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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPORT CARD SUMMARY - DON'T BLAME ME, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR WALABOR

They're failing and we will suffer - Unconvinced?
Here's just a handful...we pay. Not them.

Dave Kelly MLA wanted to Socialise the WA Rock Lobster Industry and would have wrecked the viability of the industry. Thankfully his plan was scutteled & he was moved on. Sadly he took on Water Ministry. So now it turns out under his watch WaterCorp has a process of "empathetic treatment" of bill defaulters. Its hitting many millions of dollars and who makes up the difference?
Rate rise for those who actually pay their bill. Those in arrears not pursued at all, they get free water.
Fail

Simone McGurk MLA is the Minister for Womens Interests. She is delivering a dangerous ideology through her protfolio that asserts women are those who were born as women or live as women. Womenhood is no longer a thing. In fact were Mike Tyson to decide to "live as a woman" he could compete in women's MMA Cage Fighting that the McGowan government brought to WA. A form of hard aggressive combat sport where their are no weight divisions. Seem fair?
Say goodbye to AFLW and other women's sports. If you have young girls with Olympic dreams, they're finished now.
Fail.

Roger Cook MLA is the health minister. When he was opposition health spokesman he clearly & very rightly called out the then Barnett government for the appalling Ambulance Ramping disaster when it reached 1030 hours per month.
Under Roger's 4 years at the reins its got worse. The TEN WORST MONTHS EVER ARE THE LAST 10 MONTHS. At one point it was 1300hours in the first eight days. This month is set to be the biggest record of all time. Today is the 22nd of June, 7 days left in the month & its already over 3500 hours. Roger's response? He stopped the publishing of the Ramped Ambulance Hours. Thankfully St John's still do.
What else happens...WALabor set up an Upper House Committee to look into the delivery of Ambulance Services in WA but it will not include the causes of ramping but will look into the government taking over all the amubulance services.
Fail

Which brings us to...

Pierre Yang MLA will chair that committee and when approached by producers of 6PR's show hosted by Liam Bartlett told them he didn't understand why the public would want to hear him and he became unavailable for an interview.
What the hell?
But Pierre is part of the hard left faction. They like to have everything controlled and controlled only by them.
More proof of that is Pierre Yang is a follower & supporter of the debunked but dangerous ideology Intersectionality. That's a very big plank of Identity Politics, Cancel Culture & Social Disorder. He is also the politician who found he was "accidently" still a member of 2 club/groups with extensive Chinese links & thought to have links to the CCP or very supportive of CCP interests.
Fail

To see more on aspects of the divisive Victim Culture and race baiting of the debunked Intersectionality, watch this 3.3o minute video, go to... Jordan Peterson Debunks Intersectionality - YouTube

Sue Ellery MLC the Education minister. She was the one who wanted to close the School of the Air & announced it without consulting any SOTA staff, unions or parents. There were 2 northern Labor MPs (one was Kevin Michel) who not only wasn't consulted, he didn't learn about it until it hit the media. AND HE'S A MEMBER FROM THE PILBARA!!!
Then there was another cluster fluff from Sue Ellery. She wanted to close Moora Residential College.
Made stranger by the fac there was no use for the infrastructure once closed and would have cost more to dismantle it than repair it & keep it open. Thankfully funding from the federal government came through so the $5 BILLION PLUS COFFERS weren't touched, Moora was kept open, repairs were made and guess what...its fully booked with kids from remote areas that can't afford to be sent to private boarding schools. She promised locals she would visit once it opened and now doesn't remember saying that...but she's not going anyway methinks.
Fail.

John Quigley MLA - The Attorney General. Rushed through legislation that effectively denies Cliver Palmer the ability to go to court & seek compensation whilst he has a deal with the State Government. In fact the Government can do anything with that mining deal & he can't go to court. He might want $30Billion or more but it would have to first, go to court. Second, court rules in Palmer's favour. Third, the court then decides IF compensation is required. Then decide how much. You don't write out an invoice and expect it to be paid.
Sadly, we have a government who decided to remove an Australian's citizen's right to use the court system to seek redress & justice. In this particular aspect he has no legal rights at all. Turns out a small group in the government and some advisers had been working on this bill for a month or more but opposition were not notified or brief by the Premier until John Quigley was on his feet in the lower house submitting the bill and pushing to rush it through.
It will end up in the highest court in the land and its possible, perhaps likely the court will strike the legislation down. It will be very costly and stupid.
Fail.

