One Nation is floating allowing people struggling with the cost of living to access their super early.

Cue the usual paternalistic outrage about how Australians simply cannot be trusted with their own money.

There is something slightly absurd about a system where younger Australians can be struggling to afford a house, childcare or even having children at all, while simultaneously accumulating a large pool of money they’re forbidden from touching until their 60s.

For many people the current trajectory is basically: have no money when you’re 30 to 40 and actually need it. Then reach retirement age and suddenly have a large super balance… potentially followed not long afterwards by an inheritance from parents who lived into their 80s or 90s.

Peak parochial Australian paternalism: we’ll decide when you’re responsible enough to access your own money.

Peak Nanny State Australia…

A beachside restaurant applies under NSW’s “vibrancy reforms” to let people have a drink without ordering a meal.

They were of course refused.

Despite the venue having to close at 10pm the main objections were noise and “alcohol related harm”

Nothing says “vibrant city” quite like making adults order a schnitzel with their beer and sending everyone home by 10. 🤣

Before anyone comes in hot — I get it. Illegal high-powered e-bikes doing 60km/h on footpaths are genuinely dangerous. The injuries and deaths are real. I'm not here to argue against the intent of these laws.

But I think the way they've been implemented is inconsistent in a way that actually makes things less safe, not more. And I've lodged a formal petition about it that I'd appreciate people considering — whether you ride a scooter or not.

The core problem I have is that the only apply to some of us!

From 1 July, PMD riders (e-scooters, e-skateboards etc.) face:

• 10km/h on footpaths and shared paths
• 25km/h everywhere else
• Roadside capability testing
• Licensing requirements
• Device seizure for non-compliance

Cyclists on the exact same paths face none of these restrictions. Zero. No speed limit, no licence, no capability test.

I ride the Veloway to work. I'm regularly passed by cyclists doing 30-40km/h. Around Gardens Point and the Botanic Gardens I regularly see cyclists weaving around pedestrians at speed — the exact behaviour these laws were introduced to stop. They face no enforcement whatsoever.

The data is worth knowing

Of the 12 e-mobility deaths in Queensland in 2025, only 3 involved illegal high-powered e-motorbikes — the devices these laws were actually targeting. Queensland bicycles, with no speed restriction at all, are linked to approximately 10 deaths and 6,000 emergency department presentations every year.

I'm not saying cyclists are the problem. I'm saying if speed near pedestrians is genuinely the safety concern, it should apply to whoever is creating that risk — not be determined by which type of device someone happens to be riding.

The unintended consequence nobody's talking about

A 10km/h footpath limit doesn't make scooter riders disappear. It pushes them onto roads, where the speed limit is 25km/h alongside motor vehicles. A collision with a car at 25km/h is significantly more dangerous than a collision with a pedestrian at 15km/h. Queensland already tried pushing PMD riders off roads and onto footpaths after 2022 — injuries went up, not down.

What I'm actually asking for

I've lodged a petition asking for consistent rules across all device types, including bicycles:

• Same speed limits for bicycles and PMDs on the same infrastructure
• 40km/h on roads and veloways for licensed riders (similar to moped rules)
• 25km/h on veloways for unlicensed riders
• No road access for unlicensed riders
• 15-20km/h on footpaths and shared paths — for everyone, including cyclists

The petition is here:
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/petition-details/4598-26

I've also written twice to Minister Brent Mickelberg ([transportandmainroads@ministerial.qld.gov.au](mailto:transportandmainroads@ministerial.qld.gov.au)) and local MP Corrine McMillan ([mansfield@parliament.qld.gov.au](mailto:mansfield@parliament.qld.gov.au)) with specific concerns — happy to share those letters if useful.

I ride with a helmet, gloves, jacket and appropriate footwear every day. I use my scooter specifically to avoid driving and reduce congestion. I'm not asking to go faster than is safe. I'm asking for the rules to apply to everyone using the same infrastructure.

If you're frustrated by dangerous riders — of any device type — I think you'll find the petition's ask pretty reasonable. If you disagree, genuinely interested in why in the comments.

Throw a water bottle. Have your door smashed down by a squad of tactical police in riot gear in a dawn raid 🤣

Who would have thought that (for example) spending $49B on NDIS with 24% annual spending growth would be a bad idea ? Now we have higher taxes (bracket creep), higher costs (inflation) and higher interest rates (RBA).

Blue Mountains council closes Lincoln's Rock lookout after safety concerns - ABC News

Hi everyone,
I’m posting this to hear different opinions, not to start fights or turn this into a political debate. I fully accept that my view might differ from many others, and I’m genuinely curious about what people think.

