Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[Sttew]

1/ The contract has all the terms Sttew, including the terms of any exit clauses.
2/ You can't unilaterally add terms to a contract years/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds after the contract has been signed.
3/ Let's for arguments sake say there was a new contract, the CG people say they didn't need a confidentiality clause. Which again leaves us with not being allowed to unilaterally add clauses to a contract...unless
4/ The clue is in the "standard form".
5/ Your powers of deduction should lead you to conclude that the 'standard form provision' was in the contract.
6/ Do you really think any govt would not have a confidentiality 'standard form provision' in contracts they enter to????
7/ The answer is, no govt would ever sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause. 99.9999% of businesses would not sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause.

You've seen the contract, I assume?

We are talking about a settlement release. A Deed of Release relating to the terms of settlement, signed by both parties. This was negotiated separate to the contract. That’s why Dan sent a team of lawyers to London, remember? The Deed of Release is a stand alone document any day of the week.

What Dan was on about in the piece I quoted was a typical red herring that fooled you. Confusing two separate legal documents.

Nice try but no cigar

 

[Caj]

Dirty Dan heading the way of Joan Kirner and running the state into the ground

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[TheEscapeClub]

1/ The contract has all the terms Sttew, including the terms of any exit clauses.
2/ You can't unilaterally add terms to a contract years/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds after the contract has been signed.
3/ Let's for arguments sake say there was a new contract, the CG people say they didn't need a confidentiality clause. Which again leaves us with not being allowed to unilaterally add clauses to a contract...unless
4/ The clue is in the "standard form".
5/ Your powers of deduction should lead you to conclude that the 'standard form provision' was in the contract.
6/ Do you really think any govt would not have a confidentiality 'standard form provision' in contracts they enter to????
7/ The answer is, no govt would ever sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause. 99.9999% of businesses would not sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause.

If the game were going ahead yes, but they're not,. It's our money.

 

[peetoo]

We should start a thread ‘Victorian publications more relevant than the herald sun’

 

[The Punter]

I choose to recognise the posters history and intent as opposed to pretending each post happens in a vacuum of neutrality but you do you

I would humbly suggest this is not the most appropriate view for a mod to hold.

We should start a thread ‘Victorian publications more relevant than the herald sun’

Excellent idea. Then you can move all the stuff about the H-Sun there, and we can continue discussing the performance of the Premier here.

 

[Gralin]

I would humbly suggest this is not the most appropriate view for a mod to hold.

I don't really care.
Posting does not happen in a vacuum and some posters do not deserve the benefit of the doubt based on their own past actions on here

 

[The Punter]

I don't really care.

I know.

 

[Gralin]

I know.

Posting does not happen in a vacuum and some posters do not deserve the benefit of the doubt based on their own past actions on here

 

[MarcMaverick]

history is fair, intent is an interpretation which may not be
it is easier to take the neutral stance I find

I think on that merit you'd make a fine mod. Unfortunately I am not TPTB on BF.

 

[Number37]

You've seen the contract, I assume?

We are talking about a settlement release. A Deed of Release relating to the terms of settlement, signed by both parties. This was negotiated separate to the contract. That’s why Dan sent a team of lawyers to London, remember? The Deed of Release is a stand alone document any day of the week.

What Dan was on about in the piece I quoted was a typical red herring that fooled you. Confusing two separate legal documents.

Nice try but no cigar

Which part of 'standard form provision' do you not understand?
The CG people say they didn't want or need a confidentiality clause, what they didn't say is that they didn't agree to a confidentiality clause.
They must have agreed to it, if they didn't agree to it, they are not bound by the confidentiality clause. If they're not bound by the confidentiality clause they could release the details.
Basic logic tells you that they agreed to the confidentiality clause.

Have another go.

 

[Gralin]

history is fair, intent is an interpretation which may not be
it is easier to take the neutral stance I find

yes its much easier to take a neutral stance to everything and argue nothing is really bad, not pick a side on an issue

no risk there, of course funnily enough this most commonly ends with the "neutral" person defending the conservative position on any given issue if push comes to shove

 

[kalex6251]

reports vic libs have called an emergency meeting to discuss latest defamation lawsuit from posie parker (or whatever her name is)

top of discussion is whether vic libs will indemnify those named in the lawsuit ...... just in time for ms werner to declare her hand - and reveal what kind of 'new dawn' actually awaits pesutto

 

[jannissary]

reports vic libs have called an emergency meeting to discuss latest defamation lawsuit from posie parker (or whatever her name is)

top of discussion is whether vic libs will indemnify those named in the lawsuit ...... just in time for ms werner to declare her hand - and reveal what kind of 'new dawn' actually awaits pesutto

funny to think about how the person who’s events constantly attracts the support of neo nazis gets branded one.

i wonder why!

