In this most excellent article I comment thus:

"But if the electorate is really concerned about all this, what are the options available to it?"

I say PUP is the choice for all Labor true believers and Liberals. PUP, that party of statesmen and one women who demands lengthy fulfilment, is, after all, a stout-hearted party that carries weight.

Concerning "who will bell the cat?" the RSPCA is looking into this wicked allusion.

Pete

the corrupt nature of man except of course me.

Don, The problem is the system itself. We have seen ICAC expose some of the horrors of the previous Labor government (Obeid, McDonald et al) and now that they have been consigned to history we are regaled with like behaviour from an ever growing list of Liberals. No doubt if Labor are re-elected next March or three years later the same behaviour will recur. In other words corruption is endemic to the political system irrespective of who occupies the Treasury benches at any given time.

Were there a Federal ICAC the same would probably be true of the Canberra version as well.

It doesn't have to be this way. Two solutions I would recommend. First, there has to be a concerted effort to prosecute the malfeasers and if convicted put them in jail. A greater certainty of being prosecuted and jailed will act as at least a modicum of deterrent and fewer corrupt scumbags being elected.

Secondly, I would replace the present clumsy electoral system that virtually guarantees the maintenance of a two party monopoly on power with a mixed member proportional representation system along the German or New Zealand model. That would effectively guarantee that no one party would hold a monopoly on power for three years but rather be forced to persuade a majority on the merits of the policy for it to be enacted. The constant threat that the government could change without an election would do wonders to keep their dishonesty in check. That dishonesty flourishes after all, only because the spoils of power enable them to reward their mates, irrespective of the political colour of the government of the day.

Well Don, After the Fitzgerald inquiry, And the stuff now being revealed through ICAC. Do we need another reason for simply axing state parliaments/governments; and leave their duties to finally ratified local government and the Fed?
And in so doing save around 70 Billions PA.
Now what was the national deficit again?
Oh yes, 40 billion, and how quickly could we draw down debt, if we just didn't have these financial albatrosses around our collective necks, and an additional 30 billion PA collecting in government coffers, to then draw on?
In approx. 3.5 years; or, just a tiny bit more than a single term of the federal govt.
No let's not do that; after all, where would we be but for our state parliaments, and their almost endless, collective, legendary, road blocks placed in the path of genuine, cost effective progress; i.e., very rapid rail and actually affordable housing!
Just what moron could possibly want any of those things, or far less opportunities for official corruption, or just mildly less intolerable, self serving cigar chomping pollies!
We need these people and the endless opportunities they give us to critique them, without which we'd likely have no other choice, but to take a good long look at ourselves, and the personal values, that allowed this pernicious cancer to grow; while we sat like warm and comfortable frogs, being slowly boiled alive, (hypothetically) by too clever by half, sharp politicians.
Q, How do you know when a politician is lying? A, their lips move!
Rhrosty.

The whole Westminster system of government arose out of a situation of imperfect knowledge. Where there is no clear indication of the correct way to go, you might as well rely on ideological convictions as anything else, and hope that the public will be smart enough to kick out those parties that are too obviously out of touch with reality. But we are moving towards an on-line, technologically sophisticated world where working out the right thing to do is relatively easy, and the only hard part is to mollify the people who are going to have it done to them. Thus the business of government ceases to be be making difficult decisions, and becomes spin and persuasion; and the qualities that come to be valued in politicians are plausibility and persuasiveness.

The technological revolution has fought its way into medicine and is fighting its way into law. When it finally fights its way into politics we can expect to see a massive increase in efficiency, and an end to the pointless rituals of which so much of modern politics is composed. But it won't come soon.

James, your two solutions are both good ones but difficult to bring off. Because the Commission has wide powers it can do things that courts can't do, and the evidence thus obtained may not be admissible in court. That is why there have been few convictions. I doubt that Eddie Obeid will go to jail.

The PR proposal has merit, but it will require both major parties to agree to it, and they won't for obvious reasons. Something would have to happen to the two-party system naturally before such a change could occur. I see no sign of it yet.

Don, thanks for that response. I appreciate the point about admissible evidence from the ICAC being used in a different jurisdiction. But in the same way they got Al Capone on tax fraud there is enough admissible evidence available to prosecute Obeid et al for tax evasion (the dodgy trusts for example) and for perjury. I suspect the reluctance stems more from politics than law.

I agree that self interest rules when it comes to the electoral system. But there are some encouraging signs, the most obvious being that neither Tweedle dee nor Tweedle dum can muster a majority in the Senate which gives the smaller parties a big bargaining chip on electoral reform as part of the price for their support on other issues. I also have the sense that the public are alert to the dysfunctional nature of the present system. It's not rocket science to see that someone with ca1% of the primary vote gets elected because of the manipulation of the preference system and we are stuck with them for six years. Steve Fielding was only one such example; Ricky Muir is another.

Unfortunately, Australia is an incredibly conservative country in so many ways, preferring its mythology to reality, that I am not holding my breath for action any time soon.

really good to see that moral relativism is now exposed for the hopelessly flawed secular humanist doctrine that it is. Maybe just maybe some of our academia will come to the conclusion that private philosophy does seep into public performance. Then again it just might mean they have to look at their own weaknesses. Obviously the failure to teach right and wrong in the home, in the schools and definetly in higher education is producing the obvious fruit.The more secular we have become the more corrupt. Inconvenient truth.

Don - What happened to "honesty", "pride" and "integrity" from those persons who seek election to Parliament as representatives of "us" - as a nation - a simple question from a fellow voter following proceedings in ICAC being truly disappointed with continued allegations of corruption from "trusted" persons.