This was posted 7 years 3 months 11 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

FREE T-Shirt to Those Enrolled to Vote from Gorman

29016
FREE T-Shirt to Those Enrolled to Vote from Gorman
Go to Deal
Cashback
kosh52 on 24/08/2017 - 21:48 gormanshop.com.au (7457 clicks)
Last edited 25/08/2017 - 14:48 by 3 other users

With less than 24 hours to go until the enrollment period for the postal vote on national marriage laws closes, Gorman is out to gather last-minute sign ups.

The label has just announced it’ll be giving away free ‘Love is Love’ T-shirts, in order to spread the word about marriage equality and help foster as many ‘yes’ votes as possible.

The T-shirt takes artwork from Gorman’s Spring collaboration with Monika Forsberg and is available in limited quantities at all of Gorman’s Australian stores.

If you’d like to score one, simply head into a Gorman store tomorrow (August 25) and present a screenshot of your verified enrollment details. There are 5000 tees in total up for grabs, so you’ll want to head down early.

To make sure you can have your say on whether our marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, head to the AEC and update your details or enrol by midnight tonight.

http://aec.gov.au/enrol

Mod: Just a reminder. Discussion is fine but let's be respectful of others.

Fashion & Apparel T-Shirt

Related Stores

Gorman Online
Gorman Online

closed Comments

    • jv on 24/08/2017 - 21:54
      +27

      Why are we changing everything for the minority?

      Because they are a loud minority…

      • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 21:55
        +11

        True.

        What will you be voting?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 21:56
          +58

          What will you be voting?

          I don't support bullies who resort to putting people down and calling them names if they have a different opinion. They are evil.

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 21:57

          @jv:

          So is that a "yes" or "no"?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 21:58
          +20

          @joshuah:

          So is that a "yes" or "no"?

          I vote for no change… There are more important things to fix in this country.

          They already have the same rights as everybody else…

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 21:58
          +10

          @jv:

          Spot on mate.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:01
          +28

          @joshuah:

          Even Penny Wong was against gay marriage…

          https://web.archive.org/web/20100727015248/http://www.smh.co…

          The only reason she's changed her mind is because she's now in opposition and wants a few extra votes…

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:04
          +13

          @jv:

          Again, spot on :-)

        • jelko on 24/08/2017 - 22:04
          +18

          @jv: LOL @ Penny Wong. There's nothing worse than being a hypocrite.

        • inamberclad on 24/08/2017 - 22:16
          +3

          @jv: change of mind not allowed?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:17
          +12

          @justin_tsoi:

          change of mind not allowed?

          only changed her mind because she needs more votes.

        • jelko on 24/08/2017 - 22:20
          +12

          @jv: I don't think Penny Wong ever changed her mind. I believe she was always in support of same sex marriage but she threw away her ideals just to vote along party lines. The worst sort of person. What sort of person would voluntarily deprive their people something they care so much about just because their party says so? Disgraceful.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:21
          +12

          @jelko:

          I believe she was

          I believe she wasn't…

          stalemate…

          regardless… How can you trust such a person after all that…

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 22:24
          +19

          @jv:
          As much as it hurts, I agree 100% with JV and this is the second time this year!

        • twocsies on 24/08/2017 - 22:25
          +137

          @jv: "They already have the same rights as everybody else…"

          That is false. The word "marriage" is used for at least 17 federal laws, which cannot thus be equal rights because some people are not allowed to call their relationship marriage.

          For example, an unmarried partner cannot make emergency medical and financial decisions. Even if they are married in another country that recognises their partnership as a married.

        • inamberclad on 24/08/2017 - 22:25

          @jv: possible.. but cynical?

        • TailsK on 24/08/2017 - 22:25
          +42

          @jv:

          Same rights? If you do some research, you will actually find that is not correct.

