Amazing how you did not mention the ABC.

So what is the conclusion Sherlock is there such legislation or did I make it up?

There was a law in place and the time limit was 7 years, I stated cash strapped Labor government changed it to three years, think about it there are people that are unable to always reach their money sick in hospitals, nursing homes and so on, bottom of the bird cage policy, why should anyone have their money taken from them, only to later ask for their money back. Gillard/Swann did not introduce this legislation to help anyone else but their own purse.

No12 has form with posting aggressive anti-ALP assertions and conspiracy and then calling everyone that dare ask for a better source all kind of adhominem conservative favourites such as communist or socially dependent.

As for you, how can you whine about people playing the man when you use sweeping generalisations like "that's just the way the left conducts itself"?

How do you disprove an anecdote, out of interest?

Also;



If you have an account dormant for three years and the value is about to be taken by ASIC your bank will notify you.

If you still do nothing and the money is used by ASIC, it takes filling out a form to get it back (plus interest).

If people are stupid enough to have an account lay dormant for that long and not even transfer in $1 in three years and have it wither away with fees really says volumes of how little people manage their finances.

Took me all of 5 seconds to Google this shit and find decent comments on it;

http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/198nt3/inactive_bank_accounts_to_be_seized_after_3_years/

Maybe you, No12, shouldn't believe all the shit your read :roll:

-PB

No idea if No12 is right or not as haven't looked into it, but it's funny how all the forum lefties immediately band together and character assassinate the deliverer rather than disproving it factually. Says a lot about the way the left conducts itself. Always the man, never the ball.

God bless 60 Minutes and Today Tonight!

Where on Earth would be without such cutting edge journalism?

-PB

It’s for Savings Accounts only inactive for over three years, was introduced three months ago by Wayne Swann, it will affect a lot of people especially the elderly and kids accounts.
Why are you comrades so surprised by the news, you did not hear it on the ABC or the Socialist Daily, thank God there are other media sources in Australia that expose this scum and their nasty policies.

Are you taking the piss? That contradicts the purpose of term deposits. #-o The banks would never let this happen. As notor said, did you forward that shitty chain email?

Heard it on the radio? What, were you listening to John Laws?

Maybe its just a training run for full capital controls in case our bloated, overvalued banks/residential property asset class ever Collapses :lol:

Who says that I take your gullibility personally?

Wayne Swann was in form yesterday when announcing National Disability Scheme, he said it will commence in 1819 not once but twice. This says it all what a clown.

Are really so dumb or socially dependent on this government that any announcement ( heard it on radio this afternoon as people are going overseas, hospitals, nursing homes … and will lose their money) that you take everything so personal?

I hope when you got that chain email you pressed the fwd button for all your friends

Cash strapped Federal Government (Labor Party) introduced new law, where every bank account funds inactive for three years will go in to consolidated revenue, previous time limit was 7 years. Inactive account is considered every account where no one withdraws or deposits funds in to that account, interest or bank charges is not taken into account when activity is considered. This law will start after 31.05.2013 so anyone with any money in accounts they did not touch since 2010 could soon kiss their money goodbye.

I actually agree with this, we don't need a referendum, just a bit of lobbying. And once it's passed and everyone realises the sky hasn't fallen in everyone will move on.

And the Greens, btw, will fall into irrelevance, gay marriage being their only platform that really resonates with people.

ACT & NT.

I think the territories are in a separate category, they were talking about it on tv tonight. I don't remember exactly what they said.

NT only counts for national majority doesn't it?

Yes, someone other than you can read articles on the internet. Afropedia indeed.

Haven't looked at any news today. Link?

The panic in today's Fairfax press says you're wrong.

Thankyou, Afropedia, I'm aware of how referendums work.

Not really. You have to have a national majority as well as majority in all 8 states and territories. It's not implausible that somewhere like the NT or Queensland might not get the necessary majority. Just 8 of 44 Referendums in our nation's history have been successful.

I don't see why we should spend the inordinate amount of money on a Referendum (It costs some $20m) when all it would take is a handful of our politicians to pull their fingers out of their arses.

There is no Gay & Lesbian lobby.

As for what the public thinks...

◦ Almost two in three (64%) of Australians believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry (and one in three 32% strongly agree with this).
◦ This proportion is up from 62% recorded in February 2012 and is the highest proportion since measures commenced in 2009.

And...

The majority (53%) of Christians are open to allowing same-sex marriage. There is an even greater level of support for same-sex marriage among people who do not have a religion (67%) and members of other religions (62%).

And...

A Galaxy poll in November 2011 found that 4 in 5 Australians – 80% – want the Coalition to have a conscience vote on allowing samesex couples to marry. This includes 76% of Coalition voters and almost 90% of young voters.

And...

62% of Australians believe same-sex couples should be able to marry
75% of Australians believe reform is inevitable
78% believe there should be a conscience vote on the issue
74% of Labor voters and 48% of Coalition voters support marriage equality
72% of Australians with young children support marriage equality

And...



The latest poll finds 31 per cent oppose legalising same-sex marriage, a six-point drop on a year ago, when 37 per cent were opposed.

And...



I don't think this mythical lobby has anything to worry about if it were to go to a referendum.

referendum lol.

In 88 there was one to "enshrine in the Australian constitution various civil rights, including freedom of religion, rights in relation to trials, and rights regarding the compulsory acquisition of property."

70% voted against it.

And this question again in 88, "enshrine in the constitution a guarantee that all Commonwealth, State and Territory elections would be conducted democratically"

62% said no.

So in 88, the people voted against democratic elections, civil rights, and fair compensation if the Government compulsorily acquired the property of a person.

Good luck. They probably wouldn't even be able to get a proper FTTH NBN referendum carried

Since its direct voting its no surprise to see the Gay & Lesbian lobby recoil in horror from the concept.

Surely you're having a laugh with that one.

Leave it as a referendum and then the Libs will have to implement if Australians do indeed want it.

It would not pass a referendum though.

Should Labour make gay marriage an election issue?
They walk a fine line by doing so - it might pay off, it might back fire

Liberals intend to cut 12,000 federal public service jobs. Well that'll do wonders for canberra's economy