Vic ALP rorted the 2014 Victorian election using taxpayer money

[Thrawn]

No, no, no. Neil Mitchell 3AW's in-house shock jock, has said this is "a genuine political crisis the like of which we have not seen for 50 years"

He also said Jobe Watson should've kept his Brownlow medal.

 

[Pessimistic]

If 400k wins you an election... far out, why bother with all these massive donations? He was going to win it anyway, lets not delude ourselves here.

This. From my casual observances the Libs massively outspent the alp in 2014 election.

Even the suggestion this affair changed the result is fanciful

 

[ChappyUK]

This. From my casual observances the Libs massively outspent the alp in 2014 election.

Even the suggestion this affair changed the result is fanciful

Few are saying that but it's a nice strawman.

 

[Pessimistic]

Few are saying that but it's a nice strawman.

Rorts for votes? There’s a clear suggestion

Even the thread title. Maybe you need to explain to me what straw man means

 

[ChappyUK]

Rorts for votes? There’s a clear suggestion

Even the thread title. Maybe you need to explain to me what straw man means

Thats not a tagline used just by conservative news outlets. Plus few are saying it won them the election. If it directly ted the election the Governer would have to step in.

Its the usual do something shitty then hope you can bury it in beaurocracy until.the next election. Just like the Craig Thomson saga.

 

[Pessimistic]

It’s pretty clear and it’s being run constantly. Why deny it?

 

[ChappyUK]

It’s pretty clear and it’s being run constantly. Why deny it?

Must have mistakenly put my Labour hat on.

 

[tandino]

The scheme was set out to influence voters and help them win the election, otherwise the whole exercise would have no point.

The major parties can look after their own interests, so I don't shed any tears over them. The biggest issue I have is with all those independents and minor parties that ran candidates in those contested seats. They run without the professional party infrastructure and all it's advantages which is fair enough, they are also disadvantaged in regards to election expenditure refunds, which is wrong but at least it's open and transparent.

But putting them up against publically funded campaigners is a step too far. It made those contests less fair then they should have been.

 

[Pessimistic]

The scheme was set out to influence voters and help them win the election, otherwise the whole exercise would have no point.

The major parties can look after their own interests, so I don't shed any tears over them. The biggest issue I have is with all those independents and minor parties that ran candidates in those contested seats. They run without the professional party infrastructure and all it's advantages which is fair enough, they are also disadvantaged in regards to election expenditure refunds, which is wrong but at least it's open and transparent.

But putting them up against publically funded campaigners is a step too far. It made those contests less fair then they should have been.

Independents only take the occasional seat and it usually involves preference deals

The coalition were the only credible opponent and to suggest they were outspent by labour is probably not true. To suggest the election result was changed is a long bow.

It’s not great behaviour by any measure though. But it’s nice to see right wing commentators rediscover their sense of fair play.

Will it be a muck raking election though? if it becomes tit for tat it will end in tears - for Matthew Guy

 

[Maggie5]

Was it wrong ? Yes.
Did it make any difference to the outcome? No.

It would have just meant that they would have spent more of their own money.

 

[TimmeT]

Was it wrong ? Yes.
Did it make any difference to the outcome? No.

It would have just meant that they would have spent more of their own money.

Can you show that it didn't make a difference to the outcome?

 

[Groucho]

Can you show that it didn't make a difference to the outcome?

Opinion poll before the election had Labor leading 54-46. Libs were always losing

 

[Pessimistic]

Can you show that it didn't make a difference to the outcome?

He’s not claiming it did. He’s saying unlikely. Onus is on those saying it did to make the case

 

[HairyO]

Opinion poll before the election had Labor leading 54-46. Libs were always losing

Well that makes crooked behaviour okay.

 

[Benny78]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nts-office-from-his-wife-20171021-gz5jg6.html

Wow for 200k he may as well have just bought it. Who the * pays 200k in rent.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

No we shouldn't look the other way. An independent statutory appointee should investigate, the findings of that investigation should be given effect to, and the funds paid back. Wait a minute - that's what has occurred!

Yeah, nah. After refusing to co-operate with said investigation, fighting tooth and nail to prevent the details of the investigation from being released all the while denying that any funds have been mis-spent, you don't get to pretend that this was a simple mistake and repay the money to make it as if nothing ever happened.

Mr. Lenders clearly knew he was guilty, hence the hasty resignation. It's a shame the architect gets to leave on honorable terms instead of being sacked like he deserved.

