Indeed there is a very good argument that federal Labor should have a preemptive rule that former male general secretaries of the NSW branch of the ALP should never be allowed to occupy safe parliamentary seats. Certainly not as a short-term payoff for their services to right-wing trade unions, before post politics careers as consultants to James Packer and gambling interests. No such representative in the past 35 years has given any parliamentary public service outweighing the damage he has done to his party's reputation, or to his state or the country.

On experience, the Sussex Street pedigree amplifies an already ample rat cunning and penchant for treachery, conspiracy and deal making. All the while it seems to strip away judgment, long-term vision, courage, character, moral fibre and common sense. They are often great "fixers," and self-styled political geniuses. But their self-belief coincides with the lowest imaginable contempt for the intelligence, idealism and discernment of voters. More than any other group, however, they are the ones who made Labor bland, destroyed it as a popular movement, and killed it as any sort of engine room of ideas, emotions, policy and debate.

This week was one where, on several counts, Labor was able to appear to have some advantage over the Coalition, which narrowly, but certainly, defeated it in July. It was to culminate in consecutive defeats for the government in the House of Representatives on Thursday, and the hurried recall of Coalition MPs waiting to fly out of Canberra. That the issue involved Labor's populist call for a royal commission into Australia's banks – a cause supported by a number of Coalition backbenchers, and, ironically, made popular by Dastyari stunts – accentuated Malcolm Turnbull's humiliation.

But it was only one of a number of matters over which Labor seemed to be calling the shots, or the government appeared to be merely responding to events, or both. Turnbull has yet to emerge from his post-election funk, and there seemed plenty of evidence enemies in his own party are beginning to circle.

There was the same-sex marriage issue, where Turnbull, whatever happens, seems a prisoner of party conservatives, promoting a cause and a process he is known to disagree with. Conservatives are focused on forcing him to hold the line, but they are well aware that it is on this issue, more than any, that a failure by Turnbull to be Turnbull invites the question of what the point of him is.

It's no secret that dissident conservative Cory Bernardi cannot be screwed down and is determined to embarrass Turnbull. But there was nothing accidental about his getting overwhelming Senate backbench support over a debate on Section 34B of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Bernardi move can't win, but again makes Turnbull seem a hypocrite.

There was the ludicrous argument, by Turnbull, that budget austerity (though not, apparently tax gathering) was some sort of moral imperative (even if humane treatment of refugees is not). Jesus did not actually have a position on the subject, though he had a hurtful observation about needles and camels that should inhibit moral lectures from rich men.

There was the farce, assisted by Treasury incompetence, of legislation proposing expenditure cuts not adding up. Somehow the government simply could not gather momentum.

Beyond that, had Labor the appetite to do anything about it, was the NSW ICAC report on rorting of electoral laws, mostly by Liberals, to conceal donations by property developers. This was far from a complete gift to Labor. It yet again served as a reminder, via a corruption finding against Joe Tripodi, of the moral and ethical vacuum gripping the NSW party while Sam Dastyari was branch secretary.

Even so, the ICAC had a lot of pluses, tactical and strategic. There was, yet again, the unattractive picture of a former NSW Liberal Party branch treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos seeming to stretch the credulity of the commission in denying knowledge of how developers were circumventing the law. ICAC made no adverse findings against Sinodinos, but seemed far from convinced that he had known nothing of the use of entities outside of the state – in the ACT as it turns out.

A task, perhaps, for an ACT anti-corruption investigation further down the track. It is clear that any ACT anti-corruption commission should have a remit extending to party organisations and funding, and the activities of "related entities", including unions and clubs.

From Labor's point of view, the ICAC findings could have been used to score points against the Liberals, and not only for NSW consumption. It had been the Liberal Party which had most resisted better, quicker and more straightforward disclosure of donations and money coming into the party system. There was at least the appearance of a claim that the Liberal Party was more barefaced in setting up evasion and avoidance schemes. (The Labor machine also manipulates the system, and launders some donations, but with a good deal less art).