 

[Carn The Berries]

1/ The contract has all the terms Sttew, including the terms of any exit clauses.
2/ You can't unilaterally add terms to a contract years/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds after the contract has been signed.
3/ Let's for arguments sake say there was a new contract, the CG people say they didn't need a confidentiality clause. Which again leaves us with not being allowed to unilaterally add clauses to a contract...unless
4/ The clue is in the "standard form".
5/ Your powers of deduction should lead you to conclude that the 'standard form provision' was in the contract.
6/ Do you really think any govt would not have a confidentiality 'standard form provision' in contracts they enter to????
7/ The answer is, no govt would ever sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause. 99.9999% of businesses would not sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause.

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that this was a standard clause that was in the template contract/Deed/MoU/etc (it's a fair assumption, the majority of commercial contracts would have something like this in place). The mere existence of something, which provides a convenient excuse for the government not to divulge any further information, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be there.

The scepticism around all of this and questioning of whether confidentiality is needed, is entirely appropriate. It goes to the heart of transparency in the way public funds are used.

Ditto with the EY report. The Government used this as their "get out" clause. The full costing should be made available so that the constituency can draw their own conclusions about the validity of the assumptions. I've worked with and for enough Big 4 partners to not be willing to accept their diligence and accuracy out of hand.

 

[Sttew]

Which part of 'standard form provision' do you not understand?
The CG people say they didn't want or need a confidentiality clause, what they didn't say is that they didn't agree to a confidentiality clause.
They must have agreed to it, if they didn't agree to it, they are not bound by the confidentiality clause. If they're not bound by the confidentiality clause they could release the details.
Basic logic tells you that they agreed to the confidentiality clause.

Have another go.

Mate you are the confused one here. Big time too. You're clearly not a lawyer but pretending to know it all. The original Contract is immaterial to the confidentiality clause in the Deed of Release. You seem to think they are one and the same?

CGA say they did not request or require a confidentiality or non disclosure clause in the Release. Why would they? The figure of $380M is the figure. So it can ONLY have been the Andrews Government who wanted the clause, and for obvious reasons.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Mate you are the confused one here. Big time too. You're clearly not a lawyer but pretending to know it all. The original Contract is immaterial to the confidentiality clause in the Deed of Release. You seem to think they are one and the same?

CGA say they did not request or require a confidentiality or non disclosure clause in the Release. Why would they? The figure of $380M is the figure. So it can ONLY have been the Andrews Government who wanted the clause, and for obvious reasons.

Not necessarily. While I disagree with most of what #37 is saying, these clauses are pretty standard in almost every legal document these days (particularly where governments are involved).

It could quite conceivably be the case that neither side requested it to be put in. That's not to say that they didn't know it was there prior to signing (or in the case of the government, wanted it there).

 

[Gralin]

They pretty much stick them on everything these days so you can't tell the difference between something they want to hide and something they don't

This goes for corporate and government and its done to limit transparency

Whether there is something bad hidden here or not is kind of irrelevant, the practice is a the bigger issue because it stops us from knowing all the time

 

[Sttew]

Not necessarily. While I disagree with most of what #37 is saying, these clauses are pretty standard in almost every legal document these days (particularly where governments are involved).

It could quite conceivably be the case that neither side requested it to be put in. That's not to say that they didn't know it was there prior to signing (or in the case of the government, wanted it there).

I know it is common in Contracts, but I draft releases on a weekly basis and a confidentiality clause is only inserted if it is needed or specifically requested. For something so basic as "You will pay $380M as an exit penalty" the mind boggles why either party would want a confidentiality clause, particularly when it is not the government's money. Whose commercial interests are you protecting? (Rhetorical question).

Non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses are pretty much add-ins to your standard Deed of Release

 

[tandino]

The Government and the CGF can't release each other from the clause in the contract?

 

[Number37]

Mate you are the confused one here. Big time too. You're clearly not a lawyer but pretending to know it all. The original Contract is immaterial to the confidentiality clause in the Deed of Release. You seem to think they are one and the same?

CGA say they did not request or require a confidentiality or non disclosure clause in the Release. Why would they? The figure of $380M is the figure. So it can ONLY have been the Andrews Government who wanted the clause, and for obvious reasons.

Mate. You are talking rubbish.

If there is a confidentiality clause, wherever it is, the CGA agreed to it.
They've agreed to a negotiated confidentiality clause OR
They' are bound by the terms of their contract ie one of the terms of their contract is confidentiality.
A standard form provision is one where they would have no choice but to accept that provision...like when you sign up to Bigfooty, you agree to certain terms, you have no choice but to agree, if you don't agree then you are prevented from signing up.

A standard form provision is called a standard form provision because it is standard in every contract. Again, like the terms of Bigfooty, every user agrees to the same terms ie the terms are standard for every Bigfooty member.

