With the outstanding job the New South Wales ICAC has been doing in exposing criminal activity in both THE LABOR and LIBERAL PARTIES in that state, uncovering massive corruption in both these shifty organizations. It has now been established the trail of criminal activity is leading to Canberra, I think it is high time Abbott bit the bullet, and set up a permanent Commission along the lines of the NSW ICAC to investigate federal political corruption and associated criminal activity.
Following the lifting of the suppression order yesterday in NSW there are allegations concerning Abbott’s chief-of-staff Peta Credlin. These are very serious matters, raising questions of influence buying, by some through political donations to THE LIBERAL PARTY. Only a permanent independent commission similar to the one operating in New South Wales can get to the bottom of this and other serious allegations concerning federal politicians and their associates from within THE LIBERAL PARTY and if need be, other political parties as well.

Dear Paul,

You say that we need a Federal ICAC now?

What has the state ICAC really achieved?

Perhaps we need to look at the investigative
institutions that are already in place and
have the power to convict.

We don't need to spend more money on institutions
that don't have the power to convict anybody -
do we? That seems like simply a waste of both time
and money.

As for political donations - yes I agree that we
need greater transparency and accountability in
that department - definitely. Perhaps also a cap should
be set on donations. I would hate though for us to
become like the United States - where politicians are
forced to spend a large portion of their time trying to get
donations in order to get elected. We don't have that
in this country - yet.

I'd hate to see our pollies be forced to go down that route.

We certainly need something Paul....corruption and power are wed.....but the outcome of the nuptial is governed by scrutiny.

Foxy dear one, you can’t be defeatist and just throw yourself towards apathy because the guilty do not always get what they deserve. I believe that Paul’s permanent impartial commission would be money well spent.

We do not have a vigilant free press and that is at the core of public figure scrutiny.

Dear SOG,

I'm not being defeatest at all - just realistic.
There's a difference. It looks like mr Obeid
under this last ICAC inquiry may not ever be
charged. The question I am raising - so what's
the point of it all - and how much did it cost
us? What did it achieve?

Explain.

I understand your sentiment Foxy, reeks of one law for the nothings and one for Obeid and Co...........but recognition of the corruption is all we have at present and that is better than nothing from a moral stance if not one of a just retribution.

I have often said that I have no representation with the current lot of law makers on both sides........this inaction just validates my thoughts.

Foxy, I can't agree that the NSW ICAC has been waste of money because it does not have the power to prosecute people. The commission is a window, and with its independent powers it can highlight the wrong doings of people. Would we know as much as we do about people like Eddie Obeid etc if it wasn't for the ICAC? Following the findings of the commission there is the likes of the DPP which can, and should go through the evidence and launch prosecutions where appropriate. I think it is money well spent, some in THE LIBERAL and LABOR PARTIES wouldn't agree.

The ICAC is achieving one thing Roxy
Irrespective of criminal charges by exposing the rorts the ICAC is effectively stopping them and ensuring they don't happen again. Surely that is enough to warrant its function.

I'm not suggesting that we don't have investigative
measures into criminal activity - I'm merely
questioning Royal Commissions. What's wrong with
the Australian Crime Commission that already exists?

The Canetoad set up a body to investigate /expose high level corruption?
It is to laugh!
At best we'd get another 'report" telling us "don't you worry about dat", it's not happening, it's all labors fault, I was at me Mums, aaaarh, the dog ate it, honest!
Morals/Ethics died long ago in the halls of power, the Two Party system saw to that, so, sorry boys n girls, it ain't gunna happen, not in this lifetime.

That is so true S of I. If no one goes to jail, still the ICAC has served a purpose and achieved a result by outing those who are corrupt, forcing honest politicians to act. It also acts as a deterrent to others who have corrupt intentions. We have a State election in NSW in 2015, this time around I confident thanks to the ICAC voters will be casting a vote for far more honest candidates than they otherwise would have, thanks to the ICAC.
There is a sting in the tail the DPP can act, and it can bring charges against people like Eddie Obeid, and others.

p/s Welcome to the forum. and enjoy your stay.
If you are not already aware I am a fully paid up member of The Greens. I make no secret of that, and that is where my political affiliations lie.