Jackie Jarvis MLC - In the agenda section called MEMBERS STATEMENTS Jackie launched an attack on Barnaby Joyce. It was politically timed, WALabor is under immense pressure for failed much of the above and more (including the somewhat missing Gold Standard Accountibility). It was her first opportunity after Barnaby Joyce was elected Deputy Prime Minister. She made a claim under the protection of Parliamentary Privelege that re-ignited the allegations of Catherine Marriott of suffering sexaul harassment by Joyce. This is again re-raising allegations without any effort to seek a resolution but sadly to politically weaponise them without any regard for the accusser, the accused or due process.
The comments need to be made outside Parliament or a civil case launched at Mr Joyce for there to be any chance of an actual outcome. Without an outcome via due process bringing up the overhanging spectre of these allegations is tantamount to a smear.
Now this is the same Jackie Jarvis who was CEO of RRRW who held the prominent #USTOO Lunch event where the MC was controversial leftist Tracey Spicer and the guest speaker was Dr Rachel Skye Saunders who made the claim that "93% of women in Agricutlure had experienced Sexual Harassment" but strangely she only bothered to survey 14 women who worked in Agriculture. That is 14 out of a then 44,700 women who worked in Agriculture (*)
To read more on Dr Saunders "findings" there's a link (**)
Some might easily argue that the Hon Jackie Jarvis is either a bit of a fool, thinks we all are or is inclined to politically weaponise sexual harassment for the gain of her party. Prior to working for the RRRW that WALabor apparently part funded via a grant she worked as a Senior Staffer of Hon Alannah MacTiernan MLC & prior to that was a ALP candidate in a federal election. She is one of the ALP believers for sure & certain.

(*) - - - According to the ABS 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, Dec 2012 (abs.gov.au) 
(**) - - Seriously Think for a minute: Is Agriculture A Serious Sexual Harassment/Assault Danger Zone?

Barnaby Joyce Re-elected as Nationals Leader & Deputy Prime Minister

Well it has happened and he has been sworn in by the governor. So regardless of anything good or bad, he is where he is. Fact.

It has caused quite a media & social media swirl but much of it is made more difficult because there's overlap between the political outcomes going forward and the controversy that lay in the past.

On the political side...

• There is the outcomes he may push in the climate change repsonse space
  
  
• There is his support for the Sri Lankan family stuck in detention & wanting them to be allowed to remain in Australia whilst the Government looks to expel them
  
  
• His support for Live Export has been second to none & we can assume that will continue and he'll likely be very pro Regional Australia & Agriculture.
  
  
• His support for the coal industry and wider mining industry which supplies jobs for regional people.
  
  
• He has his likely clash points with the Prime Minister & the cabinet, but his maverick days of crossing the floor are probably passed to a large extent as the numbers are so tight it could be too divisive politically now that we're probably less than 12 months away from a Federal Election
  
  
• He probably could potentially lead to winning of a number of Queensland seats which will probably be crucial to Scott Morrison retaining Government but there's also the theory amongst some he could help deliver some inner city seats to opposing parties. Both theories
  

On the controversy side...

• He lost his seat when it was found he had some NZ ancestery and hadn't renounced the inferred citizenry. He renounced and was re-elected.
  
  
• He had what we know to be referred to as "sexual harassment" allegations made against him within the internal system of the NSW Nationals. It was leaked much to the very unfair detriment of the complainant & Mr Joyce. The actual details of the allegations weren't made public, nor was the leaker's identity made known. Fair to assume its more likely someone trying to "get" Mr Joyce not the complainant. No resolution was reached and no civil or criminal legal action taken. As a result some are wise to be very careful about commenting on the allegations as Mr Joyce has described them as defamatory. I don't know if they are or not but I would be very careful commenting on the allegations as it may result in a defamation case some day if someone is a little loose with their words. The matter remains unresolved, no litigation is or has been in play and the NSW Nationals have levelled it as unresolved.
  
