Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[Crankyhawk]

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.

well it shouldn't be, confidentiality in commerical agreements is FARKING BULLSHIT

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

but you would expect (ok I expect) people brough in front of a senate committee to provide answers - witness the shit****ery delivered by the EY reps who refused to answer. I mean at least shoot back at Mckenzie over her own rort issues ffs...

 

[The Punter]

Worth pointing out, the CGA may have agreed to the confidentiality clause as it was the only realistic way for them to get some compensation.

Also, considering their involvement, I wouldn't rule out a third party (the consultants) being the ones who requested the confidentiality clause (probably before the government could or with their approval).

 

[Sttew]

Worth pointing out, the CGA may have agreed to the confidentiality clause as it was the only realistic way for them to get some compensation.

Also, considering their involvement, I wouldn't rule out a third party (the consultants) being the ones who requested the confidentiality clause (probably before the government could or with their approval).

Precisely. Of course CGF agreed to have the gag clause included because the alternative was to be bogged down in a legal fight.

The Government is the ONLY party in this affair to benefit from a non-disclosure clause because it means the Andrews Government can avoid having to disclose anything beyond the settlement figure of $380M to the people whose money is used to get out of the contract.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Precisely. Of course CGF agreed to have the gag clause included because the alternative was to be bogged down in a legal fight.

The Government is the ONLY party in this affair to benefit from a non-disclosure clause because it means the Andrews Government can avoid having to disclose anything beyond the settlement figure of $380M to the people whose money is used to get out of the contract.

maybe if anyone has contacts with say the Anonymous hacking group we (the public) could then get that information?
Yes it is a strange state of affairs when an online group of hackers would have more credibility than mainstream news and political organisations
(or maybe my head is getting cooked)

 

[Chief]

maybe if anyone has contacts with say the Anonymous hacking group we (the public) could then get that information?
Yes it is a strange state of affairs when an online group of hackers would have more credibility than mainstream news and political organisations
(or maybe my head is getting cooked)

Apart from "Anonymous Sudan" being a Russian group...

 

[Carn The Berries]

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.

That isn't true at all. Just because a clause is "standard" in a contract or agreement, it can be amended with the concurrence of both parties.

Would that have been likely/achievable in this scenario? Of course not. There is no way known the government would agree to remove an item that gives them (apparent) plausible deniability (even if CGA suggested removing it or said they didn't think it was necessary).

Can't wait to see what the auditor general has to say. This will be a good test of whether the office actually has any teeth or not.

 

[FredLeDeux]

That isn't true at all. Just because a clause is "standard" in a contract or agreement, it can be amended with the concurrence of both parties.

Would that have been likely/achievable in this scenario? Of course not. There is no way known the government would agree to remove an item that gives them (apparent) plausible deniability (even if CGA suggested removing it or said they didn't think it was necessary).

Can't wait to see what the auditor general has to say. This will be a good test of whether the office actually has any teeth or not.

The likelihood that any party even directed their attention to the existence of this standard clause in the various drafts of the documents is virtually non-existent.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The likelihood that any party even directed their attention to the existence of this standard clause in the various drafts of the documents is virtually non-existent.

I agree. I'm not suggesting that CGA are being misleading when they say they didn't ask for it. All I'm pointing out is that its existence (in standard form, which is likely to be essentially ignored) is very convenient for the government to hide behind.

 

[Number37]

That isn't true at all. Just because a clause is "standard" in a contract or agreement, it can be amended with the concurrence of both parties.

Would that have been likely/achievable in this scenario? Of course not. There is no way known the government would agree to remove an item that gives them (apparent) plausible deniability (even if CGA suggested removing it or said they didn't think it was necessary).

Can't wait to see what the auditor general has to say. This will be a good test of whether the office actually has any teeth or not.

"Dan's got something to hide that's why there is a confidentiality clause" is utter nonsense.
There is a confidentiality clause, whether Dan has something to hide or not, because confidentiality clauses in govt agreements are standard.

You are doing Sttew's trick of 1 + 1 = whatever you want it to be.
It's basic logic that a confidentiality clause is designed to keep things confidential.
The govt and every business I know has confidentiality clauses as standard provisions of any agreement, to, surprise surprise, keep things confidential.

 

[Number37]

but you would expect (ok I expect) people brough in front of a senate committee to provide answers - witness the s**t*ery delivered by the EY reps who refused to answer. I mean at least shoot back at Mckenzie over her own rort issues ffs...

Consider this.... people who tell the truth get into far more trouble than those who "can't recall".
Think whistleblowers, Bernard Collaery, David McBride, Witness K....

 

[Number37]

well it shouldn't be, confidentiality in commerical agreements is FARKING BULLSHIT

Yes and no.
Consider the recent revelations about PWC.
Would you really want PWC to have carte blanche to use confidential information they get in the process of advising govt???
The answer is no.
Under corporations law if a publicly listed company gets a takeover/buyout/merger offer the directors are duty bound to consider that offer...part of that consideration process is the exchange of heaps of confidential information....not all the time does the deal proceed...if you were there party making the offer or the party getting the offer...would you want the other party to have carte blanche use of confidential information you provide in good faith as you are obligated to under corporations law???
The answer is again, no.

 

[Number37]

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

A third party sits outside the four corners of a contract, so not bound by the contractual terms.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yes and no.
Consider the recent revelations about PWC.
Would you really want PWC to have carte blanche to use confidential information they get in the process of advising govt???
The answer is no.
Under corporations law if a publicly listed company gets a takeover/buyout/merger offer the directors are duty bound to consider that offer...part of that consideration process is the exchange of heaps of confidential information....not all the time does the deal proceed...if you were there party making the offer or the party getting the offer...would you want the other party to have carte blanche use of confidential information you provide in good faith as you are obligated to under corporations law???
The answer is again, no.

