Give me a break! People have the RIGHT to donate to political parties without being scrutinised for that donation. The $10,000 threshold is not high enough! This article never addressed why the public has a right to know that an individual or company is donating to a particular party. The public DOES NOT have this right to know at all.

The Greens are just whinging because no company, no wealthy donor no one who is not on the dole, or is not a marijuana puffing bludger will vote for them or donate money to them... so they want everything publicised so that can point fingers and lobby the donor to donate to them.

And another thing.. it's not the Libs who should be the subject of scrutiny! Look at the bloody unions! They spend millions of dollars campaigning for 1 party in particular - the LABOR party. And they get special treatment. Your Rights at Work was campaigning in my building today - something other parties are banned from doing - why? because they are the UNION and have a right to distribute propaganda to the workers.

WHAT RUBBISH. I think it's about time we start treating the unions as political bodies - that's all they are - propaganda for the Labor Party and training bodies for Labor MPs. It's just sickening.

Get off your stupid High Horse Lee Rhiannon & Co. The Greens are a menace and should be voted out. Anyone with a brain wouldn't vote for your tax hikes, your capitalist-loathing, your anti-religion silly silly party.

Thank you for this important article.

In the political sphere, the issue of 'privacy' is very commonly in direct conflict with public interest and accountability. It is hard to defend 'privacy' in this sphere - it is just a weasel word for secrecy. And when political parties and political donors play secret games you can be sure the whiff of corruption is in the air.

If "the purpose of the Howard government's 'reform' of the electoral system in 2005 was clearly a bid to hide donors from the public gaze", the question then becomes: why should donors' identity be hidden from the public gaze?

The public is entitled to know: What purposes are served by political donations? Who gains a benefit? And is that a legitimate gain or a corruption of the public interest?

Many political donations are nothing more than bribes and inducements to gain access to politicians, to have them make laws and policies that bring a direct monetary benefit to the donor. This is clearly immoral by any standards and ought to be made a criminal act - and all donations, no matter their quantum, should be subject to independent scrutiny by an independent statutory body like the Auditor-General.

The Howard Governments generous changes to the laws governing political donations were clearly designed to help the big end of town help themselves to political favours - and at the same time to help the Coalition to shore up their position. These changes must be wound back as a matter of urgency after the election.

Reform is on the way, in more ways than one.

Some believe the only organisations around are *unions* - hello.

"objective Thinker", give me a break - you are a contradiction in terms and are as subjective as you can get.

"how we belled the cat, chapter leventy-leven"

the greens are children, the libs are sociopaths, labor is crooked, and we're going to have reform for din-din. served by the tooth fairy, no doubt.

I would like to clarify that Objective Thinker is not me writing under another name. I NEVER use block caps!

Reynard: "I would like to clarify that Objective Thinker is not me writing under another name. I NEVER use block caps!"

And I want it to be known that it's not me either. I only use block caps when I'm mocking BOAZ_David!