Wednesday 27 October 2021


Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

27 October 2021



IS ICAC Being Frivolous?

We Australians pride ourselves over our laws relating to de facto relationships. All that was demoted to ‘mythology’ by the ICAC. Some are protesting against the extradition of Julian Assange who leaked the mind of the US officials to wider public. If Julian who is also Australian, was wrong is ICAC also not wrong for making confidential information public?

Where there is written law – there is a recognizable structure. Where there is truth there is a natural structure. The former is processed through the judicial structure and the latter through the system of Dharma / Natural Justice. Reliable Administration happens through the former. Political Administration happens through the latter.

I learnt through my direct experience at the University of NSW, that custodians of political power come naturally under the system of Dharma, if the victim of their action is Dharmic / Righteous. It is this experience that has given me the intuitive intelligence to distance myself from claims of Genocide by some Tamil politicians, in relation to the Sri Lankan war where the Tamil side was a de facto army by choice, and hence did not come under the same measure as the official Sri Lankan army.

With that as my base, I feel upset that the ICAC is exceeding its powers. The core purpose for which ICAC exists as per its law – the  Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 is specified as follows:

[2A   Principal objects of Act

The principal objects of this Act are—

(a)  to promote the integrity and accountability of public administration by constituting an Independent Commission Against Corruption as an independent and accountable body—

(i)  to investigate, expose and prevent corruption involving or affecting public authorities and public officials, and

(ii)  to educate public authorities, public officials and members of the public about corruption and its detrimental effects on public administration and on the community, and

(b)  to confer on the Commission special powers to inquire into allegations of corruption.]

The current inquiry under scrutiny is presented as follows by the Sydney Morning Herald(SMH):

[The corruption watchdog is examining two multimillion-dollar grants or funding promises made by the state government between 2016 and 2018 when Ms Berejiklian and Mr Maguire were in a secret relationship. At the time, Ms Berejiklian was the NSW treasurer and later the premier.]

One is answerable to the Institution as per the law. The institution is answerable to the Public through Parliament. One is answerable to the Environment as per one’s own conscience.

As per the SMH report:

[That relationship first came to light in public in October last year when Ms Berejiklian gave evidence at the ICAC for a first time. She has yet to give evidence in this stage of the inquiry and has denied all wrongdoing.]

The denial as per the above is taken as being according to the lady’s conscience.

The report states:

[two former senior staffers to Ms Berejiklian gave evidence this morning. They are not accused of wrongdoing. Their evidence was as follows:

·       Neil Harley, a former chief of staff to Ms Berejiklian when she was premier, told the ICAC he first became aware of the Berejiklian-Maguire relationship last year when Ms Berejiklian was summonsed to give evidence at a public hearing at the corruption watchdog’s Sydney headquarters. Mr Harley said “it was a very difficult conversation for both of us” and Ms Berejiklian was “inherently a very private person”.

·       “We didn’t go into detail about when [the relationship] ... commenced and when it finished,” he said. “We talked in broad terms about the nature of the relationship.” He said he found out later that the relationship had “continued on for a lot longer than I had anticipated” and “it was more recent” than he had thought.]


This strongly indicates that the Chief of staff did not consider it his duty to have knowledge of such personal details as per the lawful structure of the Parliament of which his position was a part. Given that it has been reported that he is not accused of any wrong doing – the ICAC also did not expect such knowledge. If indeed he had such knowledge, that was his private property.


A reliable institutional structure facilitates others in the institution to invest in other positions and v.v. through due processes. In old institutions such as the NSW Parliament, this includes traditional processes that cannot be measured through merit in the current environment. In a family for example, all seniors have the duty to support all juniors. The juniors have the responsibility to demonstrate respect for such providers and thus both become even. One who goes beyond becomes a permanent Energy of that position and therefore a ‘traditional owner’ of the position and the institution that the position is a part of. This Energy automatically produces its Equal opposite as in bipolar problem. This happened at the University of NSW where I underwent pain for doing my duty as per the terms of my recruitment. When I left I that Energy came with me and the other side got left behind. The strongest was in the reporting of NHMRC grant. The other side manifested at the Liverpool Clinical school – as Bruce Hall scandal.

I have learnt also that once we generate this Energy, it connects us to Universal Energies as per our current needs. They protect us and those who are loyal to us to uphold our true positions – as per our own minds.

The latest ICAC inquiries are seriously damaging our sharing of natural energies through our soul power – which is our Ultimate Reality. The reason to my mind is the lack of Heritage Power which limits the ICAC’s intuitive powers.

The integrity of our Parliament which is much older than the ICAC, cannot be measured by ICAC’s merit based measures only. We need our heritage and therefore subjective powers through which we confidentially share our powers through natural commonness.

As a nation that has legalised de facto marriages – we have the moral duty to respect true relationships and not dig to make it look dirty. The highest form of that relationship is love which like truth is invisible. Witnesses have the duty to protect all love based relationships. Ms Gladys Berejiklian is entitled to keep her love life confidential – so long as she did not demonstrate sex enjoyment openly in parliament or to the public. Only love has that power of confidentiality. In Hindu culture this is known as Gandharva / Divine relationship.


No comments:

Post a Comment