What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms?

[@janeglover3118]

Cripes 200 pages and being rushed through with as little scrutiny as possible, by both major parties. As if that doesnt raise a ton of red flags demanding closer inspection, indeed. I really DO very much appreciate all of your labour intensive work on our behalf Prof Twomey, in seeking to educate us and to clarify such political machinations and manipulations for our benefit, and in the interests of our fragile democracy. Thank you so much, and i too look forward to every installment on this sneaky Bill, whenever you are able to. 👍🌟

[@alexfagyas9342]

👍🙏

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

oh it's only the laws on who gets to buy their services for the evening 😁

[@danielmacdougall2697]

@GNARGNARHEAD CONSTITUTIONAL PROSTITUTION !!

[@jenzag7621]

The major parties are makung sure they have no competition.

[@joansorensen-young2962]

Trying their darndest with this and the mis/dis bill

[@Maes-Arm]

Bad

[@mariaprgich]

Thankyou for your valuable time in educating us Professor Twomey. My respects to you with gratitude🌞

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are very welcome.

[@toddb9313]

This bill does not limit buying $220,000 memberships in the Labor or Liberal Associated entities, nor does it make the expenditure of advertising tied to a specific candidate allowing the major paarties to spend up to $90 million, while independents are stuck with spending caps. I hope the High Court cuts it to bits.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, there's a lot more to it. I've only scratched the surface with this video, but will also try to touch on those other things.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

Thank you for your continued information on constitutional issues.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

Yes

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much appreciated.

[@ricochet2977]

10,000 subscribers just goes to show the apathy towards politics in Australia.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@ more like constitutional comprehension, the foundation on which our political system is built.

[@PhilRable]

As always Professor Twomey, comprehensive. For those of us that are less knowledgeable on the complexity of the constitution and law in general, it’s good to know that someone in a position such as yours, is keeping close watch on the machinations of our political system.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Much appreciated.

[@peteranderson7497]

And politicians wonder why the electorate has lost faith in them.

[@bruce_just_]

Thanks Prof Twomey

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are most welcome.

[@leightonolsson4846]

Although not an Australian resident, the maintenance and scrutiny of democratic processes and institutions is both fascinating and prescient. The quality and depth of your content is superb.

[@colinseeger7619]

Absolutely. Of course, soon 15 year Olds won't be able to see this. Golly. How coincidental. Not.

[@paulusmarinus]

On the money as usual Anne with your analysis. Keep up the great work.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Shall so. About to start work on the next one....

[@Jnr079]

Great analysis Anne, thank u. Being ex-military, I'm still a blunt instrument that believes in honesty, integrity, mateship and being of service to our community... and calling out BS. Proliferation of laws seem to breed loopholes exponentially over time. Especially, when privileged legal services are paid country bankrupting amounts to pursue particular outcomes. If law makers keep changing definitions, our justice system will fail with an explosion of 'precedent' interpretation rulings that contradict common law for individuals. KZbin has had an unsubscribe flurry too

[@davidunwin7868]

Thank you for helping to speak out about this problem with our democracy 🙏

[@fatherburning358]

All these recent amendments bills have a very bad smell about them. Glad we are lucky enough to have learned persons such as yourself to scrutinise this underhanded behaviour. 🙏

[@KittyWhiplash959]

Thank you Ann 🙏🏻

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are welcome.

[@royevetts4900]

it ensures that the uniparty stays in power and no reform of the bureaucrats in the 1334 government agencies will ensue.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

Lab/Lib/Last...indies first. Time to wake up folks.

[@joansorensen-young2962]

@@RodWilliams-m7rabsolutely 👍

[@Rachaelshaw7]

Fantastic work! Looking forward to the next bits and pieces to do with this particular bill 🎉

[@TalenLee]

I really appreciate the effort to elucidate this clearly, thanks for being so specific about things.

[@stewatparkpark2933]

More corruption in other words .

