Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Break out the rainbow bubbly, we’re the gay marriage Capital! (For now)

johnboy 22 October 2013 125

Shane Rattenbury has made it known that it’s gay marriage a go go in the ACT at least until the High Court weighs in:

Leader of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne joined ACT Greens Member for Molonglo, Shane Rattenbury at the ACT Legislative Assembly today to celebrate the ACT becoming the first jurisdiction to legislate for same sex marriage.

“The passage of the Marriage Equality Bill is a landmark moment for this Assembly, for the ACT community, and for people across the nation who have been waiting so long to formalise their love through marriage but have been denied,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“Today the ACT, through the vote in this Assembly, says that we are a place that cares about people, cares about their human rights, and cares about equality and fairness.

“When you think about it, this is really a straightforward law expressing something that should be clear already. It simply says ‘love is love’, and the public and formal commitment of love is something that cannot, and should not, be restrained,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“I congratulate the ACT Assembly for this historic legislation. Last century discrimination has no place in our laws and the ACT is leading the way,” said Senator Milne.


UPDATE: Simon Corbell is getting in on the act:

People in a same sex relationship are now able to have their love and commitment to each other legally recognised in the same way that people in a heterosexual relationship are able to, after historic legislation was passed in the ACT Legislative Assembly today.

“Today’s Bill shows clearly and unambiguously that all people are entitled to respect, dignity, the right to participate in society and to receive the full protection of the law, regardless of sexual orientation,” Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, said today.

“This Labor Government has consistently advocated and acted to remove discrimination in our community and the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Bill is another key example of this work.

“The ACT Government is disappointed, but not deterred, by the Commonwealth’s intention to challenge the ACT’s authority to make this law but this law is no threat to the Commonwealth’s powers under the Constitution or to the institution of marriage,” Mr Corbell said.

The new law will commence in time for the first same-sex weddings to be held before the end of the year, despite the Commonwealth Government’s announcement that it will challenge the ACT law in the High Court.

Marriages under the Act will begin in the same way as other marriages — with a notice of intention tomarry, accompanied by evidence of identity and age, given to an authorised marriage celebrant.

Marriages under the Marriage Equality Act will be solemnised by authorised celebrants, on any day, at any time and at any place in the ACT.


UPDATE: Andrew Barr’s tear soaked speech is also now available.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
125 Responses to
Break out the rainbow bubbly, we’re the gay marriage Capital! (For now)
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
7
gazket 10:15 am 25 Oct 13

good onya mole face , nice to see you have the publics interest on waisting time and money on this. how much will this cost medicare in jedus operations when the fags arse caves in.

bikhet 6:47 am 25 Oct 13

Minz said :

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

I agree that the discussion of same sex marriage shouldn’t be tainted by incest slurs, but why do you think that incest necessarily involves one person being unable to give consent? And what’s special about two?

Darkfalz 2:09 am 25 Oct 13

Minz said :

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

Consent can exist in both incestuous relationships and polygamous ones. Consent can even exist in sexual relationships between children and adults, but we have (rightfully) decided that children can not give “informed” consent (although I wouldn’t particularly care if that “child” was 15-16 or older and mature).

Believe what you want to believe and fight for those beliefs if you need to. But when you insist your obviously different relationship is the same as a biologically compatible and complimentary heterosexual one, but yet so very different from those other examples so don’t extend the rights we are demanding to them, you end up sounding like a hypocrite.

chewy14 9:26 pm 24 Oct 13

Minz said :

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

1. You do realise that incest doesn’t necessarily involve a minor right? We’ve already been through this in the thread. You probably didn’t consider that those two consenting adults could be related right? Use the exact same wording that Shane Rattenbury has towards same sex couples and apply it to the above. What’s the difference?

2.If the definition of marriage is fluid, and can be changed as implied by this law, what makes the number 2 so special. Why is the recognition of groups of people who love each other any different? Why should they be discriminated against?

Minz 6:13 pm 24 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

[The legal issues can easily be solved by civil unions for everyone (and I actually mean everyone)rather than a piecemeal solution that simply extends marriage to same sex couples whilst still discriminating against other groups that could use the exact same arguments as the proponents of same sex marriage. This isn’t “marriage equality”, it’s same sex marriage. The proposed laws will still discriminate, it will just be you choosing who gets discriminated against.

+1 on that. As far as I can tell, the only reasons for any government to make laws about relationships are a) tax and b) protection. By protection, I mean that people must consent to be in binding relationships – no forced unions and no unions involving people who can’t consent. Since neither of those reasons give any cause to make binding relationships particular to any particular group of consenting adults, why do the feds care? Civil unions for all in the eyes of the law! Wanna get married? Find a religious group to do it.

On that, I personally find it offensive that the government would use my tax dollars (albeit a tiny proportion of) to pursue their idealogical goal of ensuring that a segment of our society remains lower in the eyes of the law, without any logical reason whatsoever. Sod off, Tony.

