- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
It's certainly in Grech's interests that Rudd and Swan don't wriggle out of it. If they do he is a dead man walking.
Has Kevin Rudd misled parliament?
- Thread starter Quincy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kevin rudd parliament
- Status
It's certainly in Grech's interests that Rudd and Swan don't wriggle out of it. If they do he is a dead man walking.
Quincy
Jack of all trades master of 0
- Joined
- 28 June 2008
- Posts
- 173
- Reactions
- 0
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
It's started already. Lindsay Tanner, Minister for Finance, was suggesting on the news tonight that Grech might be mentally unstable. It's an old Stalinist trick to discredit those who don't toe the party line.
He will probably be bundled out on invalidity grounds.
some thing shifty going on with the proposed whistleblower laws...
I bet Grech is forced to resign.....same as all the other 60 or so members of Rudd staff resigned so far...they will make it impossible for him to continue....and he looked like he had, had enough yesterday....was he bullied you bet.
The scheme, which was drawn up by the House of Representatives standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs, is being considered by Special Minister of State John Faulkner.
In its current form, the scheme would introduce an elaborate and confidential complaint-handling system inside the public service. Those who use the system would be protected from liability.
But it would also retain criminal sanctions for most public disclosures, even those that are made in the public interest.
"We say the proposed system does not work," Mr Bennett said. "If this proposed system goes ahead, don't use it."
Mr Bennett's concern is that immunity from liability will not be extended to most disclosures about public sector wrongdoing that find their way into the public domain.
The only public disclosures that will be protected would be those that concern immediate and serious threats to public health or safety.
This is an improvement on the current arrangements, in which section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act imposes criminal penalties on all public disclosures.
But unless Senator Faulkner changes the committee's proposal, federal law would still impose criminal penalties -- and possible jail time -- on public servants who tell the public about abuse and mismanagement of public resources.
Mr Bennett, who has opened discussions with Senator Faulkner's office, has a few suggestions about the type of disclosures that should be included in the final scheme.
"What about corruption, maladministration, graft, abuse of office and nepotism?" Mr Bennett said.
At the moment, he said the scheme made no provision for these matters to ever be revealed to the public. "
That is hiding things rather than making things accountable and transparent," he said.
It is not just whistleblowers who stand to suffer because of the proposal's shortcomings. If Labor produces a scheme that is shunned by whistleblowers, it will also be undermining the effectiveness of its shield law for journalists' sources.
The two schemes are linked, as Attorney-General Robert McClelland made clear in his second-reading speech on the bill that would introduce the shield law.
This link between a law aimed at protecting whistleblowers and a law aimed at protecting journalists' sources has a startling consequence: it gives the federal
Government a fresh opportunity to catch and prosecute public servants who reveal wrongdoing to the media.
Mr McClelland told parliament that the Government's whistleblower scheme would provide "avenues other than themedia for public interest disclosures".
Unless the whistleblower scheme is changed, the "disclosures" that Mr McClelland was referring to would take place in secret inside the public sector.
If whistleblowers decide that the information they hold is so significant that it needs to bypass the secret system and go directly to the media, the link between the two schemes comes into play.
Unless the material they pass to the media concerns a threat to public health or safety -- and the threat is immediate and serious -- they lose their protection under the whistleblower scheme. And they also stand to lose protection from the proposed shield law for journalists' sources.
Labor's shield law builds on the law that was put in place by former attorney-general Phillip Ruddock. Yet neither scheme provides a reliable "shield". Nowhere in either version is there a presumption that the law will protect journalists' sources.
Mr McClelland has retained the core of Mr Ruddock's blueprint, which gives judges a regulated discretion to allow journalists not to answer questions.
Labor's big change is that an unauthorised leak from the public service -- a crime under federal law -- will no longer automatically remove the shield from the source in question.
But if Mr Bennett is right about the limited attractions of the whistleblower scheme, the beneficial impact of this change might prove illusory.
The Evidence Act already contains provisions that require judges to consider whether it was possible for a journalist's source to use laws, where they were available, that protect public interest disclosures.
