In this era of climate emergency, all industries are asked to audit their practices to be more sustainable. One way for supermarkets to become more sustainable is to ban the use of plastic bags. The giant chain, Woolworth, has stopped the supply of plastic bags in 2022. They scheduled to scraped their paper bags later this year. Coles Supermarket chain, another giant in Australia, has no plans to be plastic free. They do not even have the alternative of paper bags for their consumers. Furthermore, the use of plastic bags is the only choice for online deliveries (There isn’t a NO BAGS option). Coles has also stopped using their Redcycle plastic bags collection bin, to collect used bags for recycling. They have relinquished their responsibility in any commitment to sustainability. Workplaces that require regular online deliveries are inundated with plastic bags that have NO WHERE TO GO, other than landfill. Coles must address this corporate responsibility.

**ONLY SIGN THIS PETITION IF YOU PAID FOR TICKETS TO SITG 2022 VIA MOSHTIX or APPROVED RESALE PROCESS & CAN PROVIDE PROOF OF PURCHASE OR YOU WORKED AT SITG IN A FORMAL VOLUNTEER CAPACITY** In accordance with the LIVE PERFORMANCE AUSTRALIA TICKETING CODE OF PRACTICE - EIGHTH EDITION - EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2021 (“The Code”), we the ticket holders and volunteer workers of Splendour in the Grass 2022 (“SITG2022”) request that the ‘Ticket Proceeds’ for the event continue to be held in trust for the impacted consumers in light of gross breaches of the code and demonstrable dereliction of duty of care to patrons and volunteer workers and the likely event that a significant number of formal complaints will be lodged with both the member organisations and with Live Performance Australia in relation to SITG 2022. Further, we believe that the actions of organisers have severely impinged upon on our consumer rights and were reasonably foreseeable by the event organisers. This belief draws into significant doubt that the member organisations have engaged in any form of “honest, fair or in-good-faith dealings”. Further, we are of the view that the organisers have failed to meet their obligations to clearly communicate with consumers about both event operations and complaints handling processes which has created an unsafe and unreasonable environment for both patrons and volunteer workers throughout the event. It is clear that in order to achieve appropriate consumer remedy in this matter that the following member organisations must be held to account by Live Performance Australia: Live Nation Australasia Pty Ltd Splendour in the Grass Pty Ltd Secret Sounds Pty Ltd Moshtix Pty Ltd As the ‘Ticket Proceeds’ are very likely going to be the subject of protracted consumer complaints with the obvious and distinct probability that any such consumer complaint may be deemed valid, we feel that if Live Performance Australia fail to step in on our behalf and halt distribution of the ‘Ticket Proceeds’ to the event organisers and related commercial entities, our concern is that we may never receive reasonable or timely financial remedy in relation to this matter. We, the ticket holders of Splendour in the Grass 2022, ask that Live Performance Australia, inform SITG2022 and all related commercial entities, immediately and prior to the conclusion of the event, that ‘Ticket Proceeds’ held in trust for consumers should NOT be released, distributed or in any other way made accessible to the event organisers on the following basis: 1. As per widely published media and social media coverage, it is clear that the Member Organisations of Live Performance Australia have knowingly and willingly engaged in gross breaches of relevant industry and consumer codes. 2. We, the paying patrons are alarmed by the lack of publicly available information about resolving disputes between the relevant Member Organisations as they relate to SITG2022 and Consumers. 3. We feel that the event organisers have made false and misleading statements publicly regarding refunds for the cancelled portion of the event and about the conditions consumers would likely experience whilst in attendance at the event. 4. We feel that the demonstrable history from some of the relevant member organisation of failing to adequately deal with Complaints from Consumers and/or issue refunds in a timely manner deems it necessary for Live Performance Australia to take immediate steps to ensure our Consumer Rights are protected and that the relevant Member Organisations are held to account. 5. We can foresee that the relevant Member Organisation’s complaints handling procedures are going to prove to be manifestly inadequate in light of the sheer volume of complaints likely to arise from an event of this scale and will deprive us of right to recourse, refunds and other compensatory measures. 6. From what we saw, there has also very likely been abject failures in relation to obligations to ensure a safe working environment for festival volunteers under the Fair Work Act 2009 and that their rights should also be protected. 7. We are of the view that Live Performance Australia is going to need to refer all consumer complaints to a dedicated Complaints handling process independent of the event organisers and that dedicated Code Reviewer resources should also be established due to a) the complexity and nature of the complaints b) the conduct of the Member Organisations c) because Michael Coppel of Live Nation Australasia is a member of the Live Performance Australia Executive Council (he should probably recuse himself from any and all involvement in the matter too as a result of a clear conflict of interest). https://liveperformance.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LPA-Ticketing-Code-Industry-Code-8th-edition-FINAL.pdf Sincerely, The paying patrons and volunteer workers of SITG2022.

