Aren't donations tantamount to bribery?

Then how much must Labor owe to the Trade Unions?

(Donations to the Liberal Party are a drop in the ocean compared with what Labor receives).

I do agree that the pulp mill sucks, however.

And so disappointed in Peter Garrett. He was one of my heroes, but these days he is acting more like a puppet.

Good on you for standing up for what's right and fighting for something you believe in.

"Let the Franklin flow" ... one of the most exhilarating political moments ever. Perhaps we need a new song. Or maybe Kevin could try thinking up a policy of his own for a change.

I agree all the way with Mike Bolan.

“While the law may say that a cash donation does not represent influence, all common sense and past experience tells us otherwise.”

Of course! Why else would any business donate money to a political party? It is so obviously antidemocratic. So how on earth can the Australian people cop it? Why hasn’t there been an uprising against such brazen bias?

Bolan touches on the big effects of political donations;

“Until and unless we correct this bias, we are likely to be facing a very uncertain future because most decision making will be about priorities that have been effectively purchased through campaign donations.”

“With this in mind, we might ask how can we expect rational climate change responses when the fossil fuel industry is controlling party coffers…”

“The Australian federalist system under John Howard appears to be irrevocably broken. Governments can stay within the letter of the law while violating the basic principles of democratic representation.”

One of the fundamental purposes of government has been rotted out, or perhaps has never existed in Australia: the role of independent decision-maker, weighing up the desires of powerful vested-interest forces against the effects on the community, environment and future wellbeing.

We now have grave problems with securing a half-decent future. I believe Kevin Rudd is sincere when he talks about the need to effectively address climate change and other huge environmental issues and to uphold intergenerational equity. I think he would love to be able to direct this country onto a genuine sustainability platform. But how can he with these biases entrenched?

How can he undo the regime of donations, and undertake some other essential reforms without alienating powerful forces within the business community, and in his own party, which could well bring him unstuck and see a pro-expansionist highly antisustainability PM installed next time round?

I’d suggest that people like Mike Bolan, a professional change facilitator, has a hugely important job, (perhaps as important as that of the PM?) in striving for these reforms.

Funny how Bob Hawke was able to intervene to save the Franklin River wilderness.

Amazing how those dam developers had no funds available for political donations ... er, right. Or maybe they just had too many scruples. *tee hee*

Labor doesn't need money from this business transaction. They are already nicely cashed up with union dollars.

Kevin Rudd is set to be the next Prime Minister of this country, and what policy does he opt for? "Me too!" he squeaks. "Yes, Prime Minister".

At least Bob Hawke had the courage of his convictions.

If Rudd wanted to stop the pulp mill, he should try being a man not a mouse. The word is "No". N-O. Most two-year-olds can manage to say it.

And if that is the best outcome that Peter Garrett could manage to broker in his own shadow portfolio, then as a politician he makes a good rock star.

I consider donations bribery. The original intention behind the idea may be innocent enough but the reality is that something is expected in return for that money, otherwise it is illogical action (especially from a person who has a profit-motive, or special interest). A political donation is a eupehmism, like insurance or protection money paid to the mafia was in reality, extortion.

of course donations are bribery. but the system isn't broken. it works just like it was meant to do.

when ozzies grasp what democracy means they may be able to get it. right now they are enslaved by newspeak and doublethink, and consequently are bemused when apparently 'undemocratic' activities occur.

folks, parliament was devised by norman warlords to divvy up the loot.
that's what it still does, pretty much. it has nothing to do with democracy.

educate yourselves, or remain the slaves of ignorance.

Democracy relies on individuals and collectives having a fair opportunity to have their opinions heard, to have their needs met.

If money becomes the main deciding factor in an election campaign here, as it is in the US (where you need millions in terms of advertising and other promotions), minority groups will become increasingly disinterested in formal political process and democracy will have failed.

Integrity and authenticity are imperative if democracy is to be respected.

By lifting the threshold at which political donations must be reported from $1,500 to $10,000 the Liberals have tarnished the political process. Ten thousand dollars to every Liberal or Labor fund nationwide means millions in anonymous contributions, for which a political price must be paid.

As both major parties supported the Gunns mill and the decision has past, any donation from Gunns can't be seen as the prime motivator.

Anyone can donate to any party even in their personal capacity and it is seen as their way of expressing their views. The unions other wise would be seen as a major corrupting influence on the labor party.

The key is to ensure that:
- donations above a certain limit cannot be annonymous,
- donations cannot be above another limit,
- the donations are transparent and open to public scrutiny.

Because Gunns won a controversial decision does not make them pariahs. The greens need to recognise that that particular ship has now sailed and no more baggage can be loaded on to it.

I have just returned from Tasmania, where I discussed the issue at length with a journalist from the ABC. Basically, the whole thing stinks to high heaven, as was very well detailed in this article.

The fact that both parties supported the decision doesn't make it right. Au contraire, mon frere.

John Howard has never claimed to be a friend of the environment. He is who he is. But when you have Kevin Rudd up on his soapbox preaching about it, it would appear a tad hypocritical.

When you have the lead singer of a band slanging off at politicians for their policies on the environment and then doing exactly the same thing as the rest of them once elected, the same applies. The people who voted in good faith, for what they thought he believed in and stood for, must be somewhat confused.

As far as the baggage goes, if the Labor party want to start their term in office wallowing in garbage, don't be surprised if it sticks.

As far as the ship sailing, this issue will be decided when the electorate say so, despite whatever certain politicians may wish them to believe.

> Anyone can donate to any party even in their personal capacity and it is seen as their way of expressing their views.

I thought that was the electoral process. You basically said they can buy representation, extra representation in addition to an individual's voting power. If that's the case, this system needs to be abolished as soon as possible.

Shadow Minister

Firstly, why should we have any donations at all? Any donation carries connotations of favour-buying. Governments need to be seen to be as independent as possible. Therefore there should be no donations, and all political funding should come from neutral sources such as the tax base.

If you support donations, you must be able to see significant advantages in their presence. Can you elucidate them?

Secondly, we should never concede something that iwe feel s completely wrong. The Gunns ship has not sailed yet. But even after the plant gets built (if it gets built) the outrage from concerned people should continue….in the form of non-disruptive protest and political lobbying.

Similarly, even though the regime of donations is entrenched, we should not just be accepting it. We should be fighting very hard to get it removed.

“Because Gunns won a controversial decision does not make them pariahs.”

I think it does. While the main job of balancing the wishes of big business with negative effects on environment and quality of life is that of government, companies also have a duty of care to strive for this balance, and not just chase maximised profit or self-interest.

agreed

political donations do distort the political p[rocess - no doubt about it.

It is bribery and it must be stopped - parties to be funded publicly, in some way.

this must extend down to local government - where developers are often the corrupters of decisions.

This must be done in tandem with control of lobbyists and their
"free lunches'