One thing that would help is investigative reporting in the press that would expose corruption. However, the Brisbane Courier-Mail is more interested in printing news of the footy 'heroes' and 'legends', giving space to the life and death of Michael Jackson and other stories which don't affect the lives of most Queenslanders. Apparently Murdoch has decided that such trivia makes most money for him.

Ah davidf you've hit the nail on the head. The Courier Mail does indeed report misogynist thugs and dysfunctional celebrities as news.

However, when it does apply itself to political issues, there is no analysis and moderation. The headlines scream for political blood to sell papers.

When does access to politicians become corrupt? I think Bligh's knee-jerk reaction to the Courier Mail's witch hunt ill informed and just as shrill as Murdoch's bid to sell papers.

The entire thing is very stupid. Political donations and access are what makes the world go around. It's not that the donations for patronage happen, it's whether the process is in the public interest. This is the issue that must be the subject of reasoned scrutiny.

Banning 'pay for access' and 'success fees' is a complete joke. It (like any prohibition) will drive what should reasonably be a transparent process into the realm of corruption.

The current state land use planning and approval processes achieve the desired results, delivering corruption, created by government and their agencies, aided and abetted by non government organizations and resulting in the very public examples where some private sector developers and their political glad handlers feed with government support. It will be very interesting to view the Criminal Misconduct Commissions investigations of these processes, as these narrow prescriptive planning practices produced the only logical outcome, corruption in the first instance.

Bulls-eye Andrew Leigh. Well written, considered and suggestively useful.

The blind eye is among those who fail to understand the meaning behind “culture of corruption” therefore they cant recognise the importance of subsuming a meaning conceptually.

Protective administrations for example see the issue as 'selling out to their mates', much as a family concealing or masking dysfuntional sibling operatives. The idea of 'team' at times is confused, seen instead as blood thicker than water and is traversed systematically rather than self checked, questioned or scrutinised for comprehensive daily health.

In terms of studies in Crime Prevention I highly respect Gary Becker’s seminal work. I add often the gain is not always about money as much as power and uncohesive degrees of status.

Music is a loud call for more education in Crime Prevention [everywhere] grasping the lyrics; “sunshine is the best disinfectant” works.

Understanding 'why' transparency by recognising what cultures of corruption look like means growing critical, culturally aware so as to stamp out co-dependent, insalubrious practices. Hence, finding the significance of autonomous would help identify misdeed if something dodgy is going on. I agree with the role of the media and that posting the jigsaw online "raises the odds of someone piecing it together."

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Had a huge laugh the other day when I saw Murdoch saying the future was internet news and people will pay for quality journalism.

If the Courier Mail was to go on-line he'd lose money. It simply wouldn't contain any quality journalism. For in Queensland there are too many party political hacks posing as journalists while, for balance, they do confirm their very low calibre .

It is most interesting Andrew that you haven’t even mention the absence of an upper house in Queensland. I would have thought this to be an essential part of the story of the purported greater corruption in Queensland than in other states, even if you think that a senate is irrelevant.

I don’t think much of your comments on donations. Making the whole donations regime more transparent will just tinker around the edges of the issue. It will just help legitimise one of the worst aspects of corruption. We’ve really got to work towards doing away with political donations entirely, as has been flagged by Qld Premier Bligh recently.

Big donations from big business amount to blatant favour-buying. This is vastly more significant than the antics of the likes of Nuttall, Harvey or Austin.

By the way, Nuttall is appealing his conviction, and with good reason I think.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25931584-5013404,00.html
I’ve had a lot to say about this here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2925,
especially on comments made by Judge Patsy Wolfe: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2925#66991

There is something very wrong with crucifying people who operate within the grey area of legality, while the boundaries remain fuzzy and the core of the regime of corruption remains entrenched. At worst, Nuttall’s activities were in this grey zone. He should not have been convicted.

To quote Mark O’Connor, author of ‘Overloading Australia’:

“It is illegal to give your shareholders’ money to a political party if you do it out of political enthusiasm. That’s a misuse of the shareholders’ money. It is only legal to do it if you’re getting something back in return. If you are getting decisions out of government in favour of your company that you could not have got by making reasonable representations to the government, then it’s not illegal. But then it’s a bribe isn’t it? Oh no because you are only giving it to the whole party, not to an individual politician!"