Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[The Punter]

no the public servant should still be able to freely disclose and challenge problematic policy. Because the public servant is not a vote chasing trollop. (another word for a politician)

They can do what they like. But only the elected should govern. The situation provided earlier was a public servant "resisting pressure", otherwise known as not doing as they are asked. They can advise, they can implement. Only the elected should make decisions.

 

[Crankyhawk]

They can do what they like. But only the elected should govern. The situation provided earlier was a public servant "resisting pressure", otherwise known as not doing as they are asked. They can advise, they can implement. Only the elected should make decisions.

If the decisions are not lawful the public servant should not follow the decisions. This is part of why we have separated powers

 

[The Punter]

If the decisions are not lawful the public servant should not follow the decisions. This is part of why we have separated powers

The parliament are the MPs. The executive is the ministry, which in a Westminster system is taken from the parliament.

Also, very rarely do governments act in a way which is obviously and unarguably unlawful. Most of the time they are accused of unlawfulness and are able to mount an argument as to why the action was lawful.

None of which has any real relation to your point about meaningful testimony. However, I feel we wouldn't be here if Ministers just answered questions (rather than merely respond to questions). Andrews is the high water mark in terms of not answering questions.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The statement of fact is there is a confidentiality clause.
Whether it works in his favour (or not) is not a statement of fact, it is an inference.

Did he not rely on said clause to avoid answering questions about it?

I would STRONGLY infer (nay - assert) that this worked to his advantage

 

[Number37]

Say a public servant is faced with an ethical dilemma like the one you have (rather topically) raised.

The issue here is no one elected the public servant. Those who are elected are subject to the accountability of the ballot box. Just ask Daniel Andrews, who has been re-elected twice. So if the public servant is acting independently of what they have been instructed to do by a Minister (who was elected by the people), not only are they now effectively governing (instead of those who were elected), but they are doing so free from accountability to the electorate. We have more inflammatory terms for that.

So while it is nice to suggest public servants should act in the public interest in exactly the same way as company directors act in the interest of shareholders, it's much more problematic because company directors have a form of accountability to shareholders, while public servants don't really have any accountability to the public.

We elect parliamentarians to govern. The solution is electing better parliamentarians.

It is not an ethical dilemma.
There would be a duty owed to the public to act in the best interests of the public.
That means you have to look at proposals as if you looking at the proposal through the eyes of a member of the public.
To meet that duty, you would have to take positive steps. Ask questions, ensure legality etc

A duty on public servants to act in the best interest of the public is consistent with politicians being held to account at the ballot box by the public.
If the Minister attempts to not act in the best interests of the public, the duty of the public service would be to prevent the Minister from doing so.
It would be a fiduciary duty. ie one that can't be ignored.
For example: Many occupations now place duties on employees to report things like child abuse, where there is no choice, an employee has to report child abuse.

 

[Number37]

Did he not rely on said clause to avoid answering questions about it?

I would STRONGLY infer (nay - assert) that this worked to his advantage

There isn't anything wrong with making the inference. It is a logical inference. But it is an inference, not a fact.


Did he rely on said clause to avoid answering questions or does said clause prevent disclosure?
Said clause prevents disclosure.
Whether someone asks a question, or not, the clause prevents disclosure.

 

[The Punter]

It is not an ethical dilemma.
There would be a duty owed to the public to act in the best interests of the public.
That means you have to look at proposals as if you looking at the proposal through the eyes of a member of the public.
To meet that duty, you would have to take positive steps. Ask questions, ensure legality etc

A duty on public servants to act in the best interest of the public is consistent with politicians being held to account at the ballot box by the public.
If the Minister attempts to not act in the best interests of the public, the duty of the public service would be to prevent the Minister from doing so.
It would be a fiduciary duty. ie one that can't be ignored.
For example: Many occupations now place duties on employees to report things like child abuse, where there is no choice, an employee has to report child abuse.

Who decides what is not in the best interests of the public, and through what means?

