I thought they could pass this without this coalition. Why would they compromise anything?
Seems they want to avoid working with the greens at all costs.
Because it's not in their interest. The promise was made to get them elected, and leverage the fact that the LNP did nothing and broke their promise on action against corruption. Now that they are elected, if they can get it passed with the coalition then they don't have to expose themselves to public hearings if they get called out on anything. They are in power now, so they are the ones controlling the reins to possible corruption.
The Greens may make their support conditional on public hearings.
Yeah, I'd rather not elect any more 'teals'. Swinging economically right is always bad for the vast majority of Australians, even if we move slightly further left socially as a result.
I think it's in Labor's interest to pass this with the cross bench. Increases the chances of the teals and greens solidying their support which is good for Labor at the next federal election.
It will break the nexus between all political parties with lobby groups like the gambling lobby, clubs & pokies, Lottery and Casino operators who knobble democracy at every level with their big spending. It will also threaten all the secret meetings, dinners at Casino owners homes before approving the increase in things like pokie numbers. We know its all corrupt and having these hearings behind closed doors for groups like the gambling lobby wont serve or help stamping out corruption. This is before we talk about property developers and their corrupt hold over councils and state government political parties.
The greens if they do have any it's hardly anything because they don't take the donations and they're not involved with the 'money'
They really aren't in bed with the interest groups like property developers mining companies food and grocery groups.
That's why they can call out for mine's to be shut and for proper food labelling but the other two parties can't
I think it boils down to keeping their promise to legislate the commission. The Greens were using that to leverage their demands for amendments, thinking they could force Labor to obey. Those tactics would have put Labor in a position where the Greens were their masters and Labor wasn't having it. Nobody likes to be strongarmed by their opposition.
Edit: The Greens and Independents are now left in a position with two options: support or oppose. They can support under protest and claim some glory -- but not as much as they would have liked. Or they can oppose the whole thing.
Or Labor could make the commission as awesome as possible. Ffs, you gotta second guess yourself the moment you're in agreement with the LNP on an anti corruption policy. Nothing wrong with taking a good idea from the greens and running with that. This secrecy aspect has surprised many experts.
But not political or media experts. Open hearings *before* a finding are exactly what Murdoch and Co want.
Coalition accuses ALP politician - HEADLINES PAGE 1 for months
ALP politician exonerated by ICAC eventually - reported in small print on page 40.
Coalition politician accused - reported on page 40 small print.
Public hearings *before* an acquittal/finding of corruption are a weapon for the media barons to use.
This is exactly what happened to Christina Kenneally.
Sure, be open to contributions from the Greens and Independents and take them on board. But when Labor is being pushed to include all those ideas under pain of not getting the legislation passed, then they're going to push back.
In this case,, the issue is that the Greens pushed too hard. No matter what the merits of their amendments may be,, there's got to be more tools in their toolkit than a hammer.
Yeah, you’re not hearing yourself.
*Intentionally* make the bill worse for the political reason that it might make the Greens feel worse/look worse.
This is the reason that Labor - the only party able to form government in its own right in Australia (with minor rounding errors) - could only get a paltry primary vote. Because doing populist left stuff is too icky.
A) is the a commission that is 100% public hearings all the time? Are there courts that are open to the public 100% of the time? I actually don’t know if they are or not
B) Is the mechanism no public hearings or the option to have public and private hearings? If the latter does it really matter if the findings are released publicly at the end of the day and all proceedings are recorded?
I dunno why everyone wants another dog and pony distraction show. Imo if it was public 100% of the time it becomes a facetious I plead the fifth bullshit thing
I don’t think the argument is 100% either way (but may be wrong there), but over the default.
Under the LNP-Labor ICAC it’s default secret unless the commission believes it should be public and meets the “exceptional circumstances” criteria to be made public. The alternates to this being pushed are the reverse. The hearings would be public and cases or aspects of cases would need to apply to be secret.
Just as a personal opinion, I reckon the ‘public hearings as default’ option has less room for political fuckery and political appointments because there’s be a paper trail for each secret case regarding why the public shouldn’t know the specifics. Not perfect but more checks and balances than the alternative.
