Campaign expenditure - What other problems are there?

[@johnbarker7720]

I love the way Prof. Twomey explains the facts without all the emotive nonsense. 👍

[@anavictoriacarlos7297]

Thank you Professor, I can't help but admire how you sieve thru everything with your analytical mind. Thank you very much.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much appreciated. It's actually quite a lot of work!

[@davidunwin7868]

Appreciate your hard work deciphering the amending bill and quickly doong some analysis of you findings. The major parties need to be punished electorally at the next election for ramming this through, and limiting independents from running.

[@jaredlopez3512]

Thanks for doing this and giving us a clearer view on the matter.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Clear as mud, no fault of the Professor whose expertise is shoveling such materials. Thank you.

[@cheerytomato6196]

Have heard about this bill from other channels but your break down of the issue is excellent. Thanks for your work.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad to help.

[@cameronjohnston5748]

Thankyou for your explanation. It seems like another way to stop anyone else having a go. Just too much them and us with it all. Nothing fair, just hiding the deceit in the fine print.

[@noelleggett5368]

Brava! Professor Twomey, thank you for bringing us a concise summary of such a complex aspect of constitutional law that strives to apply an ethical balance and appropriate measure of transparency to governance, while ensuring efficient, effective and equitable political communication. I especially appreciate your ‘Austinesque’ style of engaging us by deftly injecting your attitude toward the subject with subtle humour. You must have spent so many hours putting together these posts, furnishing us with detailed analyses of the principles that underlie the bill’s framework as well as some of the potential flaws in its design and their likely consequences. II hope you still have time to manage your ‘real’ work and meet your deadlines as the year draws to a close. Meanwhile, we’ll all microwave some popcorn and sit back to enjoy the fireworks that is likely to unfold when the bill hits the High Court. 😊

[@kevin-e5h5t]

Excellent work Professor.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Many thanks.

[@simonspark8314]

This bill blatantly discriminates against new parties and independent candidates.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

It is clear that we have to vote independent..Let's be Australian and stand for something.

[@markburgess3860]

Man, I hate this

[@cheerytomato6196]

Think we should team up with Juice Media, MWM, Punters Politics, KISL, Swollen Pickles and whoever else I have forgotten here and hit the streets to rally against this issue

[@ricochet2977]

@@RodWilliams-m7r I agree, but let’s not randomly spread our votes across multiple independents, we should collectively select individuals who we believe are worthy and concentrate on them to give them the best chance of success, otherwise we’re just wasting our vote.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

@@ricochet2977 I agree with you but I am still putting Lab/Lib/Last

[@Sammaderp]

in the wise words of Gen Z, the math ain't mathing. Thank you for your analysis!

[@seanlander9321]

The lisp generation.

[@WoodrowPhathom]

Thank You, succinct, friendly and not hysterical. I hope to see your views skyrocketing soon 👍🤓

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I’m afraid outrage attracts more views!

[@Lastindependentthinker]

This is all well and good. If we are a Democracy? You should not have to be wealthy to run for government. We do not want to close the door on ordinary citizens from participating or we end up with a system of political class disconnected from the lot of the ordinary citizen. In large electorates, it is hard to cover the entire area and the incumbents have the taxpayer funding them. Nice work.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Hey... a citizen can either vote or run. It can be independently or party? 🌏🇦🇺

[@royevetts4900]

it is what happens when politicians become drunk on power and their own importance. It is time Australia grew up and went to the Swiss system which allows the people to vote on anything to do with policy. The corrupt uniparty needs a comeuppance.

[@andhewonders]

A Referendum is a wonderful thing in my mind.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

Yes yes

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@andhewondersaccept for the fact Australians are extremely poorly educated on constitutional matters.

[@andhewonders]

@Robert-xs2mv People only know what they're shown, I had exposure to the constitution in my social studies class in the 70's, then they took it out... Referendums could be done on a txt, the government isn't obliged to enact them, I find a lot of early education to be in the past now.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@andhewonders one can never “ know” what they are shown. Only when one discovers and truly understands things that one can know.

[@johnbarker7720]

👏👏👏

[@peteregan3862]

Money is useful, but what really impresses an electorate is the number of people in candidate tee-shirts handing out policy and how to vote materials around the electorate and at polling boths. Parties will flood marginal electorates to make an impression. Candidate helpers can do letter-boxing, hand out at busy street corners or railway stations. Candidates can door knock villa houses too, but it is weird if other people do it on their behalf. Apartment blocks have security issues that means it is unwise to doorknock most apartments. Some inertia in the system is good so people have to make an impression over several electoral cycles - it matures them and their policies.

[@PaxAlotin]

*The hidden intent of this bill* -------- is to turn a vice - into a virtue.

[@christophergame7977]

The bureaucracy is choking us.

[@CraigPMiller]

Ahhh clarity. Thank you. It's so convoluted, it might be easier (and cheaper for the taxpayer) to return to straight bribery. Clearly documented, you could, at least, see who had bought your representative. 🤔🙃😎

[@cesargodoy2920]

hold on I haven't even finished the first video but I'm glad to see a new video.campaign rules regarding expanses and salaries have always been interesting to me. I think too strigent rules might hurt non wealthy candidates which is a framing that was used here when setting up our process and for some controversial things you may have heard about. .same argument for term limits . one of our new congress people explicity wants to raiss the amount a candidate is allowed as a salary for this reason, but I doubt it happens. on ths topic were there even any discussions during the consitutions framing of how Mps should be paid? here in there was a brief peroid where the president's salary was debated but congress decided it wanted the symbolism of the president being an worker and didn't want to limit the job to the rich .Excellent video professor twomey!

[@noelleggett5368]

“Congress”? Has the slow-motion multi-vehicle car crash of this year’s US election so disturbed your psyche that you’ve forgotten that Australia has fifteen houses of ‘parliament’ - but no ‘congress’.

[@fatherburning358]

Hmmm, anti competitive business behaviour WITHIN the federal electoral system. How very, very interesting. Duopoly, anyone? Independents should spend all their cash on social media. Oh, hangon....censorship anyone? Thanks Doc 🙏

[@robc5704]

Sounds like the odd adage of four dingos and a sheep deciding what's for lunch...

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

not sure why anyone would have a problem with the establishment having an unlimited amount of money 😭stole it fair and square, what's the point of even living in an oligarchy if people are just going to rub your face in it 😡

[@johnguppy2120]

Why doesn't the AEC set these rules rather than the parties that have a conflict of interest?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Because the AEC is not elected and needs to remain a-political.

[@Bristolcentaurus]

the RDA Act includes as schedule 1 the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination which includes article 5 (e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular: (vi) The right to equal participation in cultural activities (including democracy and elections); it seems to me there is an argument to be had that there is a discrimination on the basis of unequal treatment in the proscribed conduct of the respective parties and independents - there is an implied right to equal participation and equal treatment in elections interesting argument for the high court

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

If you were going to run such an argument, you should use art 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR'), which says that every citizen shall have the right and opportunity without unreasonable restrictions 'to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors'. It is attached as a Schedule to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). However, this does not give domestic legal effect to the commitments in the ICCPR, and in any case, a later inconsistent statute would override anything in an earlier statute. If you want an argument to invalidate a statute, or part of it, then you need to deploy the Constitution. This is why arguments about the implied freedom of political communication are important here.

[@Bristolcentaurus]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 i was forgetting the ICCPR

[@jjwebster7892]

Sneaky & Sinister

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Hi Professor, I've had my say. Although; this country has a saying "ignorance is no accuse to break the law." So Government advertising to "inform" is welcome. 🍟🍔. 🫛