[@acotrel1]

VOTE #1 INDEPENDENT - make every vote in parliament become a conscience vote.

[@fredgassit4450]

Thanks for your valuable insights. You always manage to bring real clarity to the subjects you cover

[@duprie37]

Thanks for this! Perhaps I'm naïve, but just the image of arch-enemies Albo & Dutton buddying up together to rush this bill through ought to set the sirens blaring that something very, very dodgy is up.

[@Dan-bn9tv]

Love your work.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much appreciated (because it a lot of work!!)

[@billmago7991]

Thankyou Professor. We have already seen how political donations has watered down legislation in gambling reforms in federal politics and state politics. They want our vote but ignore us when we give them our vote

[@PaxAlotin]

200 pages long ? For me - that's an automatic warning bell. Politicians love to hide things in reams of obscurantist detail. 😉🙂😊

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes. Amusingly, I wrote a piece for the Guardian criticising the Bill, and some Labor people contacted the Guardian to complain I'd made two errors. But I checked, and as far as I can tell, they are wrong. It would be fair enough for me to get it wrong (and I'd correct it if I did), as I'm coming to it with little time and no background, but if they don't understand their own bill, it is far more worrying!

[@TastySalamanders]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I'm certainly no political or legal expert but from experience - politicians not understanding their own bills feels like problem that plagues every age and every country. I'd trust your legal judgement over some politicians.

[@PaxAlotin]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply. For good reason - the idiomatic phrase - _'The Devil's in the details'_ - comes to mind --

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It certainly is, when it comes to bills. To be more precise, the devil is often in the definitions.

[@PaxAlotin]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I like it. 🙂

[@husaberg650]

The swamp doing swampy things.

[@anavictoriacarlos7297]

Good afternoon Professor. I'm present. Thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'll mark you off the roll.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Do you reckon we could get John and Chaz of Planet America to interview Judge Michael Luttig and build an Australian Constitutional Reform program in parallel with the development, (and without the bloodshed), of the Revolution of Independence Constitutional justification and implementation? If we start now it might get done in another few decades.

[@aussiemadman7560]

I think your vids are great and I thank you for your information and constitutional facts you share

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I appreciate that.

[@bernadmanny]

The courts should find that all candidates, party or not, can only recieve the same maximum per year. So twenty thousand dollars seems like a reasonable amount, see how fast they repeal that.

[@noelleggett5368]

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!” (Mrs Jessop from ‘The Sullivans’ quoting Sir Walter Scott).

[@chrismckell5353]

SOP for most political parties and beurocracy.

[@williambeaumont7995]

Thank you for your Thoughtful explanation . Please keep up the good work.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much appreciated. Will do.

[@harveymcintosh7374]

How long does a video generally take you to make? You upload regularly and they are always a good length and high quality. Much appreciated

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It depends. Some require quite a lot of research. Others are based on work I’ve already done in the past, so are quicker. These ones on new complex bills take a huge effort, because it’s complex picky stuff and I want to be accurate. But I’m sufficiently annoyed, and know it is really needed, so I’ll do it despite the time and energy it involves.

[@MaryGraceHutchinson]

Brilliant you have given me so much to think about. ty

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

If only it were happier things to think about...

[@RESTESSMYSTIC]

Great video. Thanks for your work.

[@MariaRiveriaHernandez]

Thank you for the content you make.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Hi Professor, Thank you for educating me on this (Cth) Bill before Parliament. I often wonder why some go to select Senate committees: expert input? Others expedited, and, the bills red for a second time, bells are rung and on TV news. My point No person or company should be able to benefit or obtain financial advantage, or any foreign influence to the political process from donation. Cut back on the advertising campaigns, and back to the soapbox and Commonwealth. 📺🌏

[@WR4SSE]

Thankyou! Very informative. I actually hadn't heard about this Bill and am absolutely shocked to hear your take on it. I wish we had a Constitutional Clarion to do rundowns of the shonky bills coming through the WA parliament. Keep going!❤

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks.