Without a federal whistleblower law, there is no chance that this provision could be used to unmask a journalist's source.
But once Labor's whistleblower scheme comes into force, those who bypass it and go directly to the media will stand to lose the protection of the shield law. If the whistleblower scheme remains unchanged, the net effect could be that whistleblowers will lose the benefit of a shield law because of a judge's discretion instead of the words of a statute.
Mr McClelland said as much in parliament: "Failure by a source to access the protections provided by these (whistleblower) laws would be a relevant consideration in the court's determination of whether the confidential communication between a journalist and source should be privileged."
So unless Senator Faulkner strengthens the proposed whistleblower scheme in order to make it more attractive to public servants, he will be weakening the protection for sources that is contained in Mr McClelland's shield law.
There is, however, another possibility. Weak shield laws and inadequate whistleblower protection could be Labor's real goal. Such an outcome would avoid straining relations with senior bureaucrats, would make it easier for the commonwealth to persuade the states to introduce matching shield laws but would still allow Labor to place a tick alongside another election promise. For Senator Faulkner, such a minimalist goal might be problematic. It would form a sharp contrast with his call for cultural change inside the bureaucracy when he was launching reforms last month to the Freedom of Information Act.
Yet even if the problems with the whistleblower scheme are addressed, there is a more basic problem with Labor's shield law.
Before the federal election, Labor promised very little on the protection of journalists. It pledged merely to introduce a non-enforceable protocol that would provide guidance on when journalists should not be pursued in court over the identity of their sources.
the above was an extract only...read the full article
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25344179-5018069,00.html
I bet Grech is forced to resign.....same as all the other 60 or so members of Rudd staff resigned so far...they will make it impossible for him to continue....and he looked like he had, had enough yesterday....was he bullied you bet.
The scheme, which was drawn up by the House of Representatives standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs, is being considered by Special Minister of State John Faulkner.
In its current form, the scheme would introduce an elaborate and confidential complaint-handling system inside the public service. Those who use the system would be protected from liability.
But it would also retain criminal sanctions for most public disclosures, even those that are made in the public interest.
"We say the proposed system does not work," Mr Bennett said. "If this proposed system goes ahead, don't use it."
Mr Bennett's concern is that immunity from liability will not be extended to most disclosures about public sector wrongdoing that find their way into the public domain.
The only public disclosures that will be protected would be those that concern immediate and serious threats to public health or safety.
This is an improvement on the current arrangements, in which section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act imposes criminal penalties on all public disclosures.
But unless Senator Faulkner changes the committee's proposal, federal law would still impose criminal penalties -- and possible jail time -- on public servants who tell the public about abuse and mismanagement of public resources.
Mr Bennett, who has opened discussions with Senator Faulkner's office, has a few suggestions about the type of disclosures that should be included in the final scheme.
"What about corruption, maladministration, graft, abuse of office and nepotism?" Mr Bennett said.
At the moment, he said the scheme made no provision for these matters to ever be revealed to the public. "
That is hiding things rather than making things accountable and transparent," he said.
It is not just whistleblowers who stand to suffer because of the proposal's shortcomings. If Labor produces a scheme that is shunned by whistleblowers, it will also be undermining the effectiveness of its shield law for journalists' sources.
The two schemes are linked, as Attorney-General Robert McClelland made clear in his second-reading speech on the bill that would introduce the shield law.
This link between a law aimed at protecting whistleblowers and a law aimed at protecting journalists' sources has a startling consequence: it gives the federal
Government a fresh opportunity to catch and prosecute public servants who reveal wrongdoing to the media.
Mr McClelland told parliament that the Government's whistleblower scheme would provide "avenues other than themedia for public interest disclosures".
Unless the whistleblower scheme is changed, the "disclosures" that Mr McClelland was referring to would take place in secret inside the public sector.
If whistleblowers decide that the information they hold is so significant that it needs to bypass the secret system and go directly to the media, the link between the two schemes comes into play.
