No because they have cleared you, so they didnt defame you. As a government agency, they also have a degree of immunity from being sued for this sort of thing. I think ICAC will be under a lot of pressure to come up with results now - if the investigation into Gladys turns up nothing then I think they will come under fire from parliament. The Sidoti investigation has already gone nowhere and they are plucking at straws, so all in all not a good look for them.
So you're saying if I just call out anyone and make rumours and false news which the public take as truth, if I say "it's just a prank bro you're actually all good" I can't be sued?
There is a big difference, you are asserting that the rumours/fake news are true when you know they arent. ICAC are saying we are investigating alleged corruption, they arent saying "X is corrupt" whilst knowing it isnt true.
If your statements are all alleged but the general public now takes it as truth but you had no assertations, would you be cleared?
Perrottet probably has been planning to run for premier for a while though.
No, it’s the correct thing for her to do and is no way an admission of guilt.
He is running with Matt Kean, which is probably going to get him over the line. NSW and by extension the NSW Liberals are more left leaning, so Kean or his factional support would be needed.
i don’t think that it’s right for an individual to step down if they’re not guilty - what message is that propagating? that’s the kind of thing that happens under dictatorships.
I understand where you’re coming from (and this has been the opinion of Christian Porter) - this sets a precedent that one can lose their job with just a simple allegation.
Again, not a Christian Porter fan, but what happened to him was so wrong. Like, there is virtually no evidence beyond hearsay - the alleged victim herself isnt even around to confirm the allegation.
It was established via the Liberal government in the late 80s as a de-facto way to investigate the former Labour government. Back then, corruption was far more common than what it is now. I think the public fails to understand that corruption is quite rare in Modern Australia. I've worked in the public service for many years and there are so many controls and systems in place to prevent corrupt conduct, it's very difficult to get away with these days.
There isn't much appetite for it because they have seen how unaccountable and damaging ICAC has been for many states. I think there should be an ICAC at a Federal level, but it needs to be designed a different way. Instead of being like a standing Royal Commission, it should operate more like a Police CIB. It should have police-like powers to investigate corruption and recommend prosecution, but it shouldn't be allowed to hold public hearings, compel testimony or create public reports until after court proceedings have concluded.
They are - in NSW ICAC was successfully sued in the High Court, which led to a curb of their powers in 2016 I believe.
1. Porter had to go when he accepted a considerable amount of money from unknown parties, placing him in a position to be improperly influenced. His subsequent behaviours, including attempts at suppression of statements made to the court and settling in return for a clarification that stated the obvious mean he will be "judged" by observers, it's part of what goes with being a public figure.
You are entitled to your perspective, but I don't share it. ICAC has spent quite some time on the Obeid issues, for example, and it has demonstrated how the Coalition have tried to get around bans on developers shoveling money to governments for favourable planning decisions. Greiner's defense that he was only "technically corrupt" and his rescue by poor drafting of the ICAC Act was hardly a vindication. There are people who believe ICAC is some out-of-control body doing more damage than corruption does... I am not one of them.
Should we just do a mega-thread if heaps of politicians resign?
