The council cannot guarantee any jobs will be created at all, and I also don't think local councils should have the power to acquire land when the independent review says there is no reason to as other options are available.

The upcoming postal ballot in relation to Same Sex Marriage is a band-aid solution, no doubt about it. However, as the government’s hands were tied by Labor and the Greens in relation to a plebiscite, you at least have to give them credit for trying their best to keep a pre-election promise to the people.   

I wish to state categorically that if the majority vote is "yes", then I will have absolutely no problem accepting this result, as I'm sure many other fair minded Australians will too.   

Free speech and fairness are two of the cornerstones of democracy.   

It begs the question though: if the majority vote is "No", will supporters of Same Sex Marriage likewise accept the umpires decision out of fairness, or will they stamp their feet like spoilt children and continue to agitate?   Watch this space.

Can you change reality by re-defining words? From ancient times, marriage has been between a man and a woman.  Redefining marriage as the union of "any two people regardless of gender" will inevitably lead to further redefinitions straying further and further from traditional family structure. 

ON another matter, the Victorian government plans to legalise intentional killing or assisted suicide of people with intolerable symptoms expected to die within 12 months.

The 12 months life-expectancy criterion will mean a premature death based on somebody's guess.

A similar law in the US state of Oregon, described by the government as an example of safeguards working, is not working very well.

For example, Oregon victims often do not, in practice, have intolerable pain. In 2016, nearly half of those whose death resulted from taking prescribed lethal medication gave "being a burden" on family and carers as a motive for requesting death. We don't really want that happening here.  

When the absurd postal vote "plebiscite" was announced, my first reaction was that it should be boycotted. Parliament was abrogating its responsibility to govern and why should some Australians need specific permission from a paternalistic government to marry while others do not? 

Cooperating with this farce meant going along with the cowardly religious extremists and the usual political suspects who hate social change of any kind.

But, I've changed my mind.

We can be certain that the "straighteners" and "life deniers", as Manning Clark expressed it, will be out in force to inflict their narrow-minded cruelty on those who believe that marriage is about love and personal commitment. 

I urge all who believe in justice and fairness to vote "Yes".