Former Queensland Government minister Gordon Nuttall has today been found guilty of corruption on 36 counts of receiving secret commissions, after receiving 360 000$ in payments from a couple of businessmen. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/15/2626845.htm?section=justin

I’m disgusted. For one thing, there was nothing secret about them. It seems to me that there is a whole lot of doubt about ill-intent in this case. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624248.htm

No one should be found guilty if their guilt cannot be proven or shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

But MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, what does this case mean for political donations?

This is something that I haven’t even heard mentioned within the copious media that the Nuttall case has received since the very first allegations.

And yet, surely a political party that receives big money from big businesses is immediately and blatantly culpable of corruption, because as we all know; nothing’s for nothing. All donors expect to be able to sway the decision-makers in their favour. And when practically all donations come from the same sector – big business, that aggressively pushes for continuous growth – government is very seriously compromised.

There’s a whole lot of doubt about Nuttall’s guilt, but none at all about the guilt of political parties that accept big donations. To find Nuttall guilty but to not even question this donations regime is to exercise duplicity in the extreme.

That's an interesting take on the situation Ludwig.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if Nuttall is culpable (we know he is guilty - the jury told us that) then the Government must also, by definition, be charged with the same offences.

If the government knew about it, then I agree with you one hundred percent.

But forgetting about "blind moles" (that the defence team alluded to) for a moment, let's concentrate on Blind Freddie.

>>It seems to me that there is a whole lot of doubt about ill-intent in this case... as we all know; nothing’s for nothing. All donors expect to be able to sway the decision-makers in their favour.<<

I am trying hard, and failing, to form a picture of "Queensland businessmen Harold Shand and Ken Talbot" handing over $360,000, saying "not asking any favours here, Gordon, just go out and enjoy yourself - buy the wife a new hat, we'll be happy just knowing that you're happy..."

Blind Freddie can see that - while acknowledging that no corruption charges have been levelled against the man - if push came to shove down the track, the temptation to "help out a couple of mates" would be real, and very hard to resist.

>>No one should be found guilty if their guilt cannot be proven or shown beyond a reasonable doubt.<<

The jury was asked directly, by defending counsel if they were "satisfied that he received the payments with the intention there was nothing expected in return, they should find him not guilty"

They apparently were not satisfied.

But there is clearly something rotten in the fabric of Government in Queensland.

These two don't own a Ute business by any chance, do they?

Yet another labor minister caught with his hands in the till.

Are the rest innocent or just not caught yet?

"Yet another"? Who else is on this estimable list, and what reason is there to believe that the QLD opposition would be more honest?

They're still all Bjelke-Petersons at heart.

Sancho,
You're a little biased or am I a little cynical.
ALL party politics is about *power* (the gaining of and maintenance there of) nothing more. ALL parties are guilty of the same. The NLP is a sad sad joke too. Those I know personally are as self obsessed as members of the ALP. Simply read qld historical politics.

Ludwig,
There is an appalling joke that says whats the difference between seduction and rape....answer timing and or degree.
The same goes with Nuttal. If you read the details he wasn't after political donations he was milking his position for personal gain.
There is a clear difference between the 'ute' and what GN did.
He was abusing his position.
One LNP member was loaned a car (Luxury ford) during campaigns by a lawyer/business man. To me this was okay given BEFORE there was largess to gain. But if that same LNP member were to become a minister(god forbid..competence issue)and he was to ask chase money for *personal* gain then a pox be on his head.

NB New Matilda article about the cost of a lunch with Turnbull.
Personally I favour no political donations/enforced equal funding supplied by govt. Then we might have equal chance and access to candidates.

Surely the shadow minister is just that a shadow minister, the form is there the lack of concern for truth honesty and policy's is here on display.
Along with the fatal flaw that will commit this shambolic mob to the opposition bench's for at the very least two more terms.
I a member of the ALP condemn Nutal, as I did the other two ALP people gaoled in QLD.
I include the grubs who have it yet been found out, in every state but highlight my home state NSW and its rubbish bin leadership, many more may yet been unmasked and shamed.
It was however the party that referred Nutal to the path that brought him down, and those who bribed him?
Yes shadow minister why ignore them?
Your side of the fence is much better at sweeping such things under the fence and white wash comes in tankers on that side even jurors are found to be inserted in jury's to see justice is not done.
I await my opponent for you to name that contract, you know the one, the strange unsupported story you manufactured that the Ute gate car sales man had won a government contract.
However thanks, yes truly, your post highlights yet again a willingness to forget such words win no new Friends, just rub the back of the already won and drive a wedge between voters who can think for them selves and conservative partys.