[@johnbarker7720]

Thank You!!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@rumblzs]

Man,where did democracy go to? I will always vote for independents because of these things happening.

[@anniebooo]

Our politicians need to understand that they have to follow democratic process. Thank you professor Twomey. Kind regards, Annie

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks.

[@peterschief9778]

Thanx. Excellent as usual.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much obliged.

[@thecentreforpublicintegrity]

Excellent analysis 👏👏👏

[@jvvoid]

Thankyou, Professor. Appreciate the use of your precious time and intellect.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are very welcome.

[@Raven6794]

Once you said both parties are supporting this bill it became pretty obvious it is entirely for their benefit. The only time they agree on anything is when they both stand to benefit. No shock that truth in advertising is lagging. Definitely no benefit in that one.

[@shaunradrigues1725]

When a bill or a politcal issue comes up that's grabbing all the headlines. I always watch your videos for clarity, you seem to almost be the only cool head in the room, who looks at all the information available. Thank you!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm glad it was helpful.

[@stewartcarberry2483]

I can’t believe they are trying this again. The flagrant disregard for a democracy is just a joke. Less government sounds like the go to me.

[@chrishewitt1165]

The uniparty don't want competition

[@graemefenwick6925]

13:00 OK, so the bill is a joke. Too no ones surprise. And this is why more of us need to vote the major parties last and second last.

[@mrdeanvincent]

Thanks so much for the very important work you do. One question, how do the high-priced corporate memberships of entities affiliated with the major parties fit into all of this? For example, the Federal Labor Business Forum or the Australian Business Network. I assume this particular form of blatant 'pay to play' is ignored because it's a 'membership fee' rather than a political donation.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It's mentioned in my second video on expenditure.

[@cheerytomato6196]

As always love your work. I paused it 1/4 way through to take the kids to Surf Life Saving and then watched the rest. You should add a codeword in here and get people to put it in the comments to find out how much they watch 🙂 After watching this and seeing the current Governments track record, in particular on whistle blower protection, I still 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 issues you have brilliantly cover??? Can't wait for the next video on this topic, hope you are not working yourself too hard 🙂

[@chrismckell5353]

They do have their own biases, which we need to be aware of.

[@cheerytomato6196]

@@chrismckell5353 Yeah absolutely. Dont think that means we shouldn't march about this issue though. 🙂

[@rogerp6573]

Very informative. Thankyou. Including comparison amounts under current arrangements would be helpful.

[@LPRH246]

I do like the legal term ! "Packets"

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Sometimes they are literally in brown envelopes - or occasionally in ALDI bags!

[@davidc7002]

Thanks for the explanation and reading of the bill's probable intent. Sadly much will depend on definitions. I doubt if it contains anything about controlling membership fees which both major parties have set at a max $110,000 and to which large corporation don't have to declare contributions

[@neilgarrad4931]

Thanks.

[@joemonks3161]

This situation raises the question of whether our elected representatives represent us (the electors) or their ideology (vested interest)??? The common good or profit for the privileged? Nothing has changed much over the thousands of years of history that I have seen.

[@bobbennett5013]

