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.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Please read the links before claiming ignorance of labor's corruption.

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1350614.htm
http://austlawpublish.com/testforum/viewforum.php?f=4
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24466439-5006009,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/18/2520071.htm
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/16/nsw-anti-corruption-watchdog-faces-unrelenting-pressure/

These don't even include the paedophilia, assault or sexual harassment.

shadow minister,
yet again your political bias has run amok blinding YOU to the reality.
EVERY party has "angels and arse holes" ALP is no different to ANY other party. Lord Acton said it well. Your ALP bashing is a WOT simply because it assumes that Libs/LNP are somehow different i.e. not full of self obsessed PEOPLE.
If you were truly interested in a the welfare of all people then you would be more concerned with a system that better weeded out the self interested power crazed opportunists that flourish in the current party system. the concept that a politically weak individual is incapable of good ideas or that only the politically predatory are right beggars anything that approaches intelligent thought.
Objectively, this "lesser of two evils" bollocks that is sold as democracy is merely a cover for the more colloquially depicted different coloured diving boards on the trough. Goodness knows who is looking after those who don't swim very well and those who don't have expensive life rafts/luxury yachts. To suggest that there are only two solutions to governance each with its own "favoured" is preposterous.
Let's get real the ability to appeal or survive elections is no substitute for either real talent/integruity or good governance. G&S had it right with its parody "Admiral of the King's navy".(listen to the words)

Examinator,

If "ALP is no different to ANY other party" perhaps you can point out to me a series of corruption scandals in the liberal party that in any way matches those in the labor party.

Shadow Minister,
That's a no brainer.
Your reasoning seems to border on class mentality. What other reason could you suggest that negates the bulk of my argument.

But you missed the point. People are flawed and the system in which polies flourish is designed to support those with power money and breeding.

Remember the CMC answer to some recent cases involving Libs in Qld. "there is INsufficient evidence to SUSTAIN a prosecution....at THIS time" there is a big difference between that and innocence.
I remember the ex Lib president being "acquitted" on a technicality yet his co conspirators in NZ did porridge. The issue was the method of Aussie acquisition of evidence. And millions out spending the govt.

The big point is the system doesn't work ...deciding between Chairman of China and Kim Jong Il(l) is an exercise isn't democracy.

Pericles, you wrote;

“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.”

Well, I can’t see how Nuttall is any more culpable than his party, or the opposition.

I think we could reasonably argue that if Nuttall was familiar with the donations regime and the concomitant relationship between government and big business, which of course he was, then he could have not unreasonably thought that he could undertake some sort of similar relationship with his businessmen friends.

He employed lawyers and left a ‘blind mole’ paper trail right from the start.

This indicates to me that there was no ill-intent, or at least no serious ill-intent beyond the apparently acceptable level of ill-intent that our society accepts, or tolerates, within the donations regime.

“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…”

It is very tempting to think along those lines, and you may well be right to do so. But I can envisage the possibility of a relationship between good friends in which no political favours are sought. Even if there was some expectation of favours at some future time if they were needed, it would be exactly the same as, or no worse than, a big company giving a political donation to a political party, wouldn’t it?

Even if Nuttall is a bit of a dummy, you would have expected Shand and Talbot to have envisaged a serious risk factor in giving him loans/gifts, if they had perceived the risk to be there.

continued

One has to assume that, given that the accounting and legal assistance that Nuttall undertook from the start of the arrangement, and hence the openness, that they perceived no significant risk, to either themselves or their friend Nuttall.

“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.”

This is the WRONG question and the hence the wrong onus of proof! It has to be the other way around – the jury had to determine whether or not Nuttall received the payments with any intention of providing favours.

If they couldn’t do this then he had to be found not guilty.

Again, guilt has to be proven or shown beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around.

The jury couldn’t have determined that he had intended to provide favours. They should not have found him guilty. He needs to appeal and have his conviction overturned on this point.

I mean – what a fundamental stuff-up; the reversal of the onus of proof…that is supposed to sit right at the core of our legal system!!

“… there is clearly something rotten in the fabric of Government in Queensland.”

And in every state as well as federally and in local govt!