Minz 6:04 pm 24 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

milkman 5:23 pm 24 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

[The legal issues can easily be solved by civil unions for everyone (and I actually mean everyone)rather than a piecemeal solution that simply extends marriage to same sex couples whilst still discriminating against other groups that could use the exact same arguments as the proponents of same sex marriage. This isn’t “marriage equality”, it’s same sex marriage. The proposed laws will still discriminate, it will just be you choosing who gets discriminated against.

Easily the best idea so far.

Deref 5:18 pm 24 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

I’m guessing that the people who support this law are the same ones who would be the first to squeal if a conservative state government tried to pass a law contradicting a progressive federal one.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but AFAIC you’re wrong. I’d be among the first to squeal if any government – state, federal or territorial – tried to pass a conservative law contradicting a progressive one.

We should move forwards, not backwards.

chewy14 4:05 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Bollocks. The Libs are challenging because they’re against same sex marriage (unsurprisingly, given that they’re a pack of reactionary conservatives). All the po-faced justifications in the world don’t alter that basic fact.

If it were an issue that they were opposed to, the challenge wouldn’t exist.

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like the ACL.

If the Federal gummint had shown an ounce of backbone, then none of this would be necessary. As it is, without serious prodding and threats from the States, four-fifths of f%^k-all would happen on the same sex marriage front.

It’s remarkably telling that the people using the ‘it’s not about same sex marriage, it’s about consistent laws blah blah blah’ bollocks arguments are reactionary conservatives themselves, usually those who’ve trotted out every other tedious, disingenous argument regarding same-sex marriage (waste of time, not important, civil-unions are the same anyway, incestuous unions will be next … etc. etc.).

I’m not arguing that the Liberals are coming at this issue wholly from a legal standpoint, there’s clearly ideological background to it. Doesn’t mean they aren’t correct from that legal standpoint though.

My position on this issue has been clearly stated on this very forum multiple times and is logically consistent which is more than I can say for quite a few others here.

I’ve stated many times that I don’t actual believe that the government (any government) should be involved in solemnising people’s relationships in the first place. I’ve asked repeatedly on previous threads as to why this is necessary and am still yet to get a logical answer.

The legal issues can easily be solved by civil unions for everyone (and I actually mean everyone)rather than a piecemeal solution that simply extends marriage to same sex couples whilst still discriminating against other groups that could use the exact same arguments as the proponents of same sex marriage. This isn’t “marriage equality”, it’s same sex marriage. The proposed laws will still discriminate, it will just be you choosing who gets discriminated against.

And it’s interesting that the response to these logical issues by people like yourself has mostly been deafening silence. Ironic too, because those kinds of illogical claims have been rightly derided when they come from the religious nutters claiming god’s law or some such.

On this issue, I am however a pragmatist, who realises that same sex marriage laws will be passed at some stage in the future because politicians aren’t, on the whole, open to logical arguments. But I’ve consistently said that they should be dealt with at a federal level which is where the issue belongs. I supported the Feds being in control when the ALP were in charge and I continue to do so now the LNP are.

I’m guessing that the people who support this law are the same ones who would be the first to squeal if a conservative state government tried to pass a law contradicting a progressive federal one.

vet111 2:57 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Bollocks. The Libs are challenging because they’re against same sex marriage (unsurprisingly, given that they’re a pack of reactionary conservatives). All the po-faced justifications in the world don’t alter that basic fact.

If it were an issue that they were opposed to, the challenge wouldn’t exist.

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like the ACL.

If the Federal gummint had shown an ounce of backbone, then none of this would be necessary. As it is, without serious prodding and threats from the States, four-fifths of f%^k-all would happen on the same sex marriage front.

It’s remarkably telling that the people using the ‘it’s not about same sex marriage, it’s about consistent laws blah blah blah’ bollocks arguments are reactionary conservatives themselves, usually those who’ve trotted out every other tedious, disingenous argument regarding same-sex marriage (waste of time, not important, civil-unions are the same anyway, incestuous unions will be next … etc. etc.).

Err, I’ve stated quite publicly and will happily state again that I support same sex marriage. I certainly wouldn’t ever be considered a reactionary conservative. I could call you a contrary leftie ignoramus based on what you’ve said, but I don’t know that for sure so I won’t.

I support what both the ACT legislative assembly has done (testing the limits of the powers granted under s122, under which the ACT has been given self-government) and the Commonwealth is doing (testing the scope of s51 powers). I reiterate – the ACT same-sex marriage laws would have been challenged by the Commonwealth regardless of which party was in power, because it’s an important constitutional issue. The Commonwealth would be mad if it didn’t challenge it in the High Court – the decision in this case will further refine the power of territories to legislate generally on a range of matters, not just in the case of marriage laws. I don’t understand why people just don’t get that.

