Thank Paul. The Greens’ policy on donations is good. They are very mindful of conflict of interest and of the risk of corruption incurred through donations….which the major parties just don’t seem to be concerned about at all.

http://greens.org.au/donations_policy

Ludwig,

By your measure the hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation from business in history.

But perhaps an analogy would help you understand my position. Nearly all abuse of pupils by teachers is by male teachers. Do you:

a) Ban all male teachers from the classroom, or

b) Acknowledge that only a small minority of male teachers are culpable and put in place measures to prevent abuse.

I believe that most business donations are not for favours, and that existing measures requiring declaration of large donations that allows scrutiny is sufficient.

"the hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation from business in history."
SM can you explain that one? What business? The Greens do not accept any business donations, only from individuals. Would you like to kick in?

Let me rephrase that:

The hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation in Australian history.

"The Greens are continuing to campaign for political donations from individuals to be capped at $1,000, despite Wotif founder Graeme Wood's $1.6 million donation before the last federal election."

Bunch of hypocrites.

<<the hypocritical Green Tea party>>

With the Green's it'd be more akin to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party

< By your measure the hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation from business in history. >

No SM. That’s oversimplistic.

It’s got everything to do with the intent of donations and the power of those donations to sway government.

The intent of Wood’s huge donation was honourable, not self-centred. The intent of donations from big companies is self-centred and not in the long-term interest of the country.

The overriding problem with the donations regime in Australia is that the vast majority of big donations come from the self-serving, profit-motive-driven lobby, which has greatly assisted in swaying government towards the insane regime of continuous rapid growth, both in supply and demand!

Yes it has everything to do with political philosophy. If donations were largely on the right (correct) side of the political arena for the betterment of our future, with sustainability at its core, population stabilisation as a fundamental part of this and thus a stabilisation in the demand instead of us constantly struggling to supply everything to an ever-rapidly growing demand base, then I’d welcome them all the way.

This is exactly the sort of political favour-buying that we need!

But for as long as they are almost entirely on the wrong side, it would be best if donations were kept very small, done away with entirely, or judged to be ethical before acceptance as with the Greens.

There is nothing hypocritical about the Greens’ policy and the acceptance of Wood’s donation.

continued