Great work! I pity whoever in the Parliamentary Research Service is having to prepare the Digest for the Bill. Perhaps, the best hope for everyone is that the Coalition will 'rat' on Labor and decline to pas the Bill into law during the life of the current parliament. That aside, why point (or waggle) the figure of blame for the ongoing complexity and inadequacy of funding and disclosure laws exclusively at the politicians? Some of the blame might be sheeted back to the majority decision of the High Court in the Capital Television (1992) case. That decision struck down the Hawke Government's law to ban all paid political advertising in the electronic media. Had such a ban (or one dealing exclusively with TV advertising) remained in force, the cost of elections, the cost of running political campaigns, the cost of running parties, and the costs of getting a political profile would be a vanishingly small fraction of what they are today. It follows that there would be little or no case for large scale funding of political parties and candidates. So, if anyone can be accused of 'letting the perfect stand in the way of the good', it's the judiciary and not the parliamentarians. I'm not too comfortable with the notion that the courts should be construing electoral laws to advantage/protect new entrants, small parties or independents. Our electoral system already gives independents and small parties a leg-up via preferential voting and, where it applies, proportional representation. Compulsory voting helps them too because they don't have the added cost of getting out the vote, a cost that would cripple many small parties and independents but not the bigger parties. Recent history here and abroad shows that independents and small parties are flourishing. The last two decades have seen a steady decline in the vote share of major party blocks in all the major democracies that we commonly identify with. In parliamentary systems here and in the UK, the number of small party and independent candidates being elected is at record levels. For Labor, the Bill meets an election commitment to try to improve political integrity in this term of parliament. If, during the next parliament, the new laws are significantly dismembered by a High Court challenge, the Government of the day has three options. The two obvious ones are to try again or to give up on most of Bill and just increase public funding. A third is the wildcard 'play' of pursuing a constitutional amendment that would allow parliament to enact a modified version of Hawke's electronic media ban political advertising. A law banning "politicians interrupting the footy/cricket' might just gain the necessary traction. ;-)

[@noelleggett5368]

Yes, legislation this rushed not only might have elements that are “bad” or “unconstitutional”, there are almost always specific mistakes, inaccuracies and/or ambiguities in such a bill, which would lead to a few ‘babies being thrown out with the bath water’ and end up causing a major headache for both parties. Professor, I think you’re alluding to a few examples here of such sloppy work leading to potential chaos - to the benefit only of barristers (no offence!) I’m hoping, the High Court will be diligent and efficient enough to highlight the irregularities and offer guidance to suitable and necessary corrections that might yield more positive and democratic outcomes. (*muffled laughter mingled with sobbing*) 😢😂

[@Xanthe_Cat]

I am pretty sure you won’t have any comment on this video about the Bill from members of the AEC, but as a conscientious staff member who on occasion had to try to read and interpret the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918) Cth as part of my work as a public servant, I really don’t envy my former colleagues having to wrangle with the next compilation. At the last election the Act had gotten so long and had so many amendments footnoted that it was necessary to split the Act into two volumes, and previously having most of the relevant statutory information in one volume was quite handy. (Annoyingly the compilations only get issued after the Bill is passed, so at this stage there is no way to easily see the overall effect of changes except by continually flicking between the two volumes of the Act, and the two hundred or so pages of the Bill.)

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, quite so. It would be a nightmare to administer it.

[@Xanthe_Cat]

Also, I thoroughly approve the amendment to the title credits (Professor Emerita A. T.) so that you properly take full credit for these videos! Motion passed on the voices.

[@kenwright5372]

Excellent Professor T love your work knowledge is no burden . Who are the bureaucrats that write this shit they must have no ethics at all ,would you shed some light on this for me please in one of your elegant way thankyou ..

[@acotrel1]

I love free education from university professors. As a university professor you must know that most attempts at changing the status quo are doomed to fail. The most fundamental issue is workplace safety laws - they affect industrial democracy. Neoliberalism was only ever about the unions.

[@geefor1942]

Thank you Prof.Tweye😅 for your various interpretations of our law. Being that our Constitution (I believe) can only be changed by a referendum, how can it be legal to override our Constitution with an amended Bio Security Act 1911 permitting Health Officers to adopt virtual dictatorial powers?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm afraid that whatever you have been reading has been misleading you. There was no Bio Security Act 1911. There was a Quarantine Act 1912, which was later replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015. While these Acts did and do grant significant powers to health officers and others, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, this does not override the Constitution or alter it in any way. The Constitution expressly confers a power on the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to quarantine. All challenges to the validity of provisions of the Biosecurity Act during the recent pandemic failed.