Unless the material they pass to the media concerns a threat to public health or safety -- and the threat is immediate and serious -- they lose their protection under the whistleblower scheme. And they also stand to lose protection from the proposed shield law for journalists' sources.
Labor's shield law builds on the law that was put in place by former attorney-general Phillip Ruddock. Yet neither scheme provides a reliable "shield". Nowhere in either version is there a presumption that the law will protect journalists' sources.
Mr McClelland has retained the core of Mr Ruddock's blueprint, which gives judges a regulated discretion to allow journalists not to answer questions.
Labor's big change is that an unauthorised leak from the public service -- a crime under federal law -- will no longer automatically remove the shield from the source in question.
But if Mr Bennett is right about the limited attractions of the whistleblower scheme, the beneficial impact of this change might prove illusory.
The Evidence Act already contains provisions that require judges to consider whether it was possible for a journalist's source to use laws, where they were available, that protect public interest disclosures.
Without a federal whistleblower law, there is no chance that this provision could be used to unmask a journalist's source.
But once Labor's whistleblower scheme comes into force, those who bypass it and go directly to the media will stand to lose the protection of the shield law. If the whistleblower scheme remains unchanged, the net effect could be that whistleblowers will lose the benefit of a shield law because of a judge's discretion instead of the words of a statute.
Mr McClelland said as much in parliament: "Failure by a source to access the protections provided by these (whistleblower) laws would be a relevant consideration in the court's determination of whether the confidential communication between a journalist and source should be privileged."
So unless Senator Faulkner strengthens the proposed whistleblower scheme in order to make it more attractive to public servants, he will be weakening the protection for sources that is contained in Mr McClelland's shield law.
There is, however, another possibility. Weak shield laws and inadequate whistleblower protection could be Labor's real goal. Such an outcome would avoid straining relations with senior bureaucrats, would make it easier for the commonwealth to persuade the states to introduce matching shield laws but would still allow Labor to place a tick alongside another election promise. For Senator Faulkner, such a minimalist goal might be problematic. It would form a sharp contrast with his call for cultural change inside the bureaucracy when he was launching reforms last month to the Freedom of Information Act.
Yet even if the problems with the whistleblower scheme are addressed, there is a more basic problem with Labor's shield law.
Before the federal election, Labor promised very little on the protection of journalists. It pledged merely to introduce a non-enforceable protocol that would provide guidance on when journalists should not be pursued in court over the identity of their sources.
the above was an extract only...read the full article
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25344179-5018069,00.html
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Yes, I suppose he could be considered 'collateral damage'.
I do hope not. He must have found yesterday's events really difficult considering the pressure he was under from his superiors to shut up.
Re the investigation by the Federal Police, can they be relied upon to conduct this without bias? I'm not intending to suggest they are corrupt, but remembering the pressure placed on Mick Keelty in the past to say only what supported the government's line, I can't help wondering if they might be told what to find and not find.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
kincella
How about using proper quotations for work which is not yours and is poorly attributed.
Grech is clearly of marginal competence, and is not a fit person to put before hearings. Any public servant worth their salt would present a case based on evidence that was available and sustainable. Grech appears to have failed both tests. If ever again he appears to provide evidence I trust he does a better job.
Julia's suggestion that Grech was under pressure to "shut up" is laughable. He was required to provide a recollection of events as he understood them, and that could be supported by relevant materials. Parliament takes a dim view of any attempts to nobble - or hobble - public servants that are required to testify at hearings.
Tainting the Federal Police is equally ludicrous. They will do their job and report exactly what they find, whether Rudd likes it or not. This is not like the Haneef case where they relied on a chain of evidence that was poorly based, and adopted inquiry techniques that presumed guilt from the outset.
Nor is this like the Children Overboard affair, where Howard hushed the truth for as long as possible, and buried its findings in report a year later under the innocuous title of "A Certain Maritime Incident".