Every now and again a political killing has to take place to convince the people we have a fair system. The political killing of Queensland democracy took place in 1991, when Wayne Goss decided that the Supreme Court in Queensland was going to be better managed by lawyers as Judges, than having to call a jury together, as was the norm before then. The courts envisaged in Ch III Constitution, yes the Australian Constitution, not the abomination created in 2001, to try to make legitimate changes in 1991 that are clearly illegitimate, were originally defined as incorporeal political entities.

The courts of the Constitution are political places where politics meets the people. The Courts of Queensland are the organs of an oppressive state, manned by State appointed and approved lawyers, whose education does not include the roots of the law, Christianity. If Gordon Nuttal was not a Labor Politician, in a State without a judicial system that works, he would never have been tempted to go on the take.

Paul Keating’s Government realized there was a problem with the States way back in 1993. He was part of a government that introduced the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to permanently guarantee civil and political rights in 1986, and strengthened its applications in 1995, when he made it a crime carrying seventeen years imprisonment, in s 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). Gordon Nuttall should call upon the Australian Constitution for his defence at the sentencing hearing. In Victoria, in their Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic), set out in full is the Statute of Westminster the First. 1275.

Its words are: And because elections ought to be free the King commandeth upon great forfeiture that no man by force of arms, nor by malice or menacing shall disturb any to make free election. Gordon Nuttal should be given a free election to pay a fine, or go to prison. The fine should be set by a jury, not the Parliament, for the King, stated here represents Almighty God, not an elected group of tyrants

Ludwig,
The evidence presented refutes your argument of 'good friend's innocent free loan'.
At best the businessmen would have taken the view that the risk was not theirs. And the 'openness'(legal/accounting) was merely to protect their tails.
What you neglect here is that despite all the 'allegedly' openness he failed to declare them on the register, His duty because of his position as a minister of the crown. His failure to do so makes it apparent he knew that such 'loans' would create a conflict of interests. In his position the fact that he actively showed flagrant disregard for the law and thereby indicating his willingness to give consideration for consideration taken. Particularly if it involved personal advancement. Thereby satisfying the onus test.
The basic moral point is the more power you accumulate the greater the onus on the responsibility you owe

Interesting case Ludwig. We could run a long list of various MPs of on both sides of politics who have been caught with their hands in the till.

More evidence that we really need to review the whole concept of political donations.

There is no point in a gift register for politicians if they don't actually record anything in it.

As for the idea we are to believe that someone in a position of influence was given a gift of that size without the expectation of a favour - I can only think of that famous phrase from The Castle "Tell him he's dreaming".

shadow minister please bloke, just this once take me on.
Prove me an idiot.
Do it mate please or admit you lied in another thread.
Time and again I have asked you.
do so again now.
tell me please what contract, you now the one you quoted in the thread about utegate, what government contract did the Ute man get.
Shut me up, prove me wrong tell the world I am a fool.
or withdraw the untrue claim, tell us it was a mistake, not manufactured lie, not another Abbot or such fantasy.
Your reality bloke is not mine your bitter hatred of my party is joyful fuel for me, it wins not one uncommitted vote back to your side not one.
Joy in the understanding you represent the deep hole your party is wallowing in, self destructive bogged down in.
Not to even look for a way out of till after at least one train wreck election result for you.
joy pure joy, my thanks and deepest regards.

“Every now and again a political killing has to take place to convince the people we have a fair system.”

Interesting comment PTB.

Yes, to convince people that we’ve got a fair system when in fact we’ve got a rotten-to-the-core donations regime and a resultant political bias towards the wishes of big business that seriously compromises the duty of government to make impartial decisions for the good of the whole community and consequently fundamentally corrupts democracy.

A political killing? I think that this is exactly what is happening here with Nuttall.

The guilty verdict is highly dodgy IMO. But now that it’s done, every man and his dog is jumping on the bandwagon and absolutely lambasting him as one of the worst snout-in-the-trough-pollies we’ve ever seen. If he appeals, he’ll have to run against very strong political and public opinion…which has largely arisen after the trial and because of the verdict.

It makes me wonder about the veracity of some of the previous convictions of this sort.

Pelican, you wrote;

“There is no point in a gift register for politicians if they don't actually record anything in it.”

Why didn’t Nuttall declare the 360 000$ monetary gift or loan on the parliamentary pecuniary interest register? Because he thought he didn’t have to. And it certainly isn’t clear as to whether he did have to or not.