  
• The news of an affair with a staff member created quite a storm. It also began calls for a ban on relations between people in the Parliamentary workplace. The fact that one was a staff member working for a powerful politician was not lost on many people.

It seems still the case that Barnaby Joyce is still regarded as the real Retail Politician and has the ability that some commentators call "cut though" and this probably still is the case. What's certainly the case is that Barnaby is polarising. Views people hold are very much for or against. Indifference is rare. Some are because they're not from Conservative side of politics and Joyce possesses equal measures of political opportunity & political threat.

Some will still pursue him with a sense of justice and/or political motivation. People can make up their own mind if they want to do that or not. Everyone can make their own decisions & judgements. As for the alleged victim, I haven't heard what she wants done to Barnaby Joyce but some others have decided to pursue him. I hope this doesn't add to the alleged victim's angst having been dragged through the press to often already.

There are 2 things that stick uncomfortably close to one another. One is some strongly feel justice must be done, that is Mr Joyce must recieve some grave penalty vs the fact the allegations went the full distance within the NSW Nationals and no outcome was possible.  The other is as this is unresolved, possibly unresolvable, quandry exists that some will continue to pursue him without launching a court case. To repeat I don't know what the actual allegations were (and don't want to know) but they may be such that a legal pursuit is likely to prove fruitless. If that is the case, pursuing a person via the town square (Media or Social Media) and not the courts is a very dangerous path to tread. 
It could get messy & others have suggested, someone might get pursued for defamation & damages.

There are 2 important closing points (for now)...

1) Many are hoping for good outcomes for regional Australia now Barnaby Joyce is Deputy Prime Minister. So again people should be advised to be very careful commenting on the allegations. That's not "Stay Silenced" its much simpler. Allegations were made, nothing has actually been proven, this is Australia, you are innocent until proven guilty. Add to that the actual details of the alelgations have never been made public. By all means, have a view, share it if you wish but be mindful what & how you say it. The allegations were described as "defamatory" by one of the stakeholders. Be mindful of the old saying that goes "Unless you're prepared to write it, sign your name to it, stand up in court & repeat it...maybe don't say it"

2) Some have made calls for the new DPM to "now rebuild trust". It was never explained whether thats trust in political outcomes or trust as in personal behaviour or both. But if you make those calls you're going to have to publicly state at some point IF he has rebuilt trust or has blown it. He claims to be a better person, perhaps he is and there'll be nothing but good political outcomes. Maybe he'll have another fall from grace, but those calling him to rebuild trust will have to pipe up one way or the other. They made the call, they will have to write regular score cards. They can't hold off waiting for another controversy and then fly in to behead him. If you call for him to be good, better, best you better call out when he is any of those things. We'll see.

Considering that the vote numbers in the federal Nationals Spill Meeting will never be made public but was probably very close, his tenure as DPM & Party Leader will remain under a microscope on a knife edge. It can only be strengthened by solid political performance, gains for the regions and no personal life controversy. My guess perhaps hope is its head down & tail up for Barnaby Joyce. How his political future goes, how long it goes for is really up solely to him.

Its very sad someone may have gone through an alleged incident/s that required a report being lodged with the NSA Nationals.
Its sadder still that no resolution one way or the other was acheivable. 
Its made worse that unless allegations go to the next level there's probably no chance of a suitable resolution for the alleged victim or accused and that the spectre hangs there & is brought up regularly.

Politically, the regions may get a win in the future with the cut through prowess of the "Retail Politician".|

For all involved within the allegation side of things...there are no winners. None.

Members of Parliament & Their Career Post Politics

The ugly end of the stick smells of the argument... "MPs don't earn nearly as much in Parliament as they would in the real world, you cannot deny them a career after Politics"

You hear that comment you can reply with "Utter Bollocks & Putrid Tripe!!!"

It is intellectually corrupt. No one is denying anyone a post politics career & not all politicians earn more before & after politics. There's a ton who make more in politics than they did as a Union Organiser, Postman, Manager of Joblink and the list goes on. 
Some are on the best wicket of their lives because they earn more without extras for being on committees, plus travel costs covered etc. So no, "Utter Bollocks & Putird Tripe!!!"

