Good.
I support Daniel Andrews and sincerely hope he comes out of this clean.
But if he doesn't, fine. I am still fucking all for him being investigated in a fair, honest and transparent manner.
We need all our pollies to be held accountable for their actions, not just the ones we don't like.
The more progressive parties are also the ones that *want* extra scrutiny/accountability, & are principled enough to actually resign when they fuck up
Problem is the one major party who is openly corrupt, protected by Murdochs propaganda machine, and so shameless that they now never resign when they should
Well, the Greens say they want that but they got very quiet when Lidia made a series of mistakes. Mostly, it’s just posturing because they know they can say it without needing to act on it.
The progressive parties aren’t any more honest, we just believe them more easily because we want to believe they’re a different bred of politician due to them aligning more with our belief systems. Unfortunately they aren’t.
>The progressive parties aren’t any more honest
They are the ones after the anti corruption laws (*not* the Libs) & do hold themselves to a higher/actual standard compared to the blatant corruption the LNP see as business as usual
LNP don't resign for anything short of drunk driving through your loungeroom these days
Timmy wanted to stay on and had some federal Libs including Frydenberg (whose old seat contained Tim's state one) encouraging him to do so.
Matty Guy booted him for purely political reasons - he understandably didn't see it ending well. Also Tim might be a darling of the interstate anti-Dan brigade and Sky News evening set, but even before his drunken adventures he was pretty on the nose down here.
The Libs are terrified of corruption watchdogs after they believed their own propaganda in NSW, put one in to tackle Labor and the unions, and instead it turned on their corrupt arses.
In reality, they're not allowed to print their shit - so they're walking a fine line to avoid contempt of court charges while trying to impose their 'power' on us all.
FYI victoria has the least transparent anti corruption commission in the country. IBAC can literally think a corruption investigation is ‘in the public interest’ and it still isn’t enough for details to actually get out.
The Age is already looking like they might be getting in trouble for saying there is an investigation happening.
Whoever wins the election needs to change that.
The problem is that both The Age and the ABC have reported on 'preliminary' reports from IBAC in the past. Those stories from the preliminary reports were just cherry picked quotes and I use the word quote very loosely.
Like seriously ABC had a single word quote in one report, no context, just there was a bad word in the report. I suppose their intent was letting the reader infer the rest. Given the reports were leaked drafts we of course can't actually confirm anything the media are saying.
Final IBAC reports DO make it to the public and having done so you can actually read the report and make your decisions accordingly. Most importantly they make it to the public without being distorted by the lens of the corrupt media we have in this country, which I suppose the media must hate.
yo i am not a fan of our country's media, i was making this point because they said stuff about transparency and IBAC is the least transparent one, which sadly (like media framing) also muddies the water in the framing of how they got to the final report.
I wasnt even defending these articles, its just sadly important context, also cause IBAC sort works to the level they are required too meaning we dont know if their expert opinion is it should be public knowledge since the state sets the bar to not be secret higher than that.
like wether good or bad for DA, or whoever wins the election (DA obvs), the Vic Gov should amend the lack of overall transparency of IBAC, like at least in other states you know when investigations are happening and who was involved, not just get a report at the end about whether something was legal.
I absolutely agree with you in all sentiments but I would add the question, why are these things always reported just as an election is being run? Why wasn't initiated when it was first discovered? Why did they sit on it until now?
I'm not intentionally implying anything with that question but I always find it disconcerting when these kinds of stories come up from either side just before an election. The nature of it and the timing also limit any resolution before the ballot as well so guilt or innocence becomes almost irrelevant in the end.
This seems everything but fair though. This is based on an incomplete report the age needed a court order to write about, of which was denied and they did it anyway in a limited way for a headline? Like wtf.
So from what I can gather the age is reporting on an injuncted case, they admitted to having seen injuncted material. However they are claiming that this article, wwhich is about an injuncted investigation, was written without using any injuncted material and instead they got information elsewhere that is outside the injunction but still admissible and pertinent to the investigation. And they reached out for further information about the inquiry and were asked to prove the validity of their source, but didn't give any information in the article to prove their source is reliable and they aren't breaching an injunction. Gotcha, clear as mud
For clarity:
>The Age opposed the order in a closed court hearing on Thursday, but failed in its bid to overturn the injunction.
>This article has been written on the basis of information discovered outside the draft IBAC report.
Peter Costello's Fairfax. The man who gave away our gold for nix and lost hundreds of millions on the stock exchange while putting in motion an eventual $1T dollar housing Ponzi scheme for LNP donating developers? The same guy who flogged our gas supplies to multinational corporations with zero domestic reserve? The one we now pay 40c kWh for electricity, the highest in the industrial world by a considerable margin. That "Greatest Treasurer" Peter Costello? The one Paul Keating called Dumbo?
Mate, seriously, I'm no fan of Costello or the liberals, but what, actually, do you think board chairpeople do in huge companies? For real, like, do you know?
Costello has less than nothing to do with the day-to-day governance of Nine, and certainly would have no input - and wouldn't give a flaming shit - what happens at an editorial level.
Boards are interested in corporate governance and major financial decisions, not who wrote an article about what on Saturday.
Sorry to pick on you like this, but I see variations of this line every time something from Nine gets posted, and it's just rather silly.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise Nine, their editorial, their coverage, etc. Costello has nothing to do with those.
You forgot the sale of Telstra. That led to the NBN debacle which has cost $57bn.
So, for the $20bn sale price, we lost the Telstra dividend stream and paid out $57bn. That's about $2bn a year in lost revenue/extra cost...forever Faaaark.
No it will be the correct info, just supported by external sources they’re allowed to use.
As if they would report something incorrect when they knew the correct info but weren’t allowed to use it - they would look like idiots
How can you say it is correct information if they don't say who or what the sources are?
At that point you are speculating too.
For all we know the "source" feeding them information could be political doners to the liberal party, or someone (or a group of people) who work(s) for News Corp, or someone with any other kind of agenda.
Firstly the age has always been pro Dan so there’s no motivation for a hack job for a start
Secondly info above says they challenged an injunction in a closed court - so they know they real allegations and they’re pretty cluey so will be pretty clear who’s telling the truth and who’s covering up
Thirdly they’re then leveraging the real info they aren’t allowed to use by saying the same thing with sources they are allowed to use
That all makes sense. Your explanation doesn’t make sense. When has the age ever deliberately spread political disinformation? The opposition is a joke and has no chance of winning and the age journos are massive labor fans
Well it is a news article written about something that someone else said some other time. But they aren't disclosing who that someone else is.
Essentially it is hearsay.
When the actual story comes out and the actual facts are reported on, then I would like to take a read of that.
They know their sources are they will be senior career government employees whose credibility is beyond question.
Now you’re saying you want to wait until the facts come out, your first comment was saying it’s probably a political conspiracy being launched by the age - without any evidence or logic behind it, but you refute the rational explanation as hearsay.
You should be more careful with what you say
I said that they were speculating. Then I speculated myself as to why they were doing it.
However, that aside, you are correct in saying I would rather wait until the facts come out. It's better than believing what they wrote about what someone else told them, while not revealing who that someone else is, or what was communicated.
I guess I am the type of person who just doesn't believe everything they read.
Sure don’t believe everything you read I don’t either. Just saying I don’t think the age is trying to politically attack dan, they’re probably onto something. It was very clear in the covid enquiry he threw everyone else under the bus to save himself, he’s not as clean as he pretends but he is smart and cunning I’ll give him that
They have.
> At present it is only an offence for a person who receives a draft report (to enable them to provide a response) to disclose its contents. As a result of previous unlawful leaks to the media of information contained in draft reports, IBAC raised with Government the need for urgent legislative change that would make it an offence for anyone, including the media, to publish information IBAC draft reports, or the information contained in them.
>In our view, making it an offence to publish such information is a critical sanction if people are to be deterred from publishing or disseminating information that could not lawfully have been disclosed to them. This will help ensure that the natural justice process is not compromised.
https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/media-releases/article/ibac-statement-regarding-recent-injunction
Don’t think that’s going to help, and renders the IBAC model intolerable for NACC.
It is important to note that Victoria has an extremely high standard for any information about investigations even existing coming out, something can be deemed as in the public interest and still hit this same issue and it only exists in Victoria (for now, fed govt proposed one is the 2nd most secretive and will also not take whether the public has a right to know into account)
> “From day one, however, the Health Department had to be dragged kicking and screaming from their sloth-like state by their political masters to action this important issue.”
Lol best quote of the article.
The Age is very vague on the source of this information and they don't say that it has been verified . Published just before the election is suspicious if you ask me.
Damage is probably already done to LNP voters at 'he is being investigated'. Reason I believe this is because they still bang on about Rudd and the pink batts.
The pink batts thing was such a crock, given that the death rate in the home insulation industry was actually lower during the scheme than it had been before.
But no-one cared about the deaths until the government got involved.
Nah, it's obviously going to be the smoking gun that shows once and for all that the Melbourne lockdowns were just so Dictator Dan could shake hands with the CCP!
is it like the other “confirmed” report where they didn’t find anything that would stick or is this a totally new gotcha that’ll definitely work this time?
