ICAC? (formerly Lipson Estate - Gillman)

[Norman]

The problem with the NSW ICAC is that it goes too far and has in some cases made relatively innocent people look like criminals. I expect that there will be some things we won't know about the government's dealings, but this is not always necessarily a bad thing. It's not like our state is hugely corrupt, most of the 750 submissions have turned out to be trivial matters within the public service.

In this world of the 24 hour news cycle, every molehill can easily be turned into a mountain.

[stumpjumper]

Given the way media report such things, people who are alleged to have committed crimes but who are found innocent can suffer unfairly. There is a counter argument that a mere allegation is legitimate news, but there is also the question of malicious accusations.

The NSW ICAC makes public its convictions and also seems free with the names of people involved in ongoing investigations. I suppose that there is a kind of low grade filter: investigations presumably proceed where there is at least a prima facie case.

So the transparency offered by an ICAC seems to be a matter of degree - high transparency in the case of NSW. minimal in SA. My point is that in SA, the level of secrecy is too high. The rationale here is that the withholding by ICAC of any information at all about its operations protects the innocent. It might just as well be said, especially given the years of resistance to an ICAC by governments here, that the silence is more likely intended to protect the guilty.

Further, how is the public to assess the independence, and the value, of our Independent Commission Against Corruption if we are not able to find out anything about it? Are there allegations the ICAC won't pursue? Are there people it won't touch, or people with influence at government level who get off lightly? Our justice system - the hierarchy of courts - is by default open; its proceedings and the records of its proceedings are available for public scrutiny. Why is the ICAC closed? Is it really due to a concern for innocent people, or is it because its cases generally involve the government, which might suffer at the polls as a result of transparency?

As to 'most of the 750 submissions to date have turned out to be trivial matters within the public service', Norman, I'd like to see your figures, and know how you got them. Even if most cases have been minor, what about submissions on serious matters? Have there been any (apart from mine), and what were the outcomes of those?

[Norman]

That figure of 750 came straight from the commissioner. I said most cases were trivial given the fact that of those around 50 are under investigation. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/c ... ic/5409438

[stumpjumper]

Thanks Norman. I read the references. It's good to see that some news of the ICAC 's doings is getting out, but it's also a bit disconcerting to see the boss of the SA ICAC pleading for more transparency.

You could say that a bit of openness would prevent rumours, but they seem to think they can clamp down on rumours as well by making it illegal for even a complainant to discuss their complaint. No black helicopters over my place yet.

It will be interesting to see what sort of reporting there is of any successful prosecutions by this ICAC.

[stumpjumper]

With the sitting of the new Parliament, Xenophon MP and former Valuer-General John Darley has started an inquiry into this government-sponsored deal which is on terms highly unfavourable to the public interest and which will if completed result in the creation of a monopoly for hard waste disposal in Adelaide for years to come.

Premier Weatherill is telling people that the deal is fine, and that to even question it might put the deal in jeopardy.

Everyone else involved seems to have gone to ground.

[stumpjumper]

There's no need to wonder why South Australia is a backwoods, sleepy hollow and an easy target for any half-smart crook.

I've just addressed a small group of South Australian adults on the subject of honesty in government. I used the Gillman land deal as a current example of how the public can be ripped off not just a few dollars but millions.

Reaction: comments like 'Yeah, but it's always been like that,' 'Big business and government have always been crooked,' 'That's life, get used to it,' etc.

Basically, no-one cares. Why don't we advertise the fact - 'Come to South Australia - where serious crime is happily tolerated'.

Maybe it's the scale of it - no-one gives a rat's arse if a gang of white collar crims steal a few hundred million, yet people will go nuts if their iPhone is stolen.

It cuts both ways. None of the people who tolerate crime in this half-dead community should ever petition the government for better funding for anything - how can they when they are happy to see public funds carted away in barrow loads by crooks? Nor should they ever complain about crime - they obviously have no objection whatever to theft or dishonesty.

[monotonehell]

I suspect it's less about not caring and more about feeling unable to do anything about it.

I'm hoping for a national ICAC to really route this country at all levels. As your "adults" said, "they're all at it."

[pushbutton]

......South Australia is a backwoods, sleepy hollow and an easy target for any half-smart crook.

...... 'Come to South Australia - where serious crime is happily tolerated'.

......this half-dead community ......

........and some people on this forum call ME negative lol!!!!!!
Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

[stumpjumper]

Thank you for your respect, pushbutton.

I'm referring to the 'couldn't care less' attitude to being ripped off which seems to me to be particularly noticeable in South Australia. Maybe I'm exaggerating the situation, and I have no current experience of living elsewhere to make anything but a personal, subjective claim that we seem to just put up with ratbaggery in high places here.

Consider: A premier (Rann) firmly states that he intends to run full term. Not the Labour caucus, but a union leader with no political position (Peter Malinauskas) frog marches Rann out of office and unbelievably, accompanies the Treasurer to Government House to set up a new regime. Photo of this on the front page of the Advertiser - reaction: a community shrug, including from the Opposition.

