Tau

Parks does often give the impression that they'd rather the plebs didn't actually go into their parks, but I think them booking ghost camps might be a step too far given they could just reduce the nominal capacity further to get the same effect.

I would bet the vast majority of the problem is your second option of people booking out campgrounds to avoid others (with a side helping of those who aren't sure which day they want to go out so they book all options). Looking at who has a record of cancelling bookings would probably allow one to cut out a lot of this as I suspect you'd find a bunch of repeat offenders.

Closer to cities where demand is higher, the campsites are more desirable and therefore the ghost booking issue is worse. A higher fee discourages that. On the downside, you pay more for convenience of not having to drive far.

The tier system described appears to be more based on available facilities though rather than visitor numbers, while it does mention demand in passing this isn't quantified and the tier table shown works off facilities/servicing.

I would agree there does tend to be correlation between high demand campgrounds and highly serviced ones so you do have a point with high prices being necessary to some extent. I do think though that applying a state wide pricing system will end up with noticeably higher prices in a lot of places not near the major centres (or the major attractions).

The removal of fees and bookings for the unserviced and largely unmanaged tier of campgrounds is a welcome change, I did not like it when they introduced these.

Not getting 100% of the booking charge back sounds like it should cut down on people booking when they don't actually mean to turn up, so I'd say that's reasonable.

I have reservations about how expensive the higher tier charges are though, even the mid tiers are getting pricey for what's supposed to be a cheap activity.

When it comes to preferences they go to the parties/candidates in the order that you number them. Others can suggest where you send your preferences (how to vote cards being the typical method) but ultimately it's up to you.

For the house of reps if a third party doesn't win the seat you will ultimately end up voting for Labour or Liberals, because you have to number all the boxes. You'll have to decide which you like more (or least) and number accordingly. In the senate you can potentially exhaust your vote before reaching the majors (assuming you reach the minimum numbering before getting to them) but unless you truly believe both majors are the same I'd advise including them.

If you vote above the line in the senate your preferences follow party lines as you have numbered them (i.e. preferences will count towards the candidates for the first party you number, then the second and so forth). You still control what parties you're voting for and what order.

It was always a shame watching the old timber bridges get replaced with the comparatively soulless concrete designs, nice to see that some are escaping that treatment.

Something that was touched upon in the article but I think worthwhile enough to mention specifically is we should have a greater ability to manufacture essential materials ourselves - this would not be strictly defence spending but is definitely adjacent to it. Things like fuel are an obvious one here but there's plenty of basics we don't make on shore. As an example I'm thinking of the shortage of saline solution that got into the news a while back - that's something very commonly used and literally just salt mixed with water, but we rely on importing it...

I looked into volunteering for the local SES once (when I was looking for stuff to do with my life after uni) and they turned me down, so actually accepting people who are interested is something that might help with their numbers.

The gender pay gap is not about “equal pay for equal work”

Indeed, it seems to be primarily about making rage bait headlines.

Women work less hours on average, with considerably more working part time and those who work full time working less hours than men overall (so less overtime pay). What are you going to do to fix that gap, force women to work more? Between that and less women choosing to work in various higher paid and more physical/dangerous jobs (e.g. trades, mining) it's no wonder there's a difference.