I find this strange, given the donations taken from the Chinese Communist Party (which is firmly connected to all Chinese operations). Both major Australian political parties, and many individual politicians, have been compromised by Chinese 'bribes'. Read the 'Silent Invasion'.

All in or all out? XXX Simply put, some donations come with expectations of a specific outcome or public official that can be bought? XXX And completely unacceptable! XXX The voters and the electorate at the only ones legally entitled to expectations, i.e., that they will be represented with absolute integrity, by the elected by them, public servant! XXX Any party political funding, therefore, has to be at arms length and entirely unconditional! XXX And essentially means the only funding models that pass the pub test, are crowd funding or that supplied by the electoral commission! With election advertising, and pre election town hall style debate limited to rationed time on the impartial public broadcaster? XXX Why? Because gifted full page spreads and private media (moderated) airtime, seen for what they are, as donations that seek to influence/control outcomes, or the very best democracy money can buy! XXX Alan B.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with the political donations system in this country if we had compulsory, real-time disclosure of donations. As it stands, even large donations to political campaigns aren't disclosed to the public until long after the elections have occurred.

Citizens should be able to see which candidate has accepted what donation, prior to voting.

Pollies will never agree to such a thing of course - they are totally addicted to the money from all the cheque book toting spivs who plague our democracy.

Certainly, all property developers are not corrupt. However, it is true that some citizens are more equal than others. Lawyers are banned from serving on juries. That does not mean all lawyers are unfair or biased. It does mean a lawyer could be more attentive to the legal manoeuvring on each side of the case than to the actual facts of the matter. In principle all citizens should have an equal obligation and right to sit on a jury. In fact fairness is served by exempting lawyers.

In principle all citizens should have an equal right to contribute to political parties. In fact fairness is served by exempting property developers.

A rigid adherence to principle can reject the exception. We here have two principles in conflict. One is that all citizens should have an equal right to contribute to political parties. The other is that it is desirable to limit the effect of the deeper pockets of the developer in decisions on zoning or other property matters. Applying the second principle is unfair to Flannery. It is my opinion that neither principle can be completely fair, but I believe the unfairness is less if we ban political contributions from developers. A property developer has an equal right to make his or her case to a government agency with a less affluent citizen. The property developer also can make the time and is more aware of the matters up for discussion. He or she should not have the additional advantage of bolstering his or her case with money.

GY: Each of those dollars is invested in something that employs Australians and pays taxes.

Yes, but what do you call an investment. An investment in their Companies or an Investment is Donations to either Major Party. Whoever is “IN” at the time & where they can get the most return on their Investment.

GY: The ban on property developer donations is a huge breach in democratic and legal principles.

Maybe so, but no Business or Corporation gives away millions without expecting some favour in return. I Australia we call it Donations in a Third world Country we would call it a Bribe. It’s just that our First World Government has rephrased & Politically Corrected the Wording of Laws so they can get away with making Bribes (Donations) Legal.

These Groups that donate to Political Party's get around current Legislation by Money Laundering. They donate to an Organization who donates to another Organization who donated to the Political Party, so there is no "Direct" contact & ALL IS SEEN TO BE ABOVE BOARD ;-).

GY: the fact that more property developers donate to the LNP than them, gave them another leg up.
In a close election it’s possible this gave them the winning edge.

I do have a problem with this. Can someone please explain to me that a “Billboard” will change my vote. Watching the Trump Election. & the Russian affair. How did the Russians influence individual voters by exposing the “Sins” of the Clintons. This was seen to be unfair. I don’t see anyone influencing individual Voters in America as they each are staunch Dem or Rep. & nothing will change them to the death.
The same thing happens here with the smear campaigns. Are these Donations from Big Business, Corporations Big Unions, etc, used to pay someone to dig up dirt on each side of Politics at the time of an election.

GY: There is a parliamentary committee currently examining this legislation. Hopefully there are some courageous government back-benchers who are prepared to stand up for principle.

Hahahahahahahahaha! Sorry Graham, hahahahaha.
CONT

CONT.

AB: seen for what they are, as donations that seek to influence/control outcomes, or the very best democracy money can buy!

Exactly.

JBSH: Citizens should be able to see which candidate has accepted what donation, prior to voting.

Allow me to put a couple of my Think Tank Ideas in here;

14 Lobby Groups & Private Persons must divulge publicly all of their donations of any kind & any value to Political Parties in the Federal, State & Local spheres. This must state publicly what they expect the Political Parties to give them in return for their donation. Money Laundering Donations through a Third Party is to be made a Criminal Offence. The Third Party must explain exactly where the money they are donating came from.

15 Political Parties in the Federal, State & Local spheres must divulge all of their donations of any kind they receive from Lobby Groups & private persons. This must state what the Lobby Groups & private persons expect the Political Parties in the Federal, State & Local spheres to give them in return for their donation

David f: Certainly, all property developers are not corrupt.

Maybe so but no-one donates anything without expecting a Return on Investment,

David f: He or she should not have the additional advantage of bolstering his or her case with money

Dead right they shouldn’t.

Dear GrahamY,

I wasn't sure if this might not have been tongue in cheek at first.

“The ban on property developer donations is a huge breach in democratic and legal principles.”

No it was done to protect our democracy not to breach it. Property developers were not going to the communities they were impacting but to politicians and their parties who are prepared to alter their decisions based on potential or realised funding sources.

You have made the case that union groups are doing exactly the same but your comparison is inane.

Let's take an example you provided. Flannery personally donates $5000 while United Voice donates $303,631.77 which split among 120,000 members represents about $2.50 each and yet you find some sort of equivalence? Sorry, not a hope.

And wasn't Flannery that bloke who put in around $600,000 into that mining company at the center of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry in order to reap $50 million two months later?

Are we to believe there was not a single fishy thing was done in this deal?

Look I am for full disclosure. I'm sure if you had been engaged in providing services to Flannery or to KTQ Developments you would have flagged it here or with the Courier, or even if it were to property developers in general. However the general public is not that confident about property developers doing the same. I live in a rural shire and it is laughingly referred to as a “developer's playground” with developers or real estate agents regularly getting themselves on Council.

There is so much money floating around developments that the potential for corruption is a given. They should be denied seats on our Councils and I am glad there are Shires where this occurs.