 

[Not Important]

If the decisions are not lawful the public servant should not follow the decisions. This is part of why we have separated powers

ah, the old days when public servants weren't political appointments. the public service as we knew it has been decimated. there needs to be an urgent re-ordering. less consultants and a public service that provides frank and fearless advice.

 

[Number37]

Who decides what is not in the best interests of the public, and through what means?

1/ The starting point would be the law.
Law = legislation.
Parliament votes on legislation.... for a public servant to be pressured into subverting legislation/law at the behest of a member of parliament would be a most egregious offence.

2/ Most govt departments use guides
e.g the social security guide
Using the Social Security Guide | Social Security Guide

3/ Use existing decisions as precedent to form a broad framework of what the duty would/could entail.
Public law (law that governs interactions between govt and people) is actionable in court, most often in the AAT.
You can argue merits review or procedural review.
Merits = where the law wasn't followed. Procedural = where the procedure wasn't followed/is questionable.
You get to argue things like procedural fairness/natural justice.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The parliament are the MPs. The executive is the ministry, which in a Westminster system is taken from the parliament.

Also, very rarely do governments act in a way which is obviously and unarguably unlawful. Most of the time they are accused of unlawfulness and are able to mount an argument as to why the action was lawful.

None of which has any real relation to your point about meaningful testimony. However, I feel we wouldn't be here if Ministers just answered questions (rather than merely respond to questions). Andrews is the high water mark in terms of not answering questions.

Which gets back to my “oh you don’t recall you are sacked plan”

 

[The Punter]

1/ The starting point would be the law.
Law = legislation.
Parliament votes on legislation.... for a public servant to be pressured into subverting legislation/law at the behest of a member of parliament would be a most egregious offence.

2/ Most govt departments use guides
e.g the social security guide
Using the Social Security Guide | Social Security Guide

3/ Use existing decisions as precedent to form a broad framework of what the duty would/could entail.
Public law (law that governs interactions between govt and people) is actionable in court, most often in the AAT.
You can argue merits review or procedural review.
Merits = where the law wasn't followed. Procedural = where the procedure wasn't followed/is questionable.
You get to argue things like procedural fairness/natural justice.

So...

1 - elected officials (assuming a definition of the public interest is included in the law)
2 - unelected public servants (or Ministers assuming they approve guides)
3 - judges

If the Ministers approve the guides and appoint the judges, then you have no problem with me.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Who decides what is not in the best interests of the public, and through what means?

Leak it to the public so they can decide? Transparency baby!

 

[Carn The Berries]

There isn't anything wrong with making the inference. It is a logical inference. But it is an inference, not a fact.


Did he rely on said clause to avoid answering questions or does said clause prevent disclosure?
Said clause prevents disclosure.
Whether someone asks a question, or not, the clause prevents disclosure.

You're being deliberately obtuse, but that's ok, I'll keep asking the question.

The question you posed isn't an either/or proposition. The clause prevents disclosure. Dan was able to fall back on this position as a reason not to disclose. Shutting down the questioning was advantageous to him as it helped stymie debate/discussion about a politically tricky situation for him.

Once again, do you disagree with this proposition? If so, why? If not, you're being obtuse and trying to pick a fight where there isn't one, for reasons that I am unsure of.

 

[peetoo]

herald $cum reporting influential conservative powerbroker has been expelled from the state lib party (think the guy is a big wig within the morman church - happy to be corrected)

is the penny finally dropping?

[edit] and this happened lol

If there’s one trait right through media it’s a very healthy regard for their own worth and opinions. I suppose they get ‘freed up” otherwise

 

[eddiesmith]

It is not an ethical dilemma.
There would be a duty owed to the public to act in the best interests of the public.
That means you have to look at proposals as if you looking at the proposal through the eyes of a member of the public.
To meet that duty, you would have to take positive steps. Ask questions, ensure legality etc

A duty on public servants to act in the best interest of the public is consistent with politicians being held to account at the ballot box by the public.
If the Minister attempts to not act in the best interests of the public, the duty of the public service would be to prevent the Minister from doing so.
It would be a fiduciary duty. ie one that can't be ignored.
For example: Many occupations now place duties on employees to report things like child abuse, where there is no choice, an employee has to report child abuse.

