Do Greens and crossbenchers who clai that transparency and integrity iss at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the first place hear themselves? In the past few days thery have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed electoral reforms that tthe major parties look set to come together to support. The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals can donate, caps on the amoount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arm race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually less than the major parties curdrently spend. The proposed new laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing the transparency of who makes political donatioms in tthe first place. So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity while ussing their cash to influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can use their wealth att all will bbe limited. The bill will furtherr improve trannsparency by also increasing the speed and frequency that disclosures of donations need to be made. At present we have the absurd situation iin wnich donations get made - but you onloy find out the details of who has given whbat to whom many months later, wwell 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 thhe 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 padties 'it's a rort, not reform'.�Teaal independent ACT senator Davd Poclck (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 too $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having done so. And hhow much they can donate will be capped. Yet thhe 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 heir collective minds affter findinng out thaat Labor's proposal just might secure the spport of the opposition. I had tto 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 off the wealthy must have been proposed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag thee major parties closer to accountability. More fool me. Thee bill, designed to clean upp a rotten system, iis being put forward by Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal of crossbenchers. It makes you wonder what they havee to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth peotest too mych on this issue. Labor is thought to be tryinjg to muscle out major political donors such as Cljve Palmer Another potential taarget of the laws is businessman annd Teall funder Simon Holmes � Court The Greens have taaken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregulr 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 � Court wields benind the scenes amongst the Teals.� And wee 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 ile 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 sortt of quick-paced power play before the next election designed to catch the crossbench out. Thhey are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone enough time tto absorb and understand the changes before preparing for them. Don't get me wrong, no deal has yyet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagiine 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 inn the proposed design whch would create loopholes only tthe 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 tto get these propoosed laws implemented, the crossbench should odfer 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 flse commentary about being in politics to 'clean things up'.

I loved as much as you'll receive carried out right here. The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come more formerly again since exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this hike.

Hookah Lounge 하이오피

Pub Crawl 하이오피사이트

id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading mw-first-heading">Search results Help English Tools Tools move to sidebar hide Actions General