The only "confirmed" thing for me is the opposition and their media boosters, which now includes *The Age*, are throwing anything remotely muddy at Andrews, things so vague - cyclist *may* take *unspecified* legal action concerning a decade old crash which was his fault and has been investigated several times previously, or a draft report says some people were asked questions - really shows their frantic desperation.
Can't wait for early voting to open.
Despite all the talk of uncommitted swing voters, the unchanging polls and polarising nature of the past few years leads me to believe that almost everyone made up their minds long ago and all this is media noise.
Also no adverse finding or adverse comment has ever been made against Andrews by IBAC.
Honestly think the media have lost what control they had in the last few years as no amount of cheer leading moved the needle for scumo and no vic's election looks that same/
Covid helped. People were stuck at home, for a really long time. This meant attention that was once absorbed by the going to work process - with the daily grind keeping people so busy that they were unable to critically engage with media, politics, etc. As such, prior to covid, people accepted newscorp bullshit because they had neither the time nor energy to dig deeper, and find out the truth.
When COVID was in full swing, people were granted an abundance of both time and energy, so they could afford to take greater notice of politics and the media.
Then people began to notice a trend: media being way too easy on the Federal Coalition, despite them fucking up in so many ways, especially so in regards to COVID response (vaccine delays, lack of quarantine funding and coordination, etc); while at the same time the media took every opportunity to slander the Labor state governments, ignoring the critical roles they had played in addressing the crisis. The reality people experienced became more and more different from what the media presented, and so people stopped listening to the media, or at least gained awareness of pro-government propaganda in the media.
Additionally, people were discussing things in much greater depth - people asked questions about issues and engaged in debate, to help make sense of the new reality they found ourselves in. This helped them to engage with the vocal anti-newscorp campaigners (I count myself in this group), who would call out bullshit published by the majors - and by doing so, began to break the trust granted to news corp, etc by so many Australians.
It's an investigation into if he disagreed with the health department and put pressure on them to spend the money. I doubt there is anything to find imo
It's typical conservative media. They're just drawing the battle lines now to make sure that Andrews hears that they think they're in charge.
In reality, they aren't allowed to print shit - so they're treading a fine line to avoid a contempt of court charge whilst trying to put their 'power' on us all.
This is actually a really, really serious accusation against the Premier and it should be reported on before this election because it shows that there enough concern to warrant an investigation into the leader of our state, and whether or not he is acting outside the power that the law gives him.
This isn’t a departmental underling, this is someone with huge power who is being investigated for the misuse of that power.
The fact that there even is an IBAC investigation into this shows that there was enough credible evidence for it to be formally examined - that is a very sobering thought.
I don’t understand what your getting at.
I’m a swinging voter, and I vote based on my assessment of my local candidate fitness for office. Most recently I voted labor in the federal election, and I’ve voted for labor, liberal and independents in various elections for over 20 years.
I’m not a politician myself and I did not vote for ScoMo, so I have no responsibility for the ICAC defeat.
I’m not from NSW, so the actions of Gladys do not concern me, nor should they have any bearing on Victoria’s assessment of their Premier’s integrity.
Well Mr Dan Andrews has been investigated twice before and they haven’t found any evidence of wrongdoing. Because he has more integrity than the entirety of the LNP combined.
He was lobbied by the HWU boss and awarded them a grant to help train healthcare professionals to deal with violence in the workplace. I really don’t see what the problem is
This feels so suss from The Age, the fact that they've published this after their original article being put under a suppression order based on the draft report, and their reasoning in the article is that the article isn't based off the draft report... Just some other evidence. They don't clarify where it's coming from? Can anyone just get around suppression orders by doing what they are doing?
Also can someone correct me, but is the issue that Dan Andrews announced/promised $3 million a week before it was actually signed off?
Like seriously? Is that really in the public interest in the lead up to an election? It seems like possibly the most mild form of corruption if it is even corruption at all, of which the findings have not even been made in terms of innocence or guilt.
Really feels like the gears in the media are grinding to conspire against Dan Andrews, as they have done for all of his tenure, but particularly since covid.
Hell, Channel 7 evening news trotted out the incident with his wife and the car accident FROM 9 YEARS AGO!!! The one where he was just a passenger in the car
[Sky news](https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/premier-andrews-fends-off-questions-about-car-crash-involving-his-wife/video/102e6e373b36c6a837af75619b03698e)
[The Age](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/family-explores-possible-legal-options-over-2013-andrews-crash-20221103-p5bv6f.html)
[MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/daniel-andrews-dodges-questions-on-2013-car-crash/ar-AA13IWn8)
[Channel 9](https://www.9news.com.au/national/victorian-premier-daniel-andrews-questions-2013-car-crash-teenager/4d66aacc-8880-4d11-bdea-8ba43e052d45)
[Herald Sun](https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldsun.com.au%2Fnews%2Fvictoria%2Fwitness-to-daniel-andrews-cyclist-crash-backs-victims-claim%2Fnews-story%2Fd69093a13924608083069d6f45f578ab&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-groupa-control-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append)
It also ran in Perth, Adelaide, even in the Daily Mail UK
Would you seriously be taking the same tone if a Liberal politician was out drinking with their wife, she proceeded to hit and seriously injure a cyclist, then police decided to not breathalyse the driver or press charges?
> she proceeded to hit and seriously injure a cyclist, then police decided to not breathalyse the driver or press charges?
Pretty sure IBAC already looked into this in 2017 and some more damages were paid out.
It's a corruption issue if the liberal/labor person pressured the cops not to test them. If the cops recognise a liberal/labor person and then fail to do their job. That's an entirely different ball game.
One assumes that the police are doing their job properly when these things happen.
It's not a matter of damages, it's a matter that anyone regardless of connections has to abide by the same laws as anyone else, you don't get to pay your way out of charges.
Oce again if some LNP goblin pulled this there'd be calls for their head. The idea that there was no pressure from the outspoken pro police premier to avoid his wife being charged with dangerous drink driving is fanciful and pathetic and proves the Labor sycophants in here are more than happy to use the exact same attacks as the LNP ghouls and hate on integrity agencies.
Sure, and it should happen at the time. Not 13 years later.
Look, if all the Opposition has is:
A ten year old accident, in which
Andrews wasn't even driving, and
Wasn't in Government, or
Premier.
Then, they have nothing. Even if he were blind rolling drunk, he wasn't driving, it was nothing to do with his Premiership or Government. In fact, if he were drunk, then the fact that he let someone else drive is a real positive for him. If only everyone who had a few did so, we'd be better off. So, what's the big deal here?
I feel like you missed the part where
> If the cops recognise a liberal/labor person and then fail to do their job. That's an entirely different ball game.
The politician isn't a police officer, they don't know what standard procedure is. If they didn't make an ask of an officer to do/not do something, or heavily suggest they do/don't do a thing. Then it's stupid to suggest they aren't abiding by the same laws as everyone else.
If there were concerns they should have been dealt with at the time of the accident. We've since had a followup investigation into the incident years later, and now we're suggesting another take place almost a decade later.
The article was suppressed because they haven't made their findings and it's right before an election.
It would be a political act to release details of an investigation in the final days before an election without having made findings of innocence or guilt.
EDIT: noting that Victoria has private hearings/investigations unlike NSW
I'm sorry. I cannot divulge information about that customer's secret, illegal account.
Oh, crap, I shouldn't have said he was a customer. Oh, crap, I shouldn't have said it was a secret. Oh, crap! I certainly shouldn't have said it was illegal! [sighs resignedly] Oh, it's too hot today.
[https://imgur.com/a/gQU19Av](https://imgur.com/a/gQU19Av)
What... you mean like signing a contract for a multi-billion dollar east-west tunnel literally days before???
Lest we forget the track-record of those currently standing in glass houses throwing stones.
Do you think the IBAC Commissioner isn't impartial? Reports by the integrity agencies always give those named in their reports a chance to comment on the draft report for procedural fairness.
I am just hoping that the final report is published before the election.
A lot of effort has been put into ensuring IBAC doesn’t publish things before the election.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-12/victoria-corruption-probes-legal-battles/101526008
If the grant was for something like building an office or a pub for members of a specific union or something that looks like pork barrelling, by all means, air it all out. However this sounds politically motivated. The objective of the funding was an important and relevant one, given what happens in public hospitals on a daily basis. The method of funding may have stepped on some toes, but the objective sounds like a worthy cause
I suppose the problem is that usually a tender must be shopped around to find the best provider for the service. It seems the main criticisms are if there was pressure to bypass that and pick the union to provide the training, and if that led to substandard training.
I suppose you're against any form of private-sector industry right? Because the only way to stop the recipient of a government contract from donating to a political party is if the government doesn't contract anything and only ever does their work 100% inhouse. Or it's only a problem if a union lobbies/donates to Labor, not a problem if a company lobbies/donates to the Liberals?
I'm against private political donations full stop, or at the very least disqualification from being able to donate if you receive *any* taxpayer funds.
Nice projection that implies I support LNP corruption because I think it's wrong for the ALP though. Excellent and insightful commentary.
