Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
A Federal anti-corruption commission?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2022 2:55 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

<Split from the Australian federal election 2022 thread>

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/04/scott-morrison-warns-overly-powerful-icac-could-turn-australia-into-public-autocracy

What exactly is Morrison's problem with an anti-corruption commission? Is there any actual evidence that the NSW ICAC has improperly found against anyone, or is he merely still pissed off that St Gladys (entirely voluntarily) decided to step down as premier in the midst of an investigation without waiting for a verdict to be handed down?

His position on this seems to be roughly akin to saying we shouldn't have law courts because innocent people might be convicted.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2022 9:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't read Guardian links, if what they report is real news it would be posted on real news sites.

In response to the question, I can't read minds so I don't know. Some opinions will be that he doesn't want an ICAC because he's corrupt like all Liberals which is clearly bullshit. Labor is traditionally big on having an independent umpire, until they don't get the answer they want then it's toys out of the cot time.

Do we really need an ICAC to oversea Parliament? There's already plenty of oversight including the ultimate, the voters.

Victoria's IBAC primarily investigates the public sector and rarely strays into Politics and when they do generally avoid biting the hand that feeds them.

I haven't read enough about what Morrison proposed to know whether it was a total toothless tiger or a genuine option.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2022 10:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I find this idea of voters being the ultimate corruption umpire – which is also the line Morrison is going with – somewhat … overly optimistic, to put it kindly. For starters, you’re basically getting a binary choice on election day. What if both sides are corrupt? Or what if you suspect the candidate you usually vote for is corrupt but the alternative is too inimical to your values to contemplate? (More likely, partisan loyalty will lead most rusted-ons to deny even the most obvious corruption on their side.)

Political corruption can’t be policed by a popularity contest. It’s a blight on democracy that needs to be stamped out whenever it happens and whoever is responsible for it. Any politician who genuinely cares about earning and valuing the trust of voters should welcome the institution of a tough anti-corruption commission with open arms.

I don’t know the precise details of Morrison’s proposed alternative, but we have his own words about the NSW ICAC to demonstrate exactly how he feels: he thinks it’s too tough on politicians and that any commission should be relatively toothless in comparison. And I don’t trust Labor on this either, for what it’s worth; it’s easy to take the moral high ground in opposition, but will they water the proposal down once they’re in office? This is one more reason why we need a strong crossbench in both houses – we need someone to keep them accountable and ensure that an effective independent commission actually gets implemented.

(By the way, if I may say so, I think your anti-Guardian boycott is a bit silly. I read Daily Mail links – and Herald Sun articles, when I can get through the paywall – when they’re posted here, and even though I don’t think much of those publications and can see their biases from a mile away, I still presume they’re reporting facts. You equally might not like the spin The Guardian puts on their stories, but you can trust that their reportage is accurate. Even those who despise the publication would agree on that.)

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
eddiesmith Taurus

Lets get ready to Rumble


Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2022 11:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Evidence suggests Victoria's is pretty toothless, has it ever got anyone in trouble? Plus its at the mercy of the government, so how independent can it be? They started investigating the government and got their funding cut!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 10:45 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Precisely. We should be aiming for something more like what New South Wales has, not a watered-down version of the already weak-tea Victorian anti-corruption commission.

https://theconversation.com/ibac-vs-icac-what-are-these-anti-corruption-commissions-and-how-do-they-compare-169544

Quote:
When [Victoria's] IBAC was set up, it was criticised by prominent former judges at the Accountability Roundtable as a “toothless tiger,” given the high threshold of what it could investigate – it must be “serious corrupt conduct” before an investigation can start.

We should note here, the investigation threshold for [Morrison's] proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is even higher, requiring a reasonable suspicion of corruption amounting to a criminal offence before an inquiry can even begin. This is a difficult hurdle to clear.

The Andrews government increased the jurisdiction of IBAC in 2016, removing the requirement for corrupt conduct to be “serious”, and adding the ability to investigate misconduct in public office.

But IBAC’s jurisdiction remains more limited than [New South Wales'] ICAC’s, which has broad powers to investigate any allegation upon suspicion of corruption. This includes alleged substantial breaches of the ministerial and MP codes of conduct.