Foxy, can I have you opinion about this material The NSW ICAC has uncovered about Peta Credlin and how it should be handled, and the latest Slipper material and how it should be handled. If there was a Federal ICAC where by, once it had become a Federal matter it could take over the investigation from the state, would that not be a good thing. Abbott is naturally going to resist any attempt to investigate these type of matters, particularly as they concern himself and his own party. I'm sure if it involved The Labor Party, or affiliates there would be a Royal Commission set up before you could say Bob Menzies.
Royal Commissions are too narrow, too specific and often lack independence. Politicians set the terms of reference, set time limits, and hand pick the Commissioner. Sometimes these things do not involve criminality to the letter of the law, and a Crime Commission is only concerned with the law. Take O'Farrell, he did not actually commit a crime but he had to go for lying.

Of course we need a national ICAC. But just as for the NSW ICAC, it would need to look more deeply into the donations regime and the overall influence of big business on government.

It is not sufficient just to look at the criminal end of the spectrum. We need to get rid of ALL bias exerted on government by donations and other favours and pressures from those who have big money and influence.

ICAC in NSW will clean up the whole caboodle, but only to a point. The donations regime will still exist. The favour-buying regime will exist. The big business vested-interest paradigm will remain. Government will still be strongly biased towards the wishes of the big end of town.

We need a national ICAC which would view ALL pressures exerted by big business upon government that render it non-neutral in its decision-making abilities to be criminal or unacceptable activities.

Dear Paul,

Peta Credlin has been dragged into the ICAC
controversy over carbon tax emails. To me
this amounts to a "bit of smoke but no gun."
All the emails reveal is Credlin doing her job,
which in Opposition focused heavily on finding
people prepared to say that the carbon tax was
killing them.

It is a separate issue - whether existing disclosure
laws on political donations are adequate and whether
there should be a federal equivalent of the NSW ICAC?
At present there is no consensus on this, even within
the Labor Party.

As for Peter Slipper? I watched "60 Minutes," on
Sunday night and it raised more questions than
it answered. The main one being - why did Ashby
not simply walk out of the job if the sexual
harrassment was as bad as he claims it was?
Why did Ashby keep a daily diary of everything
that took place? The entire episode smacks of
being a political set up. And why has he now come
forward with all this information? Who's put him
up to it - and what has he been promised this time
around, or is this simply "pay back," on his part?

Ashby claims that he's now got a new life for himself
so why would he want to drag all this up again - to
what end?

I'm undecided about this entire matter. It doesn't
sit well with me, and I'm sorry that I watched "60
Minutes" on Sunday night. However, I guess this
won't go away - and we can merely watch the news as
this unfolds. Which undoubtedly it will.

Hi there FOXY...

I too saw most of the ASHBY segment on 60 Minutes, and found very little evidence of veraciousness from anybody who'd been interviewed. Certainly nothing emerged from anyone who'd been interviewed where a brief could be raised.

The problem also arises, these people lie so often, they've not believed even when they do tell the truth ? I tend to agree with much of what PAUL1405 has stated, generally these 'Commission's' of Inquiry rarely lead to successful prosecutions, but by 'outing' the culprit does seem to impede them from repeating those illicit activities if nothing else.

Moreover, there was something about ASHBY's whole comportment, his evasive countenance, that got my antennae quivering ? When I was still working FOXY, you could almost 'smell' someone who was lying ? Still I could be doing the fellow an injustice, who knows ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I guess we'll have to wait and see what if anything
happens next with what Ashby disclosed on 60 Minutes.

As I stated previously - the program raised more
questions than answers. And I can't help wondering
WHY?

What's the point of it all?

If, we as tax-payers, demand a Federal ICAC and bring out the level of corruption into the bright light of day, which there will be, we had better have an alternative plan on how political parties can raise money to put their case to the people, the voters.

It's for similar reasons I find Royal Commissions a massive waste of money that go on for too long with very little real benefit. We all get to be horrified for a while and grow a bit stronger in our opinion of the evilness of whatever, but nothing changes much, if anything at all.

We have a small pool of sources for money. We have a small pool of politicians. We have very, very poor diversity of news and information. This leads to corruption.

If we make all and sundry entities 'illegal' to donate or put caps on the amounts, then all that will happen is more convoluted and opaque set-ups to raise money. Like in the USA. This will not change the unhealthy influence of people with too much money or businesses. Prosecutions will not stop that, only cost us.

