James McConvill has very clearly exposed what's wrong with our system of political representation. And what's wrong is far more than his major focus on private funding of parties and candidates.
Let me state unequivocally that I agree absolutely with McConvill's assertion that the relationship between elected representatives and the people who elected them should be fiducial.
For that requirement to be met, however, would require drastic electoral and political reform.
Under existing systems, elected representatives represent a range of people who could be classified as: (a) those who definitely voted for the winner; (b) those who definitely voted against the winner; (c) those whose vote was really for the less of two evils. Group (a) presumably voted for the winner because of shared views, values, and hopes. Group (b) presumably voted against the winner because their views, values, and hopes are at odds with the winner's. By the same token, group (c) presumably voted for the winner only because their views, values, and hopes are at less at odds with the winner's than with the other main contender's. In other words, group (c) voted for the winner only because a more satisfactory candidate was not available or had no chance of winning. Clearly the existing system leaves group (b) unrepresented, and group (c) poorly represented. Because of the corruption due to private funding of candidates and parties, it could be argued that even group (a) is poorly served by the existing system.
I agree with McConvill that the corruption engendered by private funding should be cleaned up. But that would still leave groups (b) and (c) poorly served by our representative system. Shouldn't every citizen have the right to be represented by a representative whose views, values, and hopes they share; and who is accountable to them all of the time?
Then, and only then, would a fiduciary relationship between represetatives and the people they represent become possible.

The problem is surely to make individual value of a vote meaningful.
In part this is driven by the cost of being elected or perhaps by the perceived need to piddle where the last dog did. So very strict limits on expenditure overseen by the High Court as the umpire. Make the media carry a given number of column inches for each candidate and no more, any other is paid for out of the limited funds available,above.
Party funding as opposed to individual purchase of power needs to come from somewhere and it is perhaps most fairly done by a democracy tax similar to Medicare. This fund would then be accessed on I guess the basis of party votes in the last election an amount above a basic sum designed to keep party competition in good health. A body similar to the ACCC could keep such honest.
No union dues as such nor dues from business each may make contributions to the fund above but only to the fund.
In a system increasingly presidential more power, and the responsibility that goes with it needs to go to the members.Ministerial responsibility, much eroded in recent times in favour of parliamentary accountability, needs enforcing and this can only happen I think via the media. No longer leaked pieces taken willingly by the media. Ministerial statements yes but with appended criticism by an authority, itself subject to the media scrutiny and legal provision. Improving trust in a world full of dissembling and manipulation of the data would help. A sop to those who think humans will for the most part be cooperative and honest.
Politicians are there to do the bidding of the electorate with the proviso that they may be in a better position to judge what needs doing. For example currently they may know of the dangers associated with the current account deficit or spreading uranium or greenhouse and so on feeling obligated to bring such to electoral attention and making time for discussion and education.

Yes Bruce. This would apply to unions also.

It becomes murky when contributions are indirect or when advertising or media are involved. But the least we can do is get totally rid of the blatant favour-buying aspect of it all.

Fiduciary relationship concept is of little use. Role of elected representative is more complex than agent, company director or solicitor. Elected candidates owe a duty to people with competing interests?

Focus on donations, campaigns. Legislate: no donations in 4 weeks before polling, to candidates or others for their benefit (including negative campaigns against other candidates). Donations to be declared 3 weeks prior; published at polling places, pre-poll, postal applicants.

Require successful candidates declare conflict; abstain from debate/ vote where decision may benefit donor, including affecting competitors. Legislate sanctions against failure to declare conflict;Tribunal to 'dismiss', fine offenders; 'standing' for anyone to initiate a complaints, providing evidence at preliminary hearing, without costly litigation.
Cover subtle campaigns, and 'friendly publicity' before candidacy declared. Big spenders on newspaper, radio ads can influence media to not run ads booked and paid by competing candidates.
See ABC 4 Corners 'Ocean Views" on Tweed Council; and NSW Dept Local Govt Reports on Inquiries into Tweed Council. Watch for report on Inquiry into Gold Coast City Council.

Education in schools on roles, processes of governments. But there will always be candidates like those at last Tweed Council elections. Labelled "Independent" they were supported by a campaign costing at least $600,000? Many were National Party members, or right wing Liberal Party.
Some voters wondered who paid for the TV, radio, newspaper ads, massive letterbox material; and why spend so much to get an $11,000p.a. job for 4 years?
People not self interested cannot wage resources against such forces. If you want better representatives, support someone honest and competent. How else can we expect such people to spend months and thousands of dollars to get a job where many consider them their servant to be insulted because they do not have a magic wand. Many do not want principled decisionmakers, but want exceptions made for them by 'their' representative. Many people do not want to hear or face truth, but vote for marketing too good to be true.

We need to be careful to make sure that the people who get elected are not always those who spend the most money on their election campaign.
Maybe we could have a system where no political donations are allowed - maybe only donations from idividual registed voters and with a cap of $10.
What about a sytem where each politician is paid by his/her electorate? This would ensure that they remember who is employing them and for wom they are working. The electorate would advertise a vacancy for a political representative and would provide a duty statement for the position. In a situation where the candidate was found to be unsuitable then a couple of weeks notice would be given and the vacancy readvertised.

James,
A very good concept you have introduced. But if a polly having a fiduciary duty to the public was made law, then there would be a lot more ramifications of it than just declaring political donations. Politicians very often benefit from decisions (albeit not financially) that they currently are allowed to make.

When politicians oversee the Australian Research Council giving grants to academics to research their pet theories, it is quite obvious that they will be more inclined to support those applicants embracing their political viewpoint than oppose. When appointing a new member to the ABC board are we expected to believe that the political ideology of the applicant is not taken into account? Ditto appointing judges to the High Court (if not all courts) as well as deciding which political advocacy NGOs get the grants this year and how much. Of course we could have it that at every election the public could, as well as voting for their local member etc., also vote in members to the Research Council board, the Judiciary Appointment Board, the Govt. Media Appointments Board etc.
However in the modern world of 2006 where governments believe they have the right to be so intrusive and ‘guiding’ into most aspects of our lives compared to how it was 100 years ago, I think it might be a bit late to try to ask politicians to pass or accept a law where they would have to refrain from any decision where they might personally benefit.