A Federal anti-corruption commission?

Post by **stui magpie** » Fri May 06, 2022 8:06 pm

Have to wonder if Dan's Teflon coating is wearing thin.

Premier Daniel Andrews has reportedly been secretly questioned by anti-corruption investigators over his association with an allegedly corrupt property developer.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 5aj1o.html

Post by **David** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:56 pm

The Victorian investigation hands down its findings:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-20/ ... /101252886

This bit is particularly relevant to the previous discussion in this thread:

The IBAC said while the identified misconduct was considered to be "egregious", the watchdog was hampered by weak laws around parliamentary accountability.

"We criticise a legislative framework that provides few, if any, consequences for abusing public resources and that allows such conduct to continue unchecked," IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich said.

"The difficulties in proof and the state of the law are such that we cannot recommend prosecution."

Mr Redlich said numerous examples of unethical behaviour within the party were put forward at IBAC hearings.

"The evidence, both public and private, painted a compelling picture of jobs on the public purse according to factional loyalties, and widespread misuse of public resources for political purposes," he said.

Post by **stui magpie** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:06 pm

No surprises, pretty much what everyone knew anyway.

Andrews apologises for things he was fully aware off, says he'll implement all the recommendations, and the caravan moves on.

Unfortunately, no one is surprised at this kind of behaviour by politicians, any outrage will quickly die off and normal programming resumes.

eddiesmith · Post by **eddiesmith** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:44 pm

Yet everyone thinks a Federal one would suddenly see widespread charges and people in jail, so naïve.

Post by **Jezza** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:17 pm

No surprises.

Anyone paying attention is aware of the systemic corruption of the Victorian ALP.

Will voters care? Probably not.

What'sinaname · Post by **What'sinaname** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:17 am

but.....but.....but....twice elected Premier of Victoria, the Right Honourable Daniel Andrews......

watt price tully · Post by **watt price tully** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:00 pm

The thread is for a federal ICAC. That should exist.

In terms of the local ((Victorian) version they should all reflect the NSW ICAC which seems to be the gold standard.

In terms of the enquiry details The twice elected Premier of Victoria the Right Honourable Daniel Andrews has accepted responsibility for the behaviour of Somurek and others in the Party of which he is premier. He neither designed the system nor created it. As soon as Somurek was exposed he was effectively booted out. That was leadership. Daniel Andrews has accepted and will implement all of the recommendations; that too is leadership.

Compare and contrast with the former Malevolent Morrison Mug Scotty from Marketing: called the NSW ICAC a “Kangaroo Court” and lied to the Australian people by saying the ICAC enquiry caused Gladys to resign; she resigned because she erred about property development with her ex. Questions needed to be asked. She chose to resign rather than step aside. Morrison the scum avoided leadership and blamed others as well as undermined the judiciary insodoing.

The Libs have branch stacked as well (hello religious conservatives) and also have a history of doing so.

nomadjack · Post by **nomadjack** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:22 pm

Booting Somurek out after he was exposed isn't leadership wpt it's politics. Booting him out for corrupt behaviour because it's corrupt would have been leadership.

watt price tully · Post by **watt price tully** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:30 pm

nomadjack wrote:Booting Somurek out after he was exposed isn't leadership wpt it's politics. Booting him out for corrupt behaviour because it's corrupt would have been leadership.

It’s both: leadership and politics don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But that’s simply one part of the picture.

eddiesmith · Post by **eddiesmith** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:52 pm

Dan also said in his submission when asked about the red shirts scandal he was fully aware it was happening, he was fully aware it was wrong and just did nothing.

Wow, what leadership...

Post by **stui magpie** » Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:06 pm

watt price tully wrote:
nomadjack wrote:Booting Somurek out after he was exposed isn't leadership wpt it's politics. Booting him out for corrupt behaviour because it's corrupt would have been leadership.
It’s both: leadership and politics don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But that’s simply one part of the picture.

We've clearly been on different leadership courses.

swoop42 · Post by **swoop42** » Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:00 pm

What I don't get is if each MP is entitled to x amount of electoral staff and those people are employed by the office of that MP (and don't just come randomly from a pool of public servants) why shouldn't as part of their employment be allowed or expected to be involved in public campaigning for that individual MP and/or party?

I would have imagined that the majority of people employed in an electoral office came to be in that role because their own values line up with the political party that MP represents.

In reality a lot of the allegations against Labor appear to be internal party BS that thankfully has little impact on the function of the wider community.

watt price tully · Post by **watt price tully** » Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:16 pm

swoop42 wrote:What I don't get is if each MP is entitled to x amount of electoral staff and those people are employed by the office of that MP (and don't just come randomly from a pool of public servants) why shouldn't as part of their employment be allowed or expected to be involved in public campaigning for that individual MP and/or party?

I would have imagined that the majority of people employed in an electoral office came to be in that role because their own values line up with the political party that MP represents.

In reality a lot of the allegations against Labor appear to be internal party BS that thankfully has little impact on the function of the wider community.

Pretty much

eddiesmith · Post by **eddiesmith** » Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:33 pm

swoop42 wrote:What I don't get is if each MP is entitled to x amount of electoral staff and those people are employed by the office of that MP (and don't just come randomly from a pool of public servants) why shouldn't as part of their employment be allowed or expected to be involved in public campaigning for that individual MP and/or party?

I would have imagined that the majority of people employed in an electoral office came to be in that role because their own values line up with the political party that MP represents.

In reality a lot of the allegations against Labor appear to be internal party BS that thankfully has little impact on the function of the wider community.

Where the issue lies is they weren’t electoral staff being used to campaign, they were campaign staff falsely employed and paid as electoral staff by the taxpayers just for the duration of the campaign. You can’t use taxpayer funds for your own election campaign, surely everyone would agree on that?

But it just goes to show that how low the bar is now set in Victoria that fraud is perfectly acceptable behaviour by our MPs. Yet the same people who condone this would have been demanding jail time if it happened in Canberra the last 9 years…

Post by **Pies4shaw** » Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:14 am

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-28/ ... /101275052

... Deborah Glass has criticised Victoria Police's handling of its 2018 investigation and said it should apologise to the 17 former Labor staff it arrested in dramatic pre-dawn raids.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

A Federal anti-corruption commission?