendments respond to a number of incidents
And really this was all that was required. It would then target criminals and those who decide to lawfully break the law. There may be some lawful firearms owners who are also criminals. By all means target anyone with illegal guns whether they're stolen, smuggled in or made in the back yard or "a mate's workshop"
If someone is in possession of an illegal firearm or is in the process of making one, they're already breaking the law. Make it not 14 years in jail, make it 20 years. Seriously, if you're committing a crime with a firearm you're either prepared to shoot someone or you're trying to pretend to look like someone who is prepared to shoot someone. Go to jail for 20 or 20+ years without parole. A criminal doesn't get a gun to try & scratch someone with a bullet.
When I was in the US there was another Aussie worker over there & he was set to go travelling on his own. His plan was to get an air pistol and brandish that if he got into trouble or ended up in a suburb he shouldn't be in. I mentioned it to my boss, a lawful firearms who has carried a firearm lawfully for protection. His advice was "Tell him if he's not sure, only go where all the tourists go" and he said to tell him not to get a air pistol. He said if you pull a gun, even a toy one and the other person is a good or bad person & gets to thinking they're in danger, they will if they're carrying pull their gun & shoot. Not brandish, to shoot before he does. He said you either carry a real gun & only pull it out to shoot someone or don't carry any sort of gun at all, real or not.
This seemingly doesn't apply, but the fact is, if a criminal is carrying a gun we must assume they're prepared to use it. They are prepared to kill someone. If a criminal is carrying an illegal gun, loaded or not then they should be in line for 20+ years in jail just for the possession regardless of what they claim is their justification.
The Govt could easily have comedown hard on Organised Crime Gangs by ramping the penalties that already exist. Instead, they're kind of blanket bombing and will affect lawful firearms owners. 
Hitting law abiding people is not a reform.
A reform must target criminals or remove wrong effect upon the lawful people.
Government could have done that by including proper community & industry consultation.
You don't get past the 2nd reading in the Upper House and then hold meetings with affected (lawful) stakeholders.
That is an insult.

Arrow 1 - activities in place of adults who have been issued with an FPO. Further, in order to give effect to corresponding laws, it is necessary that FPOs issued in Western Australia can also apply to juveniles in Western Australia. Western Australia’s new FPO scheme will be similar to schemes in other Australian jurisdictions. As five Australian jurisdictions have legislated corresponding firearms prohibition order schemes, the bill will also introduce provisions to enable FPOs issued in other states to be enforced in WA. Once enacted, WA will seek similar corresponding recognition of our scheme. Although the new FPO scheme is necessarily strong, appropriate safeguards are included in the bill. Clause 35 of th

Yes I Too Have Mocked Palmer But...

Yes I too have mocked Clive Palmer. No I too am not a Clive Palmer supporter.
However when the Western Australian newspaper ran the ridiculous front page splashes against Palmer with grotesque caricatures I was critical of the newspaper. I like others said the newspaper just just do better, get out of the sewer & do better. The front pages swayed from Palmer to Bikie fear stories.

I have mocked Palmer & it was during the last State Election when his party's Election Poster showed up at polling booths like every other party...except Clives were printed in China. Bit funny to pretend to be patriotic & not support local businesses.

In the case of the Palmer/McGowan defamation case it's looking like egotistical moron vs egotistical moron. Mr Palmer is suing McGowan for defamation & Mr McGowan is counter suing. 

Mr Palmer has the premium $/hour legal team. For him the cost is tiny pocket change & any possible damages that may be awarded won't be great. 

Vs.

Mr McGowan has the State paying his legal bills. We think that is his defence and assume it likely includes his counter claim legal costs.

I can't assume which way the 2 seperately cases will go or if the court will award legal costs & damages. But if a side wins, damages ($) are awarded & the loser pays court costs then...

Mr Palmer would get the damages paid to him personally by the WA Taxpayers not Mr McGowan and legal costs would be paid by the WA Taxpayers if awarded by the courts.

Vs.

Mr McGowan would get the damages paid to him personally by Mr Palmer and legal costs would be paid by Mr Palmer if awarded by the courts.

So 2 arguably ego driven morons are contesting things in court, one could potentially have to pay everything is he loses & is he wins might get damages & legal costs paid for by WA Taxpayers. 
Whereas one could potentially hand the bill to WA Taxpayers if he loses but if he wins, he get to pocket any damages awarded. In fact if legal costs aren't awarded only McGowan will be the one who doesn't personally pay a lawyer.