Unholy cabals of industry leaders and politicians blatantly manipulate land sales (Mt Barker, Gillman) and again, the community simply bears it, while the Opposition tut-tuts impotently.

The outrageous story of the State Bank was similar. No need to go into the years of inaction by people who must have had a pretty good idea of what was going on there.

We sit mum while our democracy is turned into a game where public office is the prize, sought by ruthless self-seekers who dominate pre-selections, desperate to settle themselves onto the privileged leather of North Terrace and enjoy the rewards.

With the exception of a few journalists and some bloggers with nothing to lose, most people seem either not to care, feel powerless as you say, or simply regard dodgy behaviour by those in positions of trust as the normal way of doing business.

What's the explanation?

Now at least we have an ICAC, if a feeble one whose own commissioner is asking for more power. And this after a decade of our premier assuring us that there's no corruption worth the name in SA.

I don't care if crooks rip each other off. But when the same government that is telling schools and communities 'We can't afford this and we can't afford that' is tolerating or worse, is party to scams against the public interest they are supposed to protect, then I feel justified in asking what the hell is wrong with us.

[pushbutton]

I suspect the sort of public apathy to which you allude is not unique to SA.

I also suspect that in many cases the reason for this stems from lack of intelligence and/or education, but in most cases it's more to do with a feeling of helplessness. I include myself in that latter bit. I know things are wrong but I don't believe I can do much about it (except perhaps writing on forums like this, which may or may not change a little here and there).

[Nathan]

I suspect the sort of public apathy to which you allude is not unique to SA.

I think a clue lies in that Alain de Botton talk about the news that was posted in another thread. We're so overwhelmed by a constant stream of news, that even major stories from last week are just forgotten about. Major political stories don't have much traction unless it's tied to something tabloidy.

[stumpjumper]

We're capable of sorting serious shit from the avalanche of trivial information poured on us by the media. We do it all the time, psychologists say, in relation to useful information we take notice of among the millions of stimuli we're exposed to, media sourced or not. Why should we be immune to apparent evidence of corruption especially that which costs us money?

I agree, though, Nathan, that there does seem to be something about the goings on in politics that must stun us into insensibility. Perhaps it's the scale and audacity of the apparent misbehaviour. Did Clive Palmer really bankroll his way to balance of power using money provided by his Chinese partners specifically to run an industrial facility? He couldn't have! Are the NSW Labor and Liberal parties both rotten to the core? They couldn't be! What is the Qld police commissioner doing in jail for corruption (a few years ago)? Etc etc.

But all that doesn't mean you can't do something useful here in Adelaide, where the great and powerful are not so removed from the peasants.

There are things you can do, pushbutton, even as a private citizen. You can dig around for information. The internet is unforgiving to dodgy bastards in the way that it retains and makes available information to anyone prepared to hunt for it. The net also makes it easy to look for connections that point to corrupt behaviour.

You can contact the media yourself if you come across something useful. There are always hungry journalists looking for copy.

There are often disgruntled parties willing to use an 'activist' when they can't speak themselves. The Opposition, whichever side they are, are always happy to hear damaging information about their foes.

You can use all these agendas to get what you have publicised.

Sure, there are nutters and conspiracy theorists who bother MPs and the media with bizarre ideas, but if you have a story involving real risk to the public interest, and some compelling evidence, you'll be given a hearing.

Don't underestimate the power of even a phone call from a non-entity if it exposes facts which someone wants hidden.

I'm not saying it's every citizen's civic or moral duty to go to war against corruption, and many people are understandably not keen if doing so might risk their employment for example, but for those in the happy position of being unaligned, self-employed and with the time and inclination, it's not a bad part-time occupation.

[pushbutton]

I suspect the sort of public apathy to which you allude is not unique to SA.

I think a clue lies in that Alain de Botton talk about the news that was posted in another thread. We're so overwhelmed by a constant stream of news, that even major stories from last week are just forgotten about. Major political stories don't have much traction unless it's tied to something tabloidy.

Good point. I agree.

I'm still amazed at how few people seem to be in the slightest bit concerned about 9/11 and the massive obvious problems with what we were told happened. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm certainly not one of those people who says "There are problems with the official story, so therefore George W Bush must have done it"! However it is plain for anyone with any common sense to see that what we were told just wasn't anything like the full truth.

Again though, we've been overwhelmed with so much news since then that it gets forgotten, or put way down the list in terms of public awareness. Also there's that feeling of helplessness as in "what can I do about it?"

[stumpjumper]

I'd be interested, pushbutton, in what alternative scenario/s you have for the 9/11 events and your evidence.

I have an open mind, and I'm well aware that the perception of many historically pivotal events has been shown to be quite different from the reality, but in the case of 9/11, I saw (I'm 99.99% certain) with my own eyes two aircraft hit the World Trade Centre. What I have seen, read and heard about the events since then has overwhelmingly supported the view that radical Islamists trained to fly heavy jets and pulled off a shocking hit to the USA.

What can you say that's different?

[monotonehell]

9/11

alert alert alert

Looks like I was correct in moving this thread to the pub.

A gentle reminder to people not to visit such depths as tarring a whole population with the same brush and such wild generalisations.