Australia's political donation system has been likened to the operation of criminal money laundering with one key difference — the political donation system is entirely legal.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has published its annual figures on political donations, but we still don't know much about the families, the companies and the money at the heart of Australian politics.

Australia's political donation laws are among the most lax in the world, according to Monash University's Dr Charles Livingstone.

"It allows all sorts of dodgy practices to proliferate," he said.

"Large organisations can influence political policy without any of us knowing anything about it. It is a really easily corruptible system."

Here's why.

$77m is dark money

We don't know the source of 49 per cent of the money received by our major parties last financial year. That means in the year leading up to a federal election, politicians and their parties derived $77 million from undisclosed sources. And it's entirely legal.

It's legal because only donations of $13,001 and above have to be declared. A donation of $13,000 can be kept private and escape all public scrutiny.

But there's a way to spend much more than that and still fly under the radar.

In the criminal world of money laundering, "structuring" involves splitting transactions into smaller amounts to avoid detection and it's illegal. In the world of political donations — it's completely legal.

A donation can be split into amounts of $13,000 or less and distributed to the individual state and territory branches of a party.

Labor has 10 branches, which means you can donate $130,000 to the party without anyone knowing. The Liberal party has eight branches, opening the door to a $104,000 anonymous donation and the Greens have nine, meaning you can give $117,000 and keep it private.

We have to note here that Labor and the Greens say they voluntarily declare all donations over $1,000.

Beware the Smurfs

Smurfs aren't cute little blue cartoon characters. They're the third parties used as intermediaries to disguise the source of money in criminal money laundering operations.

In political donations, the smurfs are called associated entities, and they're entirely legal.

Associated entities are groups with links to a political party, such as unions, think tanks or dedicated fundraising groups.

They accept donations and then pass that money on to the relevant party.

Last financial year $218 million was received by associated entities, which is more than was received by all the political parties added together.

They're another way for donors to give large amounts of money while staying under the $13,000 disclosure threshold.

And they're another way to avoid scrutiny, because although their donations are published, they're published in a way that makes it difficult to track the flow of money.

What's in that gift?

Political donations are a little like pass the parcel — they can be wrapped in a way that disguises the gift inside.

Parties can classify the money they receive as a "donation," an "other receipt" or a "subscription," and the difference often isn't clear.

Even companies as large as Crown, which have close links to political parties, have difficulty determining the difference.

Last financial year, the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party declared receiving $46,025 in an "other receipt" from Crown.

Crown thought it was a donation and declared it as one on its official return.

Former speaker Bronwyn Bishop used chartered helicopters to attend party fundraisers. ( AAP: Lukas Coch )

Election funding from the AEC is also classified as an "other receipt," but there's clearly a difference between receiving money from the public purse and a casino. It's just hard to tell the difference under the current system.

What about tickets to expensive party fundraisers, are they a donation? The AEC says it's a donation if you don't receive anything in return.

But if the commercial benefit of attending is worth at least the amount paid, then it's not a donation. Think of it as a duty, not a donation and it can be kept quiet.

One of the most opaque industries is banking. Parties earn interest on their investment accounts and they receive donations from banks, but it's rarely clear which is which.

The lack of transparency is particularly remarkable when it comes to an industry known to splash cash in return for favourable policy.

Taking your receipts to a friend's birthday bash would be inappropriate, but for Australia's political parties, other receipts are often the best type of gift going around.

Beware the lag

Think back to July 1, 2015. Do you remember what made the news that day? What political decisions were made? What promises were kept or broken? Probably not, it was a long time ago.

But the political donations that flowed behind the scenes that day are only just being released today, 19 months on.

Sussan Ley stepped aside from Cabinet amid two investigations into her travel expenses. ( AAP: Dave Hunt )

You possibly remember July 2, 2016 a little better — the day of the federal election. Donations spike during campaigns; backers pick their party, invest heavily, then reap the rewards during the next four years in office.

Under our current system, we're only finding out about most of these transactions now, seven months on.

This includes donations from mining giants, Chinese-linked business figures and entertainment companies, all of whom stood to benefit from the policy agenda of the incoming government.

But that's not where it ends. We're still no wiser about whether our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull donated to his own campaign.

That's because donations made in the dying days of the election campaign fell in a new financial calendar and won't be disclosed until next year — 19 months after the federal election.

In parts of the United States, real-time disclosure systems are already being used and the public can scrutinise donations within 48 hours.

There's little support for a similar system in Australia.

Anyone can donate

If you've got money, Australian political parties are ready and willing to take it. They can and do accept money from companies, individuals, unions and foreign nationals.

This isn't the case in Canada and parts of the US where unions and corporations aren't allowed to make donations and there are strict limits on personal contributions to political coffers in a bid to prevent corruption.

Last year, the ABC investigated Chinese business donations and found they'd poured more than $5.5 million into Liberal and Labor party coffers.

In the lead-up to the election, Chinese donors again opened their wallets. There's concern foreign countries are using donations as a way to gain influence in Australia.

Labor has pledged to clamp down on foreign donations, but the Government is yet to take a position.

A faulty federation

There's one law that applies to federal donations, then others that apply in each state. In practice this makes for a system full of loopholes that's easy to exploit.

New South Wales has banned donations from property developers after a series of scandals involving political favours. Instead, developers funnel money to NSW politicians through federal bodies.

In one case, the Liberal Party channelled $700,000 of banned donations through the Free Enterprise Foundation straight into the hands of the campaigning NSW branch of the party.

A faulty memory

Former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell resigned owing to a "massive memory fail" over a wine donation. ( AAP: Dan Himbrechts )

Memories fade and fail and if they do, there's no legal penalty. Donors and parties can "amend" their original declaration years after the fact and often do when they're reminded by a journalist or a court.

Former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell's "massive memory fail" about receiving a $3,000 bottle of Penfolds Grange wine was jogged by a postcard produced in the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

In the federal jurisdiction no-one's been taken to court for making a false or incomplete declaration; the real punishment is normally in the court of public opinion.

Additional reporting by Tim Leslie