Queensland Premier Bligh recently failed to declare a significant item that had strong political-business undertones. She didn’t think she had to declare that. The story stayed in the media for about three days. She seems to have got away with it scot-free. http://www.smh.com.au/national/corruption-trial-hears-bligh-defend-sydney-holiday-20090630-d3tj.html

The pecuniary register seems to be very grey indeed, in terms of what needs to be declared.

Engineer hung with his own petard. Poor bloody Gordon Nuttall is a victim of his own political shenagins, and it is time he repented and realized that we do have a Constitution in Australia and Queensland is not a Socialist Republic along the lines of the Soviet Union. He has an opportunity now to get the High Court to return to its Constitutional position as head of the judicial system, by seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The High Court as Head of the Judicial System, has a duty to ensure that all State systems comply with the Great Commission. The Great Commission was the commandment of Jesus Christ that His word be spread far and wide, and the English Parliament enacted the Word of God, as the Magna Carta in 1297. In 1275, the same Parliament enacted the Word of God, to extend the law of mercy to every criminal, so that a fine could be offered to all first time offenders, and they be given a chance to come to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness.

Gordon Nuttall is entitled to that chance because he is an Australian. It is his birthright. It is written down in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic) and even if its is not part of what is perceived to be Queensland Law, Queensland is still part of Australia, and the Constitution is still part of Queensland law, even if Queensland barristers say otherwise.

Gordon Nuttall and every first time convict, has the right to free election. That means he can elect for a fine or imprisonment. The fine must be fixed by a jury, not a Parliament, and section 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) makes a sentencing Judge a criminal.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a form of Judicial Review, and if Gordon Nuttall wants to get out of jail, and at the same time make amends for eighteen years of bad government, he should pick up his Holy Bible and take note of the words in Matthew 7 verse 7. Ask and ye shall receive

“The evidence presented refutes your argument of 'good friend's innocent free loan'.”

Examinator, I can’t see that it does. Again, the jury needed to prove or indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ill-intent. Even if the arrangement looked dodgy, and the theory of nothing’s for nothing seemed most likely, it was NOT ENOUGH! The jury needed more than that to safely convict Nuttall.

“At best the businessmen would have taken the view that the risk was not theirs. And the 'openness'(legal/accounting) was merely to protect their tails.”

I can’t see this being the case either. Talbot and Shand would surely have known that if Nuttall went down, they’d be dragged through the courts and the media and have their names well and truly muddied. Or worse, they’d be convicted of being accessories and have their careers ruined.

Why exactly the onus of guilt is entirely on Nuttall and not on them to any extent, I’m not sure. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense. So again I’ve got to conclude that Talbot and Shand thought that the deal was safe. And that means not only above board but safely above the grey zone of any legal doubt.

It just makes no sense at all that any of this would have happened if those involved thought that there was a risk of it being unlawful or even of it being doubtfully lawful to the extent of being subjected to public and legal scrutiny.

There was after all no clear attempt to in any way hide or disguise the gifts/loans. Nuttall’s failure to declare these pecuniary interests is not condemning. See comments in my last post.

And another thing, what’s this rubbish about 36 counts? There is one alleged offence here, or perhaps two at most, given that he received money from two people. The 36 charges, of receiving 36 lots of 8333$ or whatever the case was, is just silly.

When Brett Walker, the prominent Sydney barrister was trying to get David Ettridge and Pauline Hanson out of jail, in Queensland, I sent him an email suggesting a High Court Writ of Habeas Corpus, would secure their immediate release. At the next hearing both were released, and the same Judge sent Gordon Nuttall away. The argument in the Pauline Hanson case I wanted Brett Walker to run was that s 28 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) overruled the charges against Pauline Hanson, because what she was doing was political and protected by superior Commonwealth law.

By S 109 Constitution, coupled with S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Section 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), overrules every inconsistent Queensland Law, and Gordon Nuttall is entitled to its protection. He may be guilty but his sentencing Judge is guilty of a far worse crime. That crime is called enslavement. It carries a twenty five year jail term, or a fine of one hundred and sixty five thousand dollars, and enslavement is the effect of giving a State ownership over a person.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has banned slavery. Gordon Nuttall is now a slave, and treated as a slave. Slavery was banned in 1297, for Englishmen. In later years all slavery was banned, but the urge to make slaves continues. Further Section 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) makes disobedience to Statute Law in the form of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as enacted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth a serious crime. The sentencing Judge has broken that law too, and the penalty for that is seventeen years in prison. That attracts a penalty of $112,000. Can’t you just smell the end of homelessness. A Judge led end to homelessness.

