So the Upper House voted unanimously to support the motion of Hon Nick Goiran MLC to refer the Firearms Act to the Upper House's Legislation Committee. Some are stoked that even the Greens voted in favour. Last year the then minister in one comment said they would be implementing the Law Reform Commission recommendations from their report from 2016...and in reality, in some cases they did the exact opposite. Numerical limits was just one example. And then there's a lot of people who think the representation efforts & individual's submissions were talking to deaf ears. Although in the case of the Primary Producers Firearms Advisory Board the Minister created & hand picked 5 member groups to the exclusion of all others & then decreed they would represent ALL primary producers. Yet no one Primary Producers were consulted nor was there in avenue to have any input...
So all this (and much more) in this mess of a debacle pointed to a serious dumpster fire that right minded people would want reviewed.
So it seemed no huge deal, seemed (finally) fair & reasonable it would be reviewed fully & properly.
For those MPs sitting in WA's Upper House this last week, it came down to a choice.
But a choice so serious voting against a review would really be a career defining moment for a legislator in WA's house of review.
They had virtually had only 2 choices.
So all this (and much more) in this mess of a debacle pointed to a serious dumpster fire that right minded people would want reviewed.
So it seemed no huge deal, seemed (finally) fair & reasonable it would be reviewed fully & properly.
For those MPs sitting in WA's Upper House this last week, it came down to a choice.
But a choice so serious voting against a review would really be a career defining moment for a legislator in WA's house of review.
They had virtually had only 2 choices.
1) Vote for it & get good recommendations for amendments to make it a proper, fit for purpose piece of legislation (as it should have been in the first place) OR...
2) Vote against the motion & publicly, personally sanction the incredulous idea that it's OK to pass a Bill after denying 97% of it ANY DEBATE WHATSOEVER & side step the proper purpose of our chamber of review & the the correct proper process of our Parliament.
The latter is what happened last year but made even worse because the Uniform Legislation Committee (that the Bill did go to) found the Bill had what they considered to be Henry VIII clauses.
So this week was simple. It was either fix the legislation or as a legislator say you think its ok to bypass Parliamentary process AND declare its OK to complete undermine of the Rule of Law.
Anyone voting against Nick Goiran's motion would clearly be unfit to sit in Parliament & would be professionally destroyed as an elected legislator and a purposeful reviewer of legislation.
The Upper House's job is to review legislation.
Labor, the Greens, everybody, none have any choice now. Fix this properly or you undermine & destroy the proper purpose of our parliament & make it a rubber stamp of a ruling party.
No doubt some not in the Parliament who abandoned supporting the political process & sought to go a legal path will be a bit blind sided. Some of them claimed the only solution was contesting this in the courts. And no doubt in my mind some will falsely claim their threats of legal action helped this motion get passed.
I don't agree with them at all.
If they did go to court, or help others go to court, that legal action would be up against the bottomless legal resources of a State Government. Plus it would drag on for years.
To my knowledge one YouTube content creator has said to have sent one letter to the previous minister and now sent a letter to the Police Commissioner & the new Police minister Reece Whitby. The letters were described as legal letters & letter from the law firm.
To date those letters have not been made public & there's no evidence that the Minister shared these letters with the current members of the Upper House to urge them all to vote unanimously to review the Act they've been trying to protect & keep untouched. None.
There have been no briefings for Upper House MPs with the Police Minister, the Attorney General & representatives of the State Solicitors office let alone such a meeting advising Upper House MPs of the issue & the urgency to vote with Hon Nick Goiran MLC's motion.
Until we see that or hear that from Upper House MP's there has been lobbying alright. Upper House MPs have been lobbied about the grave seriousness of the motion & the darker outcome if it were defeated but that lobbying not likely to be anyone outside the political sphere nor within any legal law firm.
I'm no fortune teller but I'd say its a safe bet those on the outer will claim false credit and good chance some MPs not involved probably will too. Either jostling for political advantage with followers within or near their own party or...
