SA Footy

And you think State ICACs are overly effective???

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Just reading a bit more info, Boothby did well out of this lol.

What's the key here, we need a few more marginal seats in SA haha.

If Labor had won, they’d be paying out their promised “grants” now
As for Albo saying it’s “unprecedented”
He’s since had to qualify that when challenged
They are both as bad as each other; Federal & State

Jimmy_041 wrote:If Labor had won, they’d be paying out their promised “grants” now
As for Albo saying it’s “unprecedented”
He’s since had to qualify that when challenged
They are both as bad as each other; Federal & State

Ros Kelly 'resigned' over $30 mil. Mckenzie should be resigning over her $100 mil rort.

In 2009 and again in 2014 a Caymans company established by Cayman Angus offered 37GL+ of “overland flow” for $1,495/ML — rejected by gov as not value for money.

In 2017, The Beetrooter approved $2,745/ML for the same water entitlement.

How good is LNP corruption!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/20/government-rejected-several-offers-on-water-rights-before-reaching-80m-deal

This from the AFR.

Simon Longstaff (Dr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of The Ethics Centre.)
Jan 20, 2020 — 12.00am

Senator Bridget McKenzie’s brazen indifference to the findings of the Australian National Audit Office report on her administration of a now infamous sports grant scheme tells us all we need to know about the quality of political leadership in this country.

Showing how ethically bereft our governments have become, the former minister of sport, who now holds the agriculture portfolio, has defended her conduct by invoking two of the worst arguments available: that "no rules were broken" and that "the ends justify the means".

The question now is this: do McKenzie’s colleagues – including the Prime Minister – endorse this approach? If so, then let’s hope that the whole nation laughs out loud the next time a Coalition minister attacks "union corruption", throws a bank executive under the bus or invokes the concept of integrity when criticising others.

The definition of corruption in government is well-established and widely agreed. Corruption is the use of public power for private profit. Transparency International defines political corruption as “manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth”. Handing out money as a means for maintaining power fits the definition rather neatly. Neither definition excuses corrupt conduct because it happens to be legal, or also to the advantage of others.

So, while it may be true that using funds to shore up the electoral fortunes of McKenzie’s political allies is not illegal, it is unethical. As to the argument that some are better off thanks to the minister’s politically inspired largesse – does McKenzie really think the Australian public is gullible enough to swallow that line?

Of course someone is better off; $100 million spent on community programs is bound to do some good. The problem is that the programs judged by unbiased public servants to be most in need were left worse off. Why? Not because they were not deserving enough – it was simply their misfortune to not be located in a marginal electorate targeted by the Coalition during the last election.

This goes a long way towards explaining the attitude of three regional mayors interviewed on ABC Radio National during last year’s federal election. Their common aim was to make their electorates as marginal as possible – just so that they might be noticed by the likes of McKenzie.

This is just one of the problems with corrupt politicians: they corrupt the electorate. Their dodgy behaviour distorts the judgment of citizens. They deploy power in ways that punish the virtuous and reward only those who play their game. We begin by being compromised and end up being complicit.

Of course, we could resist. We could stick to our principles. However, arguing that "virtue is its own reward" is not much comfort for those whose children miss out on vital sporting facilities simply because they don’t compute in the electoral maths of politicians like McKenzie.

And what of Bridget? Is she a bad person? Almost certainly not. Has she done much good for the community? Undoubtedly so. Are her underlying motives oriented towards the good of the nation? You bet! I suspect she is a wonderful person. That’s not the point. McKenzie has also shown herself to be an irresponsible minister who has done wrong and refuses to acknowledge this.

Fortunately, we have a Prime Minister who stood for office as a principled man. Hopefully, we can rely on him to uphold the conventions of ministerial responsibility – even when it is difficult or inconvenient to do so.

The honourable course of action would be for the minister to resign. However, if she fails to do so, then she should be dismissed by Scott Morrison.

Politicians volunteer for elected office on the understanding that they will serve the public interest first – not the private interests of political parties, donors, their mates and so on.

It’s a simple and obvious requirement. So, why is it so hard to find people with the moral courage to uphold this basic principle of liberal democracy?

Bridget McKenzie didn't have legal power over sports grants, law expert Anne Twomey says
ABC News

Senator Bridget McKenzie did not appear to have the constitutional power to make decisions about the $100 million community sports grant program, says a leading law expert who has also cast doubt on the lawfulness of the entire process.

"The Minister herself does not have the power to make these decisions in relation to these grants," Professor Twomey told the ABC.

"That's a power that's been vested by the legislation in Sports Australia, as the Australian Sports Commission.

"And that means that there are some difficulties there in terms of working out how it is that the Minister could make the final decision in relation to these grants."

Senator McKenzie is facing growing pressure to resign over the handling of the sports grant program after a federal auditor-general's report found marginal seats were targeted before the election by the then-sports minister.

The report discovered "evidence of distribution bias in the award of grant funding" and noted there did not appear to be any legal authority for the Minister to have picked recipients.

It has since been revealed Prime Minister Scott Morrison's local soccer club also boasted about funding for a clubhouse weeks before a grant was announced.

Senator McKenzie has defended herself by saying she had every right to involve herself in the process.

"Ministerial discretion was actually written into the guidelines for a purpose," she said.

