https://michaelwest.com.au/whistleblower-persecution-the-cost-of-ignoring-those-who-dare-speak-out/

QUOTE BEGINS

Whistleblowers everywhere act for reasons of conscience and integrity. They are vital to protect our society against corruption and power abuse, yet they are often persecuted for speaking out. Whistleblower Tony Watson reports from experience.

Whistleblowers are compelled to speak out, most often against their own organisation, in order to maintain their self-respect. “How could I keep my head up, and look people in the eye, if I kept quiet?”

But it is that very sense of self-respect that is targeted and hurt by the retaliations of the organisation they expose. It is precisely why humiliation makes such an effective tool. Driven by their own moral compass, whistleblowers are portrayed as unstable, money-seeking grubs.

C. Fred Alford, in his book Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organisational Power, calls this the “nuts and sluts” strategy: The key organisational strategy is to transform an act of whistleblowing from

an issue of policy and principle into an act of private disobedience and psychological disturbance.

As well as gaslighting, shunning, marginalising and ostracism, there are rumours, questioning the employee’s performance, threats, harassment, reprimands, demotions, forced transfers, assignment to trivial duties, dismissal and blacklisting. The fate of a whistleblower is unattractive and lonely.

As a society, we sense that whistleblowing matters and that the cost of ignoring whistleblowers could be huge. All too often, when there is a scandal or disaster, it transpires that it could have been avoided or mitigated if someone who knew of it spoke up, or if their message had been heeded when they did speak up.

Timely, then, is a report by the UK Whistleblowing Charity Protect, released early February. The charity’s report, The Cost of Whistleblowing, analyses three UK disasters that unfolded largely after whistleblowers had raised concerns. They are the Post Office Horizon Scandal, the multiple deaths of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and the collapse of construction giant Carillion.

Most whistleblower scandals share a basic timeline. Financial costs are incurred before and after someone blows the whistle and fall into three broad categories: Unavoidable, Avoidable, and Fallout. Unavoidable Costs precede the whistleblower and are incurred irrespective of any action by the company. These costs are not included in the figures below. Avoidable Costs are incurred because the whistleblower is ignored.

Fallout Costs follow the scandal becoming public and are associated with investigating the failings that caused it.

In all three instances, the figures are large. £178m for the Post Office Scandal; £39m for the Hospital Scandal; and £209m for the Carillion Collapse. In the case of the Post Office, aside from the financial costs, ignoring the whistleblowers resulted in wrecked lives, false convictions, and suicides. In the Hospital Scandal, seven babies were killed.

MWM has published a series of stories about whistleblowers in Australia.

We could add and then analyse our own scandals to this sorry list. Robodebt is a good example. Several staff raised concerns about the unlawful and unfair nature of the scheme, as aired in the Royal Commission. But none triggered the necessary responses and legal protections. As Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes observed in her final Report:

“The disastrous effects of Robodebt became apparent soon after it moved, in September 2016, from the last part of the limited release, involving around 1000 recipients, to sending out 20,000 notifications per week. In December 2016 and January 2017 the media, traditional and social, were saturated with articles about people who had had demonstrably wrong debts raised against them, and in many instances heard of it first when contacted by debt collectors.

“The human impacts of Robodebt were being reported: families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas, young people being driven to despair by demands for payment, and, horribly, an account of a young man’s suicide…

“What was, in fact, clear was that there were a number of senior departmental officers who did not understand the online compliance system or its effects. To compound that problem, when people like [whistleblower] Ms Taylor raised legitimate concerns, which in substance reflected the reality of what was occurring to those subject to the system, they were, effectively, ignored.”

How much did this debacle cost us?

Viktor Frankl’s words have become the whistleblower’s creed: “What is to give light must endure the burning.” But it should not be so.

Whistleblower stories can be depressing: their experiences are traumatic, their treatment by big corporates is grossly unfair, and their efforts are often in vain. And yet, there are a few hopeful signs. First, whistleblowers and the role they play are getting more airtime. Naming a problem is an important step in addressing it.

Second, although disillusioningly slow, the Government has promised better whistleblower protections. Even symbolic political promises can reflect underlying societal expectations. And just last week, four independents, Andrew Wilkie, Helen Haines, Jacqui Lambie and David Pocock, introduced a Bill into Parliament to establish a Whistleblower Protection Authority.

Third, more whistleblowers and their supporters are sharing their stories. Across the globe, there are organisations springing up to help and support whistleblowers, such as the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC).

The sharing of information and experiences and offers of support are indicative of a better future.

It can’t come soon enough.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump #whistleblowers

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/03/10/safeguard-mechanism-carbon-emissions-labor-plibersek/

QUOTE BEGINS

It is deeply weird that one of Labor’s most expansive climate policies is also one of its least mentioned. The “safeguard mechanism” — a policy that purportedly limits the greenhouse gas emitted by Australia’s heavy industry and fossil mining facilities — covers a full third of Australia’s domestic emissions. Yet it barely exists in public discourse. Why?

