Great stuff, why not go to a one party state, it has worked in China for generations, and been so succesfull that Robert Mugabe decided it would also be a great thing for Zimbabwe. Who was progressive politics anyway, when you can easily have regressive, it will be great, who cares whether other nations call us names, if it's dictatorship....er, democracy we want, democracy we shall have, "we will decide who wins elections, and the circumstances in which they win them".......

Shonga,

my good mate - are you are not being a tad facetious with your comment "we will decide who wins elections, and the circumstances in which they win them".......

After all he does have a mandate, an absolute majority in the parliament, albeit a slightly less than 50% majority - so he rightly speaks for ALL Australians!!

Apart from being the best thing since buttoned up boots, sliced bread and vaginamite, that little runt of a man only has a few problems with honesty, integrity, accountability and recollection, which as you must well know are admirable traits in any aspiring politician - but overall his extreme modesty, which came about after his quadruple by-pass in the Frazer years, is his most admired point of integrity.

But all that aside, the only politician worth of note would have to be Caesar - at least he led from the front, instead of rapidly prevaricating from the rear and of course we only have politicians now - statesmen died the death of integrity aeons ago........

It is interesting that something that can strengthen our domocracy can be portrayed so deceivingly as doing just the opposite. Too many contributors to these pages believe that whatever the current national government does is just dreadful and that the prime minister is a horrible, diabolical man.

The interests of our democracy are best served when the major political parties are well funded so that they can develop good policies and try to get community support for them when elections are held. Raising the upper limit for non disclosed donations to political parties is only common sense. Labor always gets support from unions and will continue to do so. Personally when I was a union member and a Liberal supporter I objected to the fact that part of my membership fee went to the Labor Party that I opposed. However, that was a fact of life. Individual donations will continue but donors might chip in greater amounts to their preferred party. Companies too will be in a position to make judgements about which party to support and tailor their donations accordingly.

What puzzles me is the clear message from the Labor side of politics that business is bad. Surely common sense would dictate that Labor should respect the business community just as the Liberal Party respects ordinary working Australians.

I'll be watching progress of any changes in February.

What is wrong with donations of $10,000 being anonymous? If individuals wish to donate money, why shouldn’t their actions be private? A $10,000 donation is relatively minor in the overall cost of an election and should remain private.

Surely the idea of making large donations public is to prevent individuals or corporations from buying control of political parties. Someone donating $20 million would have enormous say on policy but $10,000 would only buy you a thank you note.

The ideas put forward by Ms Rhiannon are completely illogical. The Coalition relies much more heavily on private donations because the unions are big donors to the Labor Party and that is the sole reason for Lee Rhiannon writing this ridiculous article.

I don't think the article is saying that donations to political parties should be stopped, as seems to be suggested by the last two contributors. But that they should be open.

How can you argue against political parties declaring the source of their funds? On all sides. Why would someone or some organisation want to hide the fact that they've donated to a party.

I have shares in publicly listed companies. I certainly do want to know what they are doing with shareholders funds. I regard it as my right to know that. If they make regular $10,000 donations, and donations through subsidiaries and associated companies, I want to know why they are doing so, instead of paying it out to shareholders as dividends.

This isn't a left / right issue, this is about open and transparent government. It seems we are moving further and further away from this.

Sniggid, what drivvle. Your Party is corrupt, dishonest and mean spirited.Why dont you just admit that. I respect your right to support them, but have the courage to be open about what you support. The article is spot on.

Sniggid, I can assure you those of us on the Labor side give exactly as much respect to business, as the Liberals give to employees. Make no mistake, we are as avid in our determination, as you are in yours.

I thought that the very existance of the website "Democracy 4 sale" and that money influenced the electorial system of democracy meant there was no democracy in Australia.
There is no democracy in Australia.
Did not the "Children Overboard" affair prove that.
To debate anonymous donations is being pendantic. The case has already been proved.
There is no democracy . . . and the people don't care.

Sorry, Robb88 i missed your nonsensical comment. Exactly what is dishonest about the article? Your mob is wrecking the very fabric of this country.I expect voluntary voting next.I am sure you and your ilk are all ready to defend that attack on our way of life. Choice they call it. Sniggid and Robb88, is Professor Harper an appropriate person to head up the Fair Pay Commission? Did Costello mislead Parliament,were there children overboard, are there, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the big one,is John Howard an honest man?

Any proposed debate, on any proposed change, regarding political sponsorship and donations, will only serve to corrupt the honesty of public democratic system.

It has been a "Freedom" to monetarily donate to institutes of democracy, policies and common interests and other politically inclined organisational lobbys.

It also provides our Nation with a middle eye and peripheral view to accumulating wealth and common interests of our peers.

I like the line “The party that raises the most money, wins.” Not “has a greater chance of winning” but actually does win. Tell that to American Presidential aspirant Steve Forbes who has spent tens of millions of his late father’s money unsuccessfully trying to gain the support of the people.
Be that as it may, I think there are two sides to this issue. One is that if individuals or corporations suddenly begin to be treated very favourably by the government in power it might be in the public interest to know if there are fiscal reasons why such apparent favouritism exists.
The second is that if we believe in the principle of the secret ballot then does not the principle of the privacy of voting logically extend to the privacy of political support? I believe secret voting was introduced to prevent political intimidation. Is it not reasonable to believe that intimidation works on both a macro as well as a micro scale?
I think a possible solution might be for political parties to be compelled to register all donations with the AEC, but then this database to be made secure. It could then only be opened on court order with regards to selected donors when there is a reasonable suspicion of the government returning favours made to them at election time

Sniggid,
My apologies I missed your contradiction in terms in your firt post "when I was in a union and a Liberal Party supporter" do I read you correctly. You were a member of a union, whose purpose is to better wages and conditions for it's members, and similtaneously you vote for the party who want to force your wages and conditions down, could you please explain to me how that works, sadly I am not a scientist who deals with maschocistic human behaviour, and as a result am unable to understand how these two poles could ever meet.