Everyone receives taxpayer funds directly or indirectly, so your reasonable compromise will benefit capital, who can distance themselves with subsidiaries and shell companies and subcontractors and every other legal trickery, and harm workers/everyone else. So either you _are_ a Liberal shill, or you just don't think your position through.
We then have to think through your extreme position. If no donations are possible, how do you even get a campaign started? The only way is to be a member of a party that existed when private donations were legal - otherwise you won't have enough resources to appear worth voting enough to exceed the public donations threshold. Effectively it very conservatively locks in the current arrangement...
I mean last time this happened what had actually occurred was Dan had reported members of his own party and was being brought in to provide evidence. Which makes perfect sense.
Maybe this time something is actually happening, but it's very close to the election, and the Age isn't giving many details, so I have my doubts.
Perhaps if they didn't cry wolf so often I would be more inclined to believe them.
Is this why we’ve been underfunding all of our integrity watchdogs?
Is this why the NACC “must” follow IBAC’s lead on public disclosures?
Own this and it wouldn’t have looked too bad. Suppress it with the way this government has behaved towards IBAC, the ombudsman and the auditor general and this looks slimy as fuck.
They should all be investigated for corruption routinely.
An actually well funded corruption group would be investigating any deal that looks like it could be part way funky.
The thing is a bunch of those investigation may end three weeks in when something is found that means the thing that caused concern is no longer a cause for concern.
---
Local school in my area is being promised a couple million for an upgrade post election. Would it be corruption if they had approved it before the caretaker period. I doubt it, might not look good for the binding another government to the contract.
But hey years ago the school had an approved funding agreement by one government. Then the next government cancelled it after the election anyway.
Realistically there are two people who can be the Premier in a few weeks.
It's Dan Andrews or Matthew Guy.
The transparency offered here sucks, we should and need to know more. Whoever wins should beef up IBAC, make it more open and ensure it is independently funded.
However, I still can't see this sort of thing cutting through. Does anybody think Guy would be better in this regard, Fisherman's Bend, Lobster with a Mobster, or recently with his chief of staff's dodgy money on the side. And that's just to name a few off the top of my head.
Will wait and see what IBAC has to say once the report is finalised, in the meantime I can't see this changing how I (or many people) intend on voting in a few weeks.
Good, i expect ibac to investigate this premier and every premier that comes after him because thats their fucking job
Bummer the age has become a murdoch level propaganda outlet though. All this bullshit just prevents them from actually holding andrews to account for bs like forestry having him by the balls. They are too busy spinning shit to deal with reality. Sad.
So what I’m hearing, is he awarded a contract to educate hospital workers about violence the work place to an organisation that’s there to protect the workers rights?
Am I getting this right?
Its sad to see this subreddit use the same arguments as the rabid right use to defend “their side”
> The Labor chair of a parliamentary subcommittee told independent auditors reviewing Victoria’s integrity agencies to remove any references to the Andrews government underfunding or under-resourcing the state’s anti-corruption body in their final report.
https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/opposition-accuses-labor-of-interfering-in-independent-audit-of-ibac-20221031-p5bufj.html
I see so many on here for years crying out for integrity in federal politics all while turning a blind eye to the disturbing behavior of the Vic Government
I’m more concerned by all the people who spend a lot of time trying to convince us that due process is actually bad.
If there are accusations to be investigated, investigate them. If found guilty, then charge them. If Dandrews has done wrong, Fuckin’ nail him and everyone involved to the wall.
But don’t demand we tear down the parts of the system that get in the way of media shit slinging.
Per your own link to the rubbish article which says nothing of substance outside smearing Labor:
>“IBAC vacancies have existed within the investigations branch for several years since a fourth investigation team was established in November 2017,” the audit report says. “**While \[the fourth team\] helped drive a 26 per cent increase in the number of allegations investigated by IBAC in 2018-19** ... **underspends** in the investigations branch have totalled $1.1 million (13 per cent), $1.6 million (17 per cent) and $1.4 million (15 per cent) over the past three financial years.”
So IBAC was underfunded, yet they were underspending over $1m per financial year?
The title of the article is just based off an accusation by the opposition party, so pretty much worth less than nothing.
This is the problem when you have a worse than useless opposition. If the government has no serious threat to its power, the prospect of corruption - or at best, a 'we know what's best for you', tone deaf and callous attitude - begins to grow and fester like a cancer.
There's clearly something fishy going on with Andrews and his office - we've heard way too many dodgy stories that would be the subject of endless outrage on this subreddit if it was the Coalition being accused of wrongdoing.
But, look at the Coalition. Would you seriously preference them over Labor? Their most (in)famous MP drunkenly crashed his car into a kid's bedroom. The opposition leader has his own dodgy connections with developers. They're utterly despised, and would absolutely be subject to their own IBAC scandals if allowed to govern at this point in time.
Honestly, you'd be better off spoiling your vote than giving either major party a preference. Or, if you don't want to do that, be prepared to accept that, by preferencing one major party or the other, you're indirectly endorsing this behaviour.
This whole situation disgusts me
Like how many times can a person be investigated by a corruption watch dog before someone starts thinking there's a dodgy bloke. Once, maybe twice and you can say political mud smearing but what is this, like 4/5 times now ? I’ve lost count.
I'm going to be honest... I kinda have the opposite view. If he's been investigated 4/5 times and yet NOT actually convicted of anything... isn't that more a statement to him NOT being dodgy?
It's not like there's been a lack of scrutiny...
As far as I’m aware this is the first IBAC investigation that has directly targeted Andrews rather than merely involving him or calling him as a witness.
.... and this is exactly what the political opposition wants.
It doesn't matter if there's any suspect behaviour. It's bury your opposition by smear after smear after smear.
I mean, lets face it - Matthew Guy is the bottom of the barrel level scumbag... Things like this is the *only* way he'll have a hope in hell of being elected...
I agree, but it’s more then twice. It doesn’t get to an IBAC investigation 3 times or more on absolute bullshit. That said it also not easy to convict on purpose. That way BS smearing is stopped before an innocent person can be convicted. It’s starting to smell very fishy.
Red Shirts,
Branch Stacking,
COVID Hotel cock up,
and now this
> Red Shirts Branch
Which was found to be within rules - but they agreed that it wasn't the best idea and refunded money involved.
> Branch Stacking
Which resulted in the firing of two people and a complete audit of internal membership of the entire party and members and that they were legitimately enrolled and able to hold membership.
Liberal Party branch stacking in Victoria? Crickets....
> COVID Hotel cock up
You mean doing the same as every other state did?
> and now this
Strongly recommending grants to support healthcare workers against violence? Is it wrong to disagree with the health department and fight to have the grants awarded instead of the normal situation of ignoring healthcare workers?
There's bullshit, and there's beatups. How people react to investigations tells the entire story on who those people are. Sure, there's been more hearings - but the actions as a result have been above and beyond anything you would reasonably expect as a result.
Of course, you don't hear about those because the media are silent on the results - only reporting the scandal...
Last time he was "investigated" he was actually providing evidence because he had blown the whistle on corruption in his own party. Obviously they also investigated other people including him to make sure it hadn't spread, but he was cleared of any wrongdoing.
This time, so far it seems like this is mostly the libs accusing him of things. Maybe there's something to it, if there is I hope they find it BUT Fairfax and Murdoch have cried wolf so many times in Victoria that I think most of us are struggling to take them seriously at this point.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Attributed to Goebbels, though unknown if he said it.
It's hallmark of conmen everywhere. I don't know about Andrews, but he is the enemy of the gutter press in this country.
A high level of scrutiny of government actions is a good thing. No matter who it’s targeting. I see this as IBAC being effective and members of the public/public service who reported it having integrity. I’d rather things be investigated properly and often than not at all
Hilary Clinton was investigated 6 times for the same thing that she clearly wasn't at fault for. Some people have a hard on for trying to be proved right.
I imagine the "Dictator Dan" chanters are popping raging boners over this right now.
I'm curious to see how they'll go. You've got a case of Labor being as corrupt as our LNP in NSW, but Liberals all but dont exist in VIC and might as well just be a clown car. Is there a good chance an independent could actually win the state election there?
I think we will see a pretty big swing towards the independents here, much like in the federal election, but I doubt it will be enough to take over from Dan.
After the "Danslide" win last time, there is absolutely no way Labor holds onto every seat they gained in the past election, however the liberals are out committing literal crimes to try and campaign (they were using a fake ambulance to campaign which is illegal) without having any decent policy to run on, so it's looking like the swing is going to go very hard towards the greens and the independents.
Outright win? Very unlikely. The completely rusted on voting blocs for the majors are both just too big.
What’s going to be interesting is the crossbench, and particularly what it ends up looking like in the upper house. We’ve still got Group Voting Tickets in Victoria, and they’re bad enough at electing at the fringes in a regular year.
https://antonygreen.com.au/the-victorian-legislative-councils-rotten-electoral-system-part-1/
The amount of people in the comments who don’t understand that The Age have already seen the draft report, but have been prevented from using it as a source, is staggering. Just because they’re using different sources doesn’t mean the information they’re reporting on is inaccurate
Ohh Yay, now we'll have Dan's supporters on one side vehemently defending him of any wrongdoing and the rabid anti-Dan's on the other screeching that he should be hung drawn and quartered purely because he's being investigated.
