Was New York-style matched public funding pushed as an option by the independents when the legislation was being debated earlier this year? I kinda recall them just being anti-public funding, which struck me as a regressive position to take.

e.g. if you're a climate advocacy group, spend more time getting people involved in a local climate adaptation project and less time writing think pieces or locking onto machinery?

e.g. if you're a social justice org, spend more time getting people involved in a soup kitchen and less time doing X

I feel like I need a very long list of examples of what this means in practice. bookoftheday.nextbigideaclub.com/p/debate-me-...

Although Brighton Council have made a submission saying that they don't want to be in Clark...

Do-nothing reforms are literally all Labor does.

First term: ICAC (doesn’t stop corruption), HAFF (doesn’t build houses), Safeguard (doesn’t stop emissions).

Second term: Enviro laws (won’t protect environment), CDC (won’t protect / improve public health).