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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE LENGTH, DEPTH & WIDTH OF INCOMPETNENCE

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

WA Politics, The Cabinet & Opening the Borders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As stated before...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

WA's Firearms Reform. Why & Is It Good or Bad

Most reasonable people are not anti reform. Nor are they pro reform for the sake of reform.
That's how reasonable people think.
I'm in favour of any reform that is over due, is actually required & serves an actual purpose.

So if the Firearms Reform is a good thing, is fair & reasonable I don't have a problem with that.

Having said that, I still await to hear why GunShops were shut down in a Pandemic Lockdown as that seems to go far deeper than any "in the interests of public safety" reasoning. It seemed to come in without detailing what the elevated threat was. Or why the firearms, parts & ammunition was made so utterly difficult to freight around within WA & between WA & other states. 

There was also the matter that there was no consultation on this Bill that has already gone to Parliament & was followed with the comment that they would pass this THEN consult with stakeholders, gun industry, shooting competitors or any general public.
So On Consultation. No, none, none at all, none. Concerning.

But I'll try to keep the cynical switch turned off...

One of the big issues for me is Firearms Prohibition Order (FPO)
In principle I'm ok with this, however it needs specificity & detail as to why one is applied AND it also has to have catch clauses to capture any police officer from abusing the power of FPO. Also have a list of penalties they would be subjected to if they abused the system. At first glance if you have a FPO you can appeal to the SAT but the information can be deemed as confidential & won't be released to you. I expect you will have to take it to a higher court to get that information at which point you've spent a enormous of money, you're likely to be unsuccessful & they can withdraw the FPO, retain the information in confidence & if there was an abuse by a member of the WAPolice you won't know & you will not be allowed to find out and they cannot face discipline or face legal action.
How's that sit with you?

Parts diagrams will be banned. Any books with schematics of vintage, military, obselete or any other firearms you could be charged. The intent of this will have to be slugged out in the part of the Legislations passage through parliament called "Consideration in Detail" which MPs often refer to as "CID"
There is a valid reason for this part but it does creep over into (I hope) very unintended areas.
In one area, its very subjective but if a police officer might decide that the cleaning mat (below) is subject to the legislation you might be square in the middle of serious tripping point for you, an otherwise innocent law abiding firearms owner.

If its on your computer you could well be in trouble. If you have a copy of a military history book that has an exploded view of a Owen or Sten gun for example, yes you'll be in trouble. If someone's caught with these guns or it appears they're trying to manufacturing them, yup throw the book at them but if it's on page 238 of a book on your shelf you haven't even looked at in years...yup you could be in trouble. If there's a provision that says prosecutors must prove intent, then it's pretty reasonable but if not...no this is needless over reach with a serious jail time & criminal record attached.

That is an interesting point. Its a basis of the law. INTENT.
I'm not sure how much of proving the presence of intent will be engineered in to the Act but at this point I'm also considering & deeply concerned about the Government, the Department & the upper levels of WAPolice Bureacracy and what their combined "intent" might really be.

Now jumping all over the place, there is apparently a fellow I do not know nor follow who is over east. I think he owns a business & runs a Youtube Channel. I think he is a right stirrer on freedom marches etc and that's his choice but he ended up with a FPO in NSW due to a photo or video (?) of him holding and/or possibly firing an AK-47.
An AK-47 is not a "machine gun" nor an "assault rifle" - It's a Russian designed select fire, semi automatic rifle. The are not new, they are an old design & are among the most common semi automatic rifles on the planet because they have a simple design, easy to manufacture and very easy to operate. They're not the most accurate, but they are among the most fail safe & durable. Hence they are used by many nations and by many terror organisations.

Apparently the photo/footage was taken OVERSEAS where it was 100% legal. I assume he put it on social media & it was spotted & reported.
I gather he does not own firearms & it's not known if he's likely to be a threat to public safety with a firearm.
With the FPO he can be stopped & searched, his vehicle or the vehicle he's in searched or any property he owns, controls or manages can be searched without warrant. And a property he's visiting.
As a result he films every roadside stop by police & puts the footage online.
There's a lot of stops by police.

Back to WA there's also a provision in the Bill to ban bump stops & folding stocks.
That's pretty incredible too...

Why?

Well they already are illegal, everyone knows that, except the people arranging this legislation.
I'm beginning to think someone not very smart is putting together legislation, no one is checking it & it is appallingly embarassing. (Did I mention no consultation with Firearm Dealers, Sporting Groups, Industry or any part of the private sector related to legal fireams?)

And in my best K-Tel presenter voice "BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE..." there's also the part to ban detachable stocks.
Ummmm, dear Sherlock in the Department...all and every single long arm has a detachable stock.
If that provision was passed you will make every single firearm in WA illegal except handguns that are owned by revolver/pistol clubs. Is there an adult you can phone for help please?