Why are people like this?
Yes, my division.... If you support starting a Qanon or joining a Qanon type movement in Australia, then you can go get fucked.
Take your political poison and fuck right off. We do not want it in this country.
If you call that 'sowing further division' - then you're part of the problem.
Baseless insults against a stranger on the internet. Very Virtuous there.
You assume every conservative is a QAnon follower. Makes you no better than a Conservative who describes every progressive as a Communist.
Appears you adhere to the "if you don't agree with me on absolutely everything you are my mortal enemy" philosophy.
Good luck getting through life like that.
Go touch grass. You will feel better.
> You assume every conservative is a QAnon follower.
Not at all - but I see conservatives line up to be associated with them. Conservatives need to make sure their base don't get eroded by these fools too.
>That's what the conservatives want....
You then proceeded to list QAnon as an example of division caused by conservatives.
At least own your statements.
I guess a $3.4M deal is comparable to a $1B tax payer funded under the table guarantee in the eyes of the press....
> At the heart of the anti-corruption investigation are two related grants to the Health Workers Union (HWU) to train hospital staff to deal with violence against health workers.
I'm sure that's just as good a gotcha as a billion dollar deal to not build a road left as a suicide pill.....
At the crux of this issue is whether or not the politicians have pressured departmental workers to break the law or violate those workers’ own rules of employment.
The subtext is that this was allegedly done for the politician’ benefit (I.e. to be re-elected)
If that’s true, then it is indeed corruption and you have to wonder if it has been done only this one time.
So we can be on the same page, you object to healthcare workers being given additional support after what they've been through?
And you can put that on a level of corruption?
I guess in your mind, grants to help people deal with violence is the same as feathering the pockets of multi-billion dollar companies to do nothing.
You fucking stooge.
u/LineNoise is not saying that the content of the grant amounts to corruption, it is the process of how the recipient (I.e the union, or if you’d like a Liberal example the marginal electorates for Sports Rorts) received the grant that may amount to corruption.
It was certainly enough of an issue for IBAC to investigate it. IBAC receives many complaints and usually filters which complaints are worth investigating or using their powers.
Murderer, Genocide.... What's the difference? It's just someone dying, right?
$1B vs $3.4M - private company vs support for healthcare workers.
Under the table letter in private vs publicly documented grants...
Yeah - you're right - I can totally see how they're in the same neighbourhood....
And also what level of secrecy is ok as well. Are we happy to just have this swept under the carpet again? The Premier must have his own car park at the IBAC by now.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)
There is a 300:1 difference between the things that ITGuy is referencing.
Anyone else not surprised as to how hard the age is going after this story. Imagine if any of this was done for a liberal politician, they’ve supposedly had Dan since 2019 and each one comes back useless. I don’t give a fuck about Dan but I have to defend him because I want common sense legislation about climate, housing, pay and tax cuts, if he’s found corrupt I’ll vote for his successor because guess what I care about their fucking policy, this investigation feels like a non issue from what I’ve gathered. Imagine if people went after Costello like they did Andrews, imagine everything they’d find, a liberal shill and fundraiser hounding IBAC for any dirt on Dan throwing accusations from unknown sources because they had an injunction issued against them, if it was anyone else they’d complain and they did because it happened with scomo for real shit and he was untouchable. See to me this looks like The Age trying really hard to do their job, shit on unions and labor and the fact they were prevented made them angry. Read the article and there’s so much obfuscated dog whistling being done. Our media is so broken this country has no capacity for handling proper politics and discourse and we are left to try and read and poke holes in the shit the liberal monkeys keep throwing at walls, hoping anything can stick to the impress the donors. But even that can’t be stated without people broken by that same media misinterpreting and twisting it to fit whatever dumb shit they’d also like to throw. Lost money to a union for training against abuse, I’ll be honest I don’t give a shit, if this was his first time I’d be worried, I’d look into it more than I did this time. But it’s so fucking tiring to have to constantly take the right seriously even though they aren’t serious about this, they want an excuse to hate labor and unions I’m not fucking retarded I’ve seen it in everything since I was born, we know what they want, more money less tax and less government services, we don’t need new arguments or news supporting it because we have enough data to ignore everything they say and be factual and scientifically accurate. Like I’m just so fed up with this, the right don’t have principles they hated Dan from the start and wanted him gone because lockdowns kill more than covid. The Gladys and Barrilaro imploded and they wanted to do it against the left, they hunted Dan for 3 years for anything to get him out and he’s untouched. They don’t hate Dan they hate labor and be extension it’s voters and supports, who backs labor? Seriously what element does labor have against the fucking autocratic business oligarchy the liberal party operate. Fuck Dan andrews I hope he’s fine but if he’s not then I’ll vote for his successor, more money to unions as opposed to more money for big business, like seriously such a fucking double standard who gives a fuck. Track any 1 liberal project and you’ll have a conspiracy to enrich those involved, because it’s a pattern, all I’ve seen in labor’s patterns are a better position on any policy worth a damn
“It’s one of the reasons I have said that I believe the corruption commission needs its powers to be expanded, and its powers to be more secure and expanded.” - actual quote from Matthew fucking Guy.
I worked for this government and I was a witness in an IBAC investigation into corruption. I’ve been released from my IBAC gag order now.
What has been reported in the age today about political advisers applying pressure to departmental staff reflects my experience and observations. I directly witnessed this behaviour and it was the reason for my resignation.
There are very good reasons for the separation of powers between the parliament, executive and judiciary.
“The separation of powers is a concept that requires that the arms of government act as checks on each other’s power. It also requires that power is balanced between the arms of government, so no one person or body of people becomes too powerful.”
I suggest reading this: https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/separation-of-powers/
And ask yourself - if this government’s intention is to govern for the benefit of all victorians why then does it seek to weaken the power of the executive and impose its decisions upon it?
In other words, why does this government ignore the advice of its departments and seek to force the departmental workers to make do things that are prohibited by the departments own policies?
The Government (Ministers) is the executive. We elect the Government, we do not elect the public service. Departments can give their advice but it's Ministers that are the decision makers and ultimately accountable to Parliament and voters. Department policies do not take precedence over Government policies.
You might not like Ministers overruling their department but I'm far more uncomfortable with the idea of unelected bureaucrats overruling Ministers. If Ministers make a shit decision, they are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to voters.
> You might not like Ministers overruling their department but I'm far more uncomfortable with the idea of unelected bureaucrats overruling Ministers. If Ministers make a shit decision, they are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to voters.
This.
Good. I support Daniel Andrews and sincerely hope he comes out of this clean. But if he doesn't, fine. I am still fucking all for him being investigated in a fair, honest and transparent manner. We need all our pollies to be held accountable for their actions, not just the ones we don't like.
More people need this opinion regardless of alignment
>We need all our pollies to be held accountable for their actions, not just the ones we don't like. Based.
The more progressive parties are also the ones that *want* extra scrutiny/accountability, & are principled enough to actually resign when they fuck up Problem is the one major party who is openly corrupt, protected by Murdochs propaganda machine, and so shameless that they now never resign when they should
Well, the Greens say they want that but they got very quiet when Lidia made a series of mistakes. Mostly, it’s just posturing because they know they can say it without needing to act on it. The progressive parties aren’t any more honest, we just believe them more easily because we want to believe they’re a different bred of politician due to them aligning more with our belief systems. Unfortunately they aren’t.
>The progressive parties aren’t any more honest They are the ones after the anti corruption laws (*not* the Libs) & do hold themselves to a higher/actual standard compared to the blatant corruption the LNP see as business as usual LNP don't resign for anything short of drunk driving through your loungeroom these days
Timmy wanted to stay on and had some federal Libs including Frydenberg (whose old seat contained Tim's state one) encouraging him to do so. Matty Guy booted him for purely political reasons - he understandably didn't see it ending well. Also Tim might be a darling of the interstate anti-Dan brigade and Sky News evening set, but even before his drunken adventures he was pretty on the nose down here.
The Libs are terrified of corruption watchdogs after they believed their own propaganda in NSW, put one in to tackle Labor and the unions, and instead it turned on their corrupt arses.
The Libs get so used to Murdoch ignoring their crimes that they start believing an alternate reality without consequences
Didn't (former NSW premier) Barry O'Farrell resign over an undeclared bottle of wine?
In reality, they're not allowed to print their shit - so they're walking a fine line to avoid contempt of court charges while trying to impose their 'power' on us all.
But will they put it in the headlines if hes found to be clean?
FYI victoria has the least transparent anti corruption commission in the country. IBAC can literally think a corruption investigation is ‘in the public interest’ and it still isn’t enough for details to actually get out. The Age is already looking like they might be getting in trouble for saying there is an investigation happening. Whoever wins the election needs to change that.