Pathetic supporters of Howard's decimated Liberal Party eagerly latch onto anything they can, and hurl it at Rudd with vented spleens. Yet Rudd, unlike Howard, isn't hiding, procrastinating, or looking for scapegoats. Short of convening a Senate Select Committee, Rudd has unleashed the Audit Office and Federal Police to look for this much talked about evidence that even Turnbull isn't sure is kosher.
This is one heck of a beat up and Turnbull has been foolish to relentlessly pursue something which he now claims not to have evidence to support. Just like Johnny falling for the weapons of mass destruction line, on evidence concocted for another purpose.
How about using proper quotations for work which is not yours and is poorly attributed.
Grech is clearly of marginal competence, and is not a fit person to put before hearings. Any public servant worth their salt would present a case based on evidence that was available and sustainable. Grech appears to have failed both tests. If ever again he appears to provide evidence I trust he does a better job.
Julia's suggestion that Grech was under pressure to "shut up" is laughable. He was required to provide a recollection of events as he understood them, and that could be supported by relevant materials. Parliament takes a dim view of any attempts to nobble - or hobble - public servants that are required to testify at hearings.
Tainting the Federal Police is equally ludicrous. They will do their job and report exactly what they find, whether Rudd likes it or not. This is not like the Haneef case where they relied on a chain of evidence that was poorly based, and adopted inquiry techniques that presumed guilt from the outset.
Nor is this like the Children Overboard affair, where Howard hushed the truth for as long as possible, and buried its findings in report a year later under the innocuous title of "A Certain Maritime Incident".
Pathetic supporters of Howard's decimated Liberal Party eagerly latch onto anything they can, and hurl it at Rudd with vented spleens. Yet Rudd, unlike Howard, isn't hiding, procrastinating, or looking for scapegoats. Short of convening a Senate Select Committee, Rudd has unleashed the Audit Office and Federal Police to look for this much talked about evidence that even Turnbull isn't sure is kosher.
This is one heck of a beat up and Turnbull has been foolish to relentlessly pursue something which he now claims not to have evidence to support. Just like Johnny falling for the weapons of mass destruction line, on evidence concocted for another purpose.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Well said Rederob
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,321
- Reactions
- 11,617
I think it would be more prudent not to jump to anyone's defence here. Looks to be some uncertainty as to what's actually gone on.
And there's no need to be abusive towards any other members to voice your opinion.
And there's no need to be abusive towards any other members to voice your opinion.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
You are a spoilsport Rederob. You have enjoyed years of Howard hating and now you try to deny Rudd haters a little bit of schadenfreude. You also assume that Rudd haters are former Howard supporters. My objections to Rudd are not based on any ideology, but simply on his obnoxious character.
- Joined
- 10 March 2008
- Posts
- 313
- Reactions
- 0
I disagree, rederob is just throwing out the devoted labour supporters version of events to rebuff the devoted liberal supporters version.
We are yet to find out the confirmed truth of all this - to me based on what I've seen so far I think that Rudd and Swan are going to be feeling very nervous. This can be sorted out, afterall the Ford Credit CEO can (if he is stupid enough) confirm the contact. A previous post points out that archiving should mean we see if in fact emails where legitimately sent or not. Try to keep an open mind and remember that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Kincella - thanks for your post on the whistleblower piece. I was not aware of this stuff existing (wasn't surprised to see Ruddock's name associated wit it though). That to me is really concerning......
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Datsun - I am a swinging voter and I have seen good and bad in both parties
moXJO - I would like nothing better than to see no corruption, but as you and I know, its never going to happen...
As stated in the ABC News --
'Accusations of misconduct are being made by both sides of Federal politics as a scandal about seeking favours for mates continues to grow.'
moXJO - I would like nothing better than to see no corruption, but as you and I know, its never going to happen...
As stated in the ABC News --
'Accusations of misconduct are being made by both sides of Federal politics as a scandal about seeking favours for mates continues to grow.'