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:32
          +28

          @TailsK: some of the people on this site do not have a clue about the issue and are just conservative reactionaries. I agree the Government has better things than to waste money on this postal vote - just get on with what the vast majority of Australians have said in poll after poll and just give gay people the same rights. They can then spend the money on things people really need. John Howard brought in the fact that marriage was between a man and a woman and he didn't refer to the electorate at all.

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 22:33
          +18

          @jv:

          I don't support bullies who resort to putting people down and calling them names if they have a different opinion. They are evil.

          You must be talking about those people responsible for the "stop the fags" posters?

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 22:34
          +18

          @jv:

          They already have the same rights as everybody else…

          Absolute bullshit. You're making stuff up.

        • SirFlibbled on 24/08/2017 - 22:36
          +55

          @jv: Except they don't - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-en…

          The way I see it is simple - does it affect me? No. Will it make someone's life better? Yes. Is there any reason to not allow them to get married? Not unless you're a bigot or religious (and if you're religious then do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?)

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:43
          +7

          @SirFlibbled:

          Not unless you're a bigot or religious

          Here we go again…

          Lots of non-bigots, non-religious people believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman…

          You do you attack people for having a different opinion to you?

        • johnwinkle on 24/08/2017 - 22:57
          +5

          @jv: I think there might be one right you might've forgot about….

        • airzone on 24/08/2017 - 22:58
          +2

          @jelko:

          What sort of person would voluntarily deprive their people something they care so much about just because their party says so

          A politician.

        • CacheHunter on 24/08/2017 - 22:59
          +5

          @twocsies: Actually, you're wrong. Even heterosexual de facto partners have the same rights in relation to emergency medical and financial decisions, but that fact doesn't suit some, so it is conveniently forgotten in the quest for 'fake news' to support the yes case. (not that the political right is any better given the US President's habit of making things up to suit his argument also).

        • arcticmonkey on 24/08/2017 - 23:07
          +1

          @jv:

          Surely you don't trust the liberal party then? Lie after lie. Broken promise after broken promise. The conservative's lies and cuts to healthcare hurt us more than Penny's change of mind.

        • shaiguy on 24/08/2017 - 23:16
          +2

          @jv:

          Penny Wong has already stated why she was against it before - she did not believe Australia and people's views were ready for the change.

          Secondly, she was already for same sex marriage in 2012 when Labor was in Government… even Rudd voted against this bill but changed his stance…

          Similarly, Senator Dean Smith (Liberals) who is openly gay was also previously against gay marriage and voted against it but has changed his stance.

          People's views can evolve and change… people used to think apartheid was right and that women's rights be limited…

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:17
          +4

          @shaiguy:

          Penny Wong has already stated why she was against it before

          I no longer believe what she says…

        • shaiguy on 24/08/2017 - 23:18
          +7

          @jv:

          That suggests that there was a time that you believed what she said….

        • twocsies on 24/08/2017 - 23:18
          +7

          @newdad: A de facto partner is not a "spouse", so federal laws that use the term "spouse" do not cover de facto partners.

          Moreover, changing the Family Law Act 1975 is not an option according to many in the #voteno corner. They don't want the Family Law Act to cover those who don't have real families.

        • WinstonWithAY on 24/08/2017 - 23:51
          +14

          @jv: "More important things to fix in this country." It's because of people like you, keeping these minor issues in the spotlight by constantly prolonging them that we can't deal with much more serious issues. You pass it, it's out of the way for a long time if not forever, you vote against it, people keep bringing it up, it occupies everyone's time and attention so we can't deal with larger issues. Your logic is flawed

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:06
          +6

          @jv:

          I don't support bullies who resort to putting people down and calling them names if they have a different opinion. They are evil.

          So you've never voted for a major political party?

          Me neither!

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 01:08
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          So you've never voted for a major political party?

          Only for Jeff Kennett… He is my Man Crush !!!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:09
          +12

          @jv:

          I vote for no change… There are more important things to fix in this country.

          Fixing this doesn't come at the exclusion of anything else.

