Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[Sttew]

I'm not suggesting anything.
I am stating that there was no adverse findings against Dan Andrews in the Operation Daintree report.
The OD report says that people from the Health Ministers office and people from the Premiers office pushed for the union to get the contract.
That's it.

Under the IBAC legislation, there was no corruption.
What Redlich is saying is that there was corruption if corruption had a different definition to what is in the IBAC Act.

But let's not let facts get in the way.
Dictator Dan.

You are 100% saying a significant erosion of ministerial accountability is not a problem. If you can't accept or recognise there is more to corruption than committing a crime, then that's on you.

Redlich has highlighted the fact that Victoria's IBAC legislation is the weakest in the country, notwithstanding promises by Dan to rectify that deficiency. The fact that IBAC still has no replacement for Redlich after 8 months tells you what Dan thinks of upholding public interest.

Dan claims the IBAC report "is an educational report, not a report delivered because wrongdoing was found."

Griffith University professor A.J. Brown, an integrity expert and board member of Transparency International Australia, backed what former IBAC Commissioner has said, i.e., this was a “serious mischaracterisation” of the report. “It is beyond the limits of acceptable spin,” he told The Age. “That is a very incorrect interpretation of this report. Plenty of wrongdoing is found."

The ONLY people dismissing the IBAC findings as irrelevant are Dan and you.

Let me repeat what Robert Redlich said:

“Operation Daintree is the most glaring example of (failing to serve public interest). We found no crime was committed. But we found serious misconduct at every level. That’s corruption.”

‘Beyond the realms of acceptable spin’: Integrity experts slam Andrews for downplaying IBAC report

The premier’s claim that Operation Daintree uncovered no wrongdoing is simply wrong, leading integrity experts say.

www.theage.com.au

 

[peetoo]

Entire suburbs to be bulldozed. Millions displaced. Will people be given sufficient notice to evacuate? How many will perish under the bulldozer's blade? How has this Opposition been unable to win an election?

Some big questions.

Sounds like where Surry park would be massively decimated being used as storage for union station. They used a small part of it so minor impact. Not according to the above though

 

[The Punter]

Look, we need a lot of housing construction as well as a way of ensuring it is affordable and gets to people who need it rather than hoarders.

But the added benefit for Andrews is this the sort of wedge he is fantastic at. Libs in well-established suburbs (like Newbury as quoted above) will instinctively react against the proposal while others leading the YIMBY charge will think any political move needs to be the other way.

 

[Kwality]

When NEL and WGTP and MetroTunnel open over the next couple of years (longer for NEL), they'll bathe in that last glory, but the rest will be downhill from there.

The SRL might be decades ...

Most of us remember Governments that did nothing & they have been rejected at the polls because Dan was 'doing things'.

Just as Kennett did things when he inherited the 'rust bucket State' & is vilified by the other mob, Dans legacy may be the completed infrastructure unless the pain of the cost being repaid sees him go the way of John Cain.

 

[Blue Arrow]

Avoid this show sheeple of Victoria, you might stop blindly believing in Leader Dan and his BS.

 

[jannissary]

Entire suburbs to be bulldozed. Millions displaced. Will people be given sufficient notice to evacuate? How many will perish under the bulldozer's blade? How has this Opposition been unable to win an election?

Some big questions.

i hope they start with LNP-supporting suburbs, as well as blights like brighton and toorak

 

[Rob R]

Entire suburbs to be bulldozed. Millions displaced. Will people be given sufficient notice to evacuate? How many will perish under the bulldozer's blade? How has this Opposition been unable to win an election?

Some big questions.

Will they bother to build infrastructure, relocate jobs away from the city to where people live or is this just another attempt by Dan to use stamp duty to cover his economic mismanagement.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Saint]

Will they bother to build infrastructure, relocate jobs away from the city to where people live or is this just another attempt by Dan to use stamp duty to cover his economic mismanagement.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The problem is that we'll never know until it happens, because James Newbury has cried wolf so many times that you can't take what he's saying seriously.