I assume they mean detachable butt stock which is different to a rifle stock. They seem to not know what they meant or said or both. Some shotguns of course have detachable butt stocks but the trigger mechanism goes with it & if  remove that the barrel goes seperate. You cannot fire it when its seperated.
I've heard of Yes Minister & Yes Prime Minister the TV Show. Big fan of those shows, big fan of The Hollowmen too. I'm beginning to think perhaps they were actually documentaries of Training videos for up & coming professionals in the department hoping to get upwardly mobile.

Suppresors are finally got better definition but its a pity as most only reduce the sound signal to below 120 or 130db where its then safe for the shooter to use without ear protection. Brilliant on the competitive range or when hunting pigs or dangerous vermin in thick scrub. That would be common sense as they are easily available over the counter in NZ but point is, as before chances on the Police Bureaucrats relenting on that are still zero at this stage.
Interesting as you can use one with approval as a Ag Department employee. Now how on earth are they so damn evil due to (we can only assume) possible misuse or part of a crime that they're allowed for a Government employee yet not for legitimate use hunting mroe safely or range use more safely?

Now there's also...a firearm that is not working or is parts, be careful. If you've got a hammer off a vintage gun or may even extend to, for example, magazine on grand dad's de-acvtivated World War II .303 (de-activated or rendered) you could possibly be charged at present under this mess. Don't stress but this will have to be clarified & much of this hasn't. Now don't blame anyone for jumping the gun & getting anxious & worried. With the deliberate lack of information, the currently woeful content as well as what looks like a deliberate lack of clarity let alone consultation who wouldn't jump to conclusions. Who wouldn't expect the worst. I think contact your usual lobby groups, shooting clubs, SSAA, Shooters Union, Firearm Clubs, Firearms Dealers, local MPs & get to learn more.

But first glance, this advert for "parts" in Queensland buying it, transporting it here & possessing it here (even if you legally own the correct firearm for the parts) might get you a very serious date with a judge.



It will be an expensive date in court, you might end up with a criminal conviction, a criminal record & lose not only all your properly registered firearms, you will lose the ability to seek a licence for decades & you might find the criminal record a barrier in your life applying for a job etc. Oh lets just add on top, should a member of the WA Police Force decide so, you might end up with a Firearms Prohibition Order & be subject to all the problems that has.

Likewise, the idea that reloading ammunition is said to be likely to be banned, but I'd hold off here, just wait & see. It will come out in the wash but it maybe confined to people who cannot have firearms anyway, so would not be able to have ammunition or powder, casings, primers etc anyway. Wait & see.
At present if your spouse is in Perth & you're 100s of kilometres away & you ask her to pick a packet of blank casings for reloading, basically just brass shells...well you may not be able to buy them, if you can unless she has the identical licence to you she may not be able to purchase & transport them. we just don't know. Imagine had there been proper consultation. I know, I know, total crazy talk.

The part the MPs will have to address is why is each reform required. It will be pushed as clamping down on Organised Crime or to clean up the current Act to help maintain or improve Public Safety. MPs need to identify which is which. Then they will have to ask, how does that work?

We have far too much, far too many examples of people living their lives whilst separating rights & responsibility. They are inseparable. That should always be the case, rights & responsibilites are inseperable.
So too it should apply to police officers, with powers installed there MUST BE A CLEAR LINE OF RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHED. CLEAR LIST OF PENALTIES, PROCESSES OF APPEAL & COMPLAINT FOR BOTH AN ALLEGEDLY WRONGED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND A POLICE OFFICER.

They must know their responsibilities, they must be trained to know whether a firearm is dangerous or illegal. I hope they do. They should be liable if they don't know & make a move on a member of the public out of ignorance. If an FPO can be made against you, without it going before a judge or court & there's very limited justification to be provided if you appeal it, well we've arrived in a very thuggish state.

Its going to get messy...


ARROW 1 - So the commissioner has to be "satisfied" the firearm (legal or not), major part of a gun (unspecified), prohibited accessory (not listed) or ammunition & it's likely to end up being a danger to life & property. The commissioner has to make a judgement call on what the person's intent is, but they won't be talking to them. No I'm no legal expert but does seem that its a bizarre departure from legal process

Not sure how the Commissioner can be satisfied with whatever unmentioned criteria of whatever "reasonable persons test" is being used or that anything or everything the police decide is confidential is kept suppressed from the person accused.
That's going to get messy (even if its going to be rammed through.




 

ARROW 2 - Interesting, you can be banned from having a firearm when you're considered to not be a fit & proper person to own a firearm. Already the case.So if you have one then, so you can only have one illegally. This is already covered under possessing of an illegal gun. However whilst that exists, you can be searched by police anytime without warrant for 10 years or until it's revoked earlier.