Judges should realize that working for a State Government is like being a SP Bookmaker. Its profitable but the end of an era is at hand. How long must Gordon Nuttall rot in jail, before he realizes the keys to his prison cell are waiting for him in the Federal Supreme Court

To clarify the last point I made in my last post:

The first charge was for receiving 60 000$ from Shand. Charges 2 to 35 were for receiving 34 payments of 8333$ and charge 36 was for receiving 16 666$, all from Talbot.

.
More interesting comments PTB:

“He may be guilty but his sentencing Judge is guilty of a far worse crime. That crime is called enslavement.”

I’m not sure that you could call a jail term enslavement. But I do have dire issues with some of Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe’s statements in her sentencing spiel:

“Now I make this clear. You are not convicted by the jury of breaching any of those ethical or ministerial standards “, which she had previously outlined.

What?? Yes he was convicted of just that……surely!!

“In the background of the law it is irrelevant whether you intended when you received that money to show favour to any other person. Indeed it is irrelevant as to whether you did show favour or forebear to show disfavour”

Bloody hell! So by her reckoning he’d be as guilty as sin and deservEd of the maximum sentence even if there was absolutely no ill-intent!!

“You were not convicted of official corruption, you were convicted of receipt of a secret commission”

Excuse me, how can you have one without the other??

I’m now thinking that Ms Wolfe is a bit off the planet!!

PTB, I back you up in imploring Nuttall to take his case to the Federal Supreme Court.

"Why exactly the onus of guilt is entirely on Nuttall and not on them to any extent, I’m not sure."

Did they make payments to anyone else? Were the payments the largesse of friendship or for something else? Did Talbot and Shand feel that non-payment would bring them disadvantage? Put them on trial and you will find out. Somehow I dont think it will happen.

Apparently their trials are pending Fester. So we’ll hopefully find out!

Interesting, Ludwig. I would be very surprised if there were a trial, but if it happens it could open a can of worms.

Under belly,

When I phoned the car agency, I asked for references, several were state based. The fact that JG is Rudd's mate and seems to have been getting lucrative contracts incl a chinese agency and labor's predeliction for favours for mates led me to believe that there is more going on.

If you think that there is nothing going on I cannot prove otherwise, but I believe that unlike Nuttal they have not yet been caught.

PS

I am still waiting for anyone to show where the libs have been anywhere near as corrupt as labor.

Shadow Minister thank you, for the answer, I am tempted to not say I truly think it is as false as your claim.
But it is.
Now underbelly? I think even you must at times be concerned at the quality of some posters product here.
Mine at times too.
But a group exists who are unable to talk, debate, contribute, without malice and name calling.
You earn membership by insulting my father , Bell is ,well was his name and mine, needless, and a sign your ability to talk things through is coming up short.
I left the thread, see I can not agree with most of the last few pages, have no doubt Nutal is in the place he belongs.
And I do you know, true think you are indeed a shadow minister, we see Bill Shorten and Future leader of your party Hockey posting here[two men from our future]
I in even a glance see the same unfocused waste in you that your party shows every day.
My spelling is bad, my education worse, yet I learn something new every day.
Watch ,learn, the ALP has evolved it continues to do so, the legions of mythical battlers no longer exist.
Labor like its voters have ambitions, it will take more than blatant lies, more than fear tactics to unseat us.
Surely you know your party is about to back down? that in the next few months they must or be defeated in the worst way?
It mate is time, right now, to start rebuilding your party, to look a Sir Robert Menzies again, to look at the total lack of direction of your hopeless leadership.
Look at Pyne please look at him, your deputy leader she and poor silly Bronwin, so many more.
Yes look before the train wreck, put some young new direction new ideas into the house.
Hope, gee mate I hope your skeletons from AWB and so very much more Do not give GORDON NUTAL COMPANY.

Belly,

In the news today:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/minister-in-hot-water-again-over-mining-grant-20090719-dpkz.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/premier-overruled-budget-advice-20090719-dpkt.html

Two more instances of favours for mates and deliberately misleading the public.

As for the unions which are the feeders for the ALP:
http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=9932&mycomm=WC

Is there any wonder that when evidence of ALP corruption pops up the reaction from many in the public is: "not again" rather than maybe this is not true.