          Wether you agree or disagree with it, the plebiscite is happening.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:12
          +4

          @jelko:

          LOL @ Penny Wong. There's nothing worse than being a hypocrite.

          It comes with the territory.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:12
          +4

          @jelko:

          What sort of person would voluntarily deprive their people something they care so much about just because their party says so?

          A politician?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:14
          +6

          @Maverick-au:

          As much as it hurts, I agree 100% with JV and this is the second time this year!

          Help is available!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:32
          +3

          What will you be voting?

          I'm for free love and against all marriage.

          I would like to oppose the religious establishment but I don't want to support the PC brigade.

          Hhhmmm… 🤔

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:33
          +4

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Any deals from the "no" campaign?

          Taking offers above 1 T-shirt…

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 03:30
          +4

          @jv: except the right to enter the financial and legal obligation of marriage of course.

        • bmedia on 25/08/2017 - 06:50
          +4

          @jv:

          Absolute rubbish they have the same rights. Have you even bothered to research? Clearly not.

        • swalloweda on 25/08/2017 - 07:07
          +2

          @jv: And yet… you call them "evil"?

        • SirFlibbled on 25/08/2017 - 08:55
          +9

          @jv: Perhaps you can provide a logical reason why as a non-bigot, non-religious person you believe marriage should be the exclusive domain of heterosexuals?

          Your answer cannot include allusions to them being better parents (peer reviewed longitudinal studies say it makes no difference) or their ability to breed (you can have kids in a SSM relationship if you want one and marriage laws make no reference to children so it's irrelevant anyhow).

          I look forward to your well thought out logical reasons.

        • bernsy on 25/08/2017 - 10:04
          +1

          @twocsies: why dont they just change the medical emergency and financial law ?

        • twocsies on 25/08/2017 - 10:56
          +1

          @bernsy: It's not a medical emergency and financial law. It's "Family Law".

        • jhsun74 on 25/08/2017 - 12:55

          @twocsies:

          I am sorry.. there is thing called civil union for the gay couples, they are having exactly same rights as everyone else.. are you tell me that if they do not get that marriage certificate, they will not love each other anymore? quite frankly, if doesn't change the definition of "marriage", no one will get hurts, and if changed, there are consequence issues to follow.. also, I do find annoy that people are screaming the loudest are not gay couples, most of my gay friends, they are happy what they are now. they do not like to be put on spotlight, the screaming loudest are those lefties and they are NOT gays!

        • jhsun74 on 25/08/2017 - 13:05

          @WinstonWithAY:

          so, are you telling everyone, just pass the god sake law, b'cos they will keep coming back, over and over again? emm… maybe we should not sentence repeated criminals to jail as well. as they will keep coming back again and again to utilize our justice resources..

          maybe you should move to China to North Korea, they will pass any law that put into their parliament

        • ttc72 on 25/08/2017 - 13:26
          +1

          @jv: No they actually don't. If their partner dies they don't have the same rights as a married couple. Why would you want to be so vindictive as to prevent them from having that right?

        • entropysbane on 25/08/2017 - 13:44
          +3

          @twocsies: I don't think that's is quite right. It isn't that they must be married to be a decision maker, otherwise every de facto of any orientation would not have those same rights they currently have that you claim are missing. Which clearly they do.

          The issue is a partner needs to establish the fact they are really a partner. This
          can be a problem in the gay community, not just because of how others perceive them, but how individuals in the community behave.

          So, relationship less than six months: difficult. The other partner not wishing to acknowledge for financial/any reason at all, personal or otherwise: difficult. Multiple partners: difficult. Former wife and kids: difficult. Etc etc. problems not unique to SS couples.
          Problems SS couples have for these situations will not change, as the couples that would be likely to get a marriage certificate under a change to the law won't be currently having those problems under the current laws (stable SS relationships). They are already recognised as the de facto partner.

