Fighting corruption in Australia

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well, this just goes to show that both political parties are as bad as each other. The Labor party curtailing a right to protest.. wtf!

 

[nomadpete]

We need somebody 'To keep tha bestids honest'

 

Bring back the Democrats !

[Jerry_Atrick]

Indeed we doo..  Here's a nugget:

 

[willedoo]

The NSW ICAC has released their finding that Gladys indulged in serious corruption. The way I heard it on the radio, they have not recommended any criminal charges be laid. Is that because serious government corruption is not a criminal offence in NSW, or is it a case that by not recommending charges, the ICAC is saying said corruption is ok in their book and doesn't warrant any consequences for the perpetrator.

[willedoo]

I'm just thinking back to the fallout from the Fitzgerald inquiry in our state where two government ministers went to jail for fiddling their travel expenses. What Gladys did is much worse by the sound of it.

[facthunter]

 One slap with a wet lettuce leaf and people everywhere Lauding her for being so good. It's YOUR money they are throwing around Ralph. Plenty of CONTEMPT for the COURT (ICAC). THAT can't be acceptable. This isn't Trumpland.   (or is it?)  Nev

[Marty_d]

From what the expert was saying on RN tonight, ICAC has powers the court doesn't. If you're compelled as a witness you HAVE to answer the questions,  there's no ability to refuse to answer because of self incrimination.

So Gladys had to answer ICAC but if they hauled her into court she's under no obligation to answer the same questions, the evidence she gave ICAC can't be considered,  so no case.

[spacesailor]

" You have to answer the questions " .

BUT

Who's truth will you use ? .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree with Nev; it's a wet lettuce slap. No doubt, Gladys is comfotably esconsed in her new consulting gig. Serious misconduct of a public official demands serious consequences - esp in this age...

 

I would have thought, apart from the compulsion to answer a question, the standards of evidence would be the same as a criminal court. In which case a) evidence in the inquiry should be admissable as evidence in a court of law; and b) it shouldn't be the commissioner that determines a criminal case, but the DPP.

 

Sounds like there are many escape hatches built into this thing.

[old man emu]

Suppose that you separate Government spending into two classes:

1.  Administrative, which is spending for the essentials such a health, education, operation of the legal system, etc.

2. Cultural, which is spending on things such as sport, heritage, the Arts etc.

 

The processes for allocating money to Administrative functions is quite clear-cut and based on well established business principles. The Department Head has a proposed budget drawn up and forwards it to the relevant Minister. The Minister argues the case for a sufficient allocation of money to meet the proposed budget, and Treasury makes an allocation based on the strength of that case. All shipshape and Bristol fashion.

 

However, the process for the allocation of money to cultural matters seems to be somewhat nebulous. This is mainly because apart from the money to operate some permanent cultural infrastructure such as State run museums and closely similar infrastructure, the process for the allocation otherwise seems very uncertain, and being uncertain, it is prone to be used for pork-barreling. Apart from the formality of a applying for those grants, it is pretty well standard practice to engage with the Local Member to request that the Member have a word in the relevant Minister's shell-like ear. Obviously, if your Local Member sits on the Government benches, your chances of getting the grant are much greater, despite the merit of you proposal. That's where the opportunity for pork-barrelling comes in.

 

I was absolutely amazed at the number of different Grants that I learned are available when I was looking into establish a museum about Arthur Butler. You don't get it reported in the city media, but the obtaining of a grants by local groups is regularly reported in the country town newspapers.

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Serious misconduct of a public official demands serious consequences

There is no need to qualify "misconduct" into serious or trivial. Misconduct in all degrees is wrong. A miscreant should be "tried" to determine guilt or otherwise. Once a finding of guilt has been established to the usual standard, then the consequences of the misconduct can be addressed in assessing a penalty, exactly the same as we do for misconduct such as exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Here's a wish...  I wish that Australian governments vied to make Australia number 1 in global anti-corruption lists.

Whichever party was out of power, I would advise them to promise this and accuse the incumbents of being corrupt themselves.

[facthunter]

Morrison did but it never happened. It would have ruined the "Spoils of Office" he loves.  Nev

[onetrack]

Every second politician is corrupt - they work "mates" and "favours" to get picked for their positions, they are constantly scheming on how to distribute grants and funds that guarantees their re-election, and they are always handing out favours to developers and lobbyists.

Look at the number of politicians caught for corruption - then multiply that figure by at least 10 times for the real number of corrupt politicians - because only about 10% of them get caught.

 

Look at the sleazy, obtuse language that Maguire and Berejiklian are using in the tapes. They know they can't use direct, implicating words - so they skirt around the direct words and use all sorts of flowery expressions to try and hide what they're discussing - lots of money for 'ol mate Darryl, and more votes for Gladys. They make me sick.

One time, politicians were looked up to as statesmen and stateswomen, now they're nearly all just scumbags seeking public glory and self-gain, via the huge amounts of taxpayers funds they get to play with.

 

Barilaro is another scheming, self-interested scumbag, and I don't understand why he hasn't faced corruption charges. The comedian that hammered Barilaro and got done for defamation of Barilaro should get his conviction quashed and all his money back. But Barilaro went for the big money source - YouTube - because he knew he could get a handsome payout from an inordinately wealthy U.S. corporation.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Marty's comments show that you can be quite guilty and get off .That's terrible.

How can you refuse to answer questions without the court inferring guilt from this behaviour shows that they ( the courts) are part of the problem. Is this the case in the most non-corrupt country?

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I looked up the figures and got a shock...  Australia gets 75, BELOW Hong Kong at 76 and only just above Uraguay at 74. The least corrupt country is Denmark at 88, which I reckon should be easy to beat.

 

[facthunter]

You'd have to start by getting rid of Merde OCH and Sky. They run the show here. Then there's BIG Clive who tries to buy the election. Gorgeous Gina  who reckons $2 is the right wage per day for workers and has 36 BILLION of wealth herself. Must be hard to get by on that. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'd sure start with making gina pay more tax....  that would be very anti-inflationary too.

[Bruce Tuncks]

We sure have oligarchs too huh

 

[old man emu]

1st July 2023 - The National Anti-Corruption Commission becomes a reality.

 

POWERS:

1. Will be able to investigate Commonwealth ministers, public servants, statutory office holders, government agencies, parliamentarians, and personal staff of politicians
2. Will have the power to investigate Pork barrelling.
3. It will not be able to make a finding of criminality.
4. It will not have the power to sack parliamentarians.

Its logo:             

[Bruce Tuncks]

thx OME...  yes it was a long time coming but it is a move in the right direction...  i wish them well.

 

[red750]

Gina knew she had to share

[facthunter]

Getting money out of Gina is like getting blood out of a stone..  Nev

[old man emu]

Gina got her money out of stone.

[facthunter]

They say.. "It's only dirt before WE dig it up". Nev

[onetrack]

We have our own home-bred robber barons in this totally self-interested mob.

 

The lawyers will be clinking champagne glasses in their offices, and ordering new high-range Beemers and Mercs by the shipload, while this grubby lot fight over their monstrous spoils.