[@cadsuane]

Our politicians represent those that donate money to their political parties. Thus they do not represent the Australian people, thus are completely not democratic.

[@davecoleman409]

As an aside, does the constitution cover ownership of firearms?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No.

[@davecoleman409]

@constitutionalclarion1901 That is what I thought, thanks.

[@Ken-er9cq]

It is also a state matter, not federal. This means that the states have the power to makes laws on firearms. The federal government can restrict the import of firearms.

[@vk3fbab]

This doesn't seem to pass the pub test. The major parties parties didn't like Clive financing his own party. However looking at it objectively he spent a lot of money for very little impact. The winners were the media outlets that ran his campaign. Do we think many other ultra wealthy donors would spend anywhere near that amount? Didn't Malcolm Turnbull finance his own re-election?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, the use of candidates in funding their parties is a further issue that I didn't get time to deal with here.

[@CraigPMiller]

Oooh ... oooh. Can I make an unfounded conjecture too? (Sounds like fun!) Does it matter if I watched it all?

[@colinseeger7619]

Here's a silly thought- what would the High Court say about a Bill that is passed in the House, by a House which has ABSOLUTELY NOT REVIEWD THE LAW AS A PARLOAMENT IS MEANTVTO DO? Will it ok a ribberstamp parliamrnt? Asking for a feiend.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The Court does not interfere with the internal functioning of the Houses. This is a long standard practice.

[@colinseeger7619]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I Hope someone raises this at the appropriate time. If a Minister has ti turn his mind to a decision, one would think it applies to creating laws generally..... Ha ha

[@peter-d9f3l]

"Mr X". Appropriate reference there. Probably accidental, but appropriate this year.

[@simoneryan4487]

Thank you! I’ve been a supporter of political donation reform for decades…. But not like this. As you say though maybe it is still an opportunity even if it is an imperfect Bill. I look forward to your future videos.

[@gardnep]

Thank you for your comment. I believe corruption is well and truly alive and well in Australia. As a consistent voter for a major party over the years, the lack of even the trappings of democracy lost my vote.

[@jimspc07]

As an Idea. Any regulations on donation limits should be applied in line with the Australian Constitution on the makeup of the parliament, the interpretations and conventions put on it by the Supreme court. So. The lower house being a house of individual electorates of individuals, should allow a reasonable limit for donations per candidate, irrespective of any party affiliations and irrespective of being a new candidate or an existing one. The Parties themselves should have a nil donation political donation limit, but a small administration donation allowance could be allowed to enable the operation of the party head office facilities, staff and general cohesive administration as befits an organisation, this not being usable on individual candidates. Pre-selected party members and individuals spending their own funds, personal or donated, must funnel them through their individual Registered candidate accounts which they must set up, and allow to be monitored. Having said that. Political parties and independents would need to be set up under a monitoring system overseen by the ATO and the ACCC who would have direct sight of the political accounts of individuals and party funds and all financial transactions of every party and independent expenditure. Also having the powers to take legal actions when required that would not be monetary but exclusionary (banned from political administration or politics) for a period or even custodial depending on the extent of a breach or second or more offences. All such offences (including those under investigation and not decided before the election) must be publicised in the national media by the Electoral office one month prior to every election. So political holding of a prosecution is not held over, for political purposes, until after an election. An elected member, as may be done at this time, may change affiliation, to join or leave a party at their own discretion and for any subsequent election will be a party member if selected or independent as they are free to nominate. For the Senate. Being recognition that it is the State representation in national parliament and a political party house, the donation system should be different. As each party (inc any affiliated groups) nominate their potential representatives ranked in order of acceptance of declared quotas and there is no voting for an individual. There should be no permitted donation to individuals. There should be an equal donation limit set for each party or independent. Yes, this means that a party may have 3 nominated potential senators and an independent is solo. But the cost and effort to have all three elected is not three times the solo independent, it is the same. Again the ATO and ACCC having direct access to the party (and independents) accounts. The same penalties applying. Yes, this will handicap the party machines but it allows them to raise money to publicise their policies and objectives, but not flood the media, with often boring, derogatory or misleading advertisements. This also means that a party can benefit by an independent being elected then moving to one of the major parties at a later stage. This is the case now and there is no reason to change. Some of the worlds best politicians have changed party to progress their ideas and get traction across countries of the world. While it may annoy their voters, if the voters knew them well, then they might expect such a move. And such a move is not always bad and happens not infrequently in the Australian Senate. Any business or individual placing a media advertisement of a political nature intended to support one party will have the value of they advertisement posted to the political party it supports. Penalties should apply to such advertisements if attempts are made to hide the cost or avoid the cost. Fines of 10 times the advert cost ( production and distribution for the public costs) should apply with a custodian sentence for a second or subsequent infringement. The above would follow the governance as laid out in the constitution and would give equal rights to all sitting and prospective politicians and their parties at a federal election. The states could follow with similar rulings.