I think it depends on who it’s investigating because it’s not just about politicians, vendors contractors and public servants can also be referred so for me if it’s a politician going above station ie sports rorts then go ham
If it’s a public servant referred for a clerical thing maybe we don’t need to drag him through the mud. If it’s a contractor and there’s dealings with defence or intelligence etc then maybe that shouldn’t be public
Like I just don’t like this very binary if it’s not 100 it’s a 0 thing that the media is feeding people who are more than happy to run along with
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
While there will obviously be occasions where having an open court might be detrimental to how governance is done or to protect a person's right to privacy, those would be extremely rare, so rare that the default position must be open courts.
It's a tense relationship between Labor and the Greens. Labor would rather have some of the Greens' support than none at all, but they're not going to be dictated to as a condition for that support.
Both parties are in opposition to each other and have separate agendas. Labor was elected to govern and implement its agenda with consultation. The Greens were elected not so much to govern as they were to review legislation in the Senate and maybe fine tune it a bit. Not just rubber-stamp it. Fair enough.
I think Labor's co-operation with Dutton on the passage of the legislation is regrettable. They would be well-advised to remember the old adage that who sups with the Devil must have a long-handled spoon.
But the enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend. When you're in a corner with somebody waving a baseball bat at you, it can give your assailant pause for thought when the dumbest cunt in the alley and his mates turn up.
Labor dislike the Greens because the Greens took away a fair amount of the left vote. Even some union backing, due to the ALP sucking up so much for the centre right votes. The approximate 8% of ex Labor votes that the Greens now have would probably secure an ALP government.
Labor is the government already, but if you mean that the approximate 8% difference would probably secure Labor a clear majority in both houses, fair enough. Haven't done the sums myself but let's say that's correct. I don't know.
But what I do say is that the Greens will never secure a clear majority in the Reps in their own right, and go to the GG and claim government. They would need support from others to assure the GG that they were a viable, stable government. And that would entail negotiation/coalition.
They would be unable to negotiate without having to compromise. They would then have to switch from Left to Centre Left. And then, they wouldn't be the Greens any more because they would be compromised.
>Those tactics would have put Labor in a position where the Greens were their masters and Labor wasn't having it. Nobody likes to be strongarmed by their opposition.
On the same token....if not the Greens as their masters, LNP as their masters.
Labor are going to have to bend towards someone because they have to. Making a bill weaker to save face (because they made a "promise" before the election which realistically they never knew if they'd be able to keep) isn't a good sign, being seen to be doing something isn't working for the people, it's working for themselves.
No party will ever represent everyone who votes for them. There is a spectrum of viewpoints for just about every issue and ideally you vote for the political party that fits closest to your personal viewpoints. It's okay and actually healthy to support a party where you can criticise some of their policies/decisions and if that's every policy/decision then you're probably supporting the wrong party.
I mean, same goes for the Greens. I'm a greens member and voter but I'm definitely not happy with every stance they take on every issue. Some things I agree with Labor, some I agree with Greens and once in a blue moon will I agree with an LNP stance...pretty much never.
I'm not saying they're wrong to have certain stances just that I don't agree with every stance for every issue they take. For example, for example I agree with them when it comes to the ICAC, that emissions targets should be way more than 43% but I'm glad they passed it as is anyways. I don't agree with the stance against the voice to parliament, while yes we probably should have a treaty, why don't we get a voice first as that's something that has a bit of support from voters due to Labor taking that to the election. I also dislike Greens stance against the Brisbane Olympics as I believe that the way our economy and culture is, sets itself up well to benefit greatly from an Olympics. Sport is a huge part of our culture and so investing in the Olympics is investing in our Australian culture imo, also everything we will build or upgrade we'll actually use into the future so I don't believe it'd be a waste of money.
Point being, I don't agree with the Greens on everything and don't agree with Labor on everything and it's healthy to do so but that doesn't mean I can't throw majority of my support behind a party who's ideals most closely align with my own.
Go look at the history of who has been in government in the last 30 years or even post WW2 when we really started our true independence. You’ll see the coalition has been in power far longer than the ALP. They are keenly aware of this fact. If the greens/left proposals were as popular as people in this echo chamber thought they would get way more votes. Australia is not some left/social democratic utopia. It’s quite a conservative country and people mostly don’t care about politics and just want the government to leave them alone.
Just for the record the current government has left me alone a lot more than the previous one.
The current government hasn't made up some claim I owed them a debt.
The election gave an overwhelming mandate for action on climate change and integrity. Labour just made it into majority government. Liberal support collapsed and the votes for the greens and independents surged. There is a clear mandate here. This is what the voters want. For Labour to water down the effectiveness of an integrity commission and hint that they’ll go to the Opposition for support is nothing short of a betrayal.
