そのへんの花掲示板

No. 339387 へのレスです

投稿フォーム

おなまえ
Eメール
題　　名
コメント	>Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and integrity is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the first plwce hear themselves? In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed electoral reforms that the major parties look set to come together to support. The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals can donate, caps on the amount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arms race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually lwss than the major parties currently spend. The proposed nnew laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing tthe transparency of who makes political donations in the first place. So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymiyy while using their cash too influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can usse their wealth at all will bee limited. The bill will furthe improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency tht disclosures of donations need to be made. At presebt we have thhe absurd situation in which donations get made - but you only find out the details of who has given what to whom many months later, well after elections are won and lost. In other words, what is broadly being proposed will result in much greater transparency and far less bigg money being injected into campaigning by the wealthy. Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running scared' with the policy and warned the reform would 'not stop the rot'� Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot - saying if it serves only the major parties 'it's a rort, not reform'.�Teeal independent ACT senator David Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up' Anyone donating moire than $1,000 to a political party, as opposed to $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having done so. And how much they can donate wiol be capped. Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the roposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'.� They have lost their ollective mnds after finding oout that Labor's proposal just might secure the support of the opposition. I had to double check who was criticising what exactly bbefore even starting to write this column. Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency measures stamping out the influence of the wealthy must have been propolsed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer to accountability. More fool me. The bill, designed to clean up a rottgen system, is being put forward by Labor aand is opposed by a growingg cabal of crossbenchers. It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protet too much on this issue. Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major politicall doonors such as Clive Palmer Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes � Court The Greens hve taken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator Mehreen Faruqi aare pictured) The mmajor parties have long complained about the influence the likes of Simon Holmes � Court wields behind thee scenes amongst the Teals.� And we know the Greens haave taken massive donations from the wealthy in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules. Now that tangible change has been proposed, these bastions off virtue are running a mile from reforms that will curtail dark art of politifal donations. The Labor government isn't even seeking for these transparency rules to take effect immediately, by the way. It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next electiion designed to catch the crossbench out. They are aiming for implementation by 2026, goving everyone enough time to absorb and undeerstand tthe changes before preparing for them. Don't get me wrong, no deal has yyet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagvine the opoposition want to go over the laws with a fine tooth comb. As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable of taking advantage of, therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally iin the years to come. But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to get these proposed laws implemented, the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to whst is being advocated for. They might evben be able to offer something worthwhiile that could be incorporated in thhe package. To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary about being in politics to 'clean things up'.
文字色	■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
URL
添付File
削除キー	(記事の削除用 英数字で8文字以内)
	(スパム防止の為表示された内容と同じ半角英数字(小文字)を入力してください)
添付可能ファイルはGIF、JPG、PNGです。 ブラウザによっては正常に添付できないことがあります。 最大投稿データ量は 1000 KB までです。 画像は横 1024ピクセル、縦 768ピクセルを超えると縮小表示されます。 名前の後に「#任意の文字列」を入力すると◆トリップが表示されます。

記事削除

記事No 削除キー

dx3m70

65djnb

ob891b

ihzeub

wbg5mw