Then there's the other underlying concerns.
This might have been all avoided had the Premier acted like a Statesman & not said unprofssional comments well beneath the office he occupies & just left Mr Palmer to say whatever he wants.
The original bill passed in the WA Parliament pushed this all over the edge. It was a bill that effectively removed the right of Mr Palmer to take the WA Government to court & seek a ruling, a financial ruling which the WA Labor Govt claimed would bankrupt the state.

I wait to see but what I was told was (check for yourself, don't rely on me) that the courts decide if there is a case to answer. Once the courts decides if the WA Government is at fault THEN the courst decide if damages are warranted and THEN the courts decide what amount. You don't start proceedings & drop in an invoice of $30Billion or any other matter. The newspapers may have pushed a map of bankruptcy that may not have ever existed. FWIW I don't think even with that amount the state would be bankrupt but it would end up with a massive deficit it could have avoided.

It also means the Government was sure it was in the wrong, that the court would see that the Government had failed Mr Palmer & the the law so they had to change the law. In other words, they knew they were guilty so they changed the ability to use the courts.
During debate in 24 hours it took to pass the bill the word unprecedented came up as a reason to go outside the norm. This was the cry of silly child like minds or just plain sloppy & lazy MPs because NOW we have a precedent for future MPs & Governments to use against others. If a person is now regarded as a financial threat to the government because the government will be proven to be in the wrong, JUST REMOVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OF THE PARTY OF TAKING LEGAL ACTION & PREVENT THEM FROM TRYING TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT

They have removed the legal right from an Australian Citizen from using the courts because it's likely they would win a legal contest. LET THAT SINK IN.

Now jump back to the Palmer/McGowan defamation case & lets look at the released text messages sent by Mr McGowan

• "Thanks Kerry. I was asked about those marvellous front pages today ... I appreciate the support enormously," 
  This one may suggest a relationship between a Premier & a Media owner many might feel uncomfortable about. There are many wondering if Opposition Leaders one knew of the "Palmer Bill" just as it was being presented to Parliament then it does sort of look like Mr Stokes got word about it than those opposition leaders & possible Labor's own back benchers & other MPs. Starts to look like a very small closed circle of Labor MPs controlling legislation.
  
  
• "All the mealy-mouthed tut-tutting by some people about Palmer's 'rights' makes me sick."
  Sad to hear the Premier is sick, he appears to be unwell a lot by just hearing differing views. He is clearly not in possession of any Statesmanship traits. Sadder still that a person with a law degree happy to remove the sensible rule of law, a person's right to a day in court & a person's right to damages/compensation via the courts.
  
  
• "I don't like Mr Palmer. I can't stand what he does," 
  This is not whether you like the person or not. You do not remove his rights to WA Law because of like or dislike.

Here's the telling question for those who supported and voted in favour of this Palmer Bill...

He launched legal action against the Premier Mark McGowan for defamation. Imagine if the Premier had the ability to pass a Bill to remove Mr Palmer's legal right to sue for defamation? Imagine if anyone sued the Government or a MP for defamation or was on any criminal charges...would you be ok with an Act being passed to vanquish all legal proceedings against the Govt???

Below was written the day the Bill hit the Lower House, 12th of August 2020 and is about the nicknamed Palmer Bill. This is in large part, where the rancid McGowan/Palmer Madness War really went peak stupid.
You'll note concern was high & hope was the legislators would stick to doing the right thing & refer it to a Parliamentary Committee. 

It wasn't.

It was appalling, the opposition leaders were played like a 2 bob watch and those still in Parliament who did vote for it either don't realise what wrong they passed or they're too proud to say they were wrong. This was peak WALabor Enabler example.

Some Liberal Party MPs were onto it, understood it & opposed it. Hard to find others.
As those who voted for it are legislators, well supposedly, they are the law makers. To get this basic legal premise so horribly wrong tells me there are a number of people who shouldn't be in Parliament and anywhere near the making of laws.

Seriously Think for a minute: Clive Palmer - Sticking my neck out


Later Note - I'm advised the Leader of the Liberal Party Liza Harvey & Leader of the Nationals were informed of the Bill were told in the corner of the chamber at approx 5pm on the 11th of August 2020 without any prior warning, with no consultation. The following day, parliament began at 1pm. Liza Harvey said about 40 mins after that said they had no time to seek independent legal advice. They took the Premier on his word. The Premier said it would cost the state $30 Billion & yet Palmer on radio said that is a lie, that is not the worth of the claim. 