[@acotrel1]

Gambling is the basis of capitalism. When a wealthy person invests in the LNP, they are betting on Phar Lap in the Melbourne Cup.

[@onebigzero5266]

thx.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@joemonks3161]

Anne.🎉

[@mitch_mishyy]

I don't know if it's intentional, but whilst listening to the explanation of how donations influence etc Ministers and MPs I couldn't help but infer a subtle dig at the US. I love it!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The US is another whole world of horror in relation to donations. If you are interested, our High Court in the McCloy case very deliberately rejected the US Supreme Court's views about donations and corruption.

[@mitch_mishyy]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Ain't that the truth! I'll keep that in mind.

[@mamajax7551]

How can we Possibly STOP THIS.. how is this legal for them to do ?

[@geoffharrower2845]

Gotta get rid of those nuisance independents

[@Roddles]

Thank you for the well explained detail. You make these things interesting

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. It's quite technical stuff, so I'm glad I can retain interest.

[@leroymason]

Thanks for the analysis

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@mcfly2872]

Could this be a way of keeping the Teal Independent's honest? Given that they have similar platforms and the same major donor. Both parties are not happy with them, given how successful they were at the last election. These rules wouldn't affect minor parties as much as they would have their own state based parties, and thus could get similar amounts of donations. But this would mean that the Teals would have to join together and officially create a party to get the same donations?

[@geefor1942]

Surely these unscrutinised laws cannot be in the spirit of the law overall. And how can unelected organisations like the WHO compose a supposed ‘treaty’ without any public scrutiny?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Treaties are separate from laws. Treaties are negotiated by countries and it is up to each country to decide whether to ratify them and (in Australia) to implement them by domestic law. I was the secretary of the parliamentary committee that wrote a major report on reforming the treaty system back in the 1990s ('Trick or Treaty'). It resulted in the establishment of a parliamentary committee on treaties, which permits public scrutiny of treaties before their ratification, through submissions and inquiries, and also requires the government to provide national interest analyses on each treaty. You can see the work of the committee here: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties.

[@Lastindependentthinker]

The onus should be on all politicians when it comes to dealing with lobbyists. To ask "How does what you want, benefit everyone in society and not just your own bank account?" If they cannot answer this question then show them the door.

[@DavidKrane1645]

Yet, no word about MAD Bill or Online Verification/Digital ID Legislation being rushed through Parliament as we speak?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I think the misinformation bill doesn't have enough support in the Senate to pass - unless they amend it. The bill on social media for under 16s got introduced on Thursday and I'm doing a video on it now.

[@DavidKrane1645]

@ Problem is you people still think we live in a democracy... when it’s more like this: The Global Fascist Corporate Oligarchy continually accumulates more centralised Power and bloats its coffers (whilst impoverishing entire societies), by Manufacturing Crises & Wars in order to Steal Public Tax Money through the Government Politic and Regulatory Agencies (Bureaucracy) it has captured. The Oligarchy then sells its Narrative through the Media it owns, engages in sustained PysOp Mass Social Engineering Programming of the Public and utilises the captured Legal System in order to protect itself. 4 Pillars of Democracy; (Free, Independent, Transparent, Accountable): 1. Politic 2. Bureaucracy 3. Legal System 4. Press/Media Of the People, For the People, By the People. We now have none of those.

