Abbott has some issues. His expenses along with every other parliamentarian’s are published on the Department of Finance website. I believe it was a News Corp “exclusive” originally. Maybe Rupert has given the nod that enough’s enough!
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/
I love that the far-left is going crazy today after seeing the No campaign have the temerity to launch an advertising campaign. ABC News tonight even said it was “causing division” (because of course anything related to the Yes campaign doesn’t cause division - they’re only about love 
).
As for hyperventilating about the accuracy of minor details, I think it is fairly clear to most sane minded people the direction of travel far-left governments, and governments with many gay MPs and ministers, seek to take us with social engineering whereby men are not men and women are men. 
One example about a boy and trousers may not be true - there are 100 worse examples in any case.
Saying that gender fluidity has nothing to do with this debate, as Simon Birmingham did today, is ridiculous - of course it does. You’re literally saying the role of a male and female in a marriage is redundant.
The ABC wheeled out all their “experts” in 7:30 too to tell us how these issues are red herrings etc…in other words, they have to be quickly put back in the box before the Australian public see the wider loopy agenda.
In any case, I look forward to open and vigorous debate from both sides before same-sex marriage is legislated for at the end of the year…the ABC trying to shut down debate about such fundamental issues really annoys me.
Nope; but 1st there’s now a thread specifically for this postal survey. It is a distraction. At the most basic the question is whether two adults should be allowed to marry regardless of their gender, so if someone is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, male, female, etc., and whether that/those condition(s) for a particular individual is/are constant or not has nothing to do with removing the restriction.
These people already exist; should we remove the ban stopping them marrying each other?
Simple.
Anyway, on to non-SSM issues:
Time to send in the Federal Police to arrest these whinging traitors? (Treason is a crime, right?) 
Just pathetic that the LNP are whinging about the distribution of the tax that their PM brought in claiming it would be enough for the states & territories, but where is the concrete proposal from them saying exactly how the formula should be changed to reduce the time between the drop in their state’s economy and the change being reflected in the GST allocation (determined independently by the the Grants Commission)?
It also continues as another example of the LNP’s internal divisions; are they trying to guarantee gov’t for Labor?
The WAxit idea is one of 25 motions to be put to this weekend’s state conference, potentially embarrassing Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who is due to address the gathering.
…
But the push for greater independence for the state is at odds with a renewed plea from the membership for Defence Minister Marise Payne to deploy more troops to Western Australia to protect the state from China.
So they are like the fools in Britain who voted to leave the EU, they want all the benefits of the larger entity but don’t want to contribute, because sure, the world works that way.
The group also called for the federal government to preserve the national anthem and oppose any attempts to change the wording, and called for foreign aid to be slashed.
Why if they want to leave the nation? And they won’t want any aid from Australia when they leave? OK, good.
You’re viewing that too narrowly through the prism of one individual. The wider concept means that gender has become (supposedly) irrelevant such that the requirement for marriage is simply two people (of any gender), rather than one person that fits (x) gender and one person that fits (y) gender.
Well, it does for some - how come the majority of EU member states want and receive “the benefits of the larger entity” but their net contributions are negative?
Because the larger benefits of no trade barriers and increased economic integration outweigh those negatives?
Erm, not sure what you’ve said there - slow down and read before jumping in to attack.
TV-ACT said that some want the “benefits” of being an EU member state, but “don’t want to contribute”.
I said, in that case, how come most member states have net contributions which are in the negative…surely the financial burden on the UK, for example, should be smaller if everyone is benefiting from being a member state…
You didn’t read what I said.
Because a lack of trade barriers between these states allows for increased trade and easier international trade within the EU, the financial burden on member states is worth it. The UK made major strides in financial services during its time in the European Union, so much so that London became the financial capital of the world.
Post-Brexit, tons of firms are moving from London to Frankfurt and Berlin because trade barriers are difficult to work around.
I did read what you said…you’re on another tangent…you’re simply making the case why the UK should stay in the EU (ie the benefits outweigh the negatives of the contributions they’re required to make).
I’m talking about all the other countries that also receive the “benefits of the larger entity but don’t contribute”, as TV-ACT said.
I was comparing the WA LNP people who want to separate from Aus to idiot Brexiteers, so let’s not veer off-topic (the topic being Aus federal politics).
Another former PM who should shut up; Howard helped grow significant problems people in western Sydney & similar areas are living by his stupid policies on negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions & anti-public transport, plus then encouraging racism by jumping on the bandwagon blaming immigrants for the problems out there instead of adjusting his policies:
Plus, the LNP can’t get anything done; not even the bare minimum to slow the rise of power prices:
Once again ordinary people suffer/pay more because of the conservatives/right-wing of the LNP.
Fuck, I saw last night on the news that the Coalition’s fix to this mess was a barcode or QR code on powerbills to give consumers cheaper deals…?
It’s incredible how little they’re managing to fix.
The Australian Electoral Commission has proposed redistribution of House of Representatives seats for the next federal election. Victoria and ACT will each gain one seat but South Australia will lose one seat. You can read more about it here
It’s unfortunate that SA will lose one seat because its population growth is smaller than the eastern states.
EDIT: fixed spelling
It’s unfortunate that Tasmania, despite its dwindling population, is guaranteed so many seats in parliament.
If the SA state government improved support for regional areas (transport being one), perhaps it would be possible to stimulate a sustainable regional city or two to encourage growth outside of metro Adelaide. SA is just falling further and further behind.
Tasmania has five seats as minimum as guaranteed under Section 24 of the Australian Constitution:
…five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State.
Does South Australia have any areas which could facilitate a second city? I figured large swathes of the coastline were basically inhospitable.
Queensland is the exact opposite thankfully. The state is very well positioned to have a few major cities (Toowoomba, Townsville, Cairns, Rocky, GC and SC, Ipswich and Logan) which look set to become major centres in their own right.
Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor are reasonably close to suburban Adelaide, but would be more like Geelong than their own city. Passenger train links could (and should) use the operational freight/GSR corridors.
Off the top of my head, Port Lincoln or Port Pirie could be viable candidates. They’re far enough north to be completely separate from the suburbs, have an open freight/GSR corridor for a new passenger service to the CBD, and could easily be used as “gateways” to future regional city development.
Whyalla is the second largest regional city after Mt Gambier, but distance for both would be an issue. Start slightly further in to the suburbs, then branch out to more regional cities.
You’re not one of those people that say high Asian immigration to Sydney and Melbourne have nothing to do with increased house prices, are you? 
Of course it does.
Personally, I’m in favour of high Asian immigration (they have good, decent, conservative values), and the added bonus is that Labor bogans are locked out of accessing housing in nicer areas. But let’s not pretend that high levels of immigration (and thus increased demand) is not the MAJOR factor in the east coast housing bubble.
Letters from energy companies are all well and good – but they won’t stop the blackouts and rising energy costs, they won’t stop some businesses being closed by those costs, they won’t prevent the expensive legal actions and they definitely won’t plug the policy hole.
The economic threat of the worsening energy crisis is enough to have the “Head of Weather Solutions” for insurance giant Swiss Re warning of a possible recession…
You’ll find no climate change denialists on the insurance side, only concern about large parts of Australia becoming uninsurable.
…the immediate concern is the likelihood of widespread blackouts and the certainty of higher energy prices. A letter from your electricity company advising that you’ve been a mug, paying a lazy tax, doesn’t change that. And Snowy River 2.0 is several years away, at best.
…
Where politics fail, where the ratbag end of the coalition clings to a “clean coal” fantasy, lawyers may be at hand to force change.
Oh dear Mal.