Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and <br>
<br>
integrity is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the <br>
<br>
first place hear themselves?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed <br>
<br>
electoral reforms that the major parties look set to come together to support.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals can donate, caps on the amount candidates <br>
<br>
can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of <br>
<br>
an arms race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually less than the major parties <br>
<br>
currently spend.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The proposed new laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, <br>
<br>
thus increasing the transparency of who makes political donations in the first place.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity <br>
<br>
while using their cash to influence election outcomes - and <br>
<br>
the extent to which they can use their wealth at all will be limited.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The bill will further improve transparency by also increasing the speed <br>
<br>
and frequency that disclosures of donations need to be <br>
<br>
made.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At present we have the absurd situation in which donations get <br>
<br>
made - but you only find out the details of who has given what to whom many months later, well <br>
<br>
after elections are won and lost.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In other words, what is broadly being proposed will result <br>
<br>
in much greater transparency and far less big money being injected into campaigning by the wealthy.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running <br>
<br>
scared' with the policy and warned the reform would <br>
<br>
'not stop the rot' <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot <br>
<br>
- saying if it serves only the major parties 'it's a rort, not <br>
<br>
reform'. Teal independent ACT senator David Pocock (right) said: <br>
<br>
'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up'<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Anyone donating more than $1,000 to a political party, as opposed to $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having done so.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And how much they can donate will be capped.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the proposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up',<br>
<br>
'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
They have lost their collective minds after finding out that Labor's proposal just <br>
<br>
might secure the support of the opposition.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>I had to double check who was criticising what exactly before even starting <br>
<br>
to write this column.</u></b><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency measures stamping out the influence of the <br>
<br>
wealthy must have been proposed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the corruption-fighting <br>
<br>
Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer <br>
<br>
to accountability.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<i><u>More fool me.</u></i><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The bill, designed to clean up a rotten system, is being put forward <br>
<br>
by Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal of crossbenchers.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protest too much on this issue.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major <br>
<br>
political donors such as Clive Palmer</b><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes à Court</u></b><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The Greens have taken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator Mehreen Faruqi are pictured)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The major parties have long complained about the influence the <br>
<br>
likes of Simon Holmes à Court wields behind the scenes amongst the Teals. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And we know the Greens have taken massive donations from the <br>
<br>
wealthy in the past, contrary to their irregular <br>
<br>
calls to tighten donations rules.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Now that tangible change has been proposed, these bastions of virtue <br>
<br>
are running a mile from reforms that will curtail dark art of political donations.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The Labor government isn't even seeking for these transparency rules to take effect immediately, by the way.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next election designed <br>
<br>
to catch the crossbench out.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
They are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone enough <br>
<br>
time to absorb and understand the changes before preparing <br>
<br>
for them.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, no deal has yet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagine the opposition want to go over the laws with a <br>
<br>
fine tooth comb.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include <br>
<br>
hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable of taking advantage of, <br>
<br>
therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally in the years to come.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to <br>
<br>
get these proposed laws implemented, the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to what is being advocated for.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>They might even be able to offer something worthwhile that could be incorporated in the package.</b><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary about being in politics to 'clean things up'.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Also visit my site ... <a href="https://Gamigo.me/user/OttoWhitington/">พวงหรีด วัดหลักสี่</a>
Do Greens and crossbenchers