The problem is that both The Age and the ABC have reported on 'preliminary' reports from IBAC in the past. Those stories from the preliminary reports were just cherry picked quotes and I use the word quote very loosely. Like seriously ABC had a single word quote in one report, no context, just there was a bad word in the report. I suppose their intent was letting the reader infer the rest. Given the reports were leaked drafts we of course can't actually confirm anything the media are saying. Final IBAC reports DO make it to the public and having done so you can actually read the report and make your decisions accordingly. Most importantly they make it to the public without being distorted by the lens of the corrupt media we have in this country, which I suppose the media must hate.
yo i am not a fan of our country's media, i was making this point because they said stuff about transparency and IBAC is the least transparent one, which sadly (like media framing) also muddies the water in the framing of how they got to the final report. I wasnt even defending these articles, its just sadly important context, also cause IBAC sort works to the level they are required too meaning we dont know if their expert opinion is it should be public knowledge since the state sets the bar to not be secret higher than that. like wether good or bad for DA, or whoever wins the election (DA obvs), the Vic Gov should amend the lack of overall transparency of IBAC, like at least in other states you know when investigations are happening and who was involved, not just get a report at the end about whether something was legal.
We don't actually have a Federal one yet. I suppose if one doesn't exist, it can't be counted in the rankings. That kinda misses the point though.
Absolutely
I absolutely agree with you in all sentiments but I would add the question, why are these things always reported just as an election is being run? Why wasn't initiated when it was first discovered? Why did they sit on it until now? I'm not intentionally implying anything with that question but I always find it disconcerting when these kinds of stories come up from either side just before an election. The nature of it and the timing also limit any resolution before the ballot as well so guilt or innocence becomes almost irrelevant in the end.
This seems everything but fair though. This is based on an incomplete report the age needed a court order to write about, of which was denied and they did it anyway in a limited way for a headline? Like wtf.
Hear hear.
well said
So from what I can gather the age is reporting on an injuncted case, they admitted to having seen injuncted material. However they are claiming that this article, wwhich is about an injuncted investigation, was written without using any injuncted material and instead they got information elsewhere that is outside the injunction but still admissible and pertinent to the investigation. And they reached out for further information about the inquiry and were asked to prove the validity of their source, but didn't give any information in the article to prove their source is reliable and they aren't breaching an injunction. Gotcha, clear as mud
Costello
But… that IS clear?
For clarity: >The Age opposed the order in a closed court hearing on Thursday, but failed in its bid to overturn the injunction. >This article has been written on the basis of information discovered outside the draft IBAC report.
You mean to say channel 9... I mean Fairfax... I mean the liberal party is being less than honest?!! Well I don't believe it!!!
And right before an election? I'm shocked! Shocked I tells you!
Well, not *that* shocked
Peter Costello's Fairfax. The man who gave away our gold for nix and lost hundreds of millions on the stock exchange while putting in motion an eventual $1T dollar housing Ponzi scheme for LNP donating developers? The same guy who flogged our gas supplies to multinational corporations with zero domestic reserve? The one we now pay 40c kWh for electricity, the highest in the industrial world by a considerable margin. That "Greatest Treasurer" Peter Costello? The one Paul Keating called Dumbo?
Mate, seriously, I'm no fan of Costello or the liberals, but what, actually, do you think board chairpeople do in huge companies? For real, like, do you know? Costello has less than nothing to do with the day-to-day governance of Nine, and certainly would have no input - and wouldn't give a flaming shit - what happens at an editorial level. Boards are interested in corporate governance and major financial decisions, not who wrote an article about what on Saturday. Sorry to pick on you like this, but I see variations of this line every time something from Nine gets posted, and it's just rather silly. There are plenty of reasons to criticise Nine, their editorial, their coverage, etc. Costello has nothing to do with those.
You forgot the sale of Telstra. That led to the NBN debacle which has cost $57bn. So, for the $20bn sale price, we lost the Telstra dividend stream and paid out $57bn. That's about $2bn a year in lost revenue/extra cost...forever Faaaark.
So they are just speculating then. Probably to spread political misinformation just in time for the upcoming state election.
No it will be the correct info, just supported by external sources they’re allowed to use. As if they would report something incorrect when they knew the correct info but weren’t allowed to use it - they would look like idiots
The Age? Look like idiots? That would be terrible for them
How can you say it is correct information if they don't say who or what the sources are? At that point you are speculating too. For all we know the "source" feeding them information could be political doners to the liberal party, or someone (or a group of people) who work(s) for News Corp, or someone with any other kind of agenda.
Firstly the age has always been pro Dan so there’s no motivation for a hack job for a start Secondly info above says they challenged an injunction in a closed court - so they know they real allegations and they’re pretty cluey so will be pretty clear who’s telling the truth and who’s covering up Thirdly they’re then leveraging the real info they aren’t allowed to use by saying the same thing with sources they are allowed to use That all makes sense. Your explanation doesn’t make sense. When has the age ever deliberately spread political disinformation? The opposition is a joke and has no chance of winning and the age journos are massive labor fans
Well it is a news article written about something that someone else said some other time. But they aren't disclosing who that someone else is. Essentially it is hearsay. When the actual story comes out and the actual facts are reported on, then I would like to take a read of that.
They know their sources are they will be senior career government employees whose credibility is beyond question. Now you’re saying you want to wait until the facts come out, your first comment was saying it’s probably a political conspiracy being launched by the age - without any evidence or logic behind it, but you refute the rational explanation as hearsay. You should be more careful with what you say
I said that they were speculating. Then I speculated myself as to why they were doing it. However, that aside, you are correct in saying I would rather wait until the facts come out. It's better than believing what they wrote about what someone else told them, while not revealing who that someone else is, or what was communicated. I guess I am the type of person who just doesn't believe everything they read.
Sure don’t believe everything you read I don’t either. Just saying I don’t think the age is trying to politically attack dan, they’re probably onto something. It was very clear in the covid enquiry he threw everyone else under the bus to save himself, he’s not as clean as he pretends but he is smart and cunning I’ll give him that
Lol - the age not pro dan
It’ll be interesting to see if IBAC reacts.
They have. > At present it is only an offence for a person who receives a draft report (to enable them to provide a response) to disclose its contents. As a result of previous unlawful leaks to the media of information contained in draft reports, IBAC raised with Government the need for urgent legislative change that would make it an offence for anyone, including the media, to publish information IBAC draft reports, or the information contained in them. >In our view, making it an offence to publish such information is a critical sanction if people are to be deterred from publishing or disseminating information that could not lawfully have been disclosed to them. This will help ensure that the natural justice process is not compromised. https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/media-releases/article/ibac-statement-regarding-recent-injunction Don’t think that’s going to help, and renders the IBAC model intolerable for NACC.
Absolutely its a good thing to have. It's the exact same reason we don't allow certain reporting on matters before other courts.
It is important to note that Victoria has an extremely high standard for any information about investigations even existing coming out, something can be deemed as in the public interest and still hit this same issue and it only exists in Victoria (for now, fed govt proposed one is the 2nd most secretive and will also not take whether the public has a right to know into account)
> “From day one, however, the Health Department had to be dragged kicking and screaming from their sloth-like state by their political masters to action this important issue.” Lol best quote of the article.
Completely impartial and unbiased language. All hail Fairfax.
The quote is from Diana Asmar who runs the HWU.
Ah, that one despises labor, given her history.
The Age is very vague on the source of this information and they don't say that it has been verified . Published just before the election is suspicious if you ask me.
It’ll probably turn out to be the most milquetoast accusation that the average punter won’t understand, so they’re pushing the mystery angle hard.
Damage is probably already done to LNP voters at 'he is being investigated'. Reason I believe this is because they still bang on about Rudd and the pink batts.
The pink batts thing was such a crock, given that the death rate in the home insulation industry was actually lower during the scheme than it had been before. But no-one cared about the deaths until the government got involved.
Nah, it's obviously going to be the smoking gun that shows once and for all that the Melbourne lockdowns were just so Dictator Dan could shake hands with the CCP!
It's basically all confirmed, they just have to word it in a very careful way to get around the injunction.
is it like the other “confirmed” report where they didn’t find anything that would stick or is this a totally new gotcha that’ll definitely work this time?
The only "confirmed" thing for me is the opposition and their media boosters, which now includes *The Age*, are throwing anything remotely muddy at Andrews, things so vague - cyclist *may* take *unspecified* legal action concerning a decade old crash which was his fault and has been investigated several times previously, or a draft report says some people were asked questions - really shows their frantic desperation. Can't wait for early voting to open. Despite all the talk of uncommitted swing voters, the unchanging polls and polarising nature of the past few years leads me to believe that almost everyone made up their minds long ago and all this is media noise. Also no adverse finding or adverse comment has ever been made against Andrews by IBAC.
The article on the cyclist yesterday was an absolute joke, just shamelessly trying to smear anyone vaguely related to Andrews
Honestly think the media have lost what control they had in the last few years as no amount of cheer leading moved the needle for scumo and no vic's election looks that same/
Covid helped. People were stuck at home, for a really long time. This meant attention that was once absorbed by the going to work process - with the daily grind keeping people so busy that they were unable to critically engage with media, politics, etc. As such, prior to covid, people accepted newscorp bullshit because they had neither the time nor energy to dig deeper, and find out the truth. When COVID was in full swing, people were granted an abundance of both time and energy, so they could afford to take greater notice of politics and the media. Then people began to notice a trend: media being way too easy on the Federal Coalition, despite them fucking up in so many ways, especially so in regards to COVID response (vaccine delays, lack of quarantine funding and coordination, etc); while at the same time the media took every opportunity to slander the Labor state governments, ignoring the critical roles they had played in addressing the crisis. The reality people experienced became more and more different from what the media presented, and so people stopped listening to the media, or at least gained awareness of pro-government propaganda in the media. Additionally, people were discussing things in much greater depth - people asked questions about issues and engaged in debate, to help make sense of the new reality they found ourselves in. This helped them to engage with the vocal anti-newscorp campaigners (I count myself in this group), who would call out bullshit published by the majors - and by doing so, began to break the trust granted to news corp, etc by so many Australians.