Are we as voters willing to pay for our politicians to state their case to us? Are we to ban 'vote for' advertising altogether (I say, YES PLEASE!).

I enjoy much of how it's done in the Netherlands, 'round table' discussion with 2 mediators/facilitators (to curb the bias factor) and have the opposing factions debate each other on live TV. You get to see how they perform, what they say and how they answer direct questions.

Australians only get little sound-bites, an interview or two and lots of stupid advertising to form an opinion on who to vote for. As if it's not anymore important than buying a brand of laundry detergent: this one's safe for the environment, this one's made by hard-working Australians, this one's real cheap. The interviews, which give more of an insight, immediately get dismissed by the 'follower' if negative as being from a 'biased source'. Crazy stuff.

I think the purpose of a Commission should be to look at all facets of political behavior, from the outright criminal, the Obeid type, to the ethical behavior of others, like a dimwitted chair sniffer from WA.
Present matters are hot topics, but a commission should be on going, and able to investigate much more than the present matters. With the results of the ICAC inquiries in NSW so politically damaging I can see why both THE LABOR and LIBERAL PARTIES wouldn't warm to a Federal Commision, Greens democracy spokeswoman Lee Rhiannon said major party resistance to a "national ICAC" – as many dub it – was becoming increasingly hard to justify, especially when money flowed routinely between state and federal accounts of political parties.
And she said the standard refrain from the major parties that NSW was a special case was also wishful thinking.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/pressure-builds-for-federal-icac-20140909-10ed3n.html

Paul 1405,
Lee Rhiannon as democracy spokesperson, how amusing.
Also, this is off topic but when this arrived in my inbox I immediately thought of you :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d_pAdpJ5Ps
He's baaack!

Jay Of Melbourne

what on earth is the utube about?

Runner,
Paul 1405 is an old Commie, the man in the video is an old Neo Nazi, according to Paul they used to run into each other a bit back in the 1970's.
If the admins of this forum would switch to V Bulletin (hint hint) I could have sent him a private message but it was too funny a video to pass up.

Jay, sorry I can't make it to your PARTY, I'm busy that day, what ever day it is. Enjoy yourself..thanks for the invite. LOL

Paul 1405,
I'm a Melbourne cove as my screen name suggests but I bet y'all feel safer now that Ross and the boys are patrolling the streets and scaring all the rapists away.
Back to topic, show's over.
So Lee Rhiannon is in charge of democracy for your lot eh?
Is this the type of democracy she learned about in East Germany or the kind where we have public ICAC hearings for miscreants as opposed to a pick handle across the back of the neck in the basement of the police station?

Jay "and scaring all the rapists away" and the rest of society as well I suspect. Rapes might be down, but we could see a shape rise in assaults.
Nothing wrong with our Lee, done a fantastic job in the State parliament and now doing equally as well at the federal level. Rubs a few reactionaries and old spooks the wrong way, calls a spade a spade. How many kids at the age of 19 back in the 70's jumped on a ship and had a holiday in Europe, literally thousands.
We need a few more honest politicians like Lee Rhiannon, with a bit of fire in their bellies, that's what we need in Canberra. That is where a Federal ICAC would play a vital roll in removing the present bunch of dishonest spivs from around the joint!

Greens senator Ms Lee Rhiannon? As in, 'the lights are on, but there is nobody at home'?

Maybe Greens watermelons growing under artificial light? There would be fertiliser in abundance.

http://tinyurl.com/watermelon-grow-lights

Good morning my dear little chap, Oh no! Its beach bum and his "balanced" comment, and where does BB get his "balanced" comment? From a trashy publication, put out by that criminal org of Uncle Rupts, 'NoNews Ltd". A story by that Pulyaick Prize winning journalist Miles Blowfly! In a extremely crappy publication 'The Daily Telecrap' which I must say makes a terrific fish wrapper! Nice try Beach but FAILED, score, none out of ten.

So you don't want to discuss the hypocrisy of Ms Lee Rhiannon, who as the report says has made a career out of preaching energy conservation, but does differently herself? A rule for everyone else but not for the Greens.

Instead, you tip cans over the journalist, the newspaper and the proprietor, and of course the mere messenger.

That is hypocrisy too.