[@MichaelJAvery]

Let’s give One Nation a run next time around. … 😮

[@bryanemery5268]

If only it was possible for the entire nation to (in protest) abstain from voting in the next general election.

[@kometda]

I kinda hope these laws do pass, so the nominated entity provisions are tested in the High Court, found constitutionally invalid, and set precedent to assess other jurisdictions with this method of donation controls... like Victoria

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

A challenge against the Victorian laws would have the best chance of success. The Commonwealth provisions are not quite as bad (although still vulnerable).

[@chrismckell5353]

I'm guessing that they only tinker about the edges.

[@glennsimpson7659]

Very interesting, thank you. Money is not everything in politics, but it sure helps..

[@Glenis-qc1hz]

voting for anyone other than either of the two main parties makes sense. i mistakenly thought national party was for the farmers?

[@chrishewitt1165]

Mr x = Unions

[@grahamchan6327]

Rushing bills through without scrutiny and debate is part of the norm now .... 32 bills were rammed through just recently...no debate ...

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, it is poor behaviour.

[@ironsword7]

I wonder if you could get a Large Language Model like ChatGPT to compare and contrast this bill with the ones it's replacing/amending...

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I did think about it. It would be handy to have a marked-up version. But I fear that the risk of inaccuracy could then lead me astray in my analysis. I also suspect that at this stage, you can't feed such a vast volume of material into an AI to do the job. The Commonwealth Electoral Act is already extremely long.

[@carllonel6518]

i wonder if i need to plead for your help... how do we put good people in power

[@geoffharrower2845]

But can Mr X ‘s family and like minded ‘friends’ each donate?

[@daniellebcooper7160]

Australia needs to give One Nation a go at running the country.

[@cameronjohnston5748]

Thankyou for your explanation. I find these donations a bit repulsive and discriminatory toward the voters. I think any donations should go to a pool and be divided equally between every party, that is the small party gets exactly the same as the large party. Only then it will be fair to all, and maybe the favouritism might disappear. It would need to be held as a referendum so the parties couldn't interfere. Donation money should be used to employ not give some fast talking person in a position of power to cause disadvantage or change outcomes as so often happens.

[@leroymason]

How do I make a comment on the bill as a voter? I'd summarise your video and refer to you of course.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Ordinarily, there would be a parliamentary inquiry and you could make a submission. But because this is a deal between the major parties that was done behind closed doors, they are not holding an inquiry. The most you could do would be to contact your local MP and express your views that way.

[@jasminetutt7631]

Thankyou ❤

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much appreciated.

[@williamsutter2152]

Interesting video and definitely a topic that needs to be brought to public attention. Some part of me thinks there should be more public funding for political campaigns to reduce the potential for people to buy political influence, but of course those funds need to come from taxes and there are limits on how much tax Aussies would be willing to pay and many would argue that healthcare and education are more important areas for taxes to be spent on. I don't really know many lawyers so I'm curious do lawyers also find AI useful for their research, especially when there's a lot of text that needs to be analysed in a short amount of time in order to form an informed opinion?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

When I was complaining to my son about the length and complexity of the bill, he asked whether his AI helper (he uses 'Claude' by Anthropic) could help, but I'm afraid it's too technical at this stage for AI to identify where the real problems lie. You need a human to spot the sneakiness.

[@Rachaelshaw7]

I understand it's probably better that this bill gets changed and then amended. In general, how do we slow a bill push-through down?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Really hard when both major parties want it.

[@yodastube]

Mr X could be interpreted as Elon Musk who owns X formerly Twitter