Forget the LNP and the Greens, worry about your own backyard first.

 

[Benny78]

What about the 1+ billion Napthine handed over to his mates to ensure they got their promise money regardless of what government won the election?

 

[TimmeT]

What about the 1+ billion Napthine handed over to his mates to ensure they got their promise money regardless of what government won the election?

LOL this is the same organisation the Dan gave exclusive rights to for the Western Distributor yeah? Also the only one who had to pay the money with nothing in return was Dan.

 

[The Delusionist]

If what they did was wrong, then it was wrong. If you're admitting it's wrong, stop trying to justify it or excuse it or say 'whatabout'.

And did it change the election on its own? No. But that is a pretty low standard to say we should just accept it.
What if there are a lot of these events that have taken place, that individually aren't enough to have changed the election? Do we just excuse them all as well?

If your 'team' did something wrong, don't defend them.
If the other 'team' did something wrong, make a thread about it and talk about it there.


That being said, I don't know exactly what's happened.
All I've gathered so far is that people were working part time for the Australian electoral commission, and fulltime for the ALP Vic branch?
The ALP Vic branch didn't pay them a salary because they were being paid by their part time job with the AEC?
Is that along the lines of - someone volunteers for the ALP, and is also paid to count the votes by the AEC?

 

[AM]

Yeah, nah. After refusing to co-operate with said investigation, fighting tooth and nail to prevent the details of the investigation from being released all the while denying that any funds have been mis-spent, you don't get to pretend that this was a simple mistake and repay the money to make it as if nothing ever happened.

Mr. Lenders clearly knew he was guilty, hence the hasty resignation. It's a shame the architect gets to leave on honorable terms instead of being sacked like he deserved.

Forget the LNP and the Greens, worry about your own backyard first.

Yeah, nah. I'm not excusing the behaviour of Labor but an independent investigation has taken place - albeit through clenched teeth - and the recommendations are being acted on. As the Ombudsman said it is a grey area. I know this sort of thing has been going on - and still is - for yonks and the reason the Libs and Greens won't agree to a more widespread inquiry is because they know it too and hope they can escape the odium.

 

[The Punter]

The Ombudsman report clearly states only Labor and the National Party were pooling staff at the time of the rorts.

Also, the electorate officer staff were working for the political party (that is employed) at the same time.

There is clearly some work that needs to be done regarding what electorate office staff can do in Victoria, but it is highly likely that the 2014 "arrangement" would still be contrary to those rules.

The argument "they all do it" not only condones the behaviour, it also isn't true. The Opposition and the Greens will team up again in the Legislative Council to investigate Labor's 2014 program because it is only the Labor Party for which there is probable cause for an investigation.

 

[Frank Bunn]

All money has been repaid therefore time to move on.

This is the equivalent of Steve Smith saying "it's ok, Bancroft hid the sandpaper in his underpants, and we promise not to do it again".

 

[tandino]

All I've gathered so far is that people were working part time for the Australian electoral commission, and fulltime for the ALP Vic branch?
The ALP Vic branch didn't pay them a salary because they were being paid by their part time job with the AEC?
Is that along the lines of - someone volunteers for the ALP, and is also paid to count the votes by the AEC?

They were electorate officers, not electoral officers. They were working part time for the Parliament of Victoria.

 

[HairyO]

As the Ombudsman said it is a grey area.

That was just a massive cop out by someone too gutless to go after a government. Everyone in politics knows how it works. Anyone who even just watches Insiders a couple of times a year knows how it works.

And speaking of, when the entire panel of Insiders thinks Labor got off lightly, then you know they got away with murder.

This is the equivalent of Steve Smith saying "it's ok, Bancroft hid the sandpaper in his underpants, and we promise not to do it again".

After spending a year and $1m stopping any investigation, and finally getting the supposedly independent umpire to acknowledge that ball tampering is a grey area.

 

[AM]

That was just a massive cop out by someone too gutless to go after a government. Everyone in politics knows how it works. Anyone who even just watches Insiders a couple of times a year knows how it works.

And speaking of, when the entire panel of Insiders thinks Labor got off lightly, then you know they got away with murder.



After spending a year and $1m stopping any investigation, and finally getting the supposedly independent umpire to acknowledge that ball tampering is a grey area.

How precisely does it work? Cos both sides of politics agree the issue needs more clarity.