AGiR care to comment on the charge that you ave posted here under other names?
Boaz David being one.
By the way Cambell could have been from any party or just the bloke next door.

He was a government minister and concealed a secret that embarrassed him and could have led to him being leaned upon for advantage, instances being preference in government contracts or access to confidential government information, including that obtained from private companies.

He should never have accepted his position of trust in the first place knowing that some might think he could be compromised even if he supposed he would never do the wrong thing. In any event, it was possible for others close to him to be blackmailed to protect him.

As a minimum, the same rules (code of conduct and ethics) should apply to elected representatives as apply to senior public servants, after all they claim to be the 'masters' of the 'servants' and often have far more access to confidential information through their privileges and contacts both in and outside of government.

He did the right thing in resigning and it is to the discredit of others that they have not done the same. In saying that I am thinking about recent events in WA.

"I wonder if the outcome would have been different if was caught at a brothel instead of a gay venue? Are public morals that flexible or selective?"

Rache: Probably not a great deal of difference I would think, other than being tagged a dirty old man in both cases.

"Pick any street, any suburb,any city, let channel 7 look into the lives of those who live there.
Betcha they find unfaithful people.
Bet the sex lives of many are as bad."

Belly: Probably more going to the supermarket than to the gay brothels, besides who cares what Paul1405 and the rest of suburbia get up to with dogs, cats, blow up dolls and an assortment of other objects. David Campbell on the other hand he's news and sex sells, are we not shocked, Channel 7 thinks we should be!

Its good to see there has not been a great deal of homophobia in this debate (here). In true Aussie tradition I think Campbell has been give a fair go, not much support for his efforts as a Minister of the Crown, but even those here who don't particularly like him have stuck up for his rights. I think he's been found guilty here more of double standards and deceitfulness to both the public and his family, rather than anything to do with (his) homosexuality.

Cornflower raises a salient point in terms of confidentiality, security clearances and vulnerability to bribes.

Sexual orientation is only an issue in this context if it is hidden and there is fear of being revealed, which it appears to have been in this case.

In the modern age up and coming politicians won't be so hesitant in revealing their sexuality as we become more tolerant. It has not dettered or influenced the rise of one great politician - Bob Brown.

I am not sure if politician's or candiates (prior to election/nomination) are required to submit to security clearances like many public servants (more and more these days) but if not perhaps they should be to aid in reducing the risks of corruption.

"I am not sure if politician's or candiates (prior to election/nomination) are required to submit to security clearances like many public servants (more and more these days) but if not perhaps they should be to aid in reducing the risks of corruption."

Pelican: A list of organizations and/or individuals to conduct such investigations and clearances:

Gestapo, KGB, CIA, ASIO, KKK, Cardinal Pell, Rev Fred, Alan Jones, Bruce Ruxton (RIP), Unemployed Roads Minister and his friend Ken, any member of the CWA, and of course Paul1405. LOL

Point taken Paul but it seems odd that those who work for or on behalf of politicians (staffers and public servants) are subject to quite intrusive security clearances if our elected representatives are not.

But maybe they do, I really can't remember.