Throw partisanship aside - federal icac stat

[Power Raid]

So trying to wedge the perennial wedgers

I would describe it more as reckless.

The greens legislation has no consideration to operational practicalities or scope. It’s just rushed fanfare without a consultation process.

 

[Gough]

I would describe it more as reckless.

The greens legislation has no consideration to operational practicalities or scope. It’s just rushed fanfare without a consultation process.

How so? What are the issues with the Greens version of an ICAC?

 

[Power Raid]

Morrison government announces new federal anti-corruption commission

Scott Morrison announces new Commonwealth Integrity Commission in response to calls for a federal Icac

www.theguardian.com

Is this the one from over a year ago

Scott Morrison will move to establish a federal anti-corruption commission, less than a month after dismissing the proposal as a “fringe issue”.
But the Coalition’s proposed integrity commission will operate outside of public view, with the investigative body to make no public findings, hold no public hearings, and refer any recommendations directly to prosecutors, who will make the ultimate decision on whether or not to go forward with a case.
A former commissioner of the New South Wales independent commission against corruption described the omission of public hearings as “very weak”.

I’d prefer the commissions hearings be private, just as investigations by police are private.

Then hand down a report which again remains private unless there is a public interest test.

In the case the report recommends prosecution, this should then be referred to the courts where public hearings are due process.


An integrity commission should go beyond the law and set professional standards such as reasonable statements, forward looking statements etc just as we have in the corporate world.

These reviews or hearings should not be public witch hunts, rather private reviews to assess if the matter should be escalated. This is exactly how it works in the ASX, ASIC and even board rooms.

 

[EasternTiger]

These reviews or hearings should not be public witch hunts,

That sort of talk will upset many of the progressives here.

 

[Gethelred]

An ICAC certainly wouldn’t save money over the long run.

I'd imagine that'd depend on what you see as saving money. Do you refer to the expense of running the ICAC versus not running the ICAC? Or of running the ICAC in a no-longer-corrupt system, or running a Liberal party 2 terms in stacked by IPA members and underfunded ICAC?

Or do you mean that it can and has removed the levers which stymie knowing which way is up, like oil companies refusing action like carbon taxes and constantly forcing a government's hand into facile measures that make them seem like they're doing something like parliamentary committees, industry reviews, government studies (that used to be done by a fully staffed CSIRO, but can't be so they are done instead by think tanks run and staffed by government adjacent businesses that are frequently owned by Liberal party friends)? Do you mean exposure and replacement of privatised businesses like Paladin running our detention centres with government run enterprises?

There's hidden costs associated with a corrupt society, and those costs amount to a variety of different things; and no, I'm not solely referring to social costs. Bad policy drives the country in the wrong direction, and leaves significant profit and advancement (as well as positioning to take care of the future) to one side.

 

[Gethelred]

That sort of talk will upset many of the progressives here.

You're a ******* idiot.

The question isn't "Do we want an ICAC to find only the Conservatives guilty?". The question is, "Do we want an independent corruption body to glare obsessively at our federal government?"

It isn't a partisan question.

 

[Gethelred]

I’d prefer the commissions hearings be private, just as investigations by police are private.

Then hand down a report which again remains private unless there is a public interest test.

In the case the report recommends prosecution, this should then be referred to the courts where public hearings are due process.


An integrity commission should go beyond the law and set professional standards such as reasonable statements, forward looking statements etc just as we have in the corporate world.

These reviews or hearings should not be public witch hunts, rather private reviews to assess if the matter should be escalated. This is exactly how it works in the ASX, ASIC and even board rooms.

What of transparency concerns?

 

[EasternTiger]

You're a ******* idiot.

The question isn't "Do we want an ICAC to find only the Conservatives guilty?". The question is, "Do we want an independent corruption body to glare obsessively at our federal government?"

It isn't a partisan question.

I agree with the remarks in the article Power Raid posted:

Morrison said the government was seeking to avoid its body being used as a political tool or a “plaything” for those with an agenda.

 

[Gough]

I agree with the remarks in the article Power Raid posted:

Libs have the AFP to do their dirty work.

 

[Gethelred]

I agree with the remarks in the article Power Raid posted:

Which is relevant to the post you made how exactly?

You said:

That sort of talk will upset many of the progressives here.

... which is an implication that you think this is a partisan issue, or at the very least that we want it dragging politicians (of the opposite persuasion) down to gaol in chains.

What I want is a government that doesn't hand out jobs to their mates, doesn't fork out millions in delaying tactics, and doesn't engage in quid pro quo with their political donations.

