Over the years I have covered more corruption inquiries than I care to remember – ranging from a prostitute, Tiffanie, complaining that former MP Ian Macdonald was a "wough kisser" and made her feel like "womiting" to the sex-for-favours scandal involving Wollongong council.
The crooked former politician Eddie Obeid is the Meryl Streep of Independent Commission Against Corruption inquires, having starred in no fewer than six.
The first inquiry, in 2002, was prompted by an investigation by Anne Davies and I about then minister Obeid seeking a $1 million payment to the ALP in return for solving the Canterbury Bulldogs' problems getting their Oasis project through.
Obeid was cleared of any wrongdoing by ICAC and he subsequently successfully sued the Sydney Morning Herald.
But in later inquiries into café leases, water licences, mining leases and health companies he was not so triumphant.
The findings of yet another inquiry in which Obeid featured, involving Australian Water Holdings, are up in the air with the recent resignation of Commissioner Megan Latham.
But the more things change, the more things stay the same. The very first corruption inquiry I covered featured a demand for the commissioner to stand down and claims that the inquiry was a show trial to justify ICAC's existence.
It was 1990 and the commission was barely a year old having been established by the NSW parliament in response to growing alarm in the community about corruption.
The newly minted ICAC commissioner Ian Temby QC was examining whether a police officer had received $250 a week for years to turn a blind eye to breaches of the licensing laws at a large hotel.
The officer claimed the money was for "undercover security work" at the hotel, a claim rejected by Temby.
During that inquiry the commissioner gave an interview saying that the police had conducted three inquires into allegations of misconduct against licensing police at Sutherland and each concluded that nothing could be pursued.
But the value of ICAC was trumpeted by Temby who told a newspaper that without ICAC the matter could not have been pursued.
Firebrand solicitor Chris Murphy went ballistic, alleging that Temby was grandstanding about Murphy's client (the dodgy police officer) to justify the existence of the ICAC.
Temby's interview was "ill-judged and totally improper," said Murphy. Not even "a greyhound steward" would go to the press "in the middle of an inquiry", he railed.
Labor MP Paul Gibson tried to prevent Commissioner Barry O'Keefe from returning the Supreme Court after his stint at ICAC ended.
Gibson had been the subject of an incredibly vitriolic hearing in 1998 during which underworld figure Louis Bayeh claimed to have bribed Gibson by providing him with an array of goods including underwear, suits, jewellery, a mobile phone and a holiday in Fiji.
The hearings got off to a less than promising start when Bayeh was asked when he first met Gibson.
Bayeh: In a friend's house.
Questioner: When? What year?
Bayeh: I don't recall.
Questioner: How long ago?
Bayeh: I'm not sure
Questioner: Approximately?
Bayeh: Long time ago now.
Questioner: 10 years, 20 years?
Bayeh replied that he wasn't able to help because he couldn't read or write and didn't keep a diary.
It was downhill from there with Chris Murphy, who was representing Gibson, calling Commissioner O'Keefe, "a failed old priest and former altar boy".
In another exchange Gibson angrily said: "My name is Gibson, not Einstein," to which Commissioner O'Keefe retorted, "That's apparent."
"You would know, you're such an intellect," said the NSW Labor MP.
"Mr Gibson, that's very insulting."
"So is what you said."
When it came to Bayeh's cross-examination, Gibson's barrister, the acerbic Stuart Littlemore QC was ready to tear out what little hair he had left.
When asked why his evidence had changed from three weeks earlier, Bayeh replied that was "because I listen more carefully now".
When his former answers were read back to him and he was asked which version was true, Bayeh replied: "Before or now? Two of them is true."
Mr Littlemore: They can't both be true.
Bayeh: Yes it is.
Littlemore put to Bayeh that he had bribed police in the past because he was a crook.
"I'm not a crook," replied Bayeh.
Littlemore: Well, what do you think a crook is?
Bayeh: You tell me what crook [sic] mean.
Littlemore: No, you tell me.
Bayeh: No, you tell me.
Littlemore: You're a criminal aren't you?
Bayeh: You can say that.
Littlemore: Well, anybody can say that?
Bayeh: Just your opinion.
Littlemore: Where are you now?
Bayeh: In a jail.
Gibson's legal team successfully appealed to the Supreme Court to have O'Keefe removed from the inquiry because of apprehended bias and Gibson later received a defamation payout of $85,000 from the commission over comments made by O'Keefe outside the hearing.
In the wash-up Gibson was cleared of any wrongdoing, in part because Bayeh was too shonky a witness.
But in the final report Gibson's credibility came under fire with the acting commissioner reporting, "I find myself utterly unable to have any confidence whatsoever in the truth or reliability of anything said by Gibson when it conflicts with the evidence of any other witnesses, other than Bayeh."
Bounteous stupidity has been a hallmark of witnesses at ICAC inquiries. One of my favourites was a bill sent by private investigator Stephen James to Cigna Insurance.
"To attend to your attorney's instruction to conduct certain inquiries in this matter, including the corrupting of several members of the Police Force and obtaining printouts relating to the man's criminal form, then drinking with them for long periods, and reporting as attached.
"Hours: Many, but say four at $25.00 - $100.00.
"Copies of printouts, compiling report, nursing hangover, mileage - nil charge."
But often the most far-reaching changes to the system have been prompted by the dull but worthy inquiries which have attracted no media attention.
Take the dull-as-dishwater report into Tendering for Vinyl Floor Products.
Over a 14-year period, a buyer with the Government Stores Department had sole responsibility for the allocation of valuable contracts for floor coverings. The State Contracts Board accepted every single one of his recommendations.
What they didn't know was that the buyer had taken trips at the expense of one of the wholesale suppliers. On one occasion he and his wife had enjoyed a European jaunt in return for guaranteeing the supplier would win the tender.
The buyer was found to be corrupt but no criminal proceedings were recommended and because he had resigned from the public service, no disciplinary action could be taken against him.
However, the importance of the Vinyl Floor case was not what ultimately happened to the buyer but that the tendering arrangements in the Department of Administrative Services were overhauled to prevent similar corruption occurring again.
"We are not concerned with guilt or innocence: that is the business of others," wrote Commissioner Ian Temby at the time. At the heart of the commission's work, he said, was "making the system honest".
And that is how it should be.