ARROW 3 - Not list of what constitutes "the public interest" - Says otherwise...by who's reckoning, the Police Officer or the Commissioner & what's the avenue for appeal?

ARROW 4 - If the person subject of a FPO appeals their decision, they're going to have a poor time appealing if the "intelligence" remains secret & it's not available to them. This is going to be apparent to anyone fair minded & sensible & yet the WA Govt is behind this.

ARROW 5 - Seems a FPO can be applied to anyone. In fact it applies to firearm owner or even if the person doesn't own, never  has owned are firearm and doesn't have an application pending. So ANY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN can be a subject of this mechanism to allow searches of them, their vehicle, the vehicle they're passenger in, any any prioperty they're visiting, be it friend or acquatance. 

We're still to check, but if you have a FPO against you & you get invited to person's home for a BBQ you better check if they have legally owned firearms on the premises. If they do, even if they're safely stored & secured to the highest standard someone might still get in trouble due to a FPO person being near firearms. Waiting to confirm this one...you should be remarkable disappointed & yet totally unsurprised should it be the case.

Meanwhile, if you have upgraded the stock on your rifle, got a spare grip, these may be illegal to possess & you could be in deep trouble.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT MAKES LEGISLATION WITHOUT CONSULTING THE STAKEHOLDERS OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IF EVER THERE WAS A PROVEN REASON FOR BUREACRATIC REFORM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA, HERE IT IS. ITS "YES MINISTER" GONE MAD & ON STEROIDS.

Contact your local MP, your clubs, sporting group, lobby group, WAFarmers, PGA etc ASAP

Does a Member of the WA Cabinet, a Minister have to be a MP...

...or can they be an experienced member of the ministry's sector?

Can this be true, is this the case?

A person who is not a Member of the WA Parliament can be appointed a Minister of a WA Portfolio?

It does happen in other jurisdictions and it's not a problem, in fact seems to work really well. Now there's suggestion it can legally be down, 100% allowable now in WA.

It raise the question - - Why not have highly experienced people from the respective sector/industry instead of factional hacks who get a spot, a post & just put up a theatrical front?

Why are we not having the best of the best, the most experienced people of the field at the helm? Minister for Agriculture wants to close Live Export that clearly underpins & holds up the entire red meat industry in Western Australia. Without it, the sector would collapse, grain growing would be flooded & there is no way the domestic processing industry is big enough to handle just the domestic market now, let alone trying to supply an overseas market that doesn't want packaged chilled meat. Then she wanted more native species planted so there'd be more insects to eat the weeds & less herbicide would be needed. She has never run a farm, never grown a broadacre crop or run sheep & cattle. Minister for Small Business has had a non "solely Union working life". He was a social worker & then 3rd tier CEO of of Development Commission. He's a kinda, nearly, almost but nope not there to level WA needs. Minister for Education who tried to shut School of the Air without any stakeholder consultation, shut School Camps, skim money out of Ag College accounts, tried to shut the Moora Residential College until the Federal Government funded it's rebuild and its now fully booked. Her planned would have pushed regional students even further away from their parents. She's an ex Hospitality Union worker. Minister for the collapsed Health Ministry...well we have a another ex "Trade Unionist". She's 45 & she's only been back in Australia as a resident since 2001 & in that time she worked for a trade union and the in office of then MP Carmen Lawrence. She is a career political actor, not a health asset. The Minister for Water, Forestry & Innovation... Dave Kelly, worked for a trade union for 20 years which included 10 years as State Secretary. He has been described as a Left Faction Powerbroker & a "Factional Boss". He was award the very safe Labor seat of Bassendean & within ONE MONTH OF BEING ELECTED WAS ELECTED TO THE CABINET. He's made a mess of Fisheries, trying to Socialise the Rock Lobster Industry, supported the WA Timber Industry fully then effectively closed the majority of it. Then there's the Minsiter for Women's Interests. Prior to entering Parliament she worked for, you guessed it, a union..."UnionsWA", served as an official of the Aust Manufacturing Workers Union & United Voice. Worked as a producer on the ABC. She's quite some champion for women's interests whilst saying that a woman is a woman & "anyone living as a woman" Effectively women are only a lifestyle choice, not gender/sex based, because we assume gender/sex no longer exists. So we can expect a Minister for Stamp Collecting and Furniture Restoration Hobbyists soon. This list is going to get longer and longer. The party hacks & pecking order of people with merit in the bin or at least restricted to being the ability to comply with whatever the party says (meaning the small group that control it) If you voted Labor, you're either a blind cult member or you've been ripped off and sold a dead cat as a thoroughbred.

The Religious Discrimination Bill.

In a nutshell, the telling point is simple.

A Muslim School, Christian School, Jewish School or whichever faith based school...they must have the protections to allow them to to operate in accordance with their religious ethos & whatever Holy Scriptures they have unrestricted.