Deref 2:34 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like Tony Abbott, the ACL, and the other fundies in both the Liberal and Labor parties.

Correct, with a couple of minor modifications.

Jim Jones 2:22 pm 24 Oct 13

PantsMan said :

Overall, this was all a big undergraduate gee-up to mainstream religions and the Federal Coalition by left-wing secular types who have no tolerance or respect for plurality in society.

So … plurality doesn’t include the gheys then?

Jim Jones 2:14 pm 24 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Bollocks. The Libs are challenging because they’re against same sex marriage (unsurprisingly, given that they’re a pack of reactionary conservatives). All the po-faced justifications in the world don’t alter that basic fact.

If it were an issue that they were opposed to, the challenge wouldn’t exist.

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like the ACL.

If the Federal gummint had shown an ounce of backbone, then none of this would be necessary. As it is, without serious prodding and threats from the States, four-fifths of f%^k-all would happen on the same sex marriage front.

It’s remarkably telling that the people using the ‘it’s not about same sex marriage, it’s about consistent laws blah blah blah’ bollocks arguments are reactionary conservatives themselves, usually those who’ve trotted out every other tedious, disingenous argument regarding same-sex marriage (waste of time, not important, civil-unions are the same anyway, incestuous unions will be next … etc. etc.).

PantsMan 2:12 pm 24 Oct 13

I think it is entirely obvious that the ACT Government just wanted to use this issue to play politics with the new Abbott Federal Government (This was never on the agenda while Rudd and Gillard were in office). In doing so, they have made public statements that have disclosed that they have almost no knowledge of basic constitutional law concepts (including, in particular, the actual functions for which the ACT Government itself is responsible).

Now we are going to see the most pitiful attempt to defend the (legally) indefensible in the High Court with our money.

The latest entirely contradictory claim made by Corbell and Barr is that Senator Brandis should just resile from upholding the law, as what the law is does not really matter. If they law does not matter, why do we need gay marriage laws?

Also, the (now rehashed) laws have basically just rebranded existing civil unions as same sex marriages. Not a great reform methinks; and I suspect that it will be somewhat awkward for heterosexual couples that opted for a civil union over marriage to wake up one day and find they are now in a same sex marriage.

Overall, this was all a big undergraduate gee-up to mainstream religions and the Federal Coalition by left-wing secular types who have no tolerance or respect for plurality in society.

chewy14 1:20 pm 24 Oct 13

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

poetix 12:50 pm 24 Oct 13

Mr Gillespie said :

Ms Katy Gallagar (who chucked a spaz when she followed by those Liberals who got her shaking in her boots she whined to the media about it, remember just days before the election) wouldn’t know what “forward-thinking” meant, if it hit her in the face like a rotten fish!

Dear cod! That’s a sentence that will live in infamy.

thebrownstreak69 12:40 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Still haven’t taken remedial English I see.

I am not suggesting for a second that the feds are on the side of the gay community. What I am saying is that a national solution is needed, regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels about it.

You do realise that under the current law a married gay couple won’t be recognised as such outside the ACT (for legal purposes), right?

/snort…

So … it wasn’t you who wrote: ” These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.”

Well, that’s confusing. I could have sworn it was.

Yep, that was me, but I think the message got lost in translation.

Gay marriage is a political football right now. Why didn’t the ACT govt push it through a month ago when they could have worked with federal Labor? Oh that’s right, they could have. But they didn’t. The stuffed around and waited until they had feds who they knew weren’t on side, and there’s now a good chance the high court will overturn it (but maybe not).

Do you think being stuck in the middle of a politcial argument between two sides that don’t see eye is reasonable? Do you think the ACT govt waiting until the Libs got in was a sensible thing to do? How would you feel if your marriage wasn’t recognised more than a few kilometres from home?

Again, regardless of how you or I see this, it needs a national solution. I am sure there will come a day when gay marriage is legal and widely socially accepted, but this doesn’t seem to me to be a constructive way to achieve this. Do you think what the ACT govt has done is a good way to achieve their aim?

IrishPete 12:32 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Jim Jones 12:29 pm 24 Oct 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Still haven’t taken remedial English I see.

I am not suggesting for a second that the feds are on the side of the gay community. What I am saying is that a national solution is needed, regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels about it.

You do realise that under the current law a married gay couple won’t be recognised as such outside the ACT (for legal purposes), right?

/snort…

So … it wasn’t you who wrote: ” These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.”

Well, that’s confusing. I could have sworn it was.

thebrownstreak69 12:16 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Still haven’t taken remedial English I see.

I am not suggesting for a second that the feds are on the side of the gay community. What I am saying is that a national solution is needed, regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels about it.

You do realise that under the current law a married gay couple won’t be recognised as such outside the ACT (for legal purposes), right?

/snort…

7

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site