The centralisation of all this control to essentially the Premier's office is now getting ridiculous, but we need somebody with credibility to oppose it.

Thankfully the Greens are actually huge NIMBY-ers and won't rubber stamp this in the upper-house.

 

[kalex6251]

mr newburys campaign against public housing in the brighton area says all you need to know about james attitude to housing (a campaign that received strong vocal support from the likes of mrs judd and her hangers-on it should be noted)

 

[Bombermania]

Newbury's anti-public housing campaign was snobbery, but the problem with Brighton is the high cost of land and competition from cashed up buyers.

 

[tandino]

Secrecy over cabinet documents hampering investigations, Victorian ombudsman says

Outgoing watchdog chief Deborah Glass tells parliamentary hearing its funding should not be ‘at the mercy of the government of the day’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sttew]

Secrecy over cabinet documents hampering investigations, Victorian ombudsman says

Outgoing watchdog chief Deborah Glass tells parliamentary hearing its funding should not be ‘at the mercy of the government of the day’

www.theguardian.com

Yet another example of the Andrews government's utter contempt for the people of Victoria

 

[peetoo]

Will they bother to build infrastructure, relocate jobs away from the city to where people live or is this just another attempt by Dan to use stamp duty to cover his economic mismanagement.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Stamp duty largely funding infrastructure? Not much wrong with that if there has to be stamp duty

 

[Rob R]

Stamp duty largely funding infrastructure? Not much wrong with that if there has to be stamp duty

Trouble is the infrastructure turns up too late and there is never enough of it in the right spots. Always lots of money for senior bureaucrats, pollies junkets and more media advisors though

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Saint]

Yet another example of the Victorian Parliament's utter contempt for the people of Victoria

Fixed it for you

The rules in Vic Parliament and cabinet have been bi-partisan for decades, mostly aimed at keeping minor parties in their place.

Kennett abused it as much as Andrews is, it's just that Andrews has a team doing it, Kennett just had a couple of people barking orders (mostly himself).

 

[Number37]

You are 100% saying a significant erosion of ministerial accountability is not a problem. If you can't accept or recognise there is more to corruption than committing a crime, then that's on you.

Redlich has highlighted the fact that Victoria's IBAC legislation is the weakest in the country, notwithstanding promises by Dan to rectify that deficiency. The fact that IBAC still has no replacement for Redlich after 8 months tells you what Dan thinks of upholding public interest.

Dan claims the IBAC report "is an educational report, not a report delivered because wrongdoing was found."

Griffith University professor A.J. Brown, an integrity expert and board member of Transparency International Australia, backed what former IBAC Commissioner has said, i.e., this was a “serious mischaracterisation” of the report. “It is beyond the limits of acceptable spin,” he told The Age. “That is a very incorrect interpretation of this report. Plenty of wrongdoing is found."

The ONLY people dismissing the IBAC findings as irrelevant are Dan and you.

Let me repeat what Robert Redlich said:

“Operation Daintree is the most glaring example of (failing to serve public interest). We found no crime was committed. But we found serious misconduct at every level. That’s corruption.”

‘Beyond the realms of acceptable spin’: Integrity experts slam Andrews for downplaying IBAC report

The premier’s claim that Operation Daintree uncovered no wrongdoing is simply wrong, leading integrity experts say.

www.theage.com.au

You're just making it up Stew.
There has been no adverse findings against Dan.
Even if we apply Redlich's suggested changes to the definition of corruption, it wouldn't be Dan being found to be corrupt, it would be the Ministerial advisor.

You can keep moving the goal posts, but no matter where you move them, it won't change the fact that there were no adverse findings against Dan.
I never dismissed IBAC's findings, you are the one who has completely ignored the IBAC findings and instead gone on a yet another wild unsubstantiated rant about Dan.

Let's stick to the facts eh?
The facts are there for all to see in the Operation Daintree Report.

