Towards A Better Democracy
For too long voter's interests have had a stranglehold on Australian politics. While the wealthy try in vain to have their voices heard, Canberra panders to the unwashed masses and their endless demands for hospitals, police, infrastructure, fair wages, and other tax-causing headaches.
Now, our gallant government has taken a stand.
On Lateline:
PHILIP RUDDOCK: In relation to the amounts of money that can be disclosed, there has always been a level at which, if the funds are above, they must be disclosed. But if they're below, they don't.
MAXINE MCKEW: But it's gone from, what? $1,500, hasn't it? $1,500 to $10,000?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: In the context of change of value of the time and what is reasonable.
MAXINE MCKEW: And will keep a lot of donors happy, but is democracy served?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: You have to look at the way in which these matters impact upon people. You have to keep information and records and provide it and it is a very demanding process for people who are volunteers in political organisations and the extent to which you can make those requirements reasonable doesn't seem a problem to me.
After all, could a party be expected to record each and every donation it receives? Why would any politician care who's funding their campaign, anyway? Do other businesses keep records of their customers?
Our great Attorney-General is of course being coy, but you can't expect him to tell the truth knowing the inevitable media beat-up that will follow.
And that truth is, that the only defense the wealthy have against the demands of an unnacountable citizenship is by paying politicians to get the laws they need and stop the laws they don't. Without these new secrecy laws, politicians will simply be too cowardly to act for fear of appearing 'bought'.
After all, "the mission of the Attorney-General's Department is achieving a just and secure society." And one-person-one-vote democracy is neither just nor secure.
Tags: Ruddock, Australia, Politics, Democracy, Corruption
Now, our gallant government has taken a stand.
On Lateline:
PHILIP RUDDOCK: In relation to the amounts of money that can be disclosed, there has always been a level at which, if the funds are above, they must be disclosed. But if they're below, they don't.
MAXINE MCKEW: But it's gone from, what? $1,500, hasn't it? $1,500 to $10,000?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: In the context of change of value of the time and what is reasonable.
MAXINE MCKEW: And will keep a lot of donors happy, but is democracy served?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: You have to look at the way in which these matters impact upon people. You have to keep information and records and provide it and it is a very demanding process for people who are volunteers in political organisations and the extent to which you can make those requirements reasonable doesn't seem a problem to me.
After all, could a party be expected to record each and every donation it receives? Why would any politician care who's funding their campaign, anyway? Do other businesses keep records of their customers?
Our great Attorney-General is of course being coy, but you can't expect him to tell the truth knowing the inevitable media beat-up that will follow.
And that truth is, that the only defense the wealthy have against the demands of an unnacountable citizenship is by paying politicians to get the laws they need and stop the laws they don't. Without these new secrecy laws, politicians will simply be too cowardly to act for fear of appearing 'bought'.
After all, "the mission of the Attorney-General's Department is achieving a just and secure society." And one-person-one-vote democracy is neither just nor secure.
Tags: Ruddock, Australia, Politics, Democracy, Corruption
posted by Benjamin @ 1:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home