Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[The Punter]

The initial quote from the report that Number37 quoted said there has been an erosion in Ministerial responsibility.

Now look up the dictionary definition of adverse.

It's a delightful piece of rhetorical gymnastics being undertaken by those who feel compelled to defend the Premier and his government regardless of their actual behaviour.

 

[Gough]

The problem for the Vic Libs is that post Covid they've become like the little boy who cried wolf. Having spent the entire lockdown period accusing Andrews of being everything under the sun when genuine considerations come for discussion it's hard to take their input seriously.

 

[The Punter]

The problem for the Vic Libs is that post Covid they've become like the little boy who cried wolf. Having spent the entire lockdown period accusing Andrews of being everything under the sun when genuine considerations come for discussion it's hard to take their input seriously.

Your point is well taken, but as some stage you have to stop swinging at every pitch and I think that has started to happen. And JP is getting flack from his right flank inside the party for not "taking the fight to Labor" because of it.

 

[Saint]

Your point is well taken, but as some stage you have to stop swinging at every pitch and I think that has started to happen. And JP is getting flack from his right flank inside the party for not "taking the fight to Labor" because of it.

I think a good element of it is that the backbenchers are throwing up stuff that doesn't need to be swung at so often that, as a team, they sound silly.

I feel for Andrews' ministers. They're all being dictated to from the Premier's office. So when it hits the fan, it's the Minister's responsibility, but the decisions have all come from the Premier's advisors (office).

It's not great, but if the buck doesn't stop with the minister, it definitely stops with the Premier. From a political stand-point, I don't think "all these ministers are probably corrupt, but not the Premier" is an election-winning strategy, except that the opposition and media have made it all about Andrews.

If they hadn't made it all about Andrews, but instead pointed out how many ministerial failings there had been, they might be doing better and have more attacks ready to go. Attack the Ministers and their policies, not just Andrews personally.

 

[Sttew]

The problem for the Vic Libs is that post Covid they've become like the little boy who cried wolf. Having spent the entire lockdown period accusing Andrews of being everything under the sun when genuine considerations come for discussion it's hard to take their input seriously.

But in this instance its not the Vic Libs crying wolf. It's Robert Redlich, a Labor appointee as Commissioner of IBAC. Its also Deborah Glass, the Victorian Ombudsman.

 

[The Punter]

I think a good element of it is that the backbenchers are throwing up stuff that doesn't need to be swung at so often that, as a team, they sound silly.

I feel for Andrews' ministers. They're all being dictated to from the Premier's office. So when it hits the fan, it's the Minister's responsibility, but the decisions have all come from the Premier's advisors (office).

It's not great, but if the buck doesn't stop with the minister, it definitely stops with the Premier. From a political stand-point, I don't think "all these ministers are probably corrupt, but not the Premier" is an election-winning strategy, except that the opposition and media have made it all about Andrews.

If they hadn't made it all about Andrews, but instead pointed out how many ministerial failings there had been, they might be doing better and have more attacks ready to go. Attack the Ministers and their policies, not just Andrews personally.

I think going after Ministers is a political strategy with a limited scope for electoral success. Most people don't know who Ministers are. So to a certain extent, it has to be about the leader because the leader is the personification of the team in most people's minds. So you end up with "why can't Andrews build a successful Ministry?"

Also, somewhat understandably, the Premier wants to control things because he knows his bench is very thin. Pearson, Stitt, Tierney, Kilkenny, Blandthorn, D'Ambrosio, Dimopolous, Horne and Spence are not good enough to be Ministers, Hutchins just had her legs cut out from under her with the independent schools by Pallas and Andrews over payroll tax (it was totally not her decision), and Carbines and Erdogan are pretty green around the edges. A lot of talent walked out the door before the last election and has not been replaced satisfactorily. So more and more stuff gets run out of a small group of people Andrews can trust.

 

[Saint]

I think going after Ministers is a political strategy with a limited scope for electoral success. Most people don't know who Ministers are. So to a certain extent, it has to be about the leader because the leader is the personification of the team in most people's minds. So you end up with "why can't Andrews build a successful Ministry?"

Also, somewhat understandably, the Premier wants to control things because he knows his bench is very thin. Pearson, Stitt, Tierney, Kilkenny, Blandthorn, D'Ambrosio, Dimopolous, Horne and Spence are not good enough to be Ministers, Hutchins just had her legs cut out from under her with the independent schools by Pallas and Andrews over payroll tax (it was totally not her decision), and Carbines and Erdogan are pretty green around the edges. A lot of talent walked out the door before the last election and has not been replaced satisfactorily. So more and more stuff gets run out of a small group of people Andrews can trust.