You want to cheerlead, there's plenty of other threads for it.

 

[EasternTiger]

Which is relevant to the post you made how exactly?

You said:

... which is an implication that you think this is a partisan issue, or at the very least that we want it dragging politicians (of the opposite persuasion) down to gaol in chains.

What I want is a government that doesn't hand out jobs to their mates, doesn't fork out millions in delaying tactics, and doesn't engage in quid pro quo with their political donations.

You want to cheerlead, there's plenty of other threads for it.

You'll get all that, but it will be conducted in an orderly and professional manner.

 

[Gethelred]

You'll get all that, but it will be conducted in an orderly and professional manner.

... which is fine, provided I get that.

I have misgivings that this particular government could set such a thing up, though. The O'Farrel NSW government had the righteous force of attacking their opponents when they set up their ICAC, only to find they'd given the thing enough teeth to undermine his government; Morrison setting this up will not result in an federal ICAC with teeth of any kind.

 

[EasternTiger]

... which is fine, provided I get that.

I have misgivings that this particular government could set such a thing up, though. The O'Farrel NSW government had the righteous force of attacking their opponents when they set up their ICAC, only to find they'd given the thing enough teeth to undermine his government; Morrison setting this up will not result in an federal ICAC with teeth of any kind.

Sometimes you just have to do the best you can with the tools you're given.

I am confident ScoMo will set up a competent and well funded ICAC.

The person I'm most happy for is Gough as he has been calling for this many many years.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I'd imagine that'd depend on what you see as saving money. Do you refer to the expense of running the ICAC versus not running the ICAC? Or of running the ICAC in a no-longer-corrupt system, or running a Liberal party 2 terms in stacked by IPA members and underfunded ICAC?

I was being sarcastic. It would save money.

 

[Bestbird]

I’d prefer the commissions hearings be private, just as investigations by police are private.

Then hand down a report which again remains private unless there is a public interest test.

In the case the report recommends prosecution, this should then be referred to the courts where public hearings are due process.


An integrity commission should go beyond the law and set professional standards such as reasonable statements, forward looking statements etc just as we have in the corporate world.

These reviews or hearings should not be public witch hunts, rather private reviews to assess if the matter should be escalated. This is exactly how it works in the ASX, ASIC and even board rooms.

I can see that point of view but it has to be totally separated from political influence and the results not buried. The sports rorts as an example where the the Gaetjens reports findings weren't published so the result can't be scrutinised.

Also not sure why it has been over a year now that Government announced the Anti Corruption Commission yet nothing has happened yet.

 

[Power Raid]

What of transparency concerns?

Do we have the same concerns with a police investigation (AFP or state), ASIC, RBA, human rights commission, crime and corruption commission etc etc......so much so that we would change safe guards regarding operational confidentiality and due process to turn these organisations into political witch hunts that can be abused by lobby groups and agendas?


An integrity commission should be free to challenge political individuals and organisations (much broader than just government and include anyone making political statements or donations). These challenges and inquiries should be private and escalated to the appropriate authority if appropriate.

Importantly a challenge or inquiry could and should be made without evidence, as often conflicts of interest and integrity is missed in live operational situations. As these are not black and white lines, rather greys that blur and different scenarios lead to different shades of tolerance.

Freedom of information and reviews by internal auditors, crime and corruption watch dog, political enquiries and royal commissions are just some of the controls we have in place as safe guards.

 

[Power Raid]

Libs have the AFP to do their dirty work.

Perhaps and if you’re right should we have bigger government and more centralised power.

Or

Have more Murdoch media keeping integrity with public witch hunts

Or

Have a public meme off

Or

Have sensible safe guards around information, protocols, reporting, oversight etc

 

[Gough]

Have sensible safe guards around information, protocols, reporting, oversight etc

This government has thrown all of them up in the air. As it stands for the next two years they intend to be answerable to nobody as they try to transfer as much of the public purse as they can to their mates.

 

[Gethelred]

I am confident ScoMo will set up a competent and well funded ICAC.

On what basis has Scott Morrison given you any confidence that he could set up anything, let alone something as difficult as an ICAC that toes the line between partisan witch hunt and toothless puppy?

His government is neoconservative to its bones; it features an environmental minister who doesn't believe in climate change, a prime minister who is minister of the public services that cuts funding and jobs from them, a minister for infrastructure that objects to money spent within urban contexts, a minister for agriculture that and drought that allows farms to steal water from the murray-darling, a minister for industrial relations that is openly a member of the IPA, and I could go on. They are directly antagonistic to the idea of government holding responsibility, and they do not see government being larger than merely a military to defend out borders being a good thing.