Or the other reason.
As they say, never underestimate incompetence.
I don't agree with them at all.
If they did go to court, or help others go to court, that legal action would be up against the bottomless legal resources of a State Government. Plus it would drag on for years.
To my knowledge one YouTube content creator has said to have sent one letter to the previous minister and now sent a letter to the Police Commissioner & the new Police minister Reece Whitby. The letters were described as legal letters & letter from the law firm.
To date those letters have not been made public & there's no evidence that the Minister shared these letters with the current members of the Upper House to urge them all to vote unanimously to review the Act they've been trying to protect & keep untouched. None.
There have been no briefings for Upper House MPs with the Police Minister, the Attorney General & representatives of the State Solicitors office let alone such a meeting advising Upper House MPs of the issue & the urgency to vote with Hon Nick Goiran MLC's motion.
Until we see that or hear that from Upper House MP's there has been lobbying alright. Upper House MPs have been lobbied about the grave seriousness of the motion & the darker outcome if it were defeated but that lobbying not likely to be anyone outside the political sphere nor within any legal law firm.
I'm no fortune teller but I'd say its a safe bet those on the outer will claim false credit and good chance some MPs not involved probably will too. Either jostling for political advantage with followers within or near their own party or...
Or the other reason.
As they say, never underestimate incompetence.
With luck some journos will seek the legal letters sent to the Police Commissioner & the previous and current Police Minister AND their replies. Someone will access them via a FOI.
Political path, those who stuck with it...well done.
I would also point out something else that's quite important.
Hon Nick Goiran MLC fulfilled his (and therefore the Liberal Party's) committment during the State Election campaign was to seek a review.
I would also point out they were roundly condemned & vilified for only promising to a review & not promising a REPEAL like the WA Nationals did.
That was odd then & moreso now. To repeal an act you need a review anyway but also, you need to control both houses of parliament. Government is formed in the Legislative Assembly. If every WA Nationals candidate won their seat they would not have had the elected numbers to form government let alone control both houses. Why did people turn WANats into deities for their promise they were never ever be able to keep & the Liberals were demonised for making an honest promise they could actually deliver.
This week they did deliver.
You can imagine my surprise to see the only 2 Upper House MPs from the Nationals post a video (link below) where they claimed THEY moved the motion. They also claimed there were "over 400 seperate clauses"...that's not wrong but there were were 492 with subclauses. Precision in words in Parliament is not just essential its vitally crucial. Picky? Yes, legislation requires picky precision.
They claimed the motion said "...send the Firearms Legislation & Regulations to the Legislation Committee and its about time that happened"
The motion actually doesn't mention Regulations & possibly because regulations are an act of administration not an act of parliament. That means that the minister can change the regulations anytime before during or after the Legislation Committee meets.
Closest it comes is
They might review the regulations, I think they have to scope to (due to "(iv) any other relevant matter.") but its not a specific must do. It wasn't in the Motion.
I would also point out something else that's quite important.
Hon Nick Goiran MLC fulfilled his (and therefore the Liberal Party's) committment during the State Election campaign was to seek a review.
I would also point out they were roundly condemned & vilified for only promising to a review & not promising a REPEAL like the WA Nationals did.
That was odd then & moreso now. To repeal an act you need a review anyway but also, you need to control both houses of parliament. Government is formed in the Legislative Assembly. If every WA Nationals candidate won their seat they would not have had the elected numbers to form government let alone control both houses. Why did people turn WANats into deities for their promise they were never ever be able to keep & the Liberals were demonised for making an honest promise they could actually deliver.
This week they did deliver.
You can imagine my surprise to see the only 2 Upper House MPs from the Nationals post a video (link below) where they claimed THEY moved the motion. They also claimed there were "over 400 seperate clauses"...that's not wrong but there were were 492 with subclauses. Precision in words in Parliament is not just essential its vitally crucial. Picky? Yes, legislation requires picky precision.