        • seanyong on 25/08/2017 - 14:47
          +2

          @jv:

          “There are more important things to fix in this country.“
          So why not just change this "unimportant" thing?

          If the result is 'no change', people would still propose to change it in the future anyway. If you thing there are more important things, then just do the 'unimportant' things first so that it won't be under the spotlight for another (maybe) 10 years.

        • giventofly on 25/08/2017 - 17:09
          +1

          @jv:

          I'm yet to see a compelling reason for voting no.

          There's no logical opposition to it. You're voting no because you believe there are more important issues in this country. You're probably right. But why does that make you vote no? Shouldn't you be more concerned about the tax-payer money wasted on this survey? It's not like the gay community actually want this survey to go ahead.

          Religious folk claim their religious beliefs for voting no, and unfortunately, the old testament says some pretty awful things about gays so that makes them homophobes for agreeing with it.

          Would actually like to see a reason for voting no.

          No voters are insulted and attacked because their belief causes harm.

        • SirFlibbled on 25/08/2017 - 18:18
          +2

          @rorymeister: JV has posted since I asked him to provide a single logical reason above 9 hours ago. He doesn't seem interested in doing so.

        • giventofly on 25/08/2017 - 18:39
          +1

          @SirFlibbled: More like unable to. And he is a she, I believe.

        • sabracad on 25/08/2017 - 18:45

          @twocsies: Which medical and financial decisions are you referring to?

        • sabracad on 25/08/2017 - 18:50
          +2

          @stormii: Family Courts, Centrelink, FAO and the ATO among many others would tend to disagree with that.

        • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 18:53

          @jhsun74: No. I'm saying that a law over such a trivial issue that's been blown completely out of proportion by paranoid morons should be passed so we can focus on bigger issues.

        • sauce on 27/08/2017 - 09:08

          @SirFlibbled:
          Or, for those who prefer to watch a video,
          https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1015585313300126…

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:15
        +5

        The same way we're introducing prayer rooms. Because people complain and even dumber people give in.

        • phor8 on 26/08/2017 - 07:03

          The difference is the prayer rooms are about entitlement, but this is just about equality and fairness.

          Reading through a lot of the comments it seems the concern is about the mess that the PC movement in Canada has caused, with people becoming entitled, defenceless snowflakes who force their way of life on everyone else whether it be religious or about their personal views.

          But this is not about entitlement
          Which makes all the difference in those cases, this vote is just about equal personal opportunities nothing more, Australia is much more conservative than those countries, it's just a matter of balancing it out appropriately

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 11:20
          +1

          @phor8: It's not about entitlement, but it's supporting entitlement.

          It's like shopping at BP for good quality petrol, but knowing you're against all the problems BP as a company creates.

    • ScottEh on 24/08/2017 - 21:59
      +71

      Changing everything? How is allowing 1% of Australians to marry changing everything?

        • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:02
          +105

          Of course. Next "the gays" will be converting children, people will start marrying animals and the sun will rise in the west and set in the east.

        • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:07
          +47

          @joshuah: You really are batshit crazy. It's not a cult they're trying to get numbers for to get tax exempt status.

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 22:26
          +6

          @potplanty:

          Next "the gays" will be converting children, people will start marrying animals and the sun will rise in the west and set in the east.

          As soon as they get this in their favour they will want to change some other law. It doesn't stop here.

          In Colombia they changed the law so marriage wasn't between man and woman and now three men are married.

          https://www.google.com.au/amp/metro.co.uk/2017/06/14/three-m…

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:30
          +1

          @Maverick-au:

          Excellent point. This is just one of the potential repercussions.

        • insular on 24/08/2017 - 22:39
          +5

          @Maverick-au:

          In Colombia they changed the law so marriage wasn't between man and woman and now three men are married.

          no good can come of this.

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094137/

        • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 22:40
          +1

          @joshuah:

          They can not reproduce so they can recruit.