Safeguard has a grim origin, with Labor having rejigged a Coalition policy instead of designing its own (wedging opponents takes precedence over deploying policy that works). Safeguard’s progenitor, the Coalition’s “emissions reduction fund”, set limits high above actual emissions (amusingly, as emissions rose, these limits often gently floated upwards).

It was an IKEA houseplant: it looked real, but only from a great distance.

Due to the higher climate policy standards faced by Labor, it had to achieve the same goal using different tactics. The carbon offsetting industry came to the rescue.

Like the old scheme, safeguard sets emissions targets for each facility. Unlike the old scheme, these targets fall over time, meaning theoretically the facility should cut its pollution to comply. Naturally, there’s a glaring loophole: a company can meet the targets even when its pollution is above the limit by purchasing an equivalent number of Australian carbon offsets.

Another option is that overperforming facilities which are under their target can “trade” credit units with others over theirs, but this is unlikely in the short term (and would be more expensive for a polluter than just buying normal offsets).

Safeguard is frequently defended (and derided) as a form of “carbon pricing” — being forced to pay for offsets is a financial disincentive against high emissions. Offsets are exceedingly cheap, have the added benefit of fake neutralisation of your climate damage, and fossil fuel companies swimming in record-breaking super profits only use a tiny fraction of those profits for the required number of offsets. Worst of all, the money ends up in the pockets of carbon trading corporations, rather than the government.

A red-hot political debate ensued: the Greens pushed for real emissions cuts, but Labor won the vibes contest. Tuning safeguard to mandate real, deep emissions cuts was decried as excessive perfectionism that would resurface Australia’s mythical “climate wars”.

Once safeguard passed, it was memory-holed. It only gets exhumed when Labor tries to defend its passivity around the expansion of coal and gas. When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was pushed on including a “climate trigger” in mine approvals, he muttered that “climate issues are dealt with through the safeguard mechanism”. When Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek was pressed on the same, she dismissed it, saying, “The safeguard mechanism is the way that we deal with carbon emissions in this country … it’s bringing down carbon emissions.”

Safeguard came into effect July 1, 2023, and we won’t get official data on its first full financial year of operations until April 15. However, we can prod existing data to check if it really is “bringing down carbon emissions”.

Quarterly federal emissions data gives us a rough overview. Looking at the sectors that cover heavy industry in Australia (with the caveat that non-safeguard facilities are covered here too), there has been zero noticeable difference to each sector’s greenhouse gas emissions from mid-2023 through to the end of 2024

A Climate Change Authority (CCA) “progress report” examined the first year of safeguard in detail using preliminary data, and found 153 of the covered 215 facilities had emissions higher than the limit set by the Clean Energy Regulator. Thirty-one of those facilities exceeded their limits by 30%. In aggregate, all of the sites that are meant to be regulated by this scheme emitted 10.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent above the total limit.

In short: no change beyond business as usual, despite the new targets. But the massive, widespread beaching of targets means the guaranteed mass purchase of “Australian carbon credit units”, or ACCUs.

Safeguard is an incredible demand fabrication engine for carbon offsets. The CCA cites modelling that shows between 58% to 68% of compliance with the scheme will be met using offsets instead of real emissions reductions out to 2030. “Safeguard facilities’ reliance on ACCUs to meet obligations is forecast to drive ACCU demand out to 2030. ACCU prices are forecast to increase as a result of the growth in demand for ACCUs”, the report says.

The CCA offers a confident forecast of future carbon offset profits, and a nervous shrug about whether real emissions will be cut. That is before it details that there will be 31 million tonnes of new emissions to be added to the scheme’s coverage up to 2030, 21 million of which relate to coal, oil and gas “carbon bomb” projects.

While it’s almost certain the first year of the scheme did nothing for real emissions, it has already created a massive surge in demand for Australia’s highly criticised carbon offsetting scheme. The Clean Energy Regulator’s new quarterly report reveals the growing stockpiles of carbon offsets specifically for meeting the safeguard mechanism’s ratcheting targets

The highest emitters in safeguard can pay a pittance to indefinitely comply with the scheme. But they still consider it an irritation and have restarted calls for compliance to be opened up to allow cheap international carbon offsets — even more controversial than Australia’s heavily criticised scheme.

Profits for carbon markets thrive in two conditions: “ambitious” net-zero targets paired with zero will to actually reduce emissions. Voluntary targets are already starting to shudder and shift thanks to the unashamed fossil-fascist permission space of TrumpWorld 2025. If Peter Dutton were to become prime minister, he could wreck this regulatory capture paradise for Australia’s fossil fuel and offsetting industries. Equally, Dutton might recognise the value of mandated greenwashing schemes. The offsets lobby is already pleading with him to keep it in place.