Added twist, the Act would take effect from the time it was read into the Parliament, which was 11th of August. So the urgency is off a lot. No matter of the time taken, whether it passed both houses and took a month to get Royal Ascent, it would take effect from the 11th of August. So at that point I wonder why the Opposition cut back private member's time by 2 hours to get it quickly passed & why the Upper House did not refer to a Parliamentary Committee. The time pressure is off. It could have taken all manner of time & process to pass, to be amended, to go thru committees then amended & passed or indeed laid on the table to allow the opposition to seek independent legal advice that is indepenedant of the Govt, the Attorney General & the Premier. Not sure if cabinet knew of the Bill, none on the back bench did. Seems like the Premier, the deputy premier, the attorney general & possibly the Treasurer did. Beyong that, no one knows or seems to keen to say.

The fact a bill was rushed through on the say so of 3-4 people maybe 5 and the entire remainder of the House had no chance to test it independently is a nightmare. Most bills sit on the table for around 30 days so MPs can get across them. They could have stuck to that seeing the bill took effect as of 11th of August 2020 & no matter when it took legal ascent (became law) after the 11th.

In Liza Harvey's opening comments, there is enough to say stop. 
And yet...64 pages with 32 clauses. It was passed & the following day the Upper House began debating it and were not given written copies of it.

Here's the exact moment when it was passed in the Lower House. 7 Labor MPs present & 3 Liberal MPs present to vote. That is all. No voices against heard, no division was called.

Now if we go back to earlier in the day, debate was suspended early in the "Ban Palmer Bill" (nickname) for Questions with Notice & below was the very first. This was the last hill for which the Opposition could die upon.
I commend Lisa Harvey for asking this question.

 Arrow 1 - Lisa Harvey pushed for some fair & reasonable accountibility. Remember once passed this Act would take effect the day before this question was asked. So there was plenty of room for a committee to act "...in the best interests of accountibility & over sight, without compromising the state's position"

Arrow 2 - The Premier flat out rejected it & then barraged the opposition for saying such a thing. She didn't withdraw the support for the bill, she wanted to add a fair & reasonable Upper House Committee to act in "...in the best interests of accountibility & over sight, without compromising the state's position" - To this day I am still unsure what fair & reasonable notion the Premier was operating under. The Act would take effect from the day before. My thought is he intend to Panzer over all others. His way or his way.
Its at this point The Leader of the Opposition should decided this was a hill she was prepared to die on. She should have called for a Supplementary Question & then said "Premier, will you reconsider because we will not support the Bill without the committee we called for, if you won't budge, neither will we?"

Virtually all the criticisms I have of the entire opposition in the Lower House would have been avoided.
It was left to the few who stood against it in the Upper House, but it wasn't enough. 
A bill was passed. An Act soon recieved Royal Ascent. It was law & no committee was able to look into why only the Premier, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, a named Law Firm, possibly the Deputy Premier, possibly the Treasurer & possibly the Leader of the House and Kerry Stokes knew about this prior to it being dropped on the House on the 11th.

It will require a royal commission or some other inquiry to get to the bottom of this, who knew what and when. We're told none of the Labor back benchers knew until the bomb dropped. Well it probably didn't matter, they cannot vote against the Premier without being expelled from the party.

Sad to see an opportunity to allow transperancy, accountibility to coexist with the State's interests, sadder still to see some not willing to stop everything & take the flak to ensure it happens.

WA Government Ministers & THE Most Unpopular Suggestion In WA Political History

Yeah most unpopular ever is a big call & maybe its not true but for those who are ministers, those who want to be a minister or have been & want to be one again they will oppose this idea. It maybe the most unpopular suggestion in their political minds. It could halt them joining a cabinet.

If they hear of the suggestion right now for the first time, they will oppose it & depending on their politically driven mental agility they may come up with reasons to oppose it within seconds and in case it gets real & more talked about they'll set about more effort into opposing reasons.

Its this...

WA is one of the few Australian states that technically allows non MPs to be Ministers of the Crown.
Yes, get your head around that. You don't have to be a member of Parliament to be a member of the Cabinet & to hold a ministry portfolio.

