Certainly, the businessman had motivations. It is for the court of law to look into Talbot’s business progress between 1998 – 2002 and of course 2002 – 2005. Any irregularities exposed are permissible evidence and will rightfully be held against him.

As an individual case, Talbot is both admirable and suspect given his rise on the social ladder from ‘humble miner’ to ‘coal king’. The outcome of this case and court findings will then set precedent for morality inspite of success. The thing that makes this case so interesting is that it is reflection on class boundaries. You cannot hold claim to being one of Queensland’s richest men in such a short span of time with blotches on your record. Afterall, the end does not justify the means.

As you rightfully observe, different countries have different moralities depending on the extent to which they can fight corruption within their system. If Australia has inherited a relatively un-corrupt system, it is the court’s responsibility to preserve that institution.

Finally, it does not matter whether that money was asked for or accepted. What matters is that there was an exchange of money between government and business that compromised the integrity of Australian institutions and one of the perpetrators has been charged with this exact crime.