          Please tell me you're not actually saying what you seem to be saying

        • Bluberry on 24/08/2017 - 22:43

          @potplanty: well said mate!

        • Suspect420 on 24/08/2017 - 22:56

          @joshuah:thats actually quite funny

        • Oracle128 on 24/08/2017 - 23:35
          +13

          @Maverick-au: If and when the time comes that there's a plebiscite for 3-way marriage, then you can vote no. So what's the problem? There's no logical connection between allowing gay marriage, and polygamy, or child marriage, or bestiality, or any other dumb slippery-slope arguments you can think of.
          If you have a problem with gay marriage, tell us what it is. If you have a problem with what you think comes after gay marriage, but can't actually justify with evidence why one logically leads to the other, then you're just another idiot who thinks their religious beliefs should be enforced by the government like some sort of Sharia Law.

        • twocsies on 24/08/2017 - 23:38
          +1

          @Maverick-au: For the application of some laws in Australia, polygamous marriages are OK. For example, the Family Law Act 1975 states:

          6 Polygamous marriages - For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any time been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:38
          +8

          @Maverick-au:

          In Colombia they changed the law so marriage wasn't between man and woman and now three men are married.

          So…?

        • anastasiastarz on 25/08/2017 - 02:27

          @potplanty: That's the extreme vegans, we had the extremely unfortunate experience of being neighbours.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 03:34
          +1

          there are no courts or laws in nature and homosexuality is prevalent, before society there were gays, in the aftermath there will be gays, why do we insist of drawing imaginary lines of contention. I refuse to judge people by thier bedroom habits, or maybe I just think dirty old men feeling up teenager girls and it being socially acceptable more of a problem, not sure.

        • TheRealCher on 25/08/2017 - 07:25

          @potplanty: only after brunch. Didn't you read the gay agenda? :)

        • EightImmortals on 25/08/2017 - 08:15

          @potplanty: Well you've got two out of three in that list already. I'll just pop out and have a look at the sun in case you get 3 for 3. :)

        • orapronobis on 25/08/2017 - 09:01
          +1

          @potplanty: well said potplanty, if this is passed, it is inevitable that the government would have difficulty to argue against and legally prevent polygamy and the plethora of arrangements anybody can think of.

          To quote:
          …"The introduction of same-sex marriage would also conclusively eliminate the natural connection between marriage and procreation. So it stands to reason that any polyamorous group could marry (for example 3 men). But not only any polyamorous group. After disregarding the natural link between marriage and natural family foundation, the government would arguably have no right to discriminate on the basis of whether a relationship is amorous or not, or sexual or not. Two sisters can care for each other just as well as an amorous same-sex couple. They also love each other, just in a different way. I wonder how the government could legally argue against the marriage of ANY two adult persons or ANY group of adults who declare that they want to care for each other long-term. It is not uncommon that 2 sisters live together and care for each other. A granddad and his adult niece who care for each other would qualify. Or 3 sisters, 5 sisters, or 10 friends. In fact, any number of adults who say we want to care for each other. I don't see why any of these groups would not qualify for marriage, not least because the meaning of marriage can apparently evolve. And a time may come in which none of these groups felt that marriage would be inappropriate, especially if marriage provides legal benefits.

          So what remains of the meaning of marriage after legalization of same-sex marriage? What of its value? The big mistake is to ignore the natural connection between marriage and the foundation of natural families and the benefits for children, because this means to ignore the greater, deeper value of marriage."

          https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/if-you-dont-lik…

        • BeRad on 25/08/2017 - 09:20

          hahahaha i love when people say something but don't give an examaple of it

        • haru on 25/08/2017 - 09:22

          @potplanty: Pretty much.

        • johnwinkle on 25/08/2017 - 13:16
          +1

          @Maverick-au: Oh no 3 men got married. This affects you, or anyone outside those 3 people so much doesn't it??