If you want to see what happens when members of the public service act in the best interests of the public and the organisations they run in direct conflict to the Premiers personal interests, just look at the long line of ex CFA and MFB chief officers, CEOs and board members that were all sacked for doing their job.

The government then employs people who will do their bidding, signs the contracts and those people move on.

 

[tandino]

Is the defence to the clause that it's commercial in confidence, or that "It just happened to be in there as normal unfortunately so our hands are tied sorry"?

 

[Xtreme]

Dan's about as trust worthy as a car salesperson!

Not too sure who would win in a popularity contest between he and Alan Joyce right now

 

[Number37]

You're being deliberately obtuse, but that's ok, I'll keep asking the question.

The question you posed isn't an either/or proposition. The clause prevents disclosure. Dan was able to fall back on this position as a reason not to disclose. Shutting down the questioning was advantageous to him as it helped stymie debate/discussion about a politically tricky situation for him.

Once again, do you disagree with this proposition? If so, why? If not, you're being obtuse and trying to pick a fight where there isn't one, for reasons that I am unsure of.

Ok. Sure.
The confidentiality clause was a Dan trick to avoid a politically tricky situation.

 

[kalex6251]

newscorp journos openly cheering for a civil war in the victorian libs is a wonder to behold .... was battins embarrassing dance with Qooker conspiracies last weekend a calculated effort to gain their backing ..... would appear pesuttos date with destiny is fast approaching

[edit] hasnt been a great week for pesutto must be said - just lost his biggest abc melbourne cheerleader following triollis resignation

 

[adogsfan5]

newscorp journos openly cheering for a civil war in the victorian libs is a wonder to behold .... was battins embarrassing dance with Qooker conspiracies last weekend a calculated effort to gain their backing ..... would appear pesuttos date with destiny is fast approaching

[edit] hasnt been a great week for pesutto must be said - just lost his biggest abc melbourne cheerleader following triollis resignation

You’re in the wrong thread.. again.

Give this one a go for your attention seeking rants:

The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

I know that it's very popular to write off partys after huge election defeats like the one we've just seen in Victoria and the one is inevitably coming at federal level but there seems to be a real existential crisis within the Libs at the moment with both factions refusing to concede any ground...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Romeoh1]

newscorp journos openly cheering for a civil war in the victorian libs is a wonder to behold .... was battins embarrassing dance with Qooker conspiracies last weekend a calculated effort to gain their backing ..... would appear pesuttos date with destiny is fast approaching

[edit] hasnt been a great week for pesutto must be said - just lost his biggest abc melbourne cheerleader following triollis resignation

Heard pesutto on raf Epstein last night- he’s not very good-he was going for sure and righteous but just sounded a bit desperate. Dan might have a few issues but pesutto isn’t up to it.

 

[Sttew]

Back on thread topic. Ambulance Victoria, a government authority, clearly does not believe Dan’s spin about there being no threat to power supplies in Victoria this Summer.

Buying For Victoria

www.tenders.vic.gov.au

Ambulance Victoria will spend $580,000 on power generators in anticipation of outages.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Back on thread topic. Ambulance Victoria, a government authority, clearly does not believe Dan’s spin about there being no threat to power supplies in Victoria this Summer.

Buying For Victoria

www.tenders.vic.gov.au

Ambulance Victoria will spend $580,000 on power generators in anticipation of outages.

I’d expect there normally is some expense on generators (would be interesting to compare year on year budget)

 

[Sttew]

I’d expect there normally is some expense on generators (would be interesting to compare year on year budget)

Maybe, but the tender specifically refers to power outages.

We got a letter from our electricity provider this week asking if anyone in the house relies on electrically powered life support equipment (including CPAP sleep machines).

 

[Crankyhawk]

Maybe, but the tender specifically refers to power outages.

This could also be a usual tender each year (for outages)