I meant the confidentiality as far as payments go. I think payments made to and by government should be visible. So I'm also binning non disclosure agreements as far as the damages amounts/ compensation amounts made.

And we saw PWC and the others already break "commercial confidence" when it suits them. So I don't see we actually get any benefit out of it. THe concern seems to be professionally it is unethical to do so, not due to the commercial confiednce aspects. So strengthen the accountant ethical code with real worl (jail and financial) penalties

And when we punish the ****ers, publish the extent of the damages paid.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Consider this.... people who tell the truth get into far more trouble than those who "can't recall".
Think whistleblowers, Bernard Collaery, David McBride, Witness K....

I would penalise those who "can't recall", While being more lenient on those who did recall accurately and to genuine best of ability.
This is to create a culture of understanding that "yes, shit does get ****ed up, let us examine how so we can learn" as opposed to the cover your own ass culture that is in public service.
And (given my strong pro transparency background and views) I am celebrating the whistleblower.

 

[Carn The Berries]

"Dan's got something to hide that's why there is a confidentiality clause" is utter nonsense.
There is a confidentiality clause, whether Dan has something to hide or not, because confidentiality clauses in govt agreements are standard.

You are doing Sttew's trick of 1 + 1 = whatever you want it to be.
It's basic logic that a confidentiality clause is designed to keep things confidential.
The govt and every business I know has confidentiality clauses as standard provisions of any agreement, to, surprise surprise, keep things confidential.

You're arguing against yourself... I've never said "Dan has something to hide, that's why there's a confidentiality clause". I'm merely pointing out that the existence of such a clause is beneficial for Dan, as he can hide behind it and keep things close to his chest.

Your desire to pick a fight here is leading you to find 1 + 1 = Anything other than 2. For avoidance of any doubt.... I'M NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER, SUGGESTED DAN ANDREWS ASKED FOR A CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE TO BE ADDED. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A CLAUSE IS POLITICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS FOR HIM, AS IT CAN BE USED AS A SHIELD.

What I did say was, IF the CGA had have suggested removing it, there is no way known the government would have agreed, for the reasons I have identified above.

 

[kalex6251]

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

 

[Number37]

...NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A CLAUSE IS POLITICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS FOR HIM, AS IT CAN BE USED AS A SHIELD.

The above is 1 + 1 = anything you want it to be.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The above is 1 + 1 = anything you want it to be.

How exactly? Dan is able to say he can't divulge any further information due to confidentiality. I'm not accusing him of being deceptive or misleading, just pointing out that the clause works in his favour in this instance. Do you disagree with that observation?

The above, as you so eloquently put it, is a statement of fact, no more, no less.

 

[Gralin]

It only works in his favor if what would be revealed is worse than what has been presented publicly

Saying it works in his favor is saying there is a guaranteed cover up

 

[Number37]

I would penalise those who "can't recall", While being more lenient on those who did recall accurately and to genuine best of ability.
This is to create a culture of understanding that "yes, s**t does get ****ed up, let us examine how so we can learn" as opposed to the cover your own ass culture that is in public service.
And (given my strong pro transparency background and views) I am celebrating the whistleblower.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to punish people who "can't recall".

Under corporations law the directors of a company owe a duty to shareholders to act in the best interest of shareholders.
A similar duty should be imposed on the public service, ie public service workers owe a duty to the public, to act in the best interests of the public.
In theory (1) that would stop them from bowing to govt pressure (2) it gives them a reason to reject govt pressure to act in a certain way.
Let's say Minster X pressures the Human Services department to implement a scheme to recovery money based on questionable advice, the public servants would be duty bound to act in the best interests of the public and reject the Minister's pressure.
Not acting in the best interests of the public isn't therefore excused by "I can't recall" because "I can't recall" is you failing in your duty to act in the best interests of the public.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to punish people who "can't recall".

Under corporations law the directors of a company owe a duty to shareholders to act in the best interest of shareholders.
A similar duty should be imposed on the public service, ie public service workers owe a duty to the public, to act in the best interests of the public.
In theory (1) that would stop them from bowing to govt pressure (2) it gives them a reason to reject govt pressure to act in a certain way.
Let's say Minster X pressures the Human Services department to implement a scheme to recovery money based on questionable advice, the public servants would be duty bound to act in the best interests of the public and reject the Minister's pressure.
Not acting in the best interests of the public isn't therefore excused by "I can't recall" because "I can't recall" is you failing in your duty to act in the best interests of the public.

Lets start with "can't recall" being immediate termination of employment and ban from working in public service for 5 years.

 

[The Punter]

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to punish people who "can't recall".

Under corporations law the directors of a company owe a duty to shareholders to act in the best interest of shareholders.
A similar duty should be imposed on the public service, ie public service workers owe a duty to the public, to act in the best interests of the public.
In theory (1) that would stop them from bowing to govt pressure (2) it gives them a reason to reject govt pressure to act in a certain way.
Let's say Minster X pressures the Human Services department to implement a scheme to recovery money based on questionable advice, the public servants would be duty bound to act in the best interests of the public and reject the Minister's pressure.
Not acting in the best interests of the public isn't therefore excused by "I can't recall" because "I can't recall" is you failing in your duty to act in the best interests of the public.

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.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

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)

 

[Number37]

How exactly? Dan is able to say he can't divulge any further information due to confidentiality. I'm not accusing him of being deceptive or misleading, just pointing out that the clause works in his favour in this instance. Do you disagree with that observation?

The above, as you so eloquently put it, is a statement of fact, no more, no less.

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.