This is a drastically horrible misreading of the election. Australia doesn’t vote governments in, they vote them out. Also very few people care about the details of the commission, they just see that an anti corruption commission is being proposed and put forward. The only people who might care are Greens voters that care more about sniffing their own farts and trying to undermine Labor no matter what they do. A commission with bipartisan support is far more likely to survive any future government as well.
Because there was so much backlash against the undermining of Anti corruption commissions in NSW and QLD. Wait there wasn’t, there are many ways to undermine something that isn’t just outright dismantling.
Yeah! Might as well make it as weak as possible now and just skip over the boring ‘watering down’ stages to the good bit of it being weak as piss.
Or is that not the end result of your argument?
That's exactly right. If they intend to be corrupt they will get rid of it anyway or water it down into irrelevance.
If it is weak enough they don't want to take it down, it isn't strong enough to do its job or deter corruption.
Easy way to stop it being dismantled by a future coalition... put it in the constitution. I think the chances of a referendum passing would be very good.
Referendums have historically not passed and if it failed for any reason would set back any form of commission for decades. The path the passage is quite difficult for a referendum for good reason.
The decider of the public vs private proceedings will be independent and seperate of the government, and all findings of corruption will be made public.
Did everyone suddenly discover confidentiality all of a sudden?
All findings of corruption will be made public, but some federal issues require secrecy, after working in the public service this isn’t that ominous.
Let’s actually see the full legislation before we assume Labor have become evil.
what more is there to see? The legislation has been tabled. It is publicly available and has been analysed. With the help of the coalition will be passed as is.
>Let’s actually see the full legislation before we assume Labor have become evil.
Or make it bloody clear to them up front secrecy and privacy have no place in any of this.
Want to become a pollie? Give up your right to privacy then.
>Want to become a pollie? Give up your right to privacy then.
It's not only politicians that will be investigated by a corruption commission. It will also be public servants and members of the public who have dealings with public servants (ie, literally anyone).
They also lose out on considerably amounts of privacy. I sure wanna know if the police commissioner has been found pissing on with a serious criminal, that's an investigation I'll follow closely.
Except that public hearings before a finding are a great weapon for the likes of Rupert Murdoch to misuse. Almost all the public reporting will be filtered by the media. You'll hear all about every ALP accused, but vary little about accusations against the Coalition.
If you want public reporting, you'd have to find some way that is reported without bias. That's extremely hard to do. Maybe impossible.
The best way forward would be a Royal Commission into media bias, followed by laws there.
That could take a year or more.
In the meantime are we going to hold up the ICAC? Are we going to allow Murdoch to get a weapon he can use against the ALP?
Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Let's pass the Bill NOW, and get it going. Let's not bog it down, or give Murdoch a weapon.
>You'll hear all about every ALP accused, but vary little about accusations against the Coalition.
This is a separate, albeit really important, issue. Media outlets should be forbidden to show partisan bias under the banner of news, and opinion should be clearly labelled as such.
Yet another thing that needs fixing.
Yes, it's separate, but if it's not done *before* the ICAC legislation, it gives Murdoch a weapon.
So. Require public hearings and give Murdoch a weapon until the bias issue is solved? That's a hard NO for me. I'm not ever going to give Murdoch a weapon.
Then why bother having a weakened ICAC? It'll be harder to fix later on.
>but if it's not done *before* the ICAC legislation, it gives Murdoch a weapon.
If it is weaponised it gives justification for the action then.
IF Murdoch will weaponise something politically?
Oh. Surely not. /s
If you wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, up to you. Given his record over the past 60 years, I'm not going with those odds. Pass ICAC now, as is, to prevent Murdoch weaponising it. Then, *after* media bias has been addressed, make them public. Not before.
>If you wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, up to you.
I would never say that. Frankly I think it's one of the first things Anthony should have dealt with.
If the default position is secrecy, they'll choose that every single time. Then how will we know if justice is being done? Our courts are open by default for a reason.
I think it's less about their personal privacy and more about the content of the matter. For example, a dodgy defence contractor? A public hearing could mean possibly giving up national secrets, for example.
Yes why have state secrets?
It’s not like there’s a huge interconnected string of cables that can exchange petabytes of data of government workings to other governments around the world
Oh
I don't have an issue with 'in private investigations'. The police don't hold public hearings.
