Sed ut perspiciatis unde Featured
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.
Nulla facilisi. Cras convallis vel lectus sed convallis. Duis nec accumsan diam. Vestibulum blandit tempus nulla. Suspendisse consectetur cursus elit, et scelerisque ligula hendrerit id. Maecenas ultrices porta nunc, quis consectetur risus. Morbi non metus eget nibh vulputate tincidunt. Nullam dui quam, suscipit a ligula a, posuere sagittis magna. Pellentesque vitae dolor et nunc lobortis vestibulum. Suspendisse potenti. Pellentesque cursus purus vitae libero hendrerit congue. Aenean erat elit, aliquet at mi quis, sollicitudin sollicitudin libero.
" Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. "
h1. Heading 1
Sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.
- Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit
- Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error
- Qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit
h2. Heading 2
Sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.
h3. Heading 3
Sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.
Super User
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.
7849 comments
Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and integrity
is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the
first place 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 less than the major parties currently spend.
The proposed new laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing the
transparency of who makes political donations in the first place.
So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity while using their cash to influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can use their wealth at
all will be limited.
The bill will further improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency that
disclosures of donations need to be made.
At present we have the 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
big 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'. Teal
independent ACT senator David Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up'
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.
And how much they can donate will be capped.
Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the proposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous'
and 'a rort, not a reform'.
They have lost their collective minds after finding out that Labor's proposal just might secure the support of the opposition.
I had to double check who was criticising what exactly before 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 proposed 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 rotten system,
is being put forward by Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal of crossbenchers.
It makes you wonder what they have to hide.
Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protest too much on this
issue.
Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major
political donors such as Clive Palmer
Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes à Court
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)
The major parties have long complained about the influence the likes of Simon Holmes à Court wields behind the scenes amongst the Teals.
And we know the Greens have 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 of virtue are running
a mile from reforms that will curtail dark art of political 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 election designed to catch the crossbench out.
They are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone
enough time to absorb and understand the changes before
preparing for them.
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 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 in 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 what is being advocated for.
They might even be able to offer something worthwhile that could be incorporated in the package.
To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary
about being in politics to 'clean things up'.
On March 18, the Pennsylvania Division of Health reported the state's first dying related to the virus, a affected person at St.
Four rapid games with 25 minutes per side and a 10-second increment beginning with move 1. If a player had scored 2½ points or extra, he would win the championship.
Substitute Tom Peers rifled a goalbound shot from 10 yards which Deasy did well to save as Chester pressed laborious to get on level terms.
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.