Prime Minister Julia Gillard remains opposed to gay unions, putting her at odds with right-wing Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib.

Senator Arbib is the first frontbencher to say he believes his party should support gay marriage.

He says gay people should have the legal right to get married, and MPs should be given a conscience vote on the controversial matter.

"If I was the parent of a gay son or daughter I don't know how I could tell them they didn't have the same rights as I did," Mr Arbib told News Ltd papers.

"I understand the Labor Party platform does not reflect that view at the moment but I hope one day that view changes."

Ms Gillard said Senator Arbib was voicing his personal views and would need to raise the matter at the ALP's national conference if he wanted to change the party's current policy, which opposes gay unions.

"Mark has expressed his personal views and no doubt he will take them to the next national conference, which is the proper place to have this debate," Ms Gillard told reporters in Melbourne today.

"We have currently a party policy, the party policy's crystal clear, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"That's what the marriage act says and that's how it should stay."

As a gay man, in a long term relationship, I am actually happy that our relationship is not defined by an act of parliament (legislation).  How do you married folk feel about that? If "marriage" is about love and commitment, what happens when you break THAT law? If its about religion, then why do we need law to define it?

Apart from all that, because, frankly, I don't really care if heterosexual (man and woman) couples need laws to define their relationships (bit sad really), more to the point, will Mark Arbib now move to destabilize the Gillard Prime Ministership as a result of this 'disagreement'? 

Afterall, he did it to Rudd over Mining taxes!

Sylvestor

Mr Quigley will present a business plan to the NBN company board this Friday and the Government will get a look at the figures next week.

It is not yet known when the Government will make the business plan public.

The Government has however confirmed it has had the Governor-General sign a decree exempting the NBN from scrutiny by parliament's Public Works Committee.

So the primary concern is "the information will be taken out of context" - sounds to me like it might come as a bit of a shock to people.

Why the secrecy?

At present it is taxpayer money funding this project.

Surely fiscal transparency is nothing to fear? Why the big secrets? If the Government and Quigley are sure about this policy and project then the fear they might get criticised is not enough to keep it secret.

Unreasonable secrecy in Government is never a good thing! The fact that the Governor General has played a part, in what is tantamount to a 'coverup' is rather disturbing to say the least.

Now who's fudging the numbers and hiding things under the carpet?

Sylvestor

'It is sort of an inevitable step along a spectrum of taking action against tobacco.

Dear Ms Roxon,

Forgive my naivete. Can you please provide me with some help in understanding your new legislative policy direction on this matter.

Yes, I am a smoker.

Yes, I intend to quit, and to be honest, if you intend to reduce the total number of smokers, including me, I would like you to explain how this move will help.

In fact, at present, whenever I cannot obtain my usual brand and strength of cigarette, it is impossible to know what is the equivalent or lower strength of cigarette as a result of packaging laws prohibiting the listing of nicotine strengths and related product names. I have, in fact, found myself smoking stronger, and one could assume, more harmful cigarettes as a result!

Some may tell me to just give up. That's fine. I will. But, firstly, I am not sure how plain packaging is going to assist me with this. You may ask why should the Government help in the first place? Well, and secondly, it is the Government that is choosing to try and reduce the number of smokers. Surely then, there is a responsibility here to assist? No?

Perhaps if I was addicted to heroin, I could obtain Government assisted programs to provide me with support to quit that addiction!

I don't disagree with the fact tobacco cigarettes create health risks to smokers and people around them. I don't disagree with this at all. Yes, if the Government, representing the people, want to remove this from our society, then, Ms Roxon, please explain to me exactly, how plain packaging is going to achieve this?

This is not about the tobacco companies. This is about government policy and direction. I think, as someone with a vested interest, I deserve some help in understanding this!

Ms Roxon, perhaps, rather than wasting time, energy and money on this sort of nonsense (as that is all I can see this as), perhaps you could invest energies in providing some 'real support'!

Let me know, I have experience as a smoker, and am more than happy to share some thoughts on this.

With regards,

Sylvestor