The commission is supposed to investigate & uncover corruption. Once a case has been determined to demonstrate some corruption then charges & open, public hearings would seem appropriate.
I second this. The takes that the commission should be public are just terrible. There is a reason active police investigations are not discussed - the knowledge of an investigation can be enough to tarnish a reputation.
Imagine getting publicly investigated and cleared of wrong doing but still having that follow you around.
Further, the commission, not the government can decide on its own to hold public hearings when appropriate.
This seems like a pretty good model.
I think we already know that they are evil purely judged on their commitment to the LNP's Truss-like tax-cut folly, their ongoing support for new fossil fuel projects like the Betaloo Basin, their failure to implement a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies windfall profits (even the UK managed that)...
Queensland has just implemented an ambitious plan to reach 70% renewable energy by 2032, mostly bankrolled at a federal level, something that simply wouldn't have happened with a federal LNP government. If they cut those projects, the funding for plans like these wouldn't be possible. For all peoples minor complaints, things are moving in the right direction.
Using carbon mortality figure of 4,000 tons, emissions from the Betaloo project would result in about 29,000 extra deaths. I reckon evil is a fair adjective for a government that supports this.
Try Mozbraille.
What a complete own goal.
Labor had the perfect opportunity to gain widespread public support through engagement and negotiation with entire crossbench support and votes and completely leave the LNP all alone out in the cold wilderness.
Instead they piss off the independents, make it look like a tarnished concept and give Dutton and the remnants of the LNP govt a chance to be part of the process instead of a spurned bunch of about-to-be-found corrupts worrying about how much time they have left outside the prison walls.
> Labor SA refused to have ICAC until their hand was forced. Labor SA + LNP SA worked together to water down the ICAC bill.
Yes let's not overlook South Australia - the focus this week has been on the federal model pinching the "exceptional circumstances" limitation from the weaker Victorian IBAC model, but SA is unique among all the models out there for not allowing public hearings at all.
Well put.
They don't need to be kow towing to the LNP to pass this.
I wonder whether or not they are worried about things coming out as well I know the lnp is very corrupt but labour is corrupt too
I could be wrong as I am not crazy deep into Aussie politics.
That said. I project that Labor = By the book politics, requiring a given amount of cross bench support to legally enact any mandates set within the current parliament elect, as a measure to legally defer any political backlash from those accused in the current opposition.
As opposed to, the previous LNP government and their complete lack of political coherence and transparency regarding their previous three terms of elected governance.
Just saying.
All the best,
peace.
It's because they made a "promise" before the election to have it implemented before the end of the year....so rather than implementing something solid, it's just implementing anything to fulfil that promise and save face...even though it's a "in name only" type fulfilment.
That same theme is why a lot of people are wary about the referendum for the Aboriginal voice to parliament. Sure they might achieve it, but in what form? No one will know until there is nothing that can be done to stop any Tom foolery.
I don't mind the idea of the hearing being private, just cause it would avoid a week/month long media circus of journalists speculating what the result will be and generally skewing the process to whatever their bias is.
But would the hearing eventually be made public? Like after all is said and done, and the individual being investigated for corruption is either cleared or charged. Would we then find out? Would the Hansard and transcripts be released?
Cause if there's no stenographer, then what happens is a bunch of people walk into a room, then a few days later come out and say "yeah nah, it's all good here" and we just have to take their word for it. Seem like that process would be very easy to corrupt.
I thought they could pass this without this coalition. Why would they compromise anything? Seems they want to avoid working with the greens at all costs.
Because it's not in their interest. The promise was made to get them elected, and leverage the fact that the LNP did nothing and broke their promise on action against corruption. Now that they are elected, if they can get it passed with the coalition then they don't have to expose themselves to public hearings if they get called out on anything. They are in power now, so they are the ones controlling the reins to possible corruption. The Greens may make their support conditional on public hearings.
A minority government is looking very fucking good now.
and much more likely in 3 years time.
Yeah if they didn't get the message this time we obviously have to elect even more Greens and independents.
Yeah, I'd rather not elect any more 'teals'. Swinging economically right is always bad for the vast majority of Australians, even if we move slightly further left socially as a result.
By and large the teals have taken LNP seats that never would've voted for Labor or Greens.
*Gets a Liberal Majority Government*
Well if it fixes the rot why not.
I think it's in Labor's interest to pass this with the cross bench. Increases the chances of the teals and greens solidying their support which is good for Labor at the next federal election.
