Gaming the system

Which is why wealthy businessmen like Clive Palmer can spend $10 million to secure a seat. As Francis Bladel warned years ago this is not just unfair, it deprives the nation of the broadest range of talents in the community.

The second is the fact that there are no limits on donations from foreign government bodies, companies or wealthy persons seeking to influence national policy by funding the election of Australian citizens and parties.

This works both ways - as journalist Greg Sheridan found when reporting that the Government has in recent years given $75 million to the Clinton Foundation , one of many from foreign nations which have raised questions of financial propriety. In a May 2015 book, Peter Schweizerwrote of 'a pattern of financial transactions … contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing funds.'

A third flaw is that a donor's identity can be disguised by funnelling gifts through 'associated entities', such as the Liberal fundraisers' Cormack Foundation and Labor's Labor Holdings Ltd. These act like the controversial American 'super-pacs' - they launder both small and large donations by masking their source.

A more serious problem is the lack of transparency due to lax laws which permit the declaration of gifts to be delayed for a year or more. It means voters cannot respond to attempts to influence policy by voting against those who solicit gifts. It also blunts the media's role in exposing this distortion of democracy. There are no technical barriers to prevent full disclosure on the web within 24 hours, with a penalty (such as a forfeit to general revenue) for failure to comply.

The failure to deal with these issues must concern those who care for the health of Australian democracy. In America two right wing billionaires, the Koch brothers, are giving $889 million to help the Republican Party win the 2016 Presidential election, with Donald Trump now the front runner. But there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of big money donors likewise using their wealth to overwhelm the votes of ordinary citizens. We see the beginnings of this culture in Australia with Clive Palmer, and with Gina Rinehart's attempt to buy political influence by spending vast sums to get a seat on the board of a media empire.

What is at stake is a principle recently highlighted by the High Court in Mc Cloy v New South Wales, a case in which a wealthy property developer claimed a constitutional right to break NSW state laws prohibiting donations made to get access to politicians in order to influence their decisions. The Court ruled against him, declaring that

'guaranteeing the ability of a few to make large political donations … to secure access to those in power would seem to be antithetical to the great underlying principle of representative government that involves equal sharing in political power'

But the record of history suggests that neither Labor nor Liberals are likely to take this principle seriously. They mask this disinterest by emphasising those laws designed to fight corruption by requiring disclosure, however tardy. But, as the High Court principle reminds us, the real problem is not corrupt dealings but unequal political power.

This brings us to the heart of the matter - how can institutions and practices which are against the public interest be reformed when they benefit major parties? If we agree with 'Paddy' Mc Guiness we will look to Independents and Greens, and to Lee Rhiannon's private member's bill on disclosure which, if it gets a hearing, is unlikely to go to a vote and in any case does not limit the size of donations.

But past experience suggests little will be achieved unless and until party leaders are required - in an appropriate public forum - to defend the present practice to journalists and constitutional experts, as well as political philosophers and ordinary citizens with a non-partisan concern for the public good.

This is, in the end, what makes the ABC's weekly Q and A program a major contribution to public debate, aided by the good humour and respect host Tony Jones has managed to cultivate. Unlike parliamentary question time, panellists know they are likely to pay a penalty for dissembling and for being glib, facetious, too clever, ignorant or uncaring.