Then, you've got the entire 'promoted upwards or fired' thing. See, Tony Abbott was a tiger, but he was at the very least a Rhodes Scholar from a school with a good pedigree; he had the intellect (not that he always demonstrated it) and he had the capacity to lead. The very fact that he has been out there, fighting the fires and refusing any press coverage for it, is a testament that while I disagree with him profusely in almost every single way he has within him the capacity to be a leader, and to be good at his job. Malcolm Turnbull is a highly, highly successful businessman, and a very intelligent man; he mightn't have been much as a prime minister, but he at least had the credentials to do the job. Scott Morrison has been fired from every job he has ever held, or he has been promoted out of every area he held direct responsibility. He has, since becoming leader of this country, done absolutely nothing beyond go on holiday and close parliament; his failings are self evident, given the levels of catastrophe that have hit this country over the short time of his primeministership.

Scott Morrison is not good at his job. In fact, he hasn't been good at any of his jobs; he has had sufficient luck to be precisely in the right place at the right time to have avoided his incompetency's fallout.

I ask again: what gives you any confidence that this government - that opposes watchdogs and government that is larger than defense - and this prime minister - who is bad at his job - can set up any anti-corruption body, let alone one that actually accomplishes its task?

 

[Gethelred]

Do we have the same concerns with a police investigation (AFP or state), ASIC, RBA, human rights commission, crime and corruption commission etc etc......

I do. But then, I don't trust government or business further than I can throw them.

 

[EasternTiger]

On what basis has Scott Morrison given you any confidence that he could set up anything, let alone something as difficult as an ICAC that toes the line between partisan witch hunt and toothless puppy?

His government is neoconservative to its bones; it features an environmental minister who doesn't believe in climate change, a prime minister who is minister of the public services that cuts funding and jobs from them, a minister for infrastructure that objects to money spent within urban contexts, a minister for agriculture that and drought that allows farms to steal water from the murray-darling, a minister for industrial relations that is openly a member of the IPA, and I could go on. They are directly antagonistic to the idea of government holding responsibility, and they do not see government being larger than merely a military to defend out borders being a good thing.

Then, you've got the entire 'promoted upwards or fired' thing. See, Tony Abbott was a tiger, but he was at the very least a Rhodes Scholar from a school with a good pedigree; he had the intellect (not that he always demonstrated it) and he had the capacity to lead. The very fact that he has been out there, fighting the fires and refusing any press coverage for it, is a testament that while I disagree with him profusely in almost every single way he has within him the capacity to be a leader, and to be good at his job. Malcolm Turnbull is a highly, highly successful businessman, and a very intelligent man; he mightn't have been much as a prime minister, but he at least had the credentials to do the job. Scott Morrison has been fired from every job he has ever held, or he has been promoted out of every area he held direct responsibility. He has, since becoming leader of this country, done absolutely nothing beyond go on holiday and close parliament; his failings are self evident, given the levels of catastrophe that have hit this country over the short time of his primeministership.

Scott Morrison is not good at his job. In fact, he hasn't been good at any of his jobs; he has had sufficient luck to be precisely in the right place at the right time to have avoided his incompetency's fallout.

I ask again: what gives you any confidence that this government - that opposes watchdogs and government that is larger than defense - and this prime minister - who is bad at his job - can set up any anti-corruption body, let alone one that actually accomplishes its task?

At least wait until the icac is formed and operational before you have another massive sook.

 

[Gethelred]

At least wait until the icac is formed and operational before you have another massive sook.

Perhaps answer a clear question before you consider posting again.

 

[NSWCROW]

I agree with the remarks in the article Power Raid posted:

The agenda of stamping out corruption


You're a s**t s**t joke E.T.



And i got singled out for " tribalism "

 

[EasternTiger]

Perhaps answer a clear question before you consider posting again.

You were ranting like a drunk in a pub.

I suggested, quite reasonably, that you simply wait until the commission is up and running before you criticise how it was put together.

I doubt they are even close to appointing any members.

 

[Gethelred]

You were ranting like a drunk in a pub.

I suggested, quite reasonably, that you simply wait until the commission is up and running before you criticise how it was put together.

I doubt they are even close to appointing any members.

Or, I articulated my doubts and the reasons behind them, and you resumed barracking like it's still 2019. Any chance of you answering my question at any point?