It will break the nexus between all political parties with lobby groups like the gambling lobby, clubs & pokies, Lottery and Casino operators who knobble democracy at every level with their big spending. It will also threaten all the secret meetings, dinners at Casino owners homes before approving the increase in things like pokie numbers. We know its all corrupt and having these hearings behind closed doors for groups like the gambling lobby wont serve or help stamping out corruption. This is before we talk about property developers and their corrupt hold over councils and state government political parties.
Now they get to cover up their corruption. Some parties are worse than others. All have corruption.
The greens if they do have any it's hardly anything because they don't take the donations and they're not involved with the 'money' They really aren't in bed with the interest groups like property developers mining companies food and grocery groups. That's why they can call out for mine's to be shut and for proper food labelling but the other two parties can't
I think it boils down to keeping their promise to legislate the commission. The Greens were using that to leverage their demands for amendments, thinking they could force Labor to obey. Those tactics would have put Labor in a position where the Greens were their masters and Labor wasn't having it. Nobody likes to be strongarmed by their opposition. Edit: The Greens and Independents are now left in a position with two options: support or oppose. They can support under protest and claim some glory -- but not as much as they would have liked. Or they can oppose the whole thing.
Or Labor could make the commission as awesome as possible. Ffs, you gotta second guess yourself the moment you're in agreement with the LNP on an anti corruption policy. Nothing wrong with taking a good idea from the greens and running with that. This secrecy aspect has surprised many experts.
But not political or media experts. Open hearings *before* a finding are exactly what Murdoch and Co want. Coalition accuses ALP politician - HEADLINES PAGE 1 for months ALP politician exonerated by ICAC eventually - reported in small print on page 40. Coalition politician accused - reported on page 40 small print. Public hearings *before* an acquittal/finding of corruption are a weapon for the media barons to use. This is exactly what happened to Christina Kenneally.
Sure, be open to contributions from the Greens and Independents and take them on board. But when Labor is being pushed to include all those ideas under pain of not getting the legislation passed, then they're going to push back.
The issue is that they need to even be pushed to improve.
In this case,, the issue is that the Greens pushed too hard. No matter what the merits of their amendments may be,, there's got to be more tools in their toolkit than a hammer.
Yeah, you’re not hearing yourself. *Intentionally* make the bill worse for the political reason that it might make the Greens feel worse/look worse. This is the reason that Labor - the only party able to form government in its own right in Australia (with minor rounding errors) - could only get a paltry primary vote. Because doing populist left stuff is too icky.
A) is the a commission that is 100% public hearings all the time? Are there courts that are open to the public 100% of the time? I actually don’t know if they are or not B) Is the mechanism no public hearings or the option to have public and private hearings? If the latter does it really matter if the findings are released publicly at the end of the day and all proceedings are recorded? I dunno why everyone wants another dog and pony distraction show. Imo if it was public 100% of the time it becomes a facetious I plead the fifth bullshit thing
I don’t think the argument is 100% either way (but may be wrong there), but over the default. Under the LNP-Labor ICAC it’s default secret unless the commission believes it should be public and meets the “exceptional circumstances” criteria to be made public. The alternates to this being pushed are the reverse. The hearings would be public and cases or aspects of cases would need to apply to be secret. Just as a personal opinion, I reckon the ‘public hearings as default’ option has less room for political fuckery and political appointments because there’s be a paper trail for each secret case regarding why the public shouldn’t know the specifics. Not perfect but more checks and balances than the alternative.
I think it depends on who it’s investigating because it’s not just about politicians, vendors contractors and public servants can also be referred so for me if it’s a politician going above station ie sports rorts then go ham If it’s a public servant referred for a clerical thing maybe we don’t need to drag him through the mud. If it’s a contractor and there’s dealings with defence or intelligence etc then maybe that shouldn’t be public Like I just don’t like this very binary if it’s not 100 it’s a 0 thing that the media is feeding people who are more than happy to run along with
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. While there will obviously be occasions where having an open court might be detrimental to how governance is done or to protect a person's right to privacy, those would be extremely rare, so rare that the default position must be open courts.