There was some still-unmined treasure from delving for detail into reports that Turnbull himself had to dig into his piggy bank to help fund the Liberal campaign.

It did not take long for Sam Dastyari to wreck everything. Cory Bernardi discovered, from Dastyari's own declarations, that he had solicited a $1670 "gift" to pay for excess staff expenditure from a Chinese investor with close links to the Chinese government. It soon emerged that this was far from the first gift he had solicited from this person. On a previous occasion the same man had contributed $40,000 towards Dastyari legal expenses.

This would be eyebrow-raising (if perhaps not as rare as it should be) even if the donor had been an old Australian friend without anything to hope for or fear from Labor or a state or federal government.

Senators and MPs are well paid so they do not find themselves in what, to a reasonably cynical observer, might seem to be obligations to outsiders. It is doubly eyebrow raising if the donor is a player likely to be seeking favours, contracts, licences, and the exercise of discretions from government. This is why NSW Labor, during the time of, though not at the initiative of, Dastyari, banned donations from developers. NSW Labor has much the same view about tobacco manufacturers, though not, I am afraid, about donations from alcohol and gambling interests, both of which exercise undue influence in the party's councils.

But taking gifts, or donations, from foreign interests, particularly ones with clear government connections, has extra layers of indiscretion and risk, even, according to ASIO, national security risk. In many countries, including the US, it is illegal for political parties to receive gifts from foreign corporations or governments. Labor, in its own defence, can say that it proposed such legislation here, but that it was rejected by the Coalition. That gives it half a brownie point, but that even further underlines the serious misjudgment of Dastyari.

It is a misjudgment that he, and an embarrassed and furious set of colleagues, have acknowledged. It is not clear whether Bernardi tipped off Turnbull's office about his find, but one might guess that he did not. In any event, the government left it to Bernardi and Senate backbenchers to develop the matter while it waited to see the pitfalls. But once it was clear that there was going to be little comeback, it put on the worried faces and agonised about all manner of temptations and risks to which Dastyari had exposed himself. The innuendo was that Dastyari might not be a fit and proper person to be in Parliament.

Hesitation about entering the fray was natural enough, given that the Liberal Party has been (successfully) soliciting donations from foreign corporations, including Chinese corporations, and including the very same corporation that was so thoughtful to Dastyari. So has Labor, even if it had once invited mutual disarmament on foreign donations.

Sure enough, there were any number of photographs of Coalition ministers and MPs at corporate functions with the donor, a man who had recently publicly complained that Chinese-Australian donors were not getting enough action or value for money from politicians as a result of their donations. Heavens, what could that mean?

It is a continual problem for governments, and ministers that their party organisations seem to promise donors privileged access, with a hint of favouritism. It's even worse when, as in NSW, parties are heavily influenced by paid lobbyists. Many a minister is determined to be scrupulous about treating everyone equally, impartially and with integrity. Bad impressions are, of course, compounded by secrecy, evasion, or efforts to get around the spirit and intention of transparency laws.

But it is important to remember that the "donations" to Dastyari were not donations to a political party. They were donations to him personally. There was no suggestion (as happened in the latest ICAC report) that someone had pocketed money intended for the party generally.

Such "investments" in individuals, rather than the party at large, are far from uncommon, on both sides of politics. Bill Shorten, for example, received any amount of help from employers with whom he had dealt when he stood for Parliament.

Dastyari has long been involved in party fundraising, in wheedling money from the reluctant, and in dealing with donors who have felt that their contributions have not delivered their expectations of government. That has included being the intermediary approaching ministers and others to meet with donors or potential donors, or to affect interest in their causes.

People who solicit – indeed people who accept – gifts from people in a position to ask favours run the risk of being regarded by voters as being bought, or in their pockets. That Dastyari pretended, or perhaps ignorantly advanced, a belief in China's position over South China Sea islands, can be made to seem deeply sinister.

If such impressions are unjustified, Dastyari can blame only himself. He has, after all, done more than his share of things designed to make the public cynical and suspicious of their representatives. If Labor continues to tolerate people like him it can hardly complain that potential supporters wonder about its fitness to govern.