I don't think we need senate to pass a motion on such a nonsense issue though

Senator Anning's motions were even more ludicrous, but they got vote down unanimously. Talk about wasting tax payer's money on raising absolute pointless exercises in governance. 

Its been pretty bad at time but nowhere near as bad as labor.  Our economoy is ticking along nicely, surpluses are in sight and our borders have been secured.  The libs also passed gay marriage which after six years of leftist unrule, was looking like it would never happen.  By far the biggest achievement was the emptying of our detention centres and stopping the drownings at sea.  The bloodshed caused by labour and the greens will never be forgotten and future generations will look back on that government with great shame.  Only a loopy deranged ideologue would describe the left side of government "objectively better", unless of course you correlate success with debt and deficit and drownings at sea.

I have no guilt about being white.

:prepares for the lynch mob:

"The other mob" are far from perfect but they are objectively better, it'd honestly be hard to be worse. I don't expect you to agree though

Ugh this "it's ok to be white" shit is still going on and being even more blown out of proportion by average Joe Twatface on social media.

-PB

and the other mob has better credentials ? from one melting pot to the ultimate fryers, breath taking alright lol........

A royal commission into your sector disagrees.

Go on. 

A government that governs less, governs best. So that's a no from me.

Done, hopefully I'll be changing it again soon. The incompetency of this government is breathtaking.

Like most people we believe in the separation of church and state.  That means the church stays the fuck out of the government business and government stays the fuck out of the churches business.  The current campaign to enforce rights of gays in religious institutions is a clear transgression of the church/state demarcation, and is part of a broader, clandestine strategy to infringe on religious rights and secularise religions institutions.  Might eventually work against the Christian but you try pulling this shit on Islam and dont complain when the C-4 starts flying.

I did slightly bust a  nut but nothing over the top

Yes. The government should do the Christian thing and ordain them. I guarantee you God will do absolutely nothing in response. 

>Implying the religious agenda is better 

What a reply 👍

Hahaha Rusty.  I bet you've been busting to get that out.

Totally correct.

Exactly, that's the thing, where do they draw the line?
They'll only stop once they've either closed down churches completely, or completely overhaul their teaching to basically preach their own agenda. 

At the moment the government legally allows for religious bodies to discriminate based on sexual orientations.

What do people think about gay Catholic priests?  If there's an openly gay priest who wants to run Sunday mass, and the church says no, do you think this constitutes discrimination against homosexuals?  Should then the government step in to force the church to ordain the gay priest?  After all, what does being gay have to do with his ability to teach scripture?   

I think the problem more so with three years is that, yes they have time to advance their agenda, but they nowadays too often simply plan for the next election (on average we have elections about every 2.5 years in Australia over the last few decades). If government's (currently) plan for longer term chances are that government won't reap the rewards ... a successive government will, and this similarly causes governments to act shortsighted rather than long term.

Personally I think a hung parliament can be a good thing, unfortunately both parties of late are more worried about scoring points against each other than good governance of Australia.

I think even if we became a republic mid-terms wouldn't work in Australia, because under the proposed system of a republic I believe our leader would still be the PM not the President.

Mid-terms are a way to sort of put some checks and balances on the President in the USA, as they are directly elected not by party majority. In effect if the President has been "shit" it allows the public (halfish) to vote in a congress / senate that isn't favourable to the President. In Australia, as I said, I believe under a republic we'd still have government based on the party that holds the majority of seats, NOT a President who sits outside of their party and normal operations of government (house of reps / senate).

I'd imagine in Australia that you'd have a similar set up to now, that is PM runs the country with the support of government (house of rep majority) and the President is the overseer of governance in Australia. So in effect mid-terms could see a change in government / PM, which then makes mid-terms redundant (in effect you are having two half votes every 2 years instead).

Really? People in Wentworth are THAT concerned about where the Israeli Embassy should be?

FMD.

-PB

Agree with the first bit, can you explain how mid terms work though?

We should be a republic and have 4-year terms, with mid-term elections relating to the two houses of government. 

Cuts both ways, if they have a majority in either one or both houses; should be plenty of time to advance an agenda.

Likewise if it's a hung or shit Parliament, the amount of time spent fucking around isn't as long.

-PB

Just noticed that the thread title needs an update ... 

Also had a discussion at work today about terms of office for elected MPs (3 years). Is this long enough for government to make actual steps forward, or is it needed to ensure none screw it up too bad over a look period of time??

Do you think the 3 year election term is too short, too long or just right?? Would be interested in thoughts.

You pretty much answered it.  The state should intervene to protect children from injury due to incompetence of parents.  Im not aware of male circumcision having deleterious long term physical or psychological impact on children/adults.

Ultimately there is a line that must be drawn, where does the state have the right to intervene and overrule the free will of people and institutions, and I believe that line can be drawn at where substantial damage  is caused, either physical or psychological.   I dont believe excluding gays from schools is transgressive enough to warrant  to state involvement in determining how religious schools  can be run and what pupils they select.  Think of religious a bit like Sunday schools.  If there is a kid who wants to join his local Methodist church and attend Sunday school, yet the church refuses to admit him because of his sexuality, does the government then have the right to intervene and force the church to accept the homosexual kid?  Don't you think that's a bit of overreach from the state?   Essentially I'm applying the same rationale to independent schools, in that they are kind like Sunday schools on steroids and teach things other than religion, but they are still fundamentally and intimately connected to the religion and their doctrine.

While tax payers are giving those schools money, those kind of ideals can gtfo.

-PB

If there's a rule in a religion where it says x type of people should be killed, then obviously the government has to be the moral arbiter.