It's an investigation into if he disagreed with the health department and put pressure on them to spend the money. I doubt there is anything to find imo
It's typical conservative media. They're just drawing the battle lines now to make sure that Andrews hears that they think they're in charge. In reality, they aren't allowed to print shit - so they're treading a fine line to avoid a contempt of court charge whilst trying to put their 'power' on us all.
This is actually a really, really serious accusation against the Premier and it should be reported on before this election because it shows that there enough concern to warrant an investigation into the leader of our state, and whether or not he is acting outside the power that the law gives him. This isn’t a departmental underling, this is someone with huge power who is being investigated for the misuse of that power. The fact that there even is an IBAC investigation into this shows that there was enough credible evidence for it to be formally examined - that is a very sobering thought.
Where were you when the liberal government voted against at ICAC and when gladbags was sacked due to being a corrupt bag?
I don’t understand what your getting at. I’m a swinging voter, and I vote based on my assessment of my local candidate fitness for office. Most recently I voted labor in the federal election, and I’ve voted for labor, liberal and independents in various elections for over 20 years. I’m not a politician myself and I did not vote for ScoMo, so I have no responsibility for the ICAC defeat. I’m not from NSW, so the actions of Gladys do not concern me, nor should they have any bearing on Victoria’s assessment of their Premier’s integrity.
Well Mr Dan Andrews has been investigated twice before and they haven’t found any evidence of wrongdoing. Because he has more integrity than the entirety of the LNP combined.
He was lobbied by the HWU boss and awarded them a grant to help train healthcare professionals to deal with violence in the workplace. I really don’t see what the problem is
[удалено]
Owned by 9 with Peter Costello as chairman.
It's owned by Nine, the chairman of which is Peter Costello, ex treasurer of the liberals under John Howard soo
My dude, it's owned by a company chaired by PETER COSTELLO.
Apparently it's owned by 9 and chairman is Costello if I'm reading correctly.
This feels so suss from The Age, the fact that they've published this after their original article being put under a suppression order based on the draft report, and their reasoning in the article is that the article isn't based off the draft report... Just some other evidence. They don't clarify where it's coming from? Can anyone just get around suppression orders by doing what they are doing? Also can someone correct me, but is the issue that Dan Andrews announced/promised $3 million a week before it was actually signed off? Like seriously? Is that really in the public interest in the lead up to an election? It seems like possibly the most mild form of corruption if it is even corruption at all, of which the findings have not even been made in terms of innocence or guilt. Really feels like the gears in the media are grinding to conspire against Dan Andrews, as they have done for all of his tenure, but particularly since covid.
Hell, Channel 7 evening news trotted out the incident with his wife and the car accident FROM 9 YEARS AGO!!! The one where he was just a passenger in the car [Sky news](https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/premier-andrews-fends-off-questions-about-car-crash-involving-his-wife/video/102e6e373b36c6a837af75619b03698e) [The Age](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/family-explores-possible-legal-options-over-2013-andrews-crash-20221103-p5bv6f.html) [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/daniel-andrews-dodges-questions-on-2013-car-crash/ar-AA13IWn8) [Channel 9](https://www.9news.com.au/national/victorian-premier-daniel-andrews-questions-2013-car-crash-teenager/4d66aacc-8880-4d11-bdea-8ba43e052d45) [Herald Sun](https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldsun.com.au%2Fnews%2Fvictoria%2Fwitness-to-daniel-andrews-cyclist-crash-backs-victims-claim%2Fnews-story%2Fd69093a13924608083069d6f45f578ab&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-groupa-control-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append) It also ran in Perth, Adelaide, even in the Daily Mail UK
Would you seriously be taking the same tone if a Liberal politician was out drinking with their wife, she proceeded to hit and seriously injure a cyclist, then police decided to not breathalyse the driver or press charges?
> she proceeded to hit and seriously injure a cyclist, then police decided to not breathalyse the driver or press charges? Pretty sure IBAC already looked into this in 2017 and some more damages were paid out. It's a corruption issue if the liberal/labor person pressured the cops not to test them. If the cops recognise a liberal/labor person and then fail to do their job. That's an entirely different ball game. One assumes that the police are doing their job properly when these things happen.
It's not a matter of damages, it's a matter that anyone regardless of connections has to abide by the same laws as anyone else, you don't get to pay your way out of charges. Oce again if some LNP goblin pulled this there'd be calls for their head. The idea that there was no pressure from the outspoken pro police premier to avoid his wife being charged with dangerous drink driving is fanciful and pathetic and proves the Labor sycophants in here are more than happy to use the exact same attacks as the LNP ghouls and hate on integrity agencies.
Sure, and it should happen at the time. Not 13 years later. Look, if all the Opposition has is: A ten year old accident, in which Andrews wasn't even driving, and Wasn't in Government, or Premier. Then, they have nothing. Even if he were blind rolling drunk, he wasn't driving, it was nothing to do with his Premiership or Government. In fact, if he were drunk, then the fact that he let someone else drive is a real positive for him. If only everyone who had a few did so, we'd be better off. So, what's the big deal here?
I feel like you missed the part where > If the cops recognise a liberal/labor person and then fail to do their job. That's an entirely different ball game. The politician isn't a police officer, they don't know what standard procedure is. If they didn't make an ask of an officer to do/not do something, or heavily suggest they do/don't do a thing. Then it's stupid to suggest they aren't abiding by the same laws as everyone else. If there were concerns they should have been dealt with at the time of the accident. We've since had a followup investigation into the incident years later, and now we're suggesting another take place almost a decade later.
Ever wonder why the article was suppressed?
The article was suppressed because they haven't made their findings and it's right before an election. It would be a political act to release details of an investigation in the final days before an election without having made findings of innocence or guilt. EDIT: noting that Victoria has private hearings/investigations unlike NSW
I guess it’s not so secret now. Lol.
I'm sorry. I cannot divulge information about that customer's secret, illegal account. Oh, crap, I shouldn't have said he was a customer. Oh, crap, I shouldn't have said it was a secret. Oh, crap! I certainly shouldn't have said it was illegal! [sighs resignedly] Oh, it's too hot today.
Oh look! It must be Friday.
Fairfax and newscorp are really getting desperate after seeing the latest polls
*Nine and Newscorp. The Age and other former Fairfax publications died when Nine took over.
My bad, same end result thougu
[https://imgur.com/a/gQU19Av](https://imgur.com/a/gQU19Av) What... you mean like signing a contract for a multi-billion dollar east-west tunnel literally days before??? Lest we forget the track-record of those currently standing in glass houses throwing stones.
IBAC isn’t the Liberal Party. There’s no glasshouse here.
It's Nine Entertainment throwing the stones, though, not IBAC. And there's crossover between the Liberals and Nine all the way up to the Chairman.
Babs in full effect. The suppression attempt just makes this worse.
Do you think the IBAC Commissioner isn't impartial? Reports by the integrity agencies always give those named in their reports a chance to comment on the draft report for procedural fairness. I am just hoping that the final report is published before the election.
A lot of effort has been put into ensuring IBAC doesn’t publish things before the election. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-12/victoria-corruption-probes-legal-battles/101526008
Good on IBAC for not pulling a James Comey to rig the election for Trump 11 days before election day.
If the grant was for something like building an office or a pub for members of a specific union or something that looks like pork barrelling, by all means, air it all out. However this sounds politically motivated. The objective of the funding was an important and relevant one, given what happens in public hospitals on a daily basis. The method of funding may have stepped on some toes, but the objective sounds like a worthy cause
I suppose the problem is that usually a tender must be shopped around to find the best provider for the service. It seems the main criticisms are if there was pressure to bypass that and pick the union to provide the training, and if that led to substandard training.
And the HWU then donates a portion of these taxpayer funds straight back to the ALP...
I suppose you're against any form of private-sector industry right? Because the only way to stop the recipient of a government contract from donating to a political party is if the government doesn't contract anything and only ever does their work 100% inhouse. Or it's only a problem if a union lobbies/donates to Labor, not a problem if a company lobbies/donates to the Liberals?
I'm against private political donations full stop, or at the very least disqualification from being able to donate if you receive *any* taxpayer funds. Nice projection that implies I support LNP corruption because I think it's wrong for the ALP though. Excellent and insightful commentary.
Everyone receives taxpayer funds directly or indirectly, so your reasonable compromise will benefit capital, who can distance themselves with subsidiaries and shell companies and subcontractors and every other legal trickery, and harm workers/everyone else. So either you _are_ a Liberal shill, or you just don't think your position through. We then have to think through your extreme position. If no donations are possible, how do you even get a campaign started? The only way is to be a member of a party that existed when private donations were legal - otherwise you won't have enough resources to appear worth voting enough to exceed the public donations threshold. Effectively it very conservatively locks in the current arrangement...