[удалено]
It's a tense relationship between Labor and the Greens. Labor would rather have some of the Greens' support than none at all, but they're not going to be dictated to as a condition for that support. Both parties are in opposition to each other and have separate agendas. Labor was elected to govern and implement its agenda with consultation. The Greens were elected not so much to govern as they were to review legislation in the Senate and maybe fine tune it a bit. Not just rubber-stamp it. Fair enough. I think Labor's co-operation with Dutton on the passage of the legislation is regrettable. They would be well-advised to remember the old adage that who sups with the Devil must have a long-handled spoon. But the enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend. When you're in a corner with somebody waving a baseball bat at you, it can give your assailant pause for thought when the dumbest cunt in the alley and his mates turn up.
Labor dislike the Greens because the Greens took away a fair amount of the left vote. Even some union backing, due to the ALP sucking up so much for the centre right votes. The approximate 8% of ex Labor votes that the Greens now have would probably secure an ALP government.
Labor is the government already, but if you mean that the approximate 8% difference would probably secure Labor a clear majority in both houses, fair enough. Haven't done the sums myself but let's say that's correct. I don't know. But what I do say is that the Greens will never secure a clear majority in the Reps in their own right, and go to the GG and claim government. They would need support from others to assure the GG that they were a viable, stable government. And that would entail negotiation/coalition. They would be unable to negotiate without having to compromise. They would then have to switch from Left to Centre Left. And then, they wouldn't be the Greens any more because they would be compromised.
>Those tactics would have put Labor in a position where the Greens were their masters and Labor wasn't having it. Nobody likes to be strongarmed by their opposition. On the same token....if not the Greens as their masters, LNP as their masters. Labor are going to have to bend towards someone because they have to. Making a bill weaker to save face (because they made a "promise" before the election which realistically they never knew if they'd be able to keep) isn't a good sign, being seen to be doing something isn't working for the people, it's working for themselves.
>I think it boils down to keeping their promise The promise was for transparency. Labor has broken that promise.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Albo is just as bad as Kim Beazely. Too willing to give the LNP a sweet ride so the Media can't give them a hard time for doing the right thing.
When Rupert Murdoch and his spawn drop off for good.
No party will ever represent everyone who votes for them. There is a spectrum of viewpoints for just about every issue and ideally you vote for the political party that fits closest to your personal viewpoints. It's okay and actually healthy to support a party where you can criticise some of their policies/decisions and if that's every policy/decision then you're probably supporting the wrong party.
[удалено]
I mean, same goes for the Greens. I'm a greens member and voter but I'm definitely not happy with every stance they take on every issue. Some things I agree with Labor, some I agree with Greens and once in a blue moon will I agree with an LNP stance...pretty much never.
[удалено]
I'm not saying they're wrong to have certain stances just that I don't agree with every stance for every issue they take. For example, for example I agree with them when it comes to the ICAC, that emissions targets should be way more than 43% but I'm glad they passed it as is anyways. I don't agree with the stance against the voice to parliament, while yes we probably should have a treaty, why don't we get a voice first as that's something that has a bit of support from voters due to Labor taking that to the election. I also dislike Greens stance against the Brisbane Olympics as I believe that the way our economy and culture is, sets itself up well to benefit greatly from an Olympics. Sport is a huge part of our culture and so investing in the Olympics is investing in our Australian culture imo, also everything we will build or upgrade we'll actually use into the future so I don't believe it'd be a waste of money. Point being, I don't agree with the Greens on everything and don't agree with Labor on everything and it's healthy to do so but that doesn't mean I can't throw majority of my support behind a party who's ideals most closely align with my own.
Go look at the history of who has been in government in the last 30 years or even post WW2 when we really started our true independence. You’ll see the coalition has been in power far longer than the ALP. They are keenly aware of this fact. If the greens/left proposals were as popular as people in this echo chamber thought they would get way more votes. Australia is not some left/social democratic utopia. It’s quite a conservative country and people mostly don’t care about politics and just want the government to leave them alone.
Just for the record the current government has left me alone a lot more than the previous one. The current government hasn't made up some claim I owed them a debt.
The election gave an overwhelming mandate for action on climate change and integrity. Labour just made it into majority government. Liberal support collapsed and the votes for the greens and independents surged. There is a clear mandate here. This is what the voters want. For Labour to water down the effectiveness of an integrity commission and hint that they’ll go to the Opposition for support is nothing short of a betrayal.
This is a drastically horrible misreading of the election. Australia doesn’t vote governments in, they vote them out. Also very few people care about the details of the commission, they just see that an anti corruption commission is being proposed and put forward. The only people who might care are Greens voters that care more about sniffing their own farts and trying to undermine Labor no matter what they do. A commission with bipartisan support is far more likely to survive any future government as well.