IBAC’s powers are also more limited than ICAC. It is unable to use coercive powers to conduct preliminary investigations to determine whether matters warrant full examination. By contrast, ICAC has the full use of coercive powers, including for preliminary investigations.

Finally, ICAC holds public hearings as a matter of course. But IBAC can only hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and when it is in the public interest to do so.

In short, ICAC is a more powerful commission than IBAC.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 2:46 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not fundamentally opposed to independent anti corruption commissions, but I'm not convinced either.

Here's a bunch of IBAC reports on investigations they've completed. https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/publications-and-resources?r=2cc558c5-87a5-4ce0-8e7d-7f94ce8a9999&l=d

Most of those, in my view, should have been forwarded to the head of the organisation the allegations occurred in for an internal investigation into alleged misconduct to be conducted, or referred to Police.

As an example, the Commissioner for Children and Young People (CCYP) in Victoria are the body which receives allegations of reportable conduct against Children (Physical violence or sexual assault). They do not investigate these, they have an investigation framework set up and, in the case of organisations where the allegation is against a staff member, they refer the allegation to the CEO who is obliged to ensure an investigation takes place and that full details of the investigation and findings is reported back to them. They also report incidents directly to Police to investigate where considered warranted.

Gladys resigned as ICAC was investigating an allegation (as I understand it) that she had a conflict of interest for approving funding grants in the electorate of someone she was having a relationship with, an allegation near impossible to prove and not criminal anyway. Once the investigation became public, media conjecture forced her to resign.

What sort of things should one of these ICAC's be charged with investigating that we don't already have other means in place?

David wrote:


(By the way, if I may say so, I think your anti-Guardian boycott is a bit silly. I read Daily Mail links – and Herald Sun articles, when I can get through the paywall – when they’re posted here, and even though I don’t think much of those publications and can see their biases from a mile away, I still presume they’re reporting facts. You equally might not like the spin The Guardian puts on their stories, but you can trust that their reportage is accurate. Even those who despise the publication would agree on that.)


Here's the thing, I don't trust that they reporting facts and I do dislike the "spin" they put on their articles. I only ever rarely go there when I click on a link from here and every time I get that fkn plea for money at the end of the article.

It's like going to a substandard restaurant for a dubious quality meal and then have the manager try to guilt me into giving a large tip. I exercise my option to not return.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 3:24 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The irony with Berejiklian is it seemed pretty clear that it was her own party that made her step down – she could have ridden it out and copped the media pressure until they inevitably turned their attention to something else, but she and/or the party judged that that wasn't in the government's best interests. So the notion that she was in any way a victim or forced to resign by the commission or the media has always seemed pretty crazy to me.

What she is alleged to have done – allowing a personal relationship to influence funding allocation – is indeed serious, and something that the commission are right to investigate (and it was absolutely in the public interest for us to know about it, so it's not like the media did anything wrong in reporting it in the way they did). Even if a finding doesn't lead to charges, the investigation and conclusions themselves still constitute a worthwhile exercise. Indeed, it's precisely because the allegations against Berejiklian aren't against the law that the commission has played an important role in that case. Not everything that's legal is ethical, and the people we vote for should be accountable to a higher standard of integrity than merely not breaking the law. We can all agree on that, surely?

Given all that we know about the many dodgy things that go on to this day behind closed doors in parliament – from cosy relationships with lobbyists to unreported political donations to pork-barrelling to lucrative post-politics appointments with corporations that their portfolios benefited – it staggers me that anyone would think it a bad thing to give these people a shorter leash. Surely this is one of those rare issues that should be able to unite all of us wherever we sit on the political spectrum.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 4:13 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Where do you draw the line though?

Pork Barrelling? All governments of all flavour, state and federal, give grants and funding for strategic reasons not to the best purpose. Everyone knows that. Should an independent commission be overseeing those decisions?

Post politics appointments? Gladys picked up a job with (I think) Optus on likely near double what she was earning as Premier. Should someone investigate that?

Appointing ex ministers to overseas Ambassadors (or even Governer General) is a clear lurk. What's the selection criteria? Who should it be justified to?