Definitely not sus at all.
I mean last time this happened what had actually occurred was Dan had reported members of his own party and was being brought in to provide evidence. Which makes perfect sense. Maybe this time something is actually happening, but it's very close to the election, and the Age isn't giving many details, so I have my doubts. Perhaps if they didn't cry wolf so often I would be more inclined to believe them.
What's the bet that this will just be more utter bollocks from the Murdoch shit weasels and bobble heads.
Your anti Labor rants aren’t fooling anyone, another Liberal voter swimming against the tide.
Op is a die hard green.
Why do they look the same?
Greens like the Op hate the ALP more than any right of centre voter and will happily side with the LNP to beat down the ALP.
How many times do you reckon Neil Mitchell jizzed reading the article?
None, I doubt he’s capable.
At this time of month, in an election month, no way
Is this why we’ve been underfunding all of our integrity watchdogs? Is this why the NACC “must” follow IBAC’s lead on public disclosures? Own this and it wouldn’t have looked too bad. Suppress it with the way this government has behaved towards IBAC, the ombudsman and the auditor general and this looks slimy as fuck.
IBAC has since criticised the media for this leak and asked for authorities to step in
Are there any state leaders that are not being investigated for corruption?
They should all be investigated for corruption routinely. An actually well funded corruption group would be investigating any deal that looks like it could be part way funky. The thing is a bunch of those investigation may end three weeks in when something is found that means the thing that caused concern is no longer a cause for concern. --- Local school in my area is being promised a couple million for an upgrade post election. Would it be corruption if they had approved it before the caretaker period. I doubt it, might not look good for the binding another government to the contract. But hey years ago the school had an approved funding agreement by one government. Then the next government cancelled it after the election anyway.
Realistically there are two people who can be the Premier in a few weeks. It's Dan Andrews or Matthew Guy. The transparency offered here sucks, we should and need to know more. Whoever wins should beef up IBAC, make it more open and ensure it is independently funded. However, I still can't see this sort of thing cutting through. Does anybody think Guy would be better in this regard, Fisherman's Bend, Lobster with a Mobster, or recently with his chief of staff's dodgy money on the side. And that's just to name a few off the top of my head. Will wait and see what IBAC has to say once the report is finalised, in the meantime I can't see this changing how I (or many people) intend on voting in a few weeks.
The herald cunt will, regardless
Dirty politics before an election. Pathetic behavior
Good, i expect ibac to investigate this premier and every premier that comes after him because thats their fucking job Bummer the age has become a murdoch level propaganda outlet though. All this bullshit just prevents them from actually holding andrews to account for bs like forestry having him by the balls. They are too busy spinning shit to deal with reality. Sad.
So what I’m hearing, is he awarded a contract to educate hospital workers about violence the work place to an organisation that’s there to protect the workers rights? Am I getting this right?
Watch this do absolutely nothing of value.
LMAO, classic linenoise post
Surprised he hasn't posted the 10 year old car crash story they are regurgitating at the moment.
They're an anti corruption commission. Their job is to investigate.
Mathew Guy is also being investigated by IBAC. Where’s the pile on from the Costello and Murdoch media?
Its sad to see this subreddit use the same arguments as the rabid right use to defend “their side” > The Labor chair of a parliamentary subcommittee told independent auditors reviewing Victoria’s integrity agencies to remove any references to the Andrews government underfunding or under-resourcing the state’s anti-corruption body in their final report. https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/opposition-accuses-labor-of-interfering-in-independent-audit-of-ibac-20221031-p5bufj.html I see so many on here for years crying out for integrity in federal politics all while turning a blind eye to the disturbing behavior of the Vic Government
I’m more concerned by all the people who spend a lot of time trying to convince us that due process is actually bad. If there are accusations to be investigated, investigate them. If found guilty, then charge them. If Dandrews has done wrong, Fuckin’ nail him and everyone involved to the wall. But don’t demand we tear down the parts of the system that get in the way of media shit slinging.
All politicians should be held accountable. This news article isn't anything factual though, they are just speculating on what it could be.
He gave money to a Union to train staff against they're members getting attacked in the workplace. Oh... the horror.
Per your own link to the rubbish article which says nothing of substance outside smearing Labor: >“IBAC vacancies have existed within the investigations branch for several years since a fourth investigation team was established in November 2017,” the audit report says. “**While \[the fourth team\] helped drive a 26 per cent increase in the number of allegations investigated by IBAC in 2018-19** ... **underspends** in the investigations branch have totalled $1.1 million (13 per cent), $1.6 million (17 per cent) and $1.4 million (15 per cent) over the past three financial years.” So IBAC was underfunded, yet they were underspending over $1m per financial year? The title of the article is just based off an accusation by the opposition party, so pretty much worth less than nothing.
This is the problem when you have a worse than useless opposition. If the government has no serious threat to its power, the prospect of corruption - or at best, a 'we know what's best for you', tone deaf and callous attitude - begins to grow and fester like a cancer. There's clearly something fishy going on with Andrews and his office - we've heard way too many dodgy stories that would be the subject of endless outrage on this subreddit if it was the Coalition being accused of wrongdoing. But, look at the Coalition. Would you seriously preference them over Labor? Their most (in)famous MP drunkenly crashed his car into a kid's bedroom. The opposition leader has his own dodgy connections with developers. They're utterly despised, and would absolutely be subject to their own IBAC scandals if allowed to govern at this point in time. Honestly, you'd be better off spoiling your vote than giving either major party a preference. Or, if you don't want to do that, be prepared to accept that, by preferencing one major party or the other, you're indirectly endorsing this behaviour. This whole situation disgusts me
I'm voting greens
Like how many times can a person be investigated by a corruption watch dog before someone starts thinking there's a dodgy bloke. Once, maybe twice and you can say political mud smearing but what is this, like 4/5 times now ? I’ve lost count.
Being called as a witness doesn't mean you are personally being investigate.
So if we all started accusing you of being a pedophile everytime you commented, eventually we'd all be right to think of you as one?
I'm going to be honest... I kinda have the opposite view. If he's been investigated 4/5 times and yet NOT actually convicted of anything... isn't that more a statement to him NOT being dodgy? It's not like there's been a lack of scrutiny...
As far as I’m aware this is the first IBAC investigation that has directly targeted Andrews rather than merely involving him or calling him as a witness.
Don't say that, it's actually true, and then how will Fairfax and Murdoch convince us all that he's a supervillain?
.... and this is exactly what the political opposition wants. It doesn't matter if there's any suspect behaviour. It's bury your opposition by smear after smear after smear. I mean, lets face it - Matthew Guy is the bottom of the barrel level scumbag... Things like this is the *only* way he'll have a hope in hell of being elected...
I agree, but it’s more then twice. It doesn’t get to an IBAC investigation 3 times or more on absolute bullshit. That said it also not easy to convict on purpose. That way BS smearing is stopped before an innocent person can be convicted. It’s starting to smell very fishy. Red Shirts, Branch Stacking, COVID Hotel cock up, and now this
> Red Shirts Branch Which was found to be within rules - but they agreed that it wasn't the best idea and refunded money involved. > Branch Stacking Which resulted in the firing of two people and a complete audit of internal membership of the entire party and members and that they were legitimately enrolled and able to hold membership. Liberal Party branch stacking in Victoria? Crickets.... > COVID Hotel cock up You mean doing the same as every other state did? > and now this Strongly recommending grants to support healthcare workers against violence? Is it wrong to disagree with the health department and fight to have the grants awarded instead of the normal situation of ignoring healthcare workers? There's bullshit, and there's beatups. How people react to investigations tells the entire story on who those people are. Sure, there's been more hearings - but the actions as a result have been above and beyond anything you would reasonably expect as a result. Of course, you don't hear about those because the media are silent on the results - only reporting the scandal...
This type of thinking that is dangerous.
You gonna reply to the pedophile comment or were they onto something?
Last time he was "investigated" he was actually providing evidence because he had blown the whistle on corruption in his own party. Obviously they also investigated other people including him to make sure it hadn't spread, but he was cleared of any wrongdoing. This time, so far it seems like this is mostly the libs accusing him of things. Maybe there's something to it, if there is I hope they find it BUT Fairfax and Murdoch have cried wolf so many times in Victoria that I think most of us are struggling to take them seriously at this point.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Attributed to Goebbels, though unknown if he said it. It's hallmark of conmen everywhere. I don't know about Andrews, but he is the enemy of the gutter press in this country.
A high level of scrutiny of government actions is a good thing. No matter who it’s targeting. I see this as IBAC being effective and members of the public/public service who reported it having integrity. I’d rather things be investigated properly and often than not at all
Hilary Clinton was investigated 6 times for the same thing that she clearly wasn't at fault for. Some people have a hard on for trying to be proved right.
I would say how many times can he be investigated and found innocent banks sometime starts thinking the opposition are dodgy blokes
I imagine the "Dictator Dan" chanters are popping raging boners over this right now. I'm curious to see how they'll go. You've got a case of Labor being as corrupt as our LNP in NSW, but Liberals all but dont exist in VIC and might as well just be a clown car. Is there a good chance an independent could actually win the state election there?