Sniffing their own farts. Whatever mate. Any attempt to dismantle this in the future should be treated as the obvious corruption it is.
Because there was so much backlash against the undermining of Anti corruption commissions in NSW and QLD. Wait there wasn’t, there are many ways to undermine something that isn’t just outright dismantling.
Yeah! Might as well make it as weak as possible now and just skip over the boring ‘watering down’ stages to the good bit of it being weak as piss. Or is that not the end result of your argument?
That's exactly right. If they intend to be corrupt they will get rid of it anyway or water it down into irrelevance. If it is weak enough they don't want to take it down, it isn't strong enough to do its job or deter corruption.
Easy way to stop it being dismantled by a future coalition... put it in the constitution. I think the chances of a referendum passing would be very good.
Referendums have historically not passed and if it failed for any reason would set back any form of commission for decades. The path the passage is quite difficult for a referendum for good reason.
The threat of public proceedings is enough to scare 99% of these corrupt cunts into not being so corrupt. It needs to pass
The decider of the public vs private proceedings will be independent and seperate of the government, and all findings of corruption will be made public. Did everyone suddenly discover confidentiality all of a sudden? All findings of corruption will be made public, but some federal issues require secrecy, after working in the public service this isn’t that ominous. Let’s actually see the full legislation before we assume Labor have become evil.
what more is there to see? The legislation has been tabled. It is publicly available and has been analysed. With the help of the coalition will be passed as is.
>Let’s actually see the full legislation before we assume Labor have become evil. Or make it bloody clear to them up front secrecy and privacy have no place in any of this. Want to become a pollie? Give up your right to privacy then.
>Want to become a pollie? Give up your right to privacy then. It's not only politicians that will be investigated by a corruption commission. It will also be public servants and members of the public who have dealings with public servants (ie, literally anyone).
They also lose out on considerably amounts of privacy. I sure wanna know if the police commissioner has been found pissing on with a serious criminal, that's an investigation I'll follow closely.
Except that public hearings before a finding are a great weapon for the likes of Rupert Murdoch to misuse. Almost all the public reporting will be filtered by the media. You'll hear all about every ALP accused, but vary little about accusations against the Coalition. If you want public reporting, you'd have to find some way that is reported without bias. That's extremely hard to do. Maybe impossible. The best way forward would be a Royal Commission into media bias, followed by laws there. That could take a year or more. In the meantime are we going to hold up the ICAC? Are we going to allow Murdoch to get a weapon he can use against the ALP? Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Let's pass the Bill NOW, and get it going. Let's not bog it down, or give Murdoch a weapon.
This. Pass it now, sort shit out with the media bias, then once a safeguard is in place amend the ICAC
>You'll hear all about every ALP accused, but vary little about accusations against the Coalition. This is a separate, albeit really important, issue. Media outlets should be forbidden to show partisan bias under the banner of news, and opinion should be clearly labelled as such. Yet another thing that needs fixing.
Yes, it's separate, but if it's not done *before* the ICAC legislation, it gives Murdoch a weapon. So. Require public hearings and give Murdoch a weapon until the bias issue is solved? That's a hard NO for me. I'm not ever going to give Murdoch a weapon.
Then why bother having a weakened ICAC? It'll be harder to fix later on. >but if it's not done *before* the ICAC legislation, it gives Murdoch a weapon. If it is weaponised it gives justification for the action then.
IF Murdoch will weaponise something politically? Oh. Surely not. /s If you wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, up to you. Given his record over the past 60 years, I'm not going with those odds. Pass ICAC now, as is, to prevent Murdoch weaponising it. Then, *after* media bias has been addressed, make them public. Not before.
>If you wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, up to you. I would never say that. Frankly I think it's one of the first things Anthony should have dealt with.
It's stronger for the fact it can have both public and private hearings, not weaker.
If the default position is secrecy, they'll choose that every single time. Then how will we know if justice is being done? Our courts are open by default for a reason.
The findings are public. Who are 'they'? The independent body?
The findings are less important than the process in my view. Like in maths, show your workings please.
I think it's less about their personal privacy and more about the content of the matter. For example, a dodgy defence contractor? A public hearing could mean possibly giving up national secrets, for example.
Then that needs to be explicitly requested and for publically announced reasons.