 

[Sttew]

You're just making it up Stew.
There has been no adverse findings against Dan.
Even if we apply Redlich's suggested changes to the definition of corruption, it wouldn't be Dan being found to be corrupt, it would be the Ministerial advisor.

You can keep moving the goal posts, but no matter where you move them, it won't change the fact that there were no adverse findings against Dan.
I never dismissed IBAC's findings, you are the one who has completely ignored the IBAC findings and instead gone on a yet another wild unsubstantiated rant about Dan.

Let's stick to the facts eh?
The facts are there for all to see in the Operation Daintree Report.

Whatever. LOL. I will put my money on what the man who ran the inquiry says and not some anonymous blowhard who can’t see the wood for the trees. Everyday

It’s a real pity and sad that you don’t know what corruption is.

Retired Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles — who sits on the board of the Centre for Public Integrity — said the reason IBAC stopped short of a finding of corruption was because it was limited by Victorian legislation. Nowhere else in Australia will you find such a narrow definition.

"The definition of corruption in the IBAC legislation requires that the conduct in question also constitute a relevant offence, so it has to involve criminal conduct as well as conduct which is objectionable," he said.

He said the government needed to urgently overhaul the laws governing the IBAC, to bring its definition of corruption in line with that used by Transparency International, which is "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".

This is a very serious finding … it reflects very seriously on this government and its attitude to matters of integrity," he said.

Integrity experts urge swift action to rein in 'grey corruption' in Victoria

Integrity experts urge the Andrews government to act swiftly to tackle the risk of "grey corruption" by political staffers, after a damning report by the state's anti-corruption watchdog.

www.abc.net.au

 

[The Punter]

The initial quote from the report that Number37 quoted said there has been an erosion in Ministerial responsibility.

Now look up the dictionary definition of adverse.

It's a delightful piece of rhetorical gymnastics being undertaken by those who feel compelled to defend the Premier and his government regardless of their actual behaviour.

 

[Gough]

The problem for the Vic Libs is that post Covid they've become like the little boy who cried wolf. Having spent the entire lockdown period accusing Andrews of being everything under the sun when genuine considerations come for discussion it's hard to take their input seriously.

 

[The Punter]

The problem for the Vic Libs is that post Covid they've become like the little boy who cried wolf. Having spent the entire lockdown period accusing Andrews of being everything under the sun when genuine considerations come for discussion it's hard to take their input seriously.

Your point is well taken, but as some stage you have to stop swinging at every pitch and I think that has started to happen. And JP is getting flack from his right flank inside the party for not "taking the fight to Labor" because of it.

 

[Saint]

Your point is well taken, but as some stage you have to stop swinging at every pitch and I think that has started to happen. And JP is getting flack from his right flank inside the party for not "taking the fight to Labor" because of it.

I think a good element of it is that the backbenchers are throwing up stuff that doesn't need to be swung at so often that, as a team, they sound silly.

I feel for Andrews' ministers. They're all being dictated to from the Premier's office. So when it hits the fan, it's the Minister's responsibility, but the decisions have all come from the Premier's advisors (office).

It's not great, but if the buck doesn't stop with the minister, it definitely stops with the Premier. From a political stand-point, I don't think "all these ministers are probably corrupt, but not the Premier" is an election-winning strategy, except that the opposition and media have made it all about Andrews.

If they hadn't made it all about Andrews, but instead pointed out how many ministerial failings there had been, they might be doing better and have more attacks ready to go. Attack the Ministers and their policies, not just Andrews personally.

 

[Sttew]

The problem for the Vic Libs is that post Covid they've become like the little boy who cried wolf. Having spent the entire lockdown period accusing Andrews of being everything under the sun when genuine considerations come for discussion it's hard to take their input seriously.

But in this instance its not the Vic Libs crying wolf. It's Robert Redlich, a Labor appointee as Commissioner of IBAC. Its also Deborah Glass, the Victorian Ombudsman.