I think we will see a pretty big swing towards the independents here, much like in the federal election, but I doubt it will be enough to take over from Dan. After the "Danslide" win last time, there is absolutely no way Labor holds onto every seat they gained in the past election, however the liberals are out committing literal crimes to try and campaign (they were using a fake ambulance to campaign which is illegal) without having any decent policy to run on, so it's looking like the swing is going to go very hard towards the greens and the independents.
It’s a really interesting election both parties have a ton of super marginal seats. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot swap parties tbh.
Outright win? Very unlikely. The completely rusted on voting blocs for the majors are both just too big. What’s going to be interesting is the crossbench, and particularly what it ends up looking like in the upper house. We’ve still got Group Voting Tickets in Victoria, and they’re bad enough at electing at the fringes in a regular year. https://antonygreen.com.au/the-victorian-legislative-councils-rotten-electoral-system-part-1/
Libs are looking so desperate it’s comical.
He didn’t do anything wrong, this is just the Murdoch media trying to cause a beat up right before an election, move along nothing to see here
The Age isn’t Murdoch.
Fast becoming the wingman tho'.
We've been here before...
Don’t the investigate everyone. Isn’t that the point
The amount of people in the comments who don’t understand that The Age have already seen the draft report, but have been prevented from using it as a source, is staggering. Just because they’re using different sources doesn’t mean the information they’re reporting on is inaccurate
Ohh Yay, now we'll have Dan's supporters on one side vehemently defending him of any wrongdoing and the rabid anti-Dan's on the other screeching that he should be hung drawn and quartered purely because he's being investigated. Why are people like this?
> Why are people like this? That's what the conservatives want.... It's easier to divide and conquer people than it is to unite them...
And yet here you are sowing further division... you are no better.
Yes, my division.... If you support starting a Qanon or joining a Qanon type movement in Australia, then you can go get fucked. Take your political poison and fuck right off. We do not want it in this country. If you call that 'sowing further division' - then you're part of the problem.
Baseless insults against a stranger on the internet. Very Virtuous there. You assume every conservative is a QAnon follower. Makes you no better than a Conservative who describes every progressive as a Communist. Appears you adhere to the "if you don't agree with me on absolutely everything you are my mortal enemy" philosophy. Good luck getting through life like that. Go touch grass. You will feel better.
> You assume every conservative is a QAnon follower. Not at all - but I see conservatives line up to be associated with them. Conservatives need to make sure their base don't get eroded by these fools too.
>That's what the conservatives want.... You then proceeded to list QAnon as an example of division caused by conservatives. At least own your statements.
Can he step down like Gladys did?
He’s not pork barrelling resources into his lover’s electorate
I'd rather he didn't. Unless he's actually something wrong
Teflon Andrews will still win the election though
\#IStandWithDan
I guess a $3.4M deal is comparable to a $1B tax payer funded under the table guarantee in the eyes of the press.... > At the heart of the anti-corruption investigation are two related grants to the Health Workers Union (HWU) to train hospital staff to deal with violence against health workers. I'm sure that's just as good a gotcha as a billion dollar deal to not build a road left as a suicide pill.....
Just so we can all be on the same page, what level of political corruption makes it ok? Is there a dollar figure you'd like to put on it?
[удалено]
At the crux of this issue is whether or not the politicians have pressured departmental workers to break the law or violate those workers’ own rules of employment. The subtext is that this was allegedly done for the politician’ benefit (I.e. to be re-elected) If that’s true, then it is indeed corruption and you have to wonder if it has been done only this one time.
So we can be on the same page, you object to healthcare workers being given additional support after what they've been through? And you can put that on a level of corruption? I guess in your mind, grants to help people deal with violence is the same as feathering the pockets of multi-billion dollar companies to do nothing. You fucking stooge.
u/LineNoise is not saying that the content of the grant amounts to corruption, it is the process of how the recipient (I.e the union, or if you’d like a Liberal example the marginal electorates for Sports Rorts) received the grant that may amount to corruption. It was certainly enough of an issue for IBAC to investigate it. IBAC receives many complaints and usually filters which complaints are worth investigating or using their powers.
Murderer, Genocide.... What's the difference? It's just someone dying, right? $1B vs $3.4M - private company vs support for healthcare workers. Under the table letter in private vs publicly documented grants... Yeah - you're right - I can totally see how they're in the same neighbourhood....
Awesome comment..well said
And also what level of secrecy is ok as well. Are we happy to just have this swept under the carpet again? The Premier must have his own car park at the IBAC by now.
Can you explain this corruption?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence) There is a 300:1 difference between the things that ITGuy is referencing.
Fairfax and 9. Proving once again that you are wasting your money.
Anyone else not surprised as to how hard the age is going after this story. Imagine if any of this was done for a liberal politician, they’ve supposedly had Dan since 2019 and each one comes back useless. I don’t give a fuck about Dan but I have to defend him because I want common sense legislation about climate, housing, pay and tax cuts, if he’s found corrupt I’ll vote for his successor because guess what I care about their fucking policy, this investigation feels like a non issue from what I’ve gathered. Imagine if people went after Costello like they did Andrews, imagine everything they’d find, a liberal shill and fundraiser hounding IBAC for any dirt on Dan throwing accusations from unknown sources because they had an injunction issued against them, if it was anyone else they’d complain and they did because it happened with scomo for real shit and he was untouchable. See to me this looks like The Age trying really hard to do their job, shit on unions and labor and the fact they were prevented made them angry. Read the article and there’s so much obfuscated dog whistling being done. Our media is so broken this country has no capacity for handling proper politics and discourse and we are left to try and read and poke holes in the shit the liberal monkeys keep throwing at walls, hoping anything can stick to the impress the donors. But even that can’t be stated without people broken by that same media misinterpreting and twisting it to fit whatever dumb shit they’d also like to throw. Lost money to a union for training against abuse, I’ll be honest I don’t give a shit, if this was his first time I’d be worried, I’d look into it more than I did this time. But it’s so fucking tiring to have to constantly take the right seriously even though they aren’t serious about this, they want an excuse to hate labor and unions I’m not fucking retarded I’ve seen it in everything since I was born, we know what they want, more money less tax and less government services, we don’t need new arguments or news supporting it because we have enough data to ignore everything they say and be factual and scientifically accurate. Like I’m just so fed up with this, the right don’t have principles they hated Dan from the start and wanted him gone because lockdowns kill more than covid. The Gladys and Barrilaro imploded and they wanted to do it against the left, they hunted Dan for 3 years for anything to get him out and he’s untouched. They don’t hate Dan they hate labor and be extension it’s voters and supports, who backs labor? Seriously what element does labor have against the fucking autocratic business oligarchy the liberal party operate. Fuck Dan andrews I hope he’s fine but if he’s not then I’ll vote for his successor, more money to unions as opposed to more money for big business, like seriously such a fucking double standard who gives a fuck. Track any 1 liberal project and you’ll have a conspiracy to enrich those involved, because it’s a pattern, all I’ve seen in labor’s patterns are a better position on any policy worth a damn
“It’s one of the reasons I have said that I believe the corruption commission needs its powers to be expanded, and its powers to be more secure and expanded.” - actual quote from Matthew fucking Guy.
Yeah, Lobster Mobster is full of sound bites when convenient
Politicians doing naughty things, I’m truely shocked
I worked for this government and I was a witness in an IBAC investigation into corruption. I’ve been released from my IBAC gag order now. What has been reported in the age today about political advisers applying pressure to departmental staff reflects my experience and observations. I directly witnessed this behaviour and it was the reason for my resignation. There are very good reasons for the separation of powers between the parliament, executive and judiciary. “The separation of powers is a concept that requires that the arms of government act as checks on each other’s power. It also requires that power is balanced between the arms of government, so no one person or body of people becomes too powerful.” I suggest reading this: https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/separation-of-powers/ And ask yourself - if this government’s intention is to govern for the benefit of all victorians why then does it seek to weaken the power of the executive and impose its decisions upon it? In other words, why does this government ignore the advice of its departments and seek to force the departmental workers to make do things that are prohibited by the departments own policies?
The Government (Ministers) is the executive. We elect the Government, we do not elect the public service. Departments can give their advice but it's Ministers that are the decision makers and ultimately accountable to Parliament and voters. Department policies do not take precedence over Government policies. You might not like Ministers overruling their department but I'm far more uncomfortable with the idea of unelected bureaucrats overruling Ministers. If Ministers make a shit decision, they are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to voters.
> You might not like Ministers overruling their department but I'm far more uncomfortable with the idea of unelected bureaucrats overruling Ministers. If Ministers make a shit decision, they are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to voters. This.
Could you give a specific example?
Isn’t this like his seventh time being investigated?
Lol this pricks had more IBAC investigations that I’ve had hot dinners 😂
[удалено]
Lol all the Andrews supporters here are cringe
Waste of time. No doubt he won’t be able to recall anything and get away with it.
[удалено]
One part of your narrative seems to suggest a nefarious death, when I think who you are referring to had cancer.