In the case of Ben Wyatt, he was up until the recent State Election a senior member of Cabinet, the State Treasurer & a minister of other portfolios. Now his duty was to serve the best interests of the WA public not the WA Labor party but we all know all parties blur that line or cross it with rampant abandon.

His "fiduciary duty" was owed to the people of WA. He was a democratically elected public servant.

When he left politics, he didn't waste time. He joined the board of Woodside & days later joined the board of Rio Tinto. In the case of Rio, he'd previously ripped into them for the destruction of significant sites of historic & cultural merit to the local Indigenious community. He blasted them by saying the board needed to have someone who understood the sensitivities of Pilbara Indigenous Culture.

Here's the rub. He is on the board. His "Fiduciary Duty" is owed to the shareholders, not community members or any residents of the Pilbara or the staff or other stake holders. Even if Ben was appointed as a Nominee Director on behalf of Pilbara Indigenous people, the Corporations Act is still 100% very, very clear. His "Fiduciary Duty" is owed to two things. The perpetuity of the Company & the best interests of the shareholders...NOT PILBARA PEOPLE OR ANYONE ELSE.

When Mr Wyatt claims Rio is a "Pilbara company" - it most definitely is not. The majority of its shareholders are non Australians. Less than 20% (I think it might even be under 15% these days) is owned by non Australian companies, trusts & individuals. THAT is to whom he answers and THAT is whom he represents, trying to get them the best return on their investment.
Don't let anyone, not anyone, try to convince you otherwise...its bollocks.

Not Pilbara locals, contractors, sub contractors, indigenous or any other stakeholders. It was a glarishly dud stunt that stunk to the rafters of Political Spin.

IT IS NOT A PILBARA COMPANY

Now why did Ben Wyatt get the job, did Pilbara indigenous people nominate him as a nominee director? Well no such word on that anywhere. It appears Ben Wyatt was appointed by the board. No others involved, maybe some stakeholders were consulted but there's no paper trail to suggest that.

What Ben does bring to the company is 4 years of corporate knowledge of the WA Labor Government.
He brings close & near personal relationships with sitting members of Cabinet.
He has them on speed dial.
He has all the very senior bureacrats from the Treasurer's Office, the WA Treasury itself, the Cabinet Office.
He is the biggest conduit between Rio & the State Government ever.
Whatever he is paid, he is the cheapest lobbying officer they could have ever recruited & then hide him under the title of "Director" - Any legislation covering lobbying firms or individuals won't apply. 

Crisp, clean teflon.

He also brings great understanding of the corporate strategy of not only Treasury but Cabinet, very handy for a mining company looking to expand & do deals with Ministers & Cabinet.

So, Ben Wyatt IS Rio Tinto. He is representing Rio, he is operating in the best interests of Rio and no one else...or he breaches the Corporations Act. As most of the shareholders are overseas we now have a potential sovereign risk with the WA Cabinet potentially being easily accessed by a foreign mining company.

THIS IS WHY THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST A 3 YEAR GAP BETWEEN LEAVING CABINET & JOINING ANY BOARD THAT DEALS WITH THE WA STATE GOVERNMENT. 

"Oh but he/she is of high moral standing, they've always done the right thing..." 
Really?

Can we trust all politicians now? Some we can, some we can't and some I just wouldn't risk it if I were undecided. You leave the side door open, someone will slip in & take what's there. Lets remove the doubt & wonder. Install a 3 year gap. I gather even up until very recent times Brian Burke was still a lobbyist and pre-selection mover, shaker & influencer. 

Well I think they can continue to do the right thing & not get into a position that could potentially disadvantage Western Australian Public or give rise to people jumping to conclusions real or otherwise.
Tell me, do you trust someone who's been elected to the office of WA Member of Parliament & the stand up in Parliament and say this...

And lets not just look at Ben Wyatt, lets look at another ex-MP who made this state straight after his party won Government in an election he chose not to contest. 

