Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,551
- 24,452
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Can you be any more naïve?
This is what Operation Daintree found:
- was newly formed and had no relevant experience
- 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:
- 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.
That doesn't say anything about adverse findings against Dan.
Let me remind you again, this discussion started when it was claimed there were adverse findings against Dan.
There aren't adverse findings against Dan.