You aren’t meant to look too closely at the safeguard mechanism. The formulas, acronyms and faux-complexity are there to obscure the simple dual stories of protectionism and cronyism from two massive, interlocking fossil/offsetting industries.

It’s a plastic houseplant: you leave it on the windowsill and let it look vaguely like something real and respiring.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump

This bloke has done so much nasty stuff in his political life, so atm i dunno how i feel about this.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8911903/senior-liberal-philip-ruddock-joins-forces-with-teal-candidate

QUOTE BEGINS

High-profile former Howard government minister Philip Ruddock has lent his weight to the local teal campaign in a video designed to protect trees.

Mr Ruddock, who was mayor of Hornsby council in Sydney for seven years after serving in federal parliament for 43 years, lost Liberal party preselection for council leadership in 2024.

Now, the 81-year-old has appeared in a social media campaign video with Tina Brown, the Climate 200-backed independent candidate for the federal electorate of Berowra.

Mr Ruddock suggests in the video there could be something "sinister" behind a move by the local Liberal-led council to change vegetation rules around development in the name of safety.

Any changes could affect the tree preservation orders his father and former Hornsby shire president introduced in the 1950s, he said.

"Global warming is exceedingly significant," Mr Ruddock says in the video, posted to social media on Saturday, March 8 as ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred bore down on Australia's east coast.

Ms Brown has launched a petition on the back of the issue, demanding transparency around decisions affecting tree protection in the local area.

Mr Ruddock played down the political significance of his appearance in the video when he spoke to ACM, the publisher of this masthead.

"My comments were made immediately I became aware of the mayoral minute and were based upon my personal experience," Mr Ruddock said.

"I have not resigned from the Liberal Party and I've made it very clear that I intended to support, particularly [Liberal candidate] Scott Yung in Bennelong, and that would be my preferred role during this campaign."

Mr Ruddock's wife, Heather, has already quit the Liberal Party and is supporting Ms Brown's federal election campaign.

Formerly John Howard's attorney-general and immigration minister, he oversaw the "children overboard" affair in 2001 and has sat on the Liberal party's federal and state executive.

Mr Ruddock said he was on the panel to preselect Gisele Kapterian for the Liberals in Bradfield, the federal electorate that sits adjacent to Berowra, currently held by Paul Fletcher who is retiring.

The Climate 200-backed candidate, Nicolette Boele, is considered to have a strong chance.

"Bradfield is certainly competitive," Mr Ruddock told ACM.

He also acknowledged Berowra was not a sure thing for the Coalition.

It's held by Liberal MP Julian Leeser with a 7.56 per cent margin.

"But I also think that the assumption that Berowra is a safe seat and that you don't have to be concerned about it is put to one side when you look at the way in which Julian Leeser is campaigning."

Asked about his specific mention of global warming in the video with Tina Brown, Mr Ruddock said trees were important to combat heat.

"I have spoken in council about the impact of trees in the streets and the way in which they ameliorate the impact of heat," he said.

"If people don't understand in the context of what we are experiencing now the value of trees, I think they're being very foolish."

Berowra covers a broad area of north-western Sydney, including bushland and farmland, but is being rapidly developed to accommodate Sydney's growing population.

Its boundaries were changed when the seat of North Sydney was abolished.

A federal election has to be held by May 17.

Hornsby Shire Council was contacted for comment.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump

Yep, as i'd long presumed, too many of the Dickson voters are still fuckheads.

Carn Ali France, Ellie Smith, Vinnie Batten.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8909711/election-2025-peter-duttons-public-service-cuts-reach-dickson

QUOTE BEGINS

It's impossible to miss a towering billboard as you round a bend on Gympie Road, just north of Brisbane. It greets you on the drive past what was once the old Petrie paper mill and is now a university campus, in the federal electorate of Dickson.

On it, a grinning Peter Dutton tells motorists he wants to get Australia "back on track".

It's a message reminiscent of the one that got Trump over the line in the United States and for some residents in the marginal seat of Dickson, it is resonating.

Having grown up in the seat that Mr Dutton has held for more than 20 years, I travelled back there to get a sense of how voters are feeling mere months out from the federal election.

Those who are willing to share their opinions give glowing references to Mr Dutton, describing him as decisive, strong and a clear thinker.

"He's got what it takes," says veteran Max Revell who plans to vote Liberal at the upcoming election.

Mr Revell says there is nothing that would change his vote.

"[Peter Dutton] is great for the electorate, people love him, he is decisive, he knows how to call a spade a spade," he says.

"He can talk the talk and walk the walk, which is what is needed in Canberra at the moment."

A woman at the same shopping centre in Strathpine says she likes Mr Dutton because he's genuine.

"He means what he says and there's no mucking about with him," she says.

Mr Dutton's office did not respond to ACM's inquiries for this story.

The strong, straight-talking persona is one Mr Dutton has built within his electorate over more than two decades.

The Coalition leader has held the seat of Dickson since late 