This article unilaterally lambasts the Liberal party and Senator Ronaldson in particular. I have followed Bernard Keane’s articles on this topic and his fervour is evident. I remain unconvinced that his disdain is justified.

In particular, if a caustic and sweeping criticism is made of the opposite side of politics to the author’s then natural justice dictates that their argument are fairly presented.There was not even a cursory effort today to even suggest that the Liberal party had an argument despite the vicious rhetoric. Moreover: “Fielding, at least, had a sort of reason why he blocked the bill” says the Liberals had no argument at all.

Bernard’s point that he did not want to waste our time rehashing old Liberal arguments that he’d presented before is disingenuous at best and wilfully dishonest at worst. Neither does it mitigate the criticism inherent in my original comment.

I am all for a transparency; without it democracy fails. Apple pie is good and all that.

I would have liked Bernard to explain what Senator Ronaldson means when he says: “This issue is too serious to be debased by having cherry picked legislation”

What serious campaign finance reform is Labor leaving out Bernard?

Is Ronaldson right? Is this fair? Is there a bigger picture?

I’ll bet there is!

For those who have waded through my previous efforts on this issue, I’ve discussed the nonsensical basis on which the Coalition bases its opposition - the claim that a high threshold is required because union bogeymen will smash their way into small businesses and threaten them if it is revealed they donated to the Liberal Party.

No single example of this piece of anti-union Grand Guignol has ever been produced, and the AEC has specifically addressed the issue in its submission on the bill., rejecting it outright.

If subscribers wish, I can write every article from first principles and assume no one has ever read anything here before. It’ll make things longer and more tedious - even more tedious in my case - but if it helps…

Perhaps because Bernard is unable to provide a rebuttal to their assertions?

Those evil Liberals…..

We hear the mantra of the MInister for Police for example, when draconian laws are introduced into the Parliament (also NSW) that give police more access to deny peoples’ basic rights, that ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’? When this same argument is shot home to the federal conservatives over this instance, not a viable argument can be made. This is the first time and place that I’ve learned of this disgraceful action. Why is that? So much for a robust media, vitally important for a workable democracy. I’m disgusted, yet again! They are proving on a daily basis, that they have no scruples, no morals and should hang their heads in shame! Thank you Crikey!

So the $96 million sent OS to magically help Australia’s economic recovery doesn’t rate?
Bernard, being a day behind the news sure allows for smart-arse comments but let’s face it you’re post-hoc darling.

For you Labor supporters that means like “in hindsight”.

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds110309.pdf

and decide for themselves whether it is the ALP or the Libs whose arguements seem sounder. The Libs come out better in Hansard than they do in Bernard’s article, but I still feel their arguements are not sound reasons to have opposed this measure.

Seems to me the Libs are doing the classic “be seen to be doing something” approach, rather than changing legislation. Their only defense was that they want a full inquiry into all electoral goings on before they will approve this ammendment.

I disagree. The threshold was changed under Howard, and should be changed back. This bill seeks to achieve that. The libs are blocking it, for no definitive reason, but just because they want a more wide ranging inquiry.

I’m calling their bluff, and they deserve to be dragged through the coals.

There is no question that whatever Labor might report under the existing or the proposed legislation, they have no intention of having to report the millions of dollars of corporate and other support that has been and will be provided by the Unions. This support is not and is not intended to be caught, as far as I can see, and yet it dwarfs what Labor has and will report. This is the hypocrisy of the Faulkner amendments, and that is why the Faulkner approach should not proceed until true transparency is sought and achieved.

Also apols to Ev - I’ve talked about the public interest but subsequently linked to Senate Hansard without adding that you need to go to page 24, thus exposing the public to some pretty dodgy rants.