Professor Twomey has also cast doubt on the entire sports grants program, citing the case of a Queensland father who challenged the school chaplaincy program in the High Court in 2014.

"The High Court said, 'Well, the Commonwealth can't spend money on things unless there's parliamentary authorisation for it and unless there's some support in the constitution for it'," Professor Twomey said.

"In this particular case, the Commonwealth might rely on what's sometimes called its nationhood power.

"But that means you either need some kind of national emergency, like the bushfires or the global economic crisis … or it has to be something that peculiarly only the Commonwealth can do and the states are unable to do.

"And we know that the states can, and do, give out sports grants, so it doesn't seem to fit either of those.

"Which means that there's a bit of a problem in terms of supporting this program."

Government minister Darren Chester also weighed in on the controversy surrounding his Nationals colleague, suggesting increased transparency around grants could help restore public trust.

"I've said this many times publicly in the past — the integrity of the way we deliver these types of programs needs to have the transparency that people can have confidence that a fair system is in place," he told the ABC.

"Because people need to have confidence when they make a bid for a program."

"Increasing the transparency, I think, will be good for us as politicians at local, state and federal level, to restore that trust with our voters."

Another example of Tony Abbott (remember him?) bravely downplaying the contribution of climate change to the Australian bushfire crisis by making a speech on the other side of the world.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/almost-a-religious-aspect-tony-abbott-downplays-link-between-bushfires-and-climate-change-20200122-p53tj7.html

To be fair though, visiting the US does give Abbott a chance to catch up with his old mate Joe Hockey, where they can reminisce about the 2014 budget and the 'debt and deficit disaster' that has somehow since grown under Turnbull and Morrison's watch. Also, Hockey probably could use a friendly chat from someone else who bought into his 'lifters and leaners' nonsense, given big Joe's current position is basically a cushy 'leaner' government funded sinecure.

The Age reckons McKenzie approved a $36,000 taxpayer-funded grant for a clay target shooting club in regional Victoria without publicly disclosing she was a member.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/mckenzie-approved-36-000-for-shooting-club-without-saying-she-was-a-member-20200121-p53tbf.html

Just wondering where the low point is for a minister to put there hand up and say I ****** up rather than say there only guidelines, no rules were broken.

Wonder if it exists, probably not.

Magellan wrote:Another example of Tony Abbott (remember him?) bravely downplaying the contribution of climate change to the Australian bushfire crisis by making a speech on the other side of the world.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/almost-a-religious-aspect-tony-abbott-downplays-link-between-bushfires-and-climate-change-20200122-p53tj7.html

To be fair though, visiting the US does give Abbott a chance to catch up with his old mate Joe Hockey, where they can reminisce about the 2014 budget and the 'debt and deficit disaster' that has somehow since grown under Turnbull and Morrison's watch. Also, Hockey probably could use a friendly chat from someone else who bought into his 'lifters and leaners' nonsense, given big Joe's current position is basically a cushy 'leaner' government funded sinecure.

That's our mate Tony. He's a decent bloke at ground level, works hard for his community and is apart of his local CFS. So you give him points for that, but if anyone knows about climate change being akin as he has said to almost religious beliefs then he would.

His budget idea had merrit and he and old mate Joe were on the right track, problem is at the same time you wanted us all to do more heavy lifting, him and his mates were taking the piss with there travel allowances and housing allowances at the same time.

I mean shit, come on he shit himself the foot and made it so easy for Malcolm.

stan wrote:Just wondering where the low point is for a minister to put there hand up and say I ****** up rather than say there only guidelines, no rules were broken.

Wonder if it exists, probably not.

each time i think we have found that new low point, and that maybe the latest "scandal" that has been uncovered will act as a wakeup call to pollies as a group, someone, somewhere says "hold my beer" and lowers it further.

whats the point of even having guidelines if they can be so easily ignored with no penalty?

stan wrote:Just wondering where the low point is for a minister to put there hand up and say I ****** up rather than say there only guidelines, no rules were broken.

Wonder if it exists, probably not.

Under the Morrison playbook, you wait as long as humanly possible before making any admission or concession.

Magellan wrote:

stan wrote:Just wondering where the low point is for a minister to put there hand up and say I ****** up rather than say there only guidelines, no rules were broken.

Wonder if it exists, probably not.

Under the Morrison playbook, you wait as long as humanly possible before making any admission or concession.

I think they are running out of dead cats to throw on the dining room table

The word is McKenzie will announce her resignation by tomorrow.

stan wrote:Just wondering where the low point is for a minister to put there hand up and say I ****** up rather than say there only guidelines, no rules were broken.

Wonder if it exists, probably not.

Its called integrity.
None of this mob could spell it never mind defining it!

Canberra and integrity certainly dont go together...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Magellan wrote:The word is McKenzie will announce her resignation by tomorrow.

That's what I am hearing as well. Turns out there may be a line, but my word the public need to patrol that line pretty bloody well because they don't mind crossing it and only seem to care if we care.

stan wrote:

Magellan wrote:The word is McKenzie will announce her resignation by tomorrow.

That's what I am hearing as well. Turns out there may be a line, but my word the public need to patrol that line pretty bloody well because they don't mind crossing it and only seem to care if we care.

What pisses me off is she'll still claim she did nothing wrong but is resigning for the good of the party & that will be the end of it. These c**** need to start being held accountable & criminally charged for their actions. Until then these rorts will continue