Now I don't know if that was a threat or a frustrated fool sounding off or a slice of truth coming out of the WA Labor cabinet or what. I do recall though, not long after Sue Ellery tried to shut School of the Air without consulting any parents, teachers or unions...or even her own Labor MPs from the North West. She also tried to shut down Moora Residential College despite the costs in closing it being greater than keeping it open and look, Feds saved it and its rebuilt and fully booked. She said she would return but never has. Lets also recall the government was going to abolish the SW Rescue Chopper. Thankfully it was saved by the opposition numbers and a number of people are now alive because the chopper wasn't abolished, it landed and attended to them.

So I'll leave the moral angle alone because I don't think I trust all politicians completely.

So its only good common sense that there's a gap between leaving cabinet and joining a board for the company to use as a Cabinet Door Opener.

If the MP is retirement age then no, I don't think they should be paid not to go on a board. Retire or go do something else. Get a job, open a business. You can wait 3 years before becoming a slippery side door snakeoil salesman stitching the WA people for your new company.

Now the argument will come up that it's an impairment to their Post Politics Career...well no.
They are significantly advantaged by virtue of the highest Public Servant role they held to get a glorious board job. If they're well worth their money, jump onto a board that solely operates in NSW or overseas. If the opportunities drop off like a dead gull on a power line its because he can only lobby a state government the company doesn't deal with or he's otherwise not worth appointing...
Who's fault is that? Not WA Tax Payers, residents & electors. You can't make it outside your sphere, it was only you connections getting you the job anyway.

No I won't support a pension to get a retired MP through the tough times. Harden up.

Member for Albany, Rebecca Stephens MLA - Her First Real Local Challenge

The title is not quite true. Perhaps her first big challenge was getting elected. She achieved that easily, made easier by a Presidential Style campaign where nearly all the talking was done by visiting ministers & the Premier.

Perhaps it was her first radio interview with ABC South Coast where she said "No comment" several times when asked about "Deregulated Trading Hours". When pressed further as to why no comment she said she'd have to see what the electors wanted.
Oddity here is she had already voted against it not long before running for Parliament as a Councillor on the City of Albany. 
Dilemma there is, did she vote against it as a councillor without knowing what the locals wanted or was she trying to not answer it because she didn't know what Labor thought she should say?
Those are the 2 main choices but most likely its the latter as she went "No Comment" thinking that would end it. Rather naive I think.

No now her first real local challenge after being sworn in is the local cluster bomb that's gone off with a local Albany Church that has a guest speaker/s in a public meeting to discuss their life journey, how they went from being one of the "letters" in LBGTQI+ grouping to walking away from that & to becoming a follower of Jesus.

Now why this is so controversial I'm unsure. I know of a pastor that was as a young man was deeply embedded in the LGBTQI+ world. Then he left it, found Christ & eventually ended up getting married, having kids and became a pastor himself  in Perth. Nothing barbaric here, nothing guilt filled.

Somehow some local people took to ramparts, roused about the intolerance & bigotry with some even suggesting people supporting the guest speakers should lose their jobs. Ironic isn't it. Claiming intolerance & bigotry and then being intolerant & bigoted enough to try & guilt silence people of a different view and threaten their job in the local community.

All because some are claiming the speakers are promoting "Gay Conversion Therapy" and the "barbaric" guilt laden shaming of anyone of a differenet sexual/gender preference. At this point there is no evidence at all that the speakers will be promoting anything that aligns with that therapy or that non hetrosexual people must be cured. None.

I'll wait to see what unfolds, when facts are available but the assumption I tentatively came to after listening to that Church's pastor being interviewed was its about offering an insight into the journey of people who left a lifestyle they were embedded in & leaving it behind for a life of Christ. That is their story and that is their choice. And if it's made them feel their life is improved then who is anyone to target them.

Now Rebecca Stephens MLA has weighed in...and we can only speculate as whether or not she had a minder check her comments before going public. The word is all new MPs had to tender their maiden speech to the Premier's Office for his staff to vet for anything off message. Here's her FB comment.

What Rebecca didn't tell the angry local masses who flocked to her was...

1. There's no evidence of Conversion Therapy being supported, encouraged, defended or promoted by the organsiers nor the speakers at the planned event.
   