They claimed the motion said "...send the Firearms Legislation & Regulations to the Legislation Committee and its about time that happened"
The motion actually doesn't mention Regulations & possibly because regulations are an act of administration not an act of parliament. That means that the minister can change the regulations anytime before during or after the Legislation Committee meets.
Closest it comes is
"(c) report on:
(i) problems that have emerged from the implementation and operation of the legislation; "
They might review the regulations, I think they have to scope to (due to "(iv) any other relevant matter.") but its not a specific must do. It wasn't in the Motion.
Although not real serious there is another clanger "That's right because the last part of the motion yesterday was that the Legislation Committee needs to bring back its recommendations for amendments. So watch this space. Lets see what the committee comes back with"
That also was not in the motion AT ALL. That's what the Legislation Committee does & has to do no matter what. That was odd & a good dose of cringe for followers of Parliament.
I think we're seeing brand new, inexperienced Upper House MPs who previously may not have been even casual Parliament observers or political junkies. They will improve but was red flaggish.
What was in the "last part of the motion..." was,
(c) report on:
(i) problems that have emerged from the implementation and operation of the legislation;
(ii) whether all provisions are consistent with Fundamental Legislative Principles;
(iii) recommended amendments that will ensure the legislation’s workability and effectiveness; and
(iv) any other relevant matter.
(3) The Committee is to report within three months.
It's not a closed committee that concludes its findings & waits for instructions. It forms conclusions & reports them to the Legislative Council. They can't NOT do that. The end of the motion says it must be down within 3 months.
The 2 Nats MLCs failed to mention some of the very serious points.
- They did not mention the Legislation was not sent to the Legislation Committee prior to being tabled in the Upper House.
- They do not mention there was an ePetition (with 32,234 signatures) expressly asking for it to be referred to the Legislation Committee which was (as expected) ignored. Courtesy of petitioner Rick Mazza & Facilitating MP, Hon Nick Goiran MLC.
- They failed to mention that the Committee has been near on DORMANT since Labor formed Govt in 2017. Only upside is hopefully they should be able to dive into this very quickly.
- They did mention that the Bill was rammed through with only 11 clauses debated. However they did not mention that it is unacceptable in a democratic western nation that a Bill, any Bill is passed with 97% of the Bill denied debate. It is boldly & arrogantly spitting & stabbing the Parliamentary Process in face.
- They did not mention the findings of the Uniform Legislation Committee who reported they found what they considered to be Henry the VIII clauses that potentially undermine the rule of law. All these things are wrong but these last two are diabolical misuses of power.
As for the WANats saying during the campaign they were the only party supporting WA Shooters...that was patently wrong. In order to get elected some Nats may have rhought they'd need to score votes from both Labor & Liberal.
Liberal, Legalise Cannibas etc were also supporting firearms owners.
So the untrue point of difference was floated to the point where the Nationals Candidate for Geraldton (who won & was elected) said the massive ePetition (32,234 signatures) was a great Nationals initative when in fact the petitioner was Rick Mazza & the facilitating MP was Hom Nick Goiran MLC.
She had to say oops & delete it but they continued with the "only party..." point of difference.
Twice we saw the phrase "Under a Nationals Government"
There could never be a Nationals Government in the last election. Even if every single Legislative Assembly Nationals Candidate were elected they did not have enough candidates to form Government in their own right let nor begin to have a Nationals majority in a Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government.
Nats need to stop the cringe & do an awful lot better for all of our sakes.
So where are we at?
Hurry up & wait.
Read the motion in full and write your submission to the committee that falls exactly within their scope within the motion. Will they call for public submissions? My guess is yes so be prepared just in case. I hope they hold a few public meetings to gather more of an idea of how many "Unintended Negative Outcomes" there were & how they're to be corrected.
Will you get a better outcome? Simple answer...
DON'T WRITE NONE, DON'T GET NONE
Video Link - https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=714682427606934
No comments:
Post a Comment