Had the lady in question been claiming benefits from Centrelink there would have been a quick investigation of her claims and status.

It seems that the higher the educational claims the less the scrutiny, particularly by Government and Medical hirers.

leoj,

I watched "A Current Affair" on Channel 9 a while back
on Eman Sharobeem. At that time they only mentioned
a small amount of the charges against her but still
that small amount was horrific enough. They hadn't yet
delved into her lies and lack of qualifications. They
concentrated on her spending tax payer's money - buying
her husband a Mercedes, spending money on jewellery,
cosmetic surgery, paying for her son's overseas travels,
paying off her home and then selling it for over one and
a half million dollars, and the list went on. I just sat
there dumbfounded. How could this happen? How could this
person get away with all of that? And to top it all off
she nominated herself for "Australian of The Year" award.

The lady obviously must have mental problems. What gets to
me though is how did she get into the kind of position
that she managed to hold for so long? Why did no one check
on her credentials? And how come she was not accountable
for her spending?

If a staff member had not reported her - the woman would
still be doing what she did in the past - today.

I know that we should wait for the courts to pass judgement
on this woman instead of us doing it. But in this case the
facts cannot be ignored. They speak for themselves.
She has to be held accountable. But more than that - the
system that allowed this to happen should also be investigated.
And thoroughly - to ensure that this does not happen again.

It makes me angry to think that this woman was stealing from
the poor. The very people she was supposed to be helping.
How sad is that. What kind of a creature does that - and then
screams in court that "You're torturing me".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-10/eman-sharobeem-accuses-icac-of-torturing-her/8513990

It is a double-edged sword: the money doesn't ever reach the people it is intended for and needed services are not supplied, and secondly, the resulting criticisms, especially from disaffected public can reduce the monies allocated next time, or even see the service disbanded.

God help the courageous, public-spirited whistleblowers though, for their present and future employment, and personal lives too, are always on the block. There should be a significant $reward and an Australia Day gong for the risks they knowingly take in coming forward.

Paul,

You are being more than a little hypocritical considering that in the thread you started, you assumed that the liberal MPS were guilty of contempt of court.

I will think that you will also find that ICAC specifically mentioned that while the liberal MPs had broken the law with respect to donations that they had not acted corruptly.

Paul1405 - Good to see you make broad incorrect statements without reading and comprehending what you have read, you seem to be doing this a lot lately.

As long as I don't find myself agreeing with you Phil. Then I certainly would need to make corrections.

Shadow, the ICAC claimed the scalps of two Liberal Primers. the first to fall on his sward was Nick Greiner. Then the boozy but hapless Barry O'Farrell went, set up by members of his own party.

Telling another porky Shadow; saying "considering that in the thread you (Paul1405) started, you assumed that the liberal MPS were guilty of contempt of court."

AN UNTRUE STATEMENT SHADOW TOTALLY UNTRUE!

What I said was;

<<(Liberal MP's) face the prospect of being charged with contempt of court, if found guilty, the three may well be ineligible to sit in Parliament as per the Constitution.>>