   
2. That the Premier back in March 2021 whislt campaigning said that WALabor would look at copying the Victorian Legislation that was passing to ban Gay Conversion Therapy
   
   
3. That the Victorian Act will criminalise a parent who carefully encourages their gender-confused child to embrace their biological sex - JUST LET THAT SINK IN
   
   
4. That Roger Cook as far back as 2018 promised to bring in an Act to outlaw  Gay Conversion Therapy...LET US REPEAT THAT -> BACK IN 2018 (and still hasn't). THAT was on his & the Premier's agenda 4+ years ago but still hasn't happened. Irony is, just prior to the recent election day, whilst standing next to Rebecca Stephens the Premier said time after time that electoral reform was not on his agenda. He wins power & thats the first thing he begins to enact. So are things he says are on his agenda not on the agenda & things he says aren't on his agenda actually definitely on the agenda. Kinda looks that way.
   
   
5. The Malachi Law that came into being after the unnecessary death of a young boy was on the Cook/McGiwan agenda back in 2018, still hasn't been enacted and the wider view is if it had been in place it probably would have prevented the unnecessary death of seven-year-old Aishwarya Aswath.
   
   
6. That the Minister for Women's Interests in WA, Simone McGurk MLA has already stated WALabor's goal post settings. Women are those people born or choosing to live as women. So that means now that Perth Labor is absolutely fine with anyone born a man but now "living as a woman" playing AFLW or entering the ring of the Women's MMA match that Labor also supports.
   
   
7. As a result...Women's sport is dead & cancel culture is alive. 

There's 7 things Rebecca didn't tell you that though. Not sure why. She either didn't know or isn't in control of saying anything without approval.

Actually still waiting to see where she sits on electoral reform but my guess is where she's told by Alannah and/or the Cabinet.

But I should be fair and see if she tells you these 7 things. See if she opposes electoral reform that will reduce the number of Regional MPs. She what she says are meeting with the local Albany PRIDE group. She is she visits the Pastor & speaks to him as well. See is she attends the event.

Yes I wrote her a letter. Think she missed the opportunity to show leadership & statesmanship, she missed the opportunity to calm people down, get facts and make a stand to prevent cancel culture.

"We'll see"
(EDIT NOTE - No reply from Rebecca Stephens)

Labor's Electoral Reform & It's Potential Damage

 Electoral Reform - "Not on our agenda" said the Premier. It was, it is. It's now.

Here's the thing, "One Vote One Value" is about equality, equal measures BUT equal is not always fair. Equity Based done properly is fair & better for everyone. At present there is a weighting in the WA Upper House, the Legislative Council to allow wider representation. If you want to learn about misrepresentation then watch the looming debate over One Vote One Value because you'll see lots of things misrepresented. In the cartoon below, on the left is what Perth Labor Party wants to go to, on the right is closer to where we are. Time to look at the twisted & skewed points that will get made.

"It was OK for the Barnett Government to control both houses of Parliament, its happened before"

Well no. It's been many years since a Coalition Government and the Barnett Government wasn't a Coalition. It was quite different. It was an "Alliance Government" with 2 conservative parties joining to form Government. But unlike a Coalition, an alliance government meant the WA Nationals ministers & MPs could cross the floor and vote with the opposition. The threat of this happening and the potential political embarassment prevented a number of Bills ever being presented to Parliament. What will happen with a Labor controlled Upper & Lower House? More on that a bit later.


"Its unfair that one person from a Fringe Party can attract 80-90 votes statewide and get elected to Parliament, that has to be stopped, it's unfair. He should be tossed out"

Well yes and no. Firstly yes it is unfair & yes this is the specific area where WA people might like to consider Electoral Reform. In this particular case there's a slim yet rapidly fading chance the gentleman might not get sworn in. He may in fact be ineligible. By the time you read this it'll be decided one way or the other. My guess is he won't be removed because then it lessens some of the need for electoral reform. That is the actual electoral reform Perth Labor really want, One Vote One Value.

Also in this case, such is the dominance of Labor in both houses whether Mr DaylightSaving Party won't hold the balance of power. In Parliament he will still be a voice in the wilderness.