You carrying on like the confidentiality clause is some big revelation and evidence of Dan's dastardly ways is just laughable.
Like all the other nonsense you try to pin on Dan, it is nothing more than you joining random dots.

Surely your ilk would have come up with something a little more concrete than a conspiracy about the reasons for a confidentiality clause.
The fact that you haven't produced anything other than joining random dots is telling.
You've got nothing on Dan.
Stop pretending that you do.
These random dot joining exercises you love to partake in don't prove anything, other than you are still having a sook about getting locked down.
Get on with your life. Lockdowns are done, being bitter about lockdowns for this long isn't healthy.

 

[Number37]

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that this was a standard clause that was in the template contract/Deed/MoU/etc (it's a fair assumption, the majority of commercial contracts would have something like this in place). The mere existence of something, which provides a convenient excuse for the government not to divulge any further information, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be there.

The scepticism around all of this and questioning of whether confidentiality is needed, is entirely appropriate. It goes to the heart of transparency in the way public funds are used.

Ditto with the EY report. The Government used this as their "get out" clause. The full costing should be made available so that the constituency can draw their own conclusions about the validity of the assumptions. I've worked with and for enough Big 4 partners to not be willing to accept their diligence and accuracy out of hand.

We don't need to assume.
Dan said is was a 'standard form provision'.
Which is consistent with what the CGA said, that they didn't want or need a confidentiality clause, but obviously they had no choice but to agree to it...because it is a standard provision.

The noise about the confidentiality clause is just the anti-Dan brigade getting their knickers in a knot, again, about a nothing.

Instead of listening to the cookers, how about we see what the Auditor General has to say.

Withdrawal from Commonwealth Games 2026 | Victorian Auditor-General's Office

What we plan to examine​

In this reasonable assurance performance audit, we will provide transparency on the costs associated with the state’s involvement in the Games and the quality of relevant advice to government.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I think on that merit you'd make a fine mod. Unfortunately I am not TPTB on BF.

i would not have the time and I have quite a temper too...

 

[Crankyhawk]

yes its much easier to take a neutral stance to everything and argue nothing is really bad, not pick a side on an issue

no risk there, of course funnily enough this most commonly ends with the "neutral" person defending the conservative position on any given issue if push comes to shove

neutral as in not building up a portfolio of perceived and documented histories on posters in general that then colors my responses. Becuase I dont have time to really memorise it
sure I will let recent posts color things (should see some of the fights I have had on the Ukraine thread, or the COVID threads)
but in something like the issue specifically the @SStew was using - transparency - I have always been in favor of tranparency - to the extent that I would aim to obliterate commerical in confidence and "cabinet confidence" because I think that there is really little true national security that our enemies havent already got (because of paid agents in the parilament)

 

[Number37]

neutral as in not building up a portfolio of perceived and documented histories on posters in general that then colors my responses. Becuase I dont have time to really memorise it
sure I will let recent posts color things (should see some of the fights I have had on the Ukraine thread, or the COVID threads)
but in something like the issue specifically the @SStew was using - transparency - I have always been in favor of tranparency - to the extent that I would aim to obliterate commerical in confidence and "cabinet confidence" because I think that there is really little true national security that our enemies havent already got (because of paid agents in the parilament)

If Sttew was making an issue out of transparency then he would be asking why is confidentiality a standard form provision rather than why is there confidentiality in this specific instance.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Mate. You are talking rubbish.

If there is a confidentiality clause, wherever it is, the CGA agreed to it.
They've agreed to a negotiated confidentiality clause OR
They' are bound by the terms of their contract ie one of the terms of their contract is confidentiality.
A standard form provision is one where they would have no choice but to accept that provision...like when you sign up to Bigfooty, you agree to certain terms, you have no choice but to agree, if you don't agree then you are prevented from signing up.

A standard form provision is called a standard form provision because it is standard in every contract. Again, like the terms of Bigfooty, every user agrees to the same terms ie the terms are standard for every Bigfooty member.

You carrying on like the confidentiality clause is some big revelation and evidence of Dan's dastardly ways is just laughable.
Like all the other nonsense you try to pin on Dan, it is nothing more than you joining random dots.

Surely your ilk would have come up with something a little more concrete than a conspiracy about the reasons for a confidentiality clause.
The fact that you haven't produced anything other than joining random dots is telling.
You've got nothing on Dan.
Stop pretending that you do.
These random dot joining exercises you love to partake in don't prove anything, other than you are still having a sook about getting locked down.
Get on with your life. Lockdowns are done, being bitter about lockdowns for this long isn't healthy.

if a third party (say a hacker) managed to get a copy of the agreement and published it are they bound by the confidentiality clause or would there be no penalty

becuasae maybe that's whats needed, some white hat hackers to rip open some of this confidentiality BS