Ah, I see. Just as you needed Holmes a Court to tell you the legislation was bad, you need me to tell you why it's good. Just a suggestion - you could find out for yourself and make up your own mind.
Unnecessary, as many of these have already been outlined for you. As for reforms promised but ignored (please tell me what they are, as Labor has been very good at keeping their promises), the Teals record isn't that hot - yet they'll continue to make promises that they know that they can't keep.
I think there are many more concerned than Simon. Your use of the term miffed denigrates the debate. I have only heard of the aspects of rhe Bill which limit independents funding, and would be interested to know about the good bits if you have a link.
Yes. $800k is a ridiculous amount to spend on one seat in an election campaign. $50k from one individual should be enough for a 'community driven' movement. Volunteers on the ground will always beat deep pockets.
I think the concern is that the effective spend of the major parties in an electorate can exceed this by virtue of generic advertising. A cap on all flyers, billboards, tv/radio ad minutes etc for a party in an electorate is the fair goal right?
...so, for example, I could spend my (excessive amount) of $800k only to be told that I'd exceeded the limit because (totally unbeknown to me) the Feds had run a generic ad on Channel 7.
There is a difference between a party campaigning nationally and one campaigning locally. The generic advertising referred to in the proposed laws (which I'm not saying are perfect!) is more to do with, say, running an add on national TV.
Comments
And yes, there has been some positive tinkering at the margins, which absolutely do not compensate for the reforms that they promised but ignored.
Over to you !
https://michaelwest.com.au/electoral-reform-bill-to-entrench-major-parties-power/
ad hominem argument. My opinion is that this is not a good way to debate.