Should he be tossed out? No. Not unless he's breached the laws of the WA State Election, much as I dislike it, no. Like it or not (and I don't) he's in fair & square. Has he paid the usual $50,000 to the gentleman known by many as "the Preference Whisperer"? I don't know, but even if he did, unsure its  against the law. So unless there's a proven case of wrong doing, we're stuck with Mr 98 votes MLC and it'll make no difference unless he can make good points & get press.
(Late Edit - Since the above was written, Mr Tucker MLC was elected, sworn in & is sitting in the Upper House)

"You're just peeved because your team got flattened convincingly so you want to stop all progress"

Well I didn't vote Labor but my team is actually WA. I want what's best for WA and I don't believe One Vote One Value is good for WA. He's a parallel example. Lets be full equal and lets not apply FULL EQUALNESS TO SOLELY ONE AREA.
From now on everyone should pay the same set amount of Income Tax. It doesn't matter if your Twiggy Forrest, Gina Reinhart, Clive Palmer or an average worker, a low wage earner or someone on government benefits. Not a percentage, no bracket creep ever again, just have the same set figure every year.

THAT IS EQUAL, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR AND IT'S BAD FOR EVERYONE

We have percentages, tax brackets and a sliding scale for a reason. Its equity based and its fair. The same goes for the weighting in the Upper House. Now be careful because things get mixed up and you need to seperate the issues that Perth Labor is going to super glue together. 

Issue #1 - Preventing fringe groups from getting elected by only attracting under a 100 votes or similar.

Issue #2 - Installing One Vote One Value

Two seperate issues, two seperate solutions. You can fix Issue #1 without bringing in Issue #2 but Perth Labor want to herald problem one as being unfair & use Issue #2 to fix it therefore reducing the regional voice.  THIS IS WHERE THEY WILL TRY TO DECEIVE WA VOTERS.

Lets take the seat of Nedlands now held by Perth Labor Party. It has around the 30,000 voter level and comprises of 31 square kilometres. To put that in perspective you can jump in a taxi and ride the whole boundry before lunch time even if you stop for a few coffees.

Compare it with the seat of North West Central. It goes from the Indian Ocean to the WA Border. It comprises of just over 10,000 voters spread over 820,000 square kilometres. 
Under One Vote One Value that will have to be amalgamated with say the Pilbara electorate which comprises of 23,000 voters & 292,000 square kilometres.

So close to the EQUAL number of voters per electorate (33,000 voters) but the electorate grows to 1,120,000 square kilometres. Equal numbers but unfair & grossly non equity based in size. With the amount of assets within that super electorate no MP can do the voters justice.

Granted, those 2 seats are lower house seats, not Legislative Council but you see the massive & ingrained disconnect from Perth based MPs who have no idea nor care about the vast areas in question. Already marginalised Remote Indigenous Communities are virtually hidden from representation.

Also if we're to chase One Vote One Value because it's equal, then lets be FULLY EQUAL.
The amount of police officers per electorate must ALL BE EQUAL. 
The amount, size & nature of medical facilities must be the same in ALL ELECTORATES, MUST BE EQUAL
The amount of TAFE facilities must be equal and the same in ALL ELECTORATES
The amount of subsidised public transport MUST BE EQUAL in ALL ELECTORATES...bus, train, ferrry, the lot all equal.
The cost of all infrastructure to the user must ALL BE EQUAL no matter which electorate you live in. Yes your water, gas, electricity, rates must now ALL BE EQUAL where ever you live.
Mobile Connectivity...pick the very best or the very worst connected electorate and everyone must have that exact same EQUAL level of connectivity. 
Ambulances? Heck, in Perth no one is more than 50 kilometres from an ambulance or fire station...same for EVERY ELECTORATE.

Getting the picture?

The picture is this, it is only the "EQUAL" that Perth Labor want to reduce regional representation in the Parliament. No other EQUAL complaint matters at all, only the political control one.
Doesn't matter how old you are, right now is the first time one political party has control of both houses & the One Vote One Value is likely to make the liklihood of that changing more remote. 

Ironic really. That which they say is to bring in equality will deliver more "equality" for one party over (& AT THE EXPENSE OF) the others. Will the pendulum ever swing back? Likely yes, no one stays in power forever but it'll happen more likely after a term or terms of serious mismanagement and/or corruption or some other tumultuous term that pushes the pendulum the other way.