Beach, I believe in journalistic parlance that is called a beat up! A 'Claytons' story, a story you have when you don't have a story! Can you give us the WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY. I need facts not poppycock!

Here some facts you can throw in a bit of your "balanced" comment on;

<<Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne allegedly offered to help find a lawyer and a job for former political staffer James Ashby in the event he made a claim of sexual harassment against his boss, then speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper.
Mr Pyne also allegedly threatened to call Mr Ashby a "pathological liar" if he told the media about their discussion and Mr Pyne's offer of assistance.>>

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-allegedly-offered-to-help-find-james-ashby-a-lawyer-and-a-job-20140907-10dor0.html

This is exactly the type of material that a Federal ICAC should be investigating.

Why? Because James Ashby was too stupid to follow his script or to know that if you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas?
Everyone knows what Abbott, Murdoch and co are like, these are the people who brought you the Pauline Hanson fake nude photo scandal, why would any reasonable person trust them in the first place let alone get involved in one of their intrigues?
Ashby, like all homosexuals is mentally unstable, vain and easily flattered, he's far from the perfect accomplice but at least he's easy to dismiss because the description "pathological liar" fits most people's experience of dealing with homosexual men.

Jay, I presume the job offer was one of a government job at taxpayers expense. needs investigation. If Pyne has nothing to hide and there is no basis to the claim then the investigation would not get off the ground. At the moment these types of allegations land in the media, get thrown about for a week or two and then settle down without resolution and that lingering doubt.

<<Ashby, like all homosexuals is mentally unstable, vain and easily flattered, he's far from the perfect accomplice but at least he's easy to dismiss because the description "pathological liar" fits most people's experience of dealing with homosexual men.>>

Jay, ALL, MOST, good to see you speak for the majority, and how long did it take you to come up that research.

Do you also believe all BLACK PEOPLE are lazy?

To say that, the only difference between you and the bloke in the clip you got in an Email (interesting what people send you) is you were born with a few more brain cells than him.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-fail-for-tony-abbott-as-expm-julia-gillard-sails-through-royal-commission-grilling-on-union-slush-fund/story-fnihsr9v-1227057047741

"Opinion: Fail for Tony Abbott as ex-PM Julia Gillard sails through royal commission grilling on union slush fund"

"While it was often dressed up as something else – union malfeasance, rorts and legal shenanigans – it was always about getting Gillard."

"The aim was to make her crack, to trip her up and prove anything that looked like wrongdoing.

Tony Abbott became one of the true believers, convinced Gillard was corrupt or at least guilty of “something”."

"Abbott would tell colleagues he wouldn’t be surprised if Gillard “ended up in jail”.

"While the Gillard haters will never be convinced, this demeaning and unproductive process has most likely enhanced the former PM’s reputation.

If Abbott’s aim was to tarnish and punish Gillard beyond Parliament, he has had an epic fail."

Lol!

Poirot,
You're familiar with James Ashby and Ralph Blewitt, do you remember Jack Johnson? He was the supposed ex boyfriend of Pauline Hanson who was touted at one point as being involved in the taking of the (fake) nude photos.
We don't need an ICAC hearing into Abbott and his minions because this is just their modus operandi, it's the way they do business, they find a dodgy "witness" or someone who has nothing to lose by running their mouth and prod them forward into the spotlight for a few minutes.
The payoff for these rubes is the suggestion of inducements, 15 minutes of fame/notoriety or a way to exact revenge on someone they don't like or have a history with.
To be honest the Coalition dirt unit don't need Murdoch anymore when they have shonky internet pundits like Mike Smith and Larry Pickering, Rupert has the weight to demand favours in return, Smith and Pickering can be thrown away after they've played their part.

Paul 1405
You mind is wandering all over the place old boy, race and credibility wouldn't work in this context, nobody is going to think any less of a player in one of these political dramas because of their race, it'd be more likely to backfire because nobody really thinks that way and a brown face is more likely to elicit sympathy from the public.
Ashby having failed in his mission for the dirt unit can be disposed of because anyone who's ever known a homosexual man understands that they're normally unreliable and often unstable people, this assessment of the mental state of most homosexuals is borne out in pretty much every study of Gay health and wellbeing.

we do need an Icac into the global warming scam that has seen charlitons from the Green religion pocket billions from scaring kids and the naive.