Unrestricted insofar as they do not threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or would be considered malicious to a "reasonable person". Will also mean a Muslim or Christian or Jewish (insert any other faith) School can require that students are of their respective faith & prevent others not of that faith from attending. This will not be discrimatory.

The so called Israel Folau Clause which would prevent a person from being sacked for expressing a religious point of view has supposedly been scrapped. That being the case, a future such case would possibly have to head to court to get resoved.
Not ideal.

If you scroll up, re-read the section with bold italics and this is where some political parties will fall down. Some of them do not understand what a "reasonable person's test" is within the workings of their own party. I can only assume they'll copy another party & fake it until they make it.

Here's the thing. The Left & the Right will have views on this and it'll will be woke laced, identity politics governed and have some other vile premise like intersectionality, oppression politics where to remove concocted oppression from one group greater oppression & over reach will be applied to another group.
This will become them vs us.

There are really only 2 options, that or Conservatives & Progressives (even if they don't align greatly & the 2nd alternative if Cultural Neo Marxism

We will end up seeing who the real Conservatives are & who a Woke Theatre Props pretending to be be Conservatives in a pretend Conservative Party.
Not only will what MPs (state & federal) say be telling, so too will those who will be silent on it. There will be those pretend conservatives (deliberate lower case) who will stay silent & who will not be drawn on it.

You're probably getting closer to Greens supporters who couldn't get a seat in Parliament with the Greens so used a middle road party to get elected & help restructure their finances & their failed career.

Watch how many WA Members of Parliament are outspoken or silent/deflective when asked.

If they give tactical replies instead of a clear concise answer to your questions, be sure not to ever vote for them & encourage others to ask them questions and also not vote for them if the deflections continue.

Parliaments around Australia have too many Crafty & Ruthless Theatre Props.
We also have too many Bureacrat heavy on making the legislation THEY want & not what's best for the people.

Crafty & Ruthless Theatre Props & Over-Reaching Bureacrats go hand in hand.
Both need serious reform. Both are over done with Public Dis-Service Ideals.

Reform for them is far more essential & would be far more productive.

From exprience talk with a good number of MPs & exMPs of varying stripes, many have a view on different faiths & yet seem to have an astonishingly poor understanding or grasp on those 3 main faiths let alone the many minor ones, especially the Eastern Faiths. In keeping with the profound they sometimes seem to find in the vague, the less they understand an eastern faith, more likely they are to support it instead of their own cultural faith.

This is either fuel by their eagerness to be a bit woke for votes OR they think some groups vote en masse exactly the same & that will support their electiblity...and therefore success in their Financial Restructuring and/or Career Restructuring.

We desperately need Real Conservatives & Wise Progressives. I suspect Labor has a unknown number of wise progressives who are outnumbered & must vote as instructed and the Opposition Benches have a some Conservatives & some Faux Conservatives with a woke streak. Hope they're flushed out. In the meantime, check their policy platforms & failing that ring your local MP and the closest MPs of an opposing side to get an idea.

The Silent Death of Sir Humphrey Applebee...Hasn't Happened. He's Bigger Than Ever

No, not the actor Nigel Hawthorne. Sadly that great British actor passed away 20 years ago on Boxing Day in 2001. He was aged 72 when he passed away. (Yes he was born in 1929)

No we're talking about everything his political sitcom character stood for. Activity not outcome, more public servants but not actually serving the public. And of course the classic line, the sadly scarily accurate line from Bernard from Yes Prime Minister referring to the Public Service recommendations to Ministers "It'll be like a conjuring trick. You know, take any card. You always end up with the card the magician forced you to take."

The actual overdue death of Sir Humphrey is about Ministers, Senior Bureacrats, Members of Parliament, Cabinet members all cool their jets & only get involved with Legislation that will help, serve & protect  the general public.

We have too much legislation now
We have too much over reach now
We have too much regulation now
And we have too many old Acts of Parliament that need to be removed.

The WA Parliament spent not nearly enough time on the recently passed bill on Electoral Reform & also the Aboriginal Heritage bill. Both were rammed through both houses, no amendments were allowed, no referral to Parliamentary Committees were allowed & debate time was reduced. It was a disgusting perversion of the proper legislative process. The reported comments of a WALabor MP at a social event laughing and saying the only place more in control of legislation would be North Korea might actually be true. However it'll be the smallest finest margin between the two.

TIME FOR THE OVERDUE BUREACRATIC/LEGISLATION REFORM 

To this end, every bureacrat involved in the construct of any legislation need to consider their position & their career direction if they cannot put their Bill & through a template same or similar to the following. If the Total Score is Above 12, thats a FAIL
So a "Yes" equals 1 point & a "NO" equals 2 points.

Anyone resembling Sir Humphrey Applebee should start clearing their desk out, return the work laptop, phone, car and...everything else.