 

[The Punter]

I think a good element of it is that the backbenchers are throwing up stuff that doesn't need to be swung at so often that, as a team, they sound silly.

I feel for Andrews' ministers. They're all being dictated to from the Premier's office. So when it hits the fan, it's the Minister's responsibility, but the decisions have all come from the Premier's advisors (office).

It's not great, but if the buck doesn't stop with the minister, it definitely stops with the Premier. From a political stand-point, I don't think "all these ministers are probably corrupt, but not the Premier" is an election-winning strategy, except that the opposition and media have made it all about Andrews.

If they hadn't made it all about Andrews, but instead pointed out how many ministerial failings there had been, they might be doing better and have more attacks ready to go. Attack the Ministers and their policies, not just Andrews personally.

I think going after Ministers is a political strategy with a limited scope for electoral success. Most people don't know who Ministers are. So to a certain extent, it has to be about the leader because the leader is the personification of the team in most people's minds. So you end up with "why can't Andrews build a successful Ministry?"

Also, somewhat understandably, the Premier wants to control things because he knows his bench is very thin. Pearson, Stitt, Tierney, Kilkenny, Blandthorn, D'Ambrosio, Dimopolous, Horne and Spence are not good enough to be Ministers, Hutchins just had her legs cut out from under her with the independent schools by Pallas and Andrews over payroll tax (it was totally not her decision), and Carbines and Erdogan are pretty green around the edges. A lot of talent walked out the door before the last election and has not been replaced satisfactorily. So more and more stuff gets run out of a small group of people Andrews can trust.

 

[Saint]

I think going after Ministers is a political strategy with a limited scope for electoral success. Most people don't know who Ministers are. So to a certain extent, it has to be about the leader because the leader is the personification of the team in most people's minds. So you end up with "why can't Andrews build a successful Ministry?"

Also, somewhat understandably, the Premier wants to control things because he knows his bench is very thin. Pearson, Stitt, Tierney, Kilkenny, Blandthorn, D'Ambrosio, Dimopolous, Horne and Spence are not good enough to be Ministers, Hutchins just had her legs cut out from under her with the independent schools by Pallas and Andrews over payroll tax (it was totally not her decision), and Carbines and Erdogan are pretty green around the edges. A lot of talent walked out the door before the last election and has not been replaced satisfactorily. So more and more stuff gets run out of a small group of people Andrews can trust.

So Cabinet is a weak point, but they're going to continue to bang their heads on the same door they've been banging for a decade?

Problem would also be that the Liberal front bench is as weak, or weaker, so not really a strength for the Libs to play off.

I reckon going after Pallas and one other would help make it look like the Libs were actually thinking and not just yelling "dictator Dan" every day.

With the irony being that Andrews' dictatorial control of Cabinet/Govt is a big problem, but the term "Dictator Dan" was over-used during the pandemic to the point of it becoming meaningless.

Election is years away, 3 more years of "Dan this, Dan that" will be only more tiresome. Maybe 3 years of policy discussions would be good before going back to electoral populism. (Perhaps this would be easier if the Liberal leader wasn't under internal threat every other week).

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I think going after Ministers is a political strategy with a limited scope for electoral success. Most people don't know who Ministers are. So to a certain extent, it has to be about the leader because the leader is the personification of the team in most people's minds. So you end up with "why can't Andrews build a successful Ministry?"

Also, somewhat understandably, the Premier wants to control things because he knows his bench is very thin. Pearson, Stitt, Tierney, Kilkenny, Blandthorn, D'Ambrosio, Dimopolous, Horne and Spence are not good enough to be Ministers, Hutchins just had her legs cut out from under her with the independent schools by Pallas and Andrews over payroll tax (it was totally not her decision), and Carbines and Erdogan are pretty green around the edges. A lot of talent walked out the door before the last election and has not been replaced satisfactorily. So more and more stuff gets run out of a small group of people Andrews can trust.

They should probably come up with some policies instead of just going after everyone and opposing everything.