So Cabinet is a weak point, but they're going to continue to bang their heads on the same door they've been banging for a decade?

Problem would also be that the Liberal front bench is as weak, or weaker, so not really a strength for the Libs to play off.

I reckon going after Pallas and one other would help make it look like the Libs were actually thinking and not just yelling "dictator Dan" every day.

With the irony being that Andrews' dictatorial control of Cabinet/Govt is a big problem, but the term "Dictator Dan" was over-used during the pandemic to the point of it becoming meaningless.

Election is years away, 3 more years of "Dan this, Dan that" will be only more tiresome. Maybe 3 years of policy discussions would be good before going back to electoral populism. (Perhaps this would be easier if the Liberal leader wasn't under internal threat every other week).

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I think going after Ministers is a political strategy with a limited scope for electoral success. Most people don't know who Ministers are. So to a certain extent, it has to be about the leader because the leader is the personification of the team in most people's minds. So you end up with "why can't Andrews build a successful Ministry?"

Also, somewhat understandably, the Premier wants to control things because he knows his bench is very thin. Pearson, Stitt, Tierney, Kilkenny, Blandthorn, D'Ambrosio, Dimopolous, Horne and Spence are not good enough to be Ministers, Hutchins just had her legs cut out from under her with the independent schools by Pallas and Andrews over payroll tax (it was totally not her decision), and Carbines and Erdogan are pretty green around the edges. A lot of talent walked out the door before the last election and has not been replaced satisfactorily. So more and more stuff gets run out of a small group of people Andrews can trust.

They should probably come up with some policies instead of just going after everyone and opposing everything.

 

[The Punter]

Dictator Dan is a mistake that some keep making. We had an election, geez, we had three.

And on the policy thing, it's been ten months and policy work takes time. There was plenty of policy content before 2018 and 2022 from the Opposition, but IMO it was not sufficiently in depth. The policy work needs to be more than merely announceable wish-list items. It would be a point of difference considering the government aren't really interested in large scale policy work any more either. They like announcements like a fat kid love cake.

 

[kalex6251]

Dictator Dan is a mistake that some keep making. We had an election, geez, we had three.

And on the policy thing, it's been ten months and policy work takes time. There was plenty of policy content before 2018 and 2022 from the Opposition, but IMO it was not sufficiently in depth. The policy work needs to be more than merely announceable wish-list items. It would be a point of difference considering the government aren't really interested in large scale policy work any more either. They like announcements like a fat kid love cake.

so the unhinged attacks against 'safe schools' was considered policy that lacked depth?

so the 'african gangs' pile on was considered policy that lacked depth?

so the attacks on public housing in wealthy suburbs was considered policy that lacked depth?

so the endless fixation with dan andrews broken back was considered policy that lacked depth?

until they disavow themselves of these shameless, disgusting and at times openly bigoted attacks (and hold everyone involved responsible) then they deserve their irrelevance as a political force in this state

 

[The Punter]

so the unhinged attacks against 'safe schools' was considered policy that lacked depth?

so the 'african gangs' pile on was considered policy that lacked depth?

so the attacks on public housing in wealthy suburbs was considered policy that lacked depth?

so the endless fixation with dan andrews broken back was considered policy that lacked depth?

until they disavow themselves of these shameless, disgusting and at times openly bigoted attacks (and hold everyone involved responsible) then they deserve their irrelevance as a political force in this state

This may come as a surprise to someone who, at best, may have a casual relationship with things like correct punctuation, but the Opposition did other things as well. Also, one stupid press release doesn't constitute an "endless fixation".

Finally, there is trying to stop public housing in wealthy suburbs - I'm on the record here lauding Bolte and Hamer for building public housing in a variety of Melbourne suburbs. But it's not at the same level of disgusting as locking actual public housing tenants in their buildings with an armed police guard in a way that would never be contemplated in a private apartment building. I believe the people who did that deserve irrelevance as a political force in this state.

 

[Satan]

Leaked documents from a 2020 Victorian branch-stacking investigation showed that only 13 of the 132 members signed up by the Lalor South branch – associated with Climate Action, Energy and Resources Minister Lily D’Ambrosio – remained on the books after the probe was carried out, according to The Australian.

