| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Totally agree. It’s a sad irony that those who should be the subjects of scrutiny of such a watchdog are the ones who need to approve it. Hopefully democracy can do its job here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Totally agree. It’s a sad irony that those who should be the subjects of scrutiny of such a watchdog are the ones who need to approve it. Hopefully democracy can do its job here. |
My youngest has just finished an elective on Royal Commissions as part of her Juris Doctor course and he was the lecturer. She regarded him highly.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
npalm
Joined: 01 May 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It seems unlikely that we'll get a proper (fully funded & with adequate coercive powers) federal ICAC from either of the major parties any time soon. We probably need some right-minded independents or a minor party to gain the balance of power in the lower house.
I'd like to see an ICAC with a fairly substantial reach. In particular, I'd like to see the definition of corruption to include pork barrelling (e.g. the sports funding rort), the taxpayer funded political advertising that masquerades as Government information and the use of taxpayer funded electoral staff for party political work.
_________________
Side by side. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