The park is not only enjoyed by dogs and their owners but families and children, on bikes, walking who enjoy a natural ramble through the trees... not concrete paths. The local Blue Mountains community are not happy with what has been destroyed... including a turtles nest and other habitat.

Consumers right to choose, Fair Trade, Anti Bullying. This discussion sets a precedent that has the potential to negatively impact upon any stall holder at the markets.

The Tasmanian government is legislating to change poker machine licensing and taxation - and the proposed laws aren’t looking good at all. Unless we speak up and put pressure on the government, this will mean special low tax rules just for casinos, consolidating power and ownership of pokies into a handful of big business at the cost of local pubs, failure to add any extra protections, and no measures to get decent financial return for our state. The Tasmanian government is throwing away the opportunity to responsibly regulate an addictive product and get the best outcomes for our community. Here are some facts about Tasmanian pokies: - Tasmanians lose around $500,000 every day to pokie machines - Currently, people can lose up to $600 per hour! - Australia has more pokie machines per capita than any other country in the world! - Australia has extremely weak consumer protection in place for pokie machines compared to the rest of the world - Australia has higher intensity machines, which means we have far higher losses and more pokies addiction than other countries No other country in the world puts high-intensity poker machines outside casinos or destination gambling venues. Currently, our pokies don’t have the normal, effective, evidence-based consumer protection and harm minimisation measures that are used in other countries. Thousands of Tasmanians are unnecessarily becoming addicted to pokies and experiencing devastating financial harm to provide the industry with super-profits. Poker machine reform NEEDS to focus on protecting Tasmanians and making poker machines safer for people to use. Sign the petition to demand the Tasmanian government protects consumers and makes poker machines safer.

Many of us will be affected by the cuts. It will mean it's harder to get to the airport without paying through the roof for limited train options, it will mean less connections between the Eastern Suburbs and the rest of Sydney, and it will mean longer wait and transit times. These cuts are being rammed through for 2 reasons: to pay for the light rail they're trying to force people into using, and to further their privatisation agenda. But just relying on light rail will mean longer trips and more transfers for many residents. And privatising the remaining and modified bus routes will be bad for transport workers and bad for us, like it's been in the Western Suburbs. It's also important we take a stand against these undemocratic changes that barely any of us were consulted on. It's our lives that are being affected, not the rich politicians who can pay for drivers to take them where they want. Bus routes that will be cut include: 300, 301, 302, 309X, 310X, 314, 316, 317, 338, 353, 357, 372, 373, 376, 377, 391, 393, 394, 395, 400, 400N, L94, X40, X93, X99. We need to stop this assault on our public transport! References: Dozens of Sydney bus services cut in eastern suburbs transport overhaul, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 May 2021 Outrage as popular bus routes used by thousands are SCRAPPED to pay for Sydney's $3billion Light Rail project, Daily Mail, 7 May 2021

The Village is the town’s premier attraction but currently locals can only get their by driving; extending the walking/cycling track to the village would not cost much but would greatly improve the exercise options of local residents.

Children and fur babies safety is extremely important. Excited children and puppies frequently dash towards the rear exit of Ardrie Park. Some run onto the road before parents can catch up. Cars often travel at speed along this road. Neighbours have witnessed scary near misses. A safety barrier and gate to prevent a likely traumatic accident is important.

The town, Wonthaggi and surrounding towns are all growing. The demographics include diverse age groups, not just the elderly. We have young families and people between ages 21 and 55 living in Wonthaggi who still commute between Wonthaggi and Melbourne. Currently, there is a bus service to and from Melbourne city, but the bus service is not viable in the long term, due to road congestion, longer travel times due to traffic, and limited bus services. A train will resolve these issues and cut down travel time by at least half hour. This is important as more people are moving to the country for a better life and due to housing price rises. International leaders are saying we need to reduce emissions, and a train can and will be part of resolving this issue, taking more cars off the road. Many people are now setting up home in Wonthaggi and still have to drive to the city as the buses are not always reliable, nor safe in covid times being buses are confined spaces - trains are not so confined. It does not make sense that the trains were cut in 1993 by Kennett who had shortsighted ideas. Had the train lines been kept in use, this would have benefitted the economy, bringing in money from everyday use. Governments peddal the excuse that it is too expensive to return railways to Wonthaggi. This is not true and no one should buy that excuse at all. The government has more than enough money and the railways being in use will pay for itself and keep paying into the economy. This NEEDS to be done now. We are not going to wait any longer. We would like to see Wonthaggi as a successful burgeoning town just like Traralgon is. For the last decade, locals in Wonthaggi and surrounds including Leongatha have fought and fought for this railway line to be brought back into use and it has been ignored for too long. No more. Just fund it and bring it back!