Two men whose memberships of the branch were renewed for two years after their deaths was also uncovered.

 

[Sttew]

Leaked documents from a 2020 Victorian branch-stacking investigation showed that only 13 of the 132 members signed up by the Lalor South branch – associated with Climate Action, Energy and Resources Minister Lily D’Ambrosio – remained on the books after the probe was carried out, according to The Australian.

Two men whose memberships of the branch were renewed for two years after their deaths was also uncovered.

Will the same rules applied to Adam Somyurek by the Premier be applied to Lily D'Ambrosio?

 

[Satan]

Will the same rules applied to Adam Somyurek by the Premier be applied to Lily D'Ambrosio?

Cough cough
The Premier on Tuesday backed his Energy Minister after reports she was involved in serious branch-stacking, saying there was “no comparison” to what was revealed during the 2020 branch-stacking probe.

 

[Sttew]

Cough cough
The Premier on Tuesday backed his Energy Minister after reports she was involved in serious branch-stacking, saying there was “no comparison” to what was revealed during the 2020 branch-stacking probe.

Aha! So there is an acceptable level of branch stacking that does not require any intervention or scrutiny? That sounds right.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Your point is well taken, but as some stage you have to stop swinging at every pitch and I think that has started to happen. And JP is getting flack from his right flank inside the party for not "taking the fight to Labor" because of it.

JP is basically the night watchman at this point. Sure he can put 20 runs at get to stumps but he has to face 150 km/h bouncers.

 

[Rob R]

Will the same rules applied to Adam Somyurek by the Premier be applied to Lily D'Ambrosio?

Well Adam was concerned about Chinese influence and from a different faction whereas Lily is a drone of Dan. So she should be safe but Dan does have a pattern of getting rid of women whenever he can.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sttew]

HUN reporting tonight that the branch stacking claims against Lily D’Ambrosio have been orchestrated by the right faction of Labor and is a direct attack on Dan’s stranglehold of the ALP in Victoria. D’Ambrosio, a key supporter of Dan, is saying she is the victim of an ALP war to gain control of the ALP.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/energy-and-resources-minister-lily-dambrosios-labor-branch-caught-out-in-membership-scandal/news-story/6c6195427fe672da3cdef9c69a529325

 

[Number37]

Whatever. LOL. I will put my money on what the man who ran the inquiry says and not some anonymous blowhard who can’t see the wood for the trees. Everyday

It’s a real pity and sad that you don’t know what corruption is.

Retired Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles — who sits on the board of the Centre for Public Integrity — said the reason IBAC stopped short of a finding of corruption was because it was limited by Victorian legislation. Nowhere else in Australia will you find such a narrow definition.

"The definition of corruption in the IBAC legislation requires that the conduct in question also constitute a relevant offence, so it has to involve criminal conduct as well as conduct which is objectionable," he said.

He said the government needed to urgently overhaul the laws governing the IBAC, to bring its definition of corruption in line with that used by Transparency International, which is "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".

This is a very serious finding … it reflects very seriously on this government and its attitude to matters of integrity," he said.

Integrity experts urge swift action to rein in 'grey corruption' in Victoria

Integrity experts urge the Andrews government to act swiftly to tackle the risk of "grey corruption" by political staffers, after a damning report by the state's anti-corruption watchdog.

www.abc.net.au

LOL

The man who ran the inquiry wrote a 132 page report.
He isn't saying the same thing now as he wrote in his report.
Because what he is saying now is hypothetical.
He can only act on the law as it is.

Which you are failing to understand is vastly different to the law as you want it to be.

"If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle".

If a corruption finding was possible, it would only apply to the advisors. That is who engaged in the questioned conduct.

The initial quote from the report that Number37 quoted said there has been an erosion in Ministerial responsibility.

Now look up the dictionary definition of adverse.

It's a delightful piece of rhetorical gymnastics being undertaken by those who feel compelled to defend the Premier and his government regardless of their actual behaviour.

Didn't read the report did you.
The 'erosion in Ministerial responsibility' refers to a Minister's oversight of their advisors and goes on to discuss the Health Ministers.
Then it goes on to address the Premier's responsibility....as the number of staff in the Premier's office is so large, responsibility for those staff falls on the Premier's Chief of Staff....this does not absolve the Premier of accountability to the extent that their COS should keep them in the loop.

That's it.

But according to the cookers, Dan would have been found to be corrupt but for the definition of corruption.