Jay "Do you also believe all BLACK PEOPLE are lazy?" I was only asking in general.

Given your outrageous views,and all encompassing sweeping statements,
This sweeping statement <<like all homosexuals is mentally unstable, vain and easily flattered...the description "pathological liar" fits most people's experience of dealing with homosexual men.>>
To back this up this up you post <<anyone who's ever known a homosexual man understands that they're normally unreliable and often unstable people, this assessment of the mental state of most homosexuals is borne out in pretty much every study of Gay health and wellbeing.>> Can you post a link to a ( reliable) study which corroborates your sweeping claims about homosexual men. Nothing from 'Whitelaw Towers' please.

Another general question. What is the real difference between Jay Of Melbourne and Ross Of Sydney?

Paul 1405.
Is that last part a riddle?
Peter Slipper had a reputation as a drunk and closet homosexual before his present predicament, to set a honey trap you need a person to whom the subject will be attracted, Slipper had allegedly made advances to a younger man in the past so Ashby was judged right for the role.
What I mean, and well you know it is that due to his psychological make up, his vulnerabilities a homosexual makes a good patsy for the Machiavellian types in the Coalition because nobody is going to believe his story even if he does go blubbing to Sixty Minutes.
Most people also hold the view that a grown, White man can't be sexually harassed at all, let alone a homosexual who would be deemed to have been "asking for it".
Hey I believe James Ashby when he says he's been sold out but it's his own fault for agreeing to set up an MP, as I said earlier, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas..or, join one of Pyne's "Black Ops" and expect to be thrown under the bus as soon as you've outlived your usefulness.
We don't need an ICAC hearing to uncover this skullduggery because it's all been pretty much out in the open since day one and Ashby, being a mentally fragile homosexual man flubbed his mission at the start and was never going to be a credible witness or be able to see the project through.

Jay, you made sweeping statements about "all" and "most" homosexual men. Can you back those claims up with evidence. I'll repeat what you posted;

<<Ashby, like all homosexuals is mentally unstable, vain and easily flattered, he's far from the perfect accomplice but at least he's easy to dismiss because the description "pathological liar" fits most people's experience of dealing with homosexual men.>>

I doubt you can provide any such evidence to back up what you claim. If not simply post that it's no more than what you believe, fair enough, and do not try and make out its a known fact, if its not.

Paul 1405,
You know that my assertions about mental illness and homosexuality are factually correct, you can look at "Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women". Eamonn,McKeown,Johnson,Griffin,Ramsay, Cort & King (2004)
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/185/6/479.full.pdf
That's a large sample taken in the U.K and comes from a sympathetic point of view in that the authors are assessing the impact of discrimination upon homosexuals, you'll no doubt be able to find other studies which contradict those figures but they are of such small sample size that their data is meaningless.
Here's a source biased in the other direction if you want, I always prefer the sympathetic sources because it shows that political correctness can't cover the truth about homosexuality but the data on right wing site Homosexinfo shows much the same picture;
http://www.homosexinfo.org/Psychiatry/Overview
See, the sympathetic source and the unsympathetic source both fail to find that discrimination or "Homophobia" is the major contributing factor in psychiatric morbidity among Gays and Lesbians.
So most people who have had to live or work with homosexuals on a day to day basis have experienced their mental problems, their anti social behaviour, the lying, the stealing, the callous and unreliable nature of such people. Thus Christopher Pyne's threat to paint Ashby as a "pathological liar" would have been, to the Machiavellian operator the most viable means of smearing his errant agent provocateur because homosexuality reflects upon character in the minds of reasonable, well informed members of the public.

You see Paul,you're partly correct, in real life I'm a inclined to be thug and a bully to get my own way, I can step into the mindset of a Chris Pyne or Tony Abbott as easy as putting on a hat and think about what I'd do in their situation, if my agent had screwed up and i had to get rid of him I'd go for his most obvious weakness first.

Jay, to quote your survey << (43%) had mental disorder as defined by
the revised Clinical Interview Schedule>>
Now to quote you <<like all homosexuals is mentally unstable>>

Please explain how 43% became ALL 100%, not some, not a few, not many, but ALL. Your survey may well be correct, but your not correct, you tried to sensationalize by using the word ALL. Do you have a survey that said (100%) had mental disorder as defined by
the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. I'll read that one when you post it.