Now the previous question was why are Members of the Legislative Council allowed to take on Portfolios when in Government. There is a good argument for saying their primary role to be "The House of Review" and as such that's why we do not see an Upper House MP as the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Government party/Premier. Logic extended, then no, the Upper House members are the Legislative Safeguard. They are the gate keepers to better legislators. They should stand up & be proper legislators & if they want to join the Cabinet or lead the party, switch houses.

So there's an additional mike drop for those wanting a better political system.

On the prior one, we have a Treasurer who is a politcal animal of high ambition who's risen in political circles with advice & direction from Julian Grills and others. He's learnt the game, played the game after serving his time as a Navy Lawyer. I'd argue he's learnt how to be a political animal, a factional manipulator & a party apparatchik successfully working the system.
He is not a statesman nor is he a person who's led an industry or a large commercial entity.

In his place we could have Michael Chaney, Richard Goyder or any other serious player in the Australian Corporate sector. Or maybe Allan Fels, Glenn Stephens or...?

Or a Government could appoint one of these as the Minister & the Minister could appoint one of the others as Deputy Under Treasurer.

Or we can look at other Ministers.

Lets look at Dave Kelly MLA. 

Prior to Parliament he worked in the Union Movement "for 20 years". 
Has a degree... a Batchelor in Arts (with no Mayor listed)
Is referred to as a Factional Power Broker after being a big player in the Union movement.
He's also considered to be a WALabor Party appartchik & was elected to Parliament in 2013. 
He's been in cabinet for quite a bit. In fact three stints due to Cabinet reshuffles...

• From 17 March 2017 to 20 December 2019 he held 5 ministries. Minister for Water; Fisheries; Forestry; Innovation and ICT; Science
  
  
• From 20 December 2019 to 19 March 2021. he held 5 ministries. Minister for Water; Forestry; Innovation and ICT; Science; Youth
  
  

From 19 March 2021 to time of writing he holds 3 ministries. Minister for Water; Forestry; Youth 

Work out which ministries he's had a huge impact in. 3 come to mind, Fisheries, Forestry & Water and they're all appallingly bad impacts. Good luck finding anyone who knew he has been minster for Innovation & ICT, minister for Science, minister for Science or minister for Youth.

Climbing the party rungs should not be a free open door to a $200,000+ salary and if you make a mess like he did then yes a reshuffle should happen & a non Member of Parliament with proper experience, skill and history relevent to the field for a full 4 year term is a great idea.

Roger Cook should have been replaced by a highly exerpienced Health Sector senior Management. His training is BA; GradDipBus (PR); MBA. He is by trade & training (and was prior to Parliament) a Public Relations Consultant but also worked for several WALabor MPs. He too is an experienced party appartchik & politcal factional groover and mover. He remains Deputy Premier and was long regarded as the annoited to follow Mark McGowan.

He was replaced by Amber-Jade Sanderson from the same faction as Roger Cook)
She is a Journalist by trade & worked in a Union (United Voice)  Assistant Secretary.
Born in NSW in 1976.
Moved to London in 1976
Moved to Perth in 2001
Elected to Parliament in 2013

Goes to show, you don't have to be an experienced industry player to make it as a minister. You can be a journo or public relations person then go to the unions or a Labor MPs office, learn the political ropes, not the industry ones and end up a minister...when it's your turn in your faction's turn.
Too early to say Amber Jade is as bad as Roger Cook although for many it does look that way.
Perhaps that should have had a Richard Goyder for 4 years.

Now not likely you can get a Micahel Chaney or Richard Goyder to take on a ministry as a non MP. Whilst they would be extremely gifted in stream lining things, getting better value for money spent & likely bring in better accountibility with a 2, 3, 5, 10 & 50 year strategic plan with concrete benchmarking and milestone targets with Metrics...they might not be inclined to take on such a job.

For one, they would be up against political pressure from the Machivellean movers & bureacratic Sir Humphrey Applebees. Plus you really need some MPs to accept they need to not be ministers to get ministries working better & get Government working properly and actually serving the public, not political expediencies.
They're used to fixing things but getting the best people around them & below them and holding them to full account for wins & loses.

If you want to see a bloody deadly battle, get between a mediocre MP & a possible ministerial appoinment or between a bureaucrat & their ability to pursue activity with no real outcome or consequences.

I live in hope but...this is why the best people are in the private sector trying to deal with powerful Government MPs or appointees who would struggle to become even middle management in a small firm in the private sector.