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!