EQUAL IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR. ONE VOTE ONE VALUE IS A DANGEROUS WAY OF BRINGING IN UNFAIR CHANGES UNDER THE GUISE OF EQUALITY WHEN FOR REGIONAL VOTERS NO OTHER FAIR & EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH & GOVERNMENT SERVICES WILL BE INSTALLED TO ALL ELECTORATES EQUALLY. NONE.

Throw in one more point or rather one pointed question for the Pro One Vote One Value people...
Senate Representation. Victoria & NSW have the largest number of Australian citizens so do the Pro OVOV people in WA one OVOV in the Senate? If so WA loses a lot of representation in the state House of Review why not the federal House of Review? Of course it will be overly dominated by NSW & Victoria.
So is OVOV is fair & about equal representation or is that different and doen't apply if it is the same?

And while we're on this, where does the newly installed Member for Albany stand on this?
We don't know. During Pre Polling 15-20 minutes per day was her time there, she rarely spoke on her own, its was always a minister or the Premier talking, her standing behind nodding.

Will she cross the floor & vote against any bill that will reduce regional representation?
I don't think no. If she votes against the government without a conscience vote she will be expelled from the Perth Labor Party and lose her seat.  She is a representative of Perth Labor in the electorate, her job is to sell whatever Labor says to Albany voters, she is denied the opportunity to represent Albany with her vote on the floor of the Parliament.
Go on, ask her. Front up and ask her. She may not know yet of course, but that's where she's at. I say may not know because I was told it was after winning preselection that she discovered there were 2 Houses of Parliament. I was told since winning the election she discovered she'd be in Perth a lot. Parliament will sit roughly 3 days a week (without extension that COVID will likely bring), then there's committee meetings, functions. I was told she was shocked and exclaimed she had small kids though and that no one had told her that. I expect there was a lot the experienced "handlers" didn't tell her. Personally I think she very unfairly was stitched up by her team of managers.

Peter Watson was speaker of the house for the last four years. He played no part in Government business & was the "impartial umpire" so we in Albany have had no real representation in debate in State Parliament for 4 years. That is set to continue and possibly worsen.

Ask the questions you need to ask. Albany is a small electorate & yet we will have no voice, both houses are controlled by whichever brutal Labor faction controls Cabinet. There is nothing equal or fair for Albany.

Rock Fishing Deaths & Regulation

 What is the acceptable number of deaths from rock fishing?
The obvious answer is zero, the practical achievable number is probably above zero.

To look an extreme, we can fine people fishing from the rocks without a life jacket $100,000 dollars & 10 years in jail and there will still be people sneaking out fishing without jackets. Just as selling drugs in some South East Asian countries results in the death penalty and yet they still have drug dealers.

Regulation will not bring a problem to an end, it can only curtail it & I think some people still think with unreasonable expectations that humans won't be humans.

I think the only answer is to do the best we can as a society. No wide spread rules and regulations. Not life jackets on the beach or jettys but identify the worst spots for rock fishing deaths. Then on these places erect warning signs and yes make it a requirement to wear a jacket, fine for defaulters & send the rangers in several times a year & publicise random crack downs.

Will people still die? Quite probably but it'll be ocassional and at that point very much non preventable. At that point it is people determined to flout or willfully ignore the safe approach. If they're lucky they'd get a fine but there will be some who'll keep fishing without a life jacket.

The problem also remains that there are valiant volunteers who come to rescue people or worse still recover bodies. It is still possible for a person to die with a life jacket but it's massively reduced but in that case it makes a recovery quicker and so much safer for the volunteers.

Wearing a life jacket while rock fishing makes sense, but some people are not sensible and others cannot be reasoned with. In remote locations that are unsafe there is only so much society can do and sadly the expectations of some that we can regulate the danger away completely is not possible, it's fanciful. All we can hope is eventually not wearing a jacket is rare & maybe even very rare.

People aren't being cold when they say regulation can only do so much, don't expect it will extinguish a threat. It's illegal to light fires in summer (regulation/law) and we still have bushfires. We can only mitigate the risk as much as possible not eliminate it. We're not at the fully mitigated as much as possible yet.