Quincy
Jack of all trades master of 0
- Joined
- 28 June 2008
- Posts
- 173
- Reactions
- 0
As reported "on-line" by "The Daily Telegraph" today : -
Quincy
Jack of all trades master of 0
- Joined
- 28 June 2008
- Posts
- 173
- Reactions
- 0
Ping Pong
- Joined
- 30 March 2005
- Posts
- 835
- Reactions
- 2
Turnbull has now confirmed he has not viewed the printout of a document proported to be an email from the PM's office.
Turnbull, having no confirmation of the authenticity of this document also admitted to not having viewed it himself or senior staffers. He still went ahead and demanded the resignation of our leaders. He also pointed out non of the Liberal party were involved in the creation of the doc.
So this man, by calling for the resignation of our leader and throwing this country into temporary turmoil, is happy to do so on pure speculation anf heresay.
If this email "issue" ends up being a non event, Turnbull should stand down. Even if found to be true, Turnbull should be stood down for misleading the public; he basically has tossed a coin. One would expect an opposition leader would have the good sense to actually view any evidence and then seek to validate the evidence before taking it public.
It shows a lack of integrity, a lack business savvy and poor judgement. I have some magic beans somewhere, it might be time to dust them off and start telemaketing them to Mr Turnbull. Based on his eagerness to jump at opportunities without validity, he may end up being a repeat customer.
cheers,
Turnbull, having no confirmation of the authenticity of this document also admitted to not having viewed it himself or senior staffers. He still went ahead and demanded the resignation of our leaders. He also pointed out non of the Liberal party were involved in the creation of the doc.
So this man, by calling for the resignation of our leader and throwing this country into temporary turmoil, is happy to do so on pure speculation anf heresay.
If this email "issue" ends up being a non event, Turnbull should stand down. Even if found to be true, Turnbull should be stood down for misleading the public; he basically has tossed a coin. One would expect an opposition leader would have the good sense to actually view any evidence and then seek to validate the evidence before taking it public.
It shows a lack of integrity, a lack business savvy and poor judgement. I have some magic beans somewhere, it might be time to dust them off and start telemaketing them to Mr Turnbull. Based on his eagerness to jump at opportunities without validity, he may end up being a repeat customer.
cheers,
Mud slinging and whining. What's new?
Better for everyone if they tried to work together for the Aussie Economy.
The whole thing is starting to look like a playground stoush.
My only hope is that the snitch with the bad memory doesn't top himself like in the movies and the matter gets sorted no matter whose wrong and whose right. That said if, Turnblah is wrong he and the Liberals are going to have a long road back.
Better for everyone if they tried to work together for the Aussie Economy.
The whole thing is starting to look like a playground stoush.
My only hope is that the snitch with the bad memory doesn't top himself like in the movies and the matter gets sorted no matter whose wrong and whose right. That said if, Turnblah is wrong he and the Liberals are going to have a long road back.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
The email affair is just a smokescreen for Rudd to hide behind. Anyone who believes that Rudd didn't ask Swan to look after his mate John Grant, is away with the fairies. Why otherwise would Swan give the matter his special attention. Grant is not a mate of Swan's nor even a constituent.
Swan has been caught out and will have to go, but it will be a sideways move into a good job. He now has too much leverage on Rudd.
Swan has been caught out and will have to go, but it will be a sideways move into a good job. He now has too much leverage on Rudd.
- Joined
- 30 March 2005
- Posts
- 835
- Reactions
- 2
An email affair perpetuated by Turnbull. So are you saying Turnbull started this unfounded saga to allow Rudd to hide behind it? Did I read that correctly?
Caught out doing what exactly? By all official accounts, the car dealer has not received a scrap of benefit in this apparent situation. So where is the illegality?
Please shed some light on this on what exactly this car dealer has received, because I've been looking through reports and can't find a damn thing noted.
cheers,
I say it's a win win all round. Both sides are getting a shake down.
Redrob your not a union member are you? They sprout similar trash.
- Joined
- 30 March 2005
- Posts
- 835
- Reactions
- 2
I'm going to do a "Turnbull" and make an unsubstanciated, outspoken response and say he's not a union follower. From that name I'm guessing he's a bloody Commie!
cheers,
- Status