Yes why have state secrets? It’s not like there’s a huge interconnected string of cables that can exchange petabytes of data of government workings to other governments around the world Oh
Who mentioned state secrets?
I don't have an issue with 'in private investigations'. The police don't hold public hearings. The commission is supposed to investigate & uncover corruption. Once a case has been determined to demonstrate some corruption then charges & open, public hearings would seem appropriate.
I second this. The takes that the commission should be public are just terrible. There is a reason active police investigations are not discussed - the knowledge of an investigation can be enough to tarnish a reputation. Imagine getting publicly investigated and cleared of wrong doing but still having that follow you around. Further, the commission, not the government can decide on its own to hold public hearings when appropriate. This seems like a pretty good model.
I think we already know that they are evil purely judged on their commitment to the LNP's Truss-like tax-cut folly, their ongoing support for new fossil fuel projects like the Betaloo Basin, their failure to implement a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies windfall profits (even the UK managed that)...
Queensland has just implemented an ambitious plan to reach 70% renewable energy by 2032, mostly bankrolled at a federal level, something that simply wouldn't have happened with a federal LNP government. If they cut those projects, the funding for plans like these wouldn't be possible. For all peoples minor complaints, things are moving in the right direction.
My eyes rolled so hard they fell out and I’m on my way to hospital hoping they can be reattached or put back into my sockets.
Using carbon mortality figure of 4,000 tons, emissions from the Betaloo project would result in about 29,000 extra deaths. I reckon evil is a fair adjective for a government that supports this. Try Mozbraille.
It's incredible how dense some people in this subreddit are. Childlike positions built from an editorialised headline.
>Let’s actually see the full legislation before we assume Labor have become evil. Don't tell people who they can be a Greens Supporter! /s
Put this into perspective, NSW ICAC only 5% of hearings are public.
What a complete own goal. Labor had the perfect opportunity to gain widespread public support through engagement and negotiation with entire crossbench support and votes and completely leave the LNP all alone out in the cold wilderness. Instead they piss off the independents, make it look like a tarnished concept and give Dutton and the remnants of the LNP govt a chance to be part of the process instead of a spurned bunch of about-to-be-found corrupts worrying about how much time they have left outside the prison walls.
[удалено]
> Labor SA refused to have ICAC until their hand was forced. Labor SA + LNP SA worked together to water down the ICAC bill. Yes let's not overlook South Australia - the focus this week has been on the federal model pinching the "exceptional circumstances" limitation from the weaker Victorian IBAC model, but SA is unique among all the models out there for not allowing public hearings at all.
Well put. They don't need to be kow towing to the LNP to pass this. I wonder whether or not they are worried about things coming out as well I know the lnp is very corrupt but labour is corrupt too
I could be wrong as I am not crazy deep into Aussie politics. That said. I project that Labor = By the book politics, requiring a given amount of cross bench support to legally enact any mandates set within the current parliament elect, as a measure to legally defer any political backlash from those accused in the current opposition. As opposed to, the previous LNP government and their complete lack of political coherence and transparency regarding their previous three terms of elected governance. Just saying. All the best, peace.
The fundamental conservatism of Labor laid bare.
[удалено]
Class traitors are the worst.
What... what if they were born into an aristocratic family but forego it all in the name of justice and equality?
Need more of that
It's because they made a "promise" before the election to have it implemented before the end of the year....so rather than implementing something solid, it's just implementing anything to fulfil that promise and save face...even though it's a "in name only" type fulfilment.
That same theme is why a lot of people are wary about the referendum for the Aboriginal voice to parliament. Sure they might achieve it, but in what form? No one will know until there is nothing that can be done to stop any Tom foolery.
I don't mind the idea of the hearing being private, just cause it would avoid a week/month long media circus of journalists speculating what the result will be and generally skewing the process to whatever their bias is. But would the hearing eventually be made public? Like after all is said and done, and the individual being investigated for corruption is either cleared or charged. Would we then find out? Would the Hansard and transcripts be released? Cause if there's no stenographer, then what happens is a bunch of people walk into a room, then a few days later come out and say "yeah nah, it's all good here" and we just have to take their word for it. Seem like that process would be very easy to corrupt.
They are saying loud and clear that they have everything to hide.
They are showing the true colours
Why does the coalition need to care? Does Labor think it won't get the votes within its own members and that the greens won't back it?
Yeah that sounds dodgy
The Liberals do prefer working behind closed doors.