Cyril Jackson Oval is important to many locals for dog walking, picnics and playing away from the high-use soccer fields on Ashfield Reserve. It provides habitat for numerous birds, including at-risk species like white-tailed and red-tailed black cockatoos. Unless we act before next summer, the grass will die, and the trees and local birdlife will suffer.

Young children are told which colours, clothing styles and even interests they are permitted to have through the choices they have available in their respective gender’s clothing department. Many parents of young boys will tell you their son loves pink, rainbows and flowers but simply cannot wear clothes in these styles like girls do without taking them from the girls’ section, which sends them a strong message that the things they like are “wrong”. Similarly, many parents of girls lament the lack of dinosaurs, trucks, and non-frilly styles in the girls’ section. This is a problem that has already been addressed by many smaller and independent retailers, who have done away with “girls” and “boys” sections entirely, in favour of an inclusive children’s one. It is time for Australia’s biggest retailers to follow suit. Nobody really believes that boys’ interests are limited to cars, diggers, dinosaurs and sharks. Nobody honestly thinks girls only like rainbows, flowers, unicorns and ice cream. Nobody reasonably considers certain colours to belong exclusively to a certain gender. Enough. Get rid of the gender separated clothing sections, and let kids choose exactly what they like without arbitrary boundaries. _________________________ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ***Why can’t you just pull things from the opposite section?*** Firstly, that’s not always possible. Cut and style are issues (consider e.g. a boy who wants a colour or pattern from the girls’ section but doesn’t want the fitted cut). More importantly, having the clothes separated in the first place sends a strong message to kids that there is an appropriate or a “normal” way for them to dress based on their gender. Any child who wants to wear something from the “other” section gets a strong message that their desire is, at the very least, “weird”, and at worst, straight-out wrong. We can’t expect a young child to overcome these arbitrary barriers on their own. If we truly believe that it’s OK for boys to wear pink, and for girls to like cars and trucks, then let’s do away with two sections and let them pick exactly what they like. ***But sizing for boys and girls is different!*** What many refer to as “sizing” is really a difference in the style and cut of clothes. There is no difference at all in sizing for young children (in fact, designers use one form/mannequin for girls and boys). As they get older, children’s bodies change shape - but they change as much from each other as they do from those of the “other” gender. We are all very different from each other in our body sizes and shapes, which is why sometimes we struggle to find things that fit even though it is made for our gender. When clothes are sorted by style (e.g. fitted t shirts on one rack; box cut on another), and then by size, there is no issue in sizing at all. Consider the multitude of unisex kids’ and adults’ clothing companies (a quick google will return lots of them), who have no trouble with sizing. ***Won’t it be hard to find what I want to buy?*** Not at all! Clothing is organised by type, then by style or colour. Some shops already organise their clothes this way. So do a ton of online retailers of kids' clothing. We already organise toys by type, which used to be separated by gender. ***What do other parents think?*** Since this campaign began, parents have shared many examples of times they were frustrated with the kids' clothing options available in store - from a toddler's hat with a whale on it labelled "boys' hat", to the lack of bright colours in the boys' section, to the lack of practical, durable clothing in the girls'. ***I just want more variety; I don’t want to put both sections together.*** We agree that more variety in children’s clothing is absolutely needed generally. That is part and parcel of this campaign. Having two sections is a bit of a self-perpetuating gender loop - before designers even begin they have to choose if they're designing for the "girls" or "boys" section, which immediately limits their options and makes it more likely for them to "over-gender" the clothes. If we unify the sections we are encouraging much more variety in children’s clothes generally, and on the way we’re taking down any barriers that might cause a child to feel “wrong” for wanting clothes that previously “belonged” to the other gender. Win-win! ***Isn't it natural for girls to like e.g. pink and boys to like e.g. blue?*** No, it isn't. A hundred years ago it was the exact opposite - pink was considered "robust" and suitable for boys, and blue "softer" and appropriate for girls. Before that, parents dressed all young children in dresses - it was considered distasteful to gender them with clothing as this brought attention to their sexuality at such a young age. This all began to change in the middle of the 20th Century, largely as a reaction to male homosexuality. People believed that dressing boys like "little men" would stop homosexuality. Ha! In any case, we know that girls are not born with a love for glitter and unicorns. Similarly, infant boys show no aversion to pink, and no preference for dinosaurs over bunny rabbits. It's all made up. Why don't we let them have exactly what they like - glittery, neutral, bunnies or bulldozers?

The recent Horizon presentation offered nothing to our general population besides tea and scones at the yet to be completed customer experience centre. We need environmentally friendly power generation to reduce our carbon footprint for the future of our children, our Nation and our World. Let’s activate the local, State and Federal Government bodies to encourage Horizon Power to get the job done.