Quickhit: Nile is at it again

Red circle with barThis is why I will never, ever vote for the NSW Liberal party while they have any kind of deal (including second preference group voting in the Legislative Council ballot) with Fred Nile and/or the so-called Christian Democratic Party.

In summary, Nile has proposed private member’s bills with various anti-abortion effects, banning full-face coverings, banning X-rated movies and lifting the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. Talk about wowserism and an ideological push.

He’s also proposing an advertising ban on alcohol and gambling – now that, I admit, I could get behind, if the bill is a sensible one. But as the whole agenda appears to be based on ideology, I’m not sure it would be.

Cross-posted at Wallaby.

Categories: Politics

Tags: , , , ,

3 replies

  1. Y’know, what I’d like to see is a cost-benefit analysis for all bills placed before a parliament – as in, a serious analysis of what the costs incurred by passing the bill would be (for example, any bill which works to reduce the availability of either abortion or birth control will increase the requirement for things like child care providers, infant health centres, social workers to deal with child welfare, schools, maternity hospitals, women’s health services and so on), and a serious analysis of what the economic and/or social benefit of the bill would be in both the short and long term.

    I get the feeling Mr Nile’s bills would pretty much impose a lot of costs on society, for not much benefit at all (I particularly love the one where he’s trying to get the NSW Upper House renamed as the “State Senate” so he can wear the title of “State Senator” and try and fool people into believing he has some kind of national relevance).

    • That cost-benefit analysis sounds like a good idea to me.

      Yeah, re the “State Senator” thing, I didn’t get the point of that at first, but I think you might be right.

  2. Can we just have a cost benefit analysis for Fred Nile?

%d bloggers like this: