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.

Paying members should be able to enjoy the full use of the spa and have it operate the way it's supposed to, rather than just a hot tub with a few bubbles. It's important that our public facilities are kept in good condition so that we can make sure everybody, regardless of how much money you have, can enjoy leisure activities.

It would make people's lives so much easier and not just pleasant but provide this essential service regardless of whether a tree has taken out power lines somewhere else locally or if there is a bushfire and power is lost. While it would cost money it is really a small price to pay for the additional security it would provide. Why Matt Kean? Because he is the person who can make it happen. As the Minister for the Environment in NSW he has the power to make this happen. The council cannot do it!

My name is Anna Bardsley. I'm a retired business woman, mother of five. I am a singer and a writer, a gardener, a grandmother — and I lost ten years of my life to the pokies. I learnt the hard way that gambling corporations will stop at nothing to extract as much money from people as possible. They ruthlessly prey on vulnerable people, destroying lives, tearing families apart, and harming our communities in the process. For decades, reforming the gambling industry has been close to impossible. But in March, the NSW Liberal Party is taking the first step by proposing a new law to reduce their harmful powers, and Labor might very well add their support too. But we need NSW MPs to stand strong against the huge lobbying power of the gambling industry, which will be putting enormous pressure on them to stop or water down this law. That’s why I’m asking you to sign my petition to show our MPs that the community is watching and demands they stand strong against big gambling bullies and vote to pass this law. *Anna Bardsley won a Victorian Senior of the Year Award for raising awareness of the impacts of gambling. She is a passionate advocate for gambling reform after battling with poker machines for ten years and has helped others as part of her work with the Alliance for Gambling Reform.

NSW rural and remote health and hospital services are in crisis due to a lack of engagement with rural and remote people in decision-making, the absence of a clear strategy for rural health and accountability for rural health outcomes, and poorly targeted investments in recruiting and retaining doctors, nurses, mental health and allied health staff by the NSW Government. Rural and remote communities need the help of the NSW Government to fundamentally reform our rural and remote health and hospital system so that it is responsive to the needs of individual communities and has the resources to address the causes and consequences of poor health. People who live in rural and remote NSW have a higher rate of chronic diseases compared to people living in regional and metropolitan cities, will die up to 11 years earlier and have inadequate access to primary health care and hospital services. The median age of death of rural and remote people is going backwards, while more than 3,000 rural and remote residents in NSW die unnecessarily every year from preventable causes. Rural and remote people need a health and hospital system that is designed around their unique needs and circumstances. Metropolitan approaches has failed to deliver the right care in the right place and at the right time for rural and remote communities. Building the right health system will help is to save more rural and remote residents from ill-health, and premature and avoidable death. Rural and remote residents produce the fresh food we eat and generate more than 65% of the nation's export wealth. Access to appropriate health care is not just a human right, it is critical for the future of jobs and economic development in our country.

With the cost of living increasing and financial pressures growing this is a way to lower the cost of fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts whilst delivering better nutritional outcomes and community engagement.

People tend to delay their own check ups because they don’t have others holding them accountable to make and attend appointments. If we were able to shift the focus from individualised health care to “get everyone together” and collectively book longer group sessions with friends, family and/or colleagues; and even combine the appointment with something fun and community-focused like a morning tea, a lot more people would probably make an effort to keep up to date with preventative/early diagnostic testing.

We are way behind other countries in the uptake of EVs and the lack of such an incentive and lack of emission standards for vehicles stops manufacturers providing many of the EV's that exist to our shores. This needs to change as it would help the environment

Bufexamac is the active ingredient in about 15 medicated creams that you can buy from any pharmacy in Australia. It can cause allergic reactions so severe that people have been hospitalised. Bufexamac has been banned from sale in Europe since 2010 because of it can cause such dangerous allergic reactions. It's never been sold in the US nor Canada for the same reason and yet it's still sold in Australian pharmacies. You don't even need a script for it. You can read more about Bufexamac here: https://dermnetnz.org/topics/contact-allergy-to-bufexamac/. And you can find out more about our campaign at www.banbufexamac.com.au. It's time for the Therapeutic Goods Administration to finally ban Bufexamac.

Firefox's entire history has been about empowering users and developers to build and configure a browser that works for them. This change in policy is a big change in direction of this ideal. The current (apparent) policy is additionally harmful to innovation - the only blessed extensions available are those which are already highly popular, and which Mozilla has hence selected for special treatment. There is literally no pathway that a new developer could follow to reach this special status, as there is no way for them to build this popularity in the first place. N.B. If you don't wish to provide your zip/postcode, please enter "0000" in the signing form. CommunityRun is run by GetUp, which is a reputable Australian activism organization (which I selected over the for-profit and somewhat shady change.org for this reason of trust). Hence, their petition platform is built around the assumption of a physical Australian presence of signatories. This assumption is clearly not valid for a digital, international petition such as this.