 

[Sttew]

But according to the cookers, Dan would have been found to be corrupt but for the definition of corruption.

Can you be any more naïve?

This is what Operation Daintree found:

• Although the contract value was more than $1 million, a competitive procurement process was not followed.
• The project was awarded to a single provider, HEF, which:

- was newly formed and had no relevant experience
- at the time of engagement was not a registered training organisation
- was not financially established and thereby posed a risk of non-delivery
- did not have sound governance arrangements
- had directors who held executive positions at the Health Workers Union (HWU).

• HEF was not on the approved training register and would have been unlikely to qualify for inclusion.
• A partial upfront payment was approved prior to delivery of any training despite the finance division of DHHS advising against this.

When the Andrews government was elected in 2014, it amended the IBAC legislation by narrowing the definition of corrupt conduct to encompass only a narrow range of particular indictable criminal offences.

So, the IBAC Commissioner found no crime had been committed under the narrow definition of corruption in the IBAC legislation. But the Commissioner still found wrongdoing - “The whole report is about findings of misconduct, and all of those findings go to a lack of integrity in the way in which the decisions that pertained to the union were made... that is corruption"

But Number37 cannot see anything wrong with what happened. In fact he says it is only "cookers" who would say anything wrong happened.

 

[The Punter]

If a corruption finding was possible, it would only apply to the advisors. That is who engaged in the questioned conduct.

And if Ministerial responsibility was as it was pre-1996, then the Ministers would be held responsible for the conduct of those people who worked for them.

Can you be any more naïve?

This is what Operation Daintree found:

• Although the contract value was more than $1 million, a competitive procurement process was not followed.
• The project was awarded to a single provider, HEF, which:

- was newly formed and had no relevant experience
- at the time of engagement was not a registered training organisation
- was not financially established and thereby posed a risk of non-delivery
- did not have sound governance arrangements
- had directors who held executive positions at the Health Workers Union (HWU).

• HEF was not on the approved training register and would have been unlikely to qualify for inclusion.
• A partial upfront payment was approved prior to delivery of any training despite the finance division of DHHS advising against this.

When the Andrews government was elected in 2014, it amended the IBAC legislation by narrowing the definition of corrupt conduct to encompass only a narrow range of particular indictable criminal offences.

So, the IBAC Commissioner found no crime had been committed under the narrow definition of corruption in the IBAC legislation. But the Commissioner still found wrongdoing - “The whole report is about findings of misconduct, and all of those findings go to a lack of integrity in the way in which the decisions that pertained to the union were made... that is corruption"

But Number37 cannot see anything wrong with what happened. In fact he says it is only "cookers" who would say anything wrong happened.

Not only is the poster saying that, he is narrowing the definition of wrong.

Did corruption as defined by the IBAC legislation happen? No.

Did wrongdoing happen? Decide for yourself.

BTW, I'm not necessarily a supporter of providing IBAC with a wider scope - it's led to some pretty undesirable outcomes in other jurisdictions.

However, that doesn't mean that there is not a standard of conduct aside from IBAC's current purview that a government (of any colour) should achieve.

What we haven't heard (and probably won't) is a defence of what the Andrews Government did. It there was nothing wrong, then a defence should be easy to mount.

 

[Magnum27]

HUN reporting tonight that the branch stacking claims against Lily D’Ambrosio have been orchestrated by the right faction of Labor and is a direct attack on Dan’s stranglehold of the ALP in Victoria. D’Ambrosio, a key supporter of Dan, is saying she is the victim of an ALP war to gain control of the ALP.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/energy-and-resources-minister-lily-dambrosios-labor-branch-caught-out-in-membership-scandal/news-story/6c6195427fe672da3cdef9c69a529325

So is she saying the branch stacking didn't occur ? or someone else outside her office cooked the books so to speak and it is all a set up.

 

[The Punter]

So is she saying the branch stacking didn't occur ? or someone else outside her office cooked the books so to speak and it is all a set up.

Never deny specifics. That's where you get caught out.

"I have always acted appropriately"

 

[MJG14]

Nice to see Heidi worked up about the big issues. Prototyping is better than stuffing up the real thing!

 

[Number37]

And if Ministerial responsibility was as it was pre-1996, then the Ministers would be held responsible for the conduct of those people who worked for them.

And who was the Minister?
Not Dan.

If you bother to read the report it says Dan, as Premier, has overall responsibility for all Ministers.
If you bother to read the report it makes numerous recommendations in relation to accountability.