Labor's Sam Dastari, who makes a habit of lecturing others on morality, is alleged to have been accepting wads from Chinese interests.

When the curtain is lifted a mite, there are thousands of more dollars involved. But Dastari has self-righteously declared that the sums like $40k are a 'minor matter',

"Last year it was revealed Chinese property-based firm Yuhu Group paid $40,000 of legal bills when Senator Dastyari was sued by an advertising firm over his conduct when he was the secretary of the NSW Labor Party"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/is-sam-dastyari-fit-to-be-in-parliament-pressure-builds-on-chinesefunded-mp-20160830-gr54sn.html

The trivia of gay marriage occupies federal politicians and maybe they need diversions like that to avoid any examination of their own performance and principles.

If the federal parliament was a reputable private company, Dastari would be long gone.

Others may be stretching the envelope with impunity too. Is that any defence? Or is it reason for sterner action and legislation to ensure that Australian politicians, like the politicians of most other countries, are prohibited from receiving donations from foreign interests and for obvious reasons?

Oh dear the abc will have to find another favourite son to push their sick ideologies.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Chinese are, reportedly, complaining that they are not getting enough influence in Australia for the money they are giving to political parties here! Are Australian politicians now so sleazy that they take money from foreigners wanting influence in our country? Do the political donations have anything to do with the selling off of Australian land, farms, real estate, industry, power generators and ports?

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but every Australian has the right to ask these questions. Elected politicians accepting money from foreign people/powers can never be acceptable.

It is not just one stupid senator who has to front up and prove to Australians that their hands are clean - or not.

ttbn, who reported that?

It goes without saying Dastyari should go, and Shorten should act immediately. Here in NSW we are well aware of political corruption in both the Labor and Liberal Parties. NSW is fortunate to have an ICAC to investigate politicians, and their corrupt practices. Only yesterday the NSW ICAC exposed the Liberal Party and its illegal developer slush funds, and how party members have been illegally taking donations from property developers. Charges have been recommended against some involved. These findings calls into question why so many developments applications, over 98%, in NSW have been given the rubber stamp by the state government.
Given the evidence, a federal ICAC is a must, something both the federal Liberal and Labor Parties hotly oppose. I wonder why!

Paul1405,

You may not have seen this. A different review means is recommended and the reasons given. Perhaps the Greens could run with it instead,

<Federal ICAC would not work, anti-corruption expert warns

Anti-corruption expert Adam Graycar has cautioned against a federal ICAC-style body.
The AustralianFebruary23, 2016

..Professor Adam Graycar, who has worked with the World Bank, United Nations and Transparency International and written books about corruption, says a federal ICAC is the wrong way to go.

He told an audience at Flinders University’s Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences that another anti-corruption organisation is not the answer.

“There is a loud clamour for a commonwealth ICAC, but why would you want to set one up, when we don’t really know what the problem is, when it would certainly be under resourced, and when any activity would start a massive turf war between overlapping law enforcement agencies, and the likelihood of poor co-operation.”

He says that Australia has fallen from 7th to 13th in the international corruption perception index, but only one country ranked higher than Australia, Singapore, had a national anti-corruption body.

His alternative suggestion is an anti-corruption council, which would report to an all-party parliamentary committee. It would not investigate individual cases, but refer them to existing bodies such as the Australian Federal Police, the Public Service Commissioner, the Australian Taxation Office, and the Ombudsman.

These bodies would then take any prosecutions to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He said several countries used this model, including Finland, where brought together key governmental agencies such the police, justice, taxation, but also the business sector, non-governmental organisations and research...>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/federal-icac-would-not-work-anticorruption-expert-warns/news-story/b70f64282a06af6beed413446a0ef451