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 14:00
          +2

          @TheRealCher:

          Didn't you read the gay agenda? :)

          Mein Camp

        • deadpoet on 26/08/2017 - 00:29
          +2

          @didntknowicould:

          Perhaps mav is saying that he can't wait for the law to be passed so he can get hitched to 2 blokes. We're all rooting for ya, mav!

    • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:00
      +35

      Changing everything? You mean changing one archaic trait of society that has been changed many times before?

      • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:01
        +6

        Last time I checked, it was instituted at least 6,000 years ago…

        • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:02
          +9

          And has been changed many times before.

        • adrian234 on 24/08/2017 - 22:21
          +19

          Current marriage act was changed by Howard government in 2004.
          The definition of marriage has changed a lot in the last 6,000 years… we no longer have forced marriage, or child marriage!

        • railspider on 24/08/2017 - 22:22
          +2

          The indigenous people invented marriage in Australia???

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 22:29
          +4

          @adriany:

          we no longer have forced marriage, or child marriage!

          I guess you haven't heard of the Muslims….

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:33
          +1

          @Maverick-au: Have a look at the American south, doesn't just apply to muslims.

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 22:36

          @try2bhelpful:

          Have a look at the American south, doesn't just apply to muslims.

          True but they are the biggest group that actively engages in this in every country they are in with no regard for local laws.

        • jimbobaus on 25/08/2017 - 00:36
          +1

          @Maverick-au:
          Wrong ….so wrong!
          Your claims have no basis in fact.
          What can be stated as fact is that the Muslim community as a whole respects and adheres to the laws of the country they reside in.
          While arranged marriages do exist in the Muslim faith, they are not forced. You are riding the propaganda train and spouting hate simply for hates sake.

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 00:49
          +7

          @jimbobaus:

          Wrong ….so wrong!
          Your claims have no basis in fact.
          What can be stated as fact is that the Muslim community as a whole respects and adheres to the laws of the country they reside in.

          It's truly unbelievable that anyone could say something so utterly ridiculous. Travel to Europe and look around at the mess, travel to Melbourne and check it out and go to Sydney's western suburbs whilst you're at it. Maybe read the Quran sometime and understand what is in there before you say something so utterly and totally wrong.

          While arranged marriages do exist in the Muslim faith, they are not forced. You are riding the propaganda train and spouting hate simply for hates sake.

          Wow ….

          "A Muslim man who allegedly abducted, raped and forced a teenage girl to marry him against her will in an Islamic ceremony has appeared in court today.

          The petrified 18-year-old, who cannot be named, claimed Chafic Charyala, 31, showed up at her bedroom window in Bankstown at 2am on Sunday and threatened to kill her unless she went with him."

          http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/teen-kidnapped-rap…

          "EXCLUSIVE: A CHILD bride forced to ­illegally wed at 14 has won a disturbing custody fight that shines rare light on arranged unions in suburban Australia.
          Married off as a schoolgirl to a 21-year-old groom by her Muslim parents, the woman endured years of violence and abuse before walking out with their young daughter."
          "He also stopped her watching her favourite TV shows - Home and Away and Neighbours - instead screening a ­violent DVD showing soldiers taken hostage and blown up with grenades."

          http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/forced-to-wed-at-…

          Do you want more examples to show that you are utterly and totally wrong?

        • ozhunter on 25/08/2017 - 01:40
          +3

          @potplanty:

          And yet it was always heterosexual.

        • jhsun74 on 25/08/2017 - 13:25
          +1

          @adriany:

          com'on ! not that 2004 propaganda again… if you do abit research, you all know that John Howard is only clarify what marriage is for the past thousands years.. nothing has changed.. of course, you only wish to hear what you wanna to hear anyway..

    • BangkokBreakfast on 24/08/2017 - 22:02
      +59

      Will any of the proposed changes actually affect you? If my vote will benefit only 1% of Australia and it make absolutely no change to my day-to-day then why the hell not. I’ll be voting yes.. and claiming my free t-shirt while I’m at it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join