Until the ALP can show honest leadership, Don Rudd and his cronies will be viewed with suspicion.

PS I am not a member of any party nor do I exclusively support the liberals, though I find them the lesser of two evils.

As you stated you were a unionist, I thought I would pull your leg with the pun under belly. It looks as though I maybe came a little too close to the bone.

The editorial in the Courier Mail of 18-19 July starts;

‘Gordon Nuttall’s ignominious demise demonstrates that Queensland’s criminal investigation and justice system does work.’

What an enormous load of bollocks!!

The system has brought down one man that didn’t exactly keep his activities tightly secret. How many really unscrupulous politicians are out there, who can hide their activities more effectively? We’ve got no idea.

The system found Nuttall guilty, even though ill-intent could not be proven or even shown beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of proof, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of our legal system, was reversed, so that his defence team virtually had to prove that he was innocent. That was a major travesty of justice.

Even though there are a number of dubious points about this case, which should have at least mitigated his punishment, he still copped the maximum sentence.

The Chief Judge seems to be living on a different planet to those of us with logical minds, as per comments in my last substantial post.

It made no sense for Talbot and Shand to enter into this arrangement if they thought that there was any chance of it being seen as illegal.

By all indications, right to the end of the trial, Nuttall, his family and defence team, thought that he had not done anything manifestly wrong and that he would get off.

continued

What sort of a system have we got when one person, who has not done anything manifestly wrong, but rather, has undertaken activities along the margins of legality, gets crucified and held up as an example, while the culture that facilitated this behaviour continues?

And the culture does continue, undamaged! The obscene relationship between big business and government, that is most blatant in governments’ receipt of big donations, is untouched. The opportunities for ex-politicians to move into lucrative business positions remain high, if they made favourable decisions while in office.

There remains an enormous grey area around integrity, conflict of interest and disclosure. Anyone who undertakes activities within that grey area should NOT be crucified for it.

So NO, the bloody system is not working. In fact, not only is it not working, but by concentrating on fringe issues such as the likes of Nuttall, it is actually serving to entrench the worst aspects of the culture of cosy relations, especially the donations regime and the consequent nothing’s for nothing, scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours relationship between big business and government.

‘The Queensland of today is one with far tougher laws [than before the Fitzgerald Inquiry], more stringent disclosure requirements for politicians and a well-equipped and independent anti-corruption watchdog in the form of the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Yes, but there is still a lot of grey in the whole business. And gravely, it has sidestepped the awful donations favour-buying bribery regime and thus made the worst aspect of this whole horrible cosy culture appear to be ethical and legitimate.

You will notice shadow minister I do not state what union I am from.
Hints maybe but I am unable to say openly what one.
Why.
Well my passion and pride is not freedom to speak about the union I first bought a mans full ticket in at age 15 can not have every one talking for it.
Yes we like every union, every business had our bad eggs.
proud forever we remove them ASAP
That is life Church's have pedophiles, banks have fraudsters, doctors offend sexually, life is not black and white.
I look to better unionism, in fact am proud to be alive to see the green shoots of it right now.
You will never believe it but I am welcome in some very high bosses offices and trusted.
My Honor is not for sale.
you did not get close to my bone I am proud of my honesty proud to be far away from your political biases.
You can never hide, your one sided bias is blind to truth, feeds on fear miss truth , bias so very close to bigotry, you refuse totally to see both sides of an issue.
My greatest pride after knowing my members trust me, like me, is knowing most bosses do too, knowing understanding both sides issues is building a better union .
unions like political party's, there indeed is difference.
It is not just luck that you find me on the right side of both, proudly as far away from you as I can get.

I find your protestations unconvincing, Ludwig.

>>one person, who has not done anything manifestly wrong<<

You cannot accept that a politician receiving $360,000 for no visible reward is wrong?

Can you name any of your own acquaintances who would do such a thing for you?

>>...activities along the margins of legality<<

He was found guilty in a properly constructed court, with a defence counsel, facing clearly defined criminal charges that were understood by a jury.

Some "margins".

>>...crucified and held up as an example, while the culture that facilitated this behaviour continues?<<

There is a culture of giving, and a culture of receiving in action here.

Your suggestion is that until the giving part is stamped out, no-one should be guilty of receiving. I find that logic a little perverse and - if I may say so - somewhat unethical.

