SJ

[SJ @womland]

@mossyquartzYT In fact people used to employ tricks to ensure they’d play solo.

[SJ @womland]

@SalinaEstitties Girl they were going to call their expanded alliance with Angela the blue corner

[SJ @womland]

@ashleyhollis_ It’s how we got the joy of watching you and Rachel discover the toilet paper! Little moments like that are what make the viewing experience so memorable.

[SJ @womland]

@Ashoka_Aurelius @kevinbonham She did a series of videos last year debunking constitutional theories raised by conspiracy minded people - such as Australia being a corporation; the red cover and green cover etc. She does a great job of making complex issues understandable.

[SJ @womland]

@VintageFeelsFL @pantheressluv Romeo from Basement Jaxx

[SJ @womland]

@TheBigBroTea Where’s the Felicia, Bowie Jane one

[SJ @womland]

@shipsinport @DavidShoebridge The hate speech offences were removed from the bill before introduction. The remainder was about the banning of hate groups, some things directed at religious leaders and some migration stuff (as well as the gun controls in the separate bill).

[SJ @womland]

@KirstiMiller30 @Peter_Fitz The hate speech offences were dropped from the bill before introduction.

[SJ @womland]

@Jansant I doubt what she said would rise to the extent where a criminal prosecution would be successful. In terms of civil action, there is no religious discrimination act at the federal level.

[SJ @womland]

@aparachick @BelindaJones68 @Narty007 When both major parties are voting together it is common for a lot of senators to not come for the vote, which is a foregone conclusion. Typically the government will provide most votes with the Opposition providing a handful.

[SJ @womland]

@colonelhogans Pauline Hanson as the lead One Nation candidate on their ticket in 2016 (double dissolution) received over a quota of above the line votes.

[SJ @womland]

@sticrng Yay congratulations 🎉

[SJ @womland]

@jeremy_gans It does exist as a rule. See for instance this resolution of the Senate from 2007. The resolution does go on to say that an unauthorised disclosure should not be raised as a matter of privilege where the committee would have published it, or could have, in any event.

[SJ @womland]

@jeremy_gans By substance what I was getting at was that if your submission gave your opinion on, for instance, a bill, it would not be an unauthorised disclosure to also write about the same opinion in a different forum.

[SJ @womland]

@jeremy_gans I suspect the rationale is to protect the right of committees to determine when their evidence is released. In practical terms I can’t imagine a situation in which someone would be punished for disclosing their own submission.

[SJ @womland]

@jeremy_gans The process of submitting it to the committee makes the actual submission a committee document. The person could of course make use of the substance of the submission how they saw fit.

[SJ @womland]

@jeremy_gans If the submission was just something that already had a separate life (for instance, submitting a journal article), republishing the article would be fine.

The submission would only be protected by privilege once published by cttee but as you say this point unlikely a concern.

[SJ @womland]

@jeremy_gans A submission to a committee is a committee document and until the committee makes a decision to publish it or return it remains confidential to the committee. Unauthorised disclosure of committee documents would be a contempt (although unlikely punished if by submitter)

[SJ @womland]

@AmeliaBee7 This is AI right? Where did you get this from?

[SJ @womland]

@dom_ma @AntonyGreenElec @ThermiteBanana The AEC would have to live within the realities of budgeting. Perhaps the government would be willing to sign a blank cheque for whatever the expanding costs of printing would be, but I wouldn’t hold my breath!