Political Donations, Secret Ballots for the Senate, Minister with power to censor...

Push to end donations - National - theage.com.au

-snip-
Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull is pushing for a ban on corporations and organisations contributing to political campaigns, saying it is high time the matter was addressed.
-snip-

I'm a bit worried about some of the stuff that is happening in politics in Australia right now. But at the same time, there are a few lights of hope for me.

I've read this morning that there is a push to alter the code for commercial television programs that would allow the Minister to ban a show based on her belief that it didn't meet the code. This is bad.

Whether you liked Big Brother or not, you don't have to watch it. And you certainly don't have to watch uncut. You can in fact flip over to SBS and watch Anton read the news (real news about the world rather than the newstainment that you get elsewhere) with the most delightful voice - the way he pronounces the world capitals while reading the news is delightful.

Or, as I have done this week, you could actually unplug the tv altogether.

What we don't want is to see politicians telling us what should or shouldn't be on tv - or in fact, in print, on radio or on the web. Do we really trust this government - filled with zealots and conservatives, or any future government, to judge what is in our best interest? I don't think so.

However, then we hear that Malcolm Turnbull is proposing that only individuals should be allowed to donate to political parties. This excites me, but why stop there Mal? Why not make it so that every donation over $100 needs to be recorded, and made available in a publicly accessible list? There is already something like this, but the threshold is already to high and there is a push to make it even higher. What do you think?

Lastly, good old Barnaby! Of course, Telstra should be split into two separate companies (not just separate structures under the same ownership. Retail should be sold, wholesale should be kept. I struggle to understand why this is seen as too difficult a concept to grasp. What I think is interesting is that shareholders are worried that plans to force a management division will strip up to $2billion in value from the company. Clearly this is because the altered structure will lead to less profits. Clearly this is because it won't have the monopoly power it now enjoys (despite persistence by the ACCC). Hmmm... is this a bad thing?

But back to Barnaby and his secret ballots for the Senate. What do you think? Is this something that should be investigated? It has two edges - it would create a great opportunity for pollies to do the right thing rather than the party thing... but it also reduced their accountability at election time. Of course you could argue that there is no accountability - with disinterested voters, party tickets and above the line voting... but anyway. It's over to you.