After all, it is pretty obvious that if no-one was receiving, the custom of giving would quickly die out.

>>There remains an enormous grey area around integrity, conflict of interest and disclosure. Anyone who undertakes activities within that grey area should NOT be crucified for it.<<

That sounds to me like a licence to rort, while the rortin' is good.

Newsflash: most people can determine whether an action crosses an ethical boundary, well before they need to ask "is what I am doing strictly legal?"

“I find your protestations unconvincing, Ludwig.”

This is a crucial point Pericles. It shouldn’t be up to me to convince you or anyone else that Nuttall should not have been found guilty. If we are not convinced that he is guilty, he should walk.

We and the courts need to be convinced that he is guilty. If we can’t be….and we can’t….he should be deemed innocent, or guilty of a lesser charge perhaps.

Does the age-old basic dictum of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ mean anything?

“You cannot accept that a politician receiving $360,000 for no visible reward is wrong?”

No I can’t be 100% sure that it was ethically or legally wrong. To repeat myself from an earlier post, it made no sense for Talbot or Shand to enter into this arrangement if they thought that there was any chance of it being seen as illegal or a subject for a media frenzy and their reputations being damaged. Their interpretation, and there were lawyers involved, was apparently that it was all above board.

“He was found guilty in a properly constructed court, with a defence counsel, facing clearly defined criminal charges that were understood by a jury.”

Does that mean you have total faith in our legal and courts system Pericles? Again, what about the reversal of the onus of proof, to the situation where Nuttall’s team had to essentially prove his innocence, instead of the cornerstone requirement of our legal system of him having to be proven guilty?

continued

Ludwig: >>There remains an enormous grey area around integrity, conflict of interest and disclosure. Anyone who undertakes activities within that grey area should NOT be crucified for it.<<

Pericles: “That sounds to me like a licence to rort, while the rortin' is good.”

Yes you could suspect that. If things are too ill-defined, then people could take advantage of grey areas. So what’s the answer? Obviously it is too tightly define the parameters. And until that is done, those operating in the grey zone should not be deemed guilty of breaking the law. Infringing ethics, codes of conduct, etc…yes possibly, but not the law.

“Newsflash: most people can determine whether an action crosses an ethical boundary, well before they need to ask ‘is what I am doing strictly legal?’

Ethical boundaries and legal boundaries are not necessarily the same. Ethical boundaries can be extremely fuzzy. And it is human nature to cross ethical boundaries. That’s why we need legal boundaries that are supposed to tightly define the cut-off between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

All this talk during the trial about ethical behaviour was pretty useless. The arguments really should have been about, and only about, the legal boundaries and interpretations.

I’d suggest that most people can’t determine ethical boundaries in all sorts of instances, largely because the boundaries are very different in different peoples’ minds.

Premier Bligh’s recent failure to register a holiday on the pecuniary interest register seems to me to be a pretty blatant ethical infringement. But she’s got away with it unblemished. Incidentally, I wonder if she would have got away with it if she’d been an ex-minister rather than an incumbent premier??

And I see the donations regime as being the most blatant and serious ethical infringement within our political system...while scant few people have any ethical problems with it at all.

It was not my intention to get bogged down in the guilt or innocence of Nuttall. It was my intention to highlight the ...................... UTTER DUPLICITY.......................... of our political and legal system in condemning Nuttall while completely stepping past the donations regime…which is a vastly bigger and more blatant favour-buying corruption scandal than any questionable antics of individual politicians.

But upon exploring the Nuttall case, quite apart from this extraordinary contradiction, it became apparent that there are major problems with his conviction. I got drawn into the detail of that.

So back to the donations regime then.

Mark O’Connor, author of ‘Overloading Australia’, had some brief comments to say about this right at the end of a speech a few days ago - http://www.population.org.au/. Move forward to the 27th minute.

To quote him;

“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!"

Without more details on the trial Ludwig's analysis is probably simplistic and missing much of the details. That a jury unanimously found him guilty would tend to imply that.

I agree that the donations regime needs to be overhauled, as well as the NSW labor gov practise of requiring "donations" for audiences.

Belly,

Yes I am biased against the stench of corruption and the parties and unions where it seems to fester.

Your distance is therefore appreciated.

Please see this new thread for discussion on political donations:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2945