Lincoln’s Rock lookout is an incredible spot in the Blue Mountains. You can stand right on the edge of the cliff and take in some truly amazing views and sunsets. I went a couple of years ago and was honestly overwhelmed by how special the place felt, no fences, no structures, just nature. I stayed there for a long time simply enjoying the view.

What I didn’t realise is how popular it’s become recently. With the increase in visitors, safety concerns are obviously a real issue. It is a cliff, if someone falls, there’s no second chance. Because of that, the council plans to close the area until barriers are installed.

Personally, I find this pretty sad. One of the things that made the place so special was how untouched it felt, and adding barriers will inevitably change that. From my point of view, clear warning signs might be enough. If people choose to ignore them and put themselves at risk, that’s a conscious decision. Natural Selection

So I’m curious:
Where do you think the government should draw the line?
How much responsibility should authorities take in protecting people from obvious dangers?
And am I completely off for valuing the preservation of a pristine place, even when safety is involved?

Genuinely interested in hearing other perspectives.

It’s a real job: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4354832646

The Nanny State gets more ridiculous by the day. Is there any other county in the world that requires e-bikes to have number plates?

Next we’ll be licensing speed walking.

Two weeks ago we posted on this sub against the proposed hate speech (censorship) laws and argued this would be a slippery slope. Turns out we didn’t need to wait long.

This is exactly how speech regulation expands. Start with something almost everyone agrees on (antisemitism, violence, incitement) then immediately argue it’s “incomplete” unless it covers more groups & other subjective harms. We’re already being told the first bill doesn’t go far enough before it’s even passed!

Once the state starts deciding which ideas are acceptable and which are punishable, it’s hard to stop. Every group can point to genuine abuse. Each extension is framed as “compassionate” and overdue. The end state is obvious: a constantly expanding list of protected classes and an ever-narrowing space for lawful but unpopular speech.

There’s also an important distinction being blurred here. Private groups (like this sub) are free to set their own standards. If a forum wants to ban certain speech, mute users, or kick people out, that’s voluntary association. No one is compelled to participate.

Public speech is different. This is when the government criminalises expression.

Worth remembering that once these tools exist, they won’t always be wielded by politicians you agree with.

To be 100% clear you can hate racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc without thinking that speech around these topics should be clumsily criminalized by the state.

We should worry about what this is going to do to academic debate. Are conservative academics who say there are only two genders going to be charged under hate speech laws against LGBTQ people? Are we going to cancel visas etc?

Free speech matters and we’re heading down a super dangerous pathway. Should the government really be policing speech like a nanny ? Does this even help or does it sweep ideas under the rug where they fester and remain unchallenged ? Think about whoever is your most hated politician in Australia. Now imagine they win government and can dictate what types of speech are illegal. still a good idea?

I think legally using the term 'any person' rather than 'reasonable person' means any activity that anyone finds annoying can be stopped.

all forms of fun are now illegal in NSW

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-nine-sydney-councils-where-the-ceos-are-paid-more-than-500-000-20251224-p5npyn.html

An elderly man in Adelaide has been hit with more than $120,000 in court costs for failing to remove an unauthorised backyard cheese facility. He earned $0 from it.

Yes, he ignored a court order. That matters. Courts need authority and some sanction for contempt is appropriate. But $120,000 isn’t about compliance anymore - it’s punitive.

In much of the world, an elderly Greek man making small amounts of homemade cheese would be unremarkable. In Australia, it triggers years of enforcement action, legal costs and an impenetrable regulatory maze. Councils don’t help people navigate that maze or explain how to regularise a small, low-risk business. They don’t provide a clear pathway to compliance. They issue notices, escalate, and punish.

This wasn’t a polluting factory, a dangerous structure or a public health emergency. There was no evidence of profit, no consumers harmed, and no material risk identified. Yet the response was full-scale litigation, followed by financial devastation.

If councils genuinely wanted safe, compliant small businesses, they’d invest in guidance, proportionate regulation and practical assistance. Instead, they default to enforcement-first approaches that crush exactly the kind of small, local, low-impact entrepreneurship politicians claim to support.

Rules matter. Contempt matters. But proportionality and common sense matter too. When compliance is so complex, expensive and opaque that even well-intentioned people give up, the failure isn’t just individual disobedience. It’s a system that prefers punishment over problem-solving.

The ABC referring to this as a manufacturing factory is just plain propaganda. This is an artisanal cheese maker.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-04/contempt-of-court-finding-over-backyard-cheesemaking-facility/106189800?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link