For someone who's not a fan of authority it seems strange you would support that level of micro intervention.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 4:45 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

There's no reason why all of those areas shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. Just because everyone does it right now doesn't make it okay. No matter where you draw the line on what's acceptable, there'll be particularly flagrant instances of cronyism, backroom deals or conflict of interest that need to be exposed. And if it makes everyone else think twice before giving a job to a mate or allocating funds to a safe seat, then all to the good.

I'm not a libertarian who believes that everyone should be able to do what they want; I'm against authoritarianism, which is primarily about the unaccountable rule of the powerful. One of my core beliefs – and hence why I care about the Wikileaks project, among other things – is that governments should be accountable to the people. That's the most basic principle of democracy, ultimately.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 5:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The Governments are accountable to the people, we elect them.

We also have free press who love getting dirt on politicians and holding them accountable.

What do these IBAC or ICAC's do if they investigate and say they don't believe Bob Hawke should have made Bill Hayden Governor General or whoever made the other ex treasurer US Ambassador, or pick something else that might not be morally clean but not illegal, what can or should they be able to do?

You can't give a bunch of bureaucrats power to remove an elected official from public office surely?

You're not giving me compelling reasons to sway to your side here.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 6:01 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, two things here: firstly, I don't believe the NSW ICAC (or any proposed federal ICAC, for that matter) has the power to remove an elected official from public office. I don't know how you got that impression. What they can do is investigate and deliver a ruling that exposes corrupt actions to the public and, in some cases, recommends prosecution. The press can only report what they know, and a strong ICAC can do their own research and force people to answer questions.

Secondly, whatever you or I might think of such practices, I don't necessarily get the impression that diplomatic appointments would be a particular focus. What's most dodgy in this realm is politicians being offered jobs by companies that directly benefited from their portfolio area while they were in office. Look at Alexander Downer's post-politics contracting role for Woodside after having led the Timor-Leste spying operation that worked towards that company's financial interests as a case in point.

The worst possible outcome that I can see from such a commission being established is that it doesn't achieve anything. The best possible outcome is that it sheds light on some corrupt political behaviour and provides an additional motivation for politicians to act ethically. Neither outcome would be any worse than how things are now.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 7:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, but if a possible outcome is prosecution, meaning the behaviour is illegal, it should be referred to the Police.

If it is potentially immoral or unethical, all they can do is shine a light on it.

With Downer, what would there be to investigate? My understanding is that these bodies only have power in the public sector, not private. If Downer established relationships with key suppliers and one of them decided to employ him after he left office, how do you prove wrongdoing and what possible penalty could be imposed and onto whom?

I accept your desire to hold politicians accountable but these ICAC's were designed to investigate public sector not necessarily politicians. FFS Dandrews is being investigated for the 47th time over branch stacking and the Red Shirt stuff. Everyone knows he did it, deliberately, and that nothing will happen. Just an abject waste of public money.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
eddiesmith Taurus

Lets get ready to Rumble


Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Plus Dan gets to be interviewed in confidence, no public shaming for the multiple investigations he is a part of. Then what happens to any of the reports? Given to VicPol who sit on them? Given to the Government who clearly won’t release them?

Only chance we’d ever see them is when Dan gets kicked out of office, the current state government released some cabinet in confidence documents last year from the previous government so I’m sure the Libs would happily repay the favour. But by then what does it do? He’s clearly not getting charged for anything, nor are any members of his government who all broke the law!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 10:18 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well obviously publicly releasing the findings are a crucial step! And it does sound like the set-up here in Victoria is very flawed and allows Andrews to apparently dodge responsibility in the way he has. This is why it's so important to get the proposal right and not accept a watered-down variant like Morrison was proposing.

As for Downer, my response is probably coloured by the fact that I think he should already be in jail over what he did in Timor-Leste. The fact he later landed a job with the company that the government's criminal actions benefited just adds insult to injury. But it would be good if a commission like this could investigate historical corruption too.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Dave The Man Scorpio



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 8:17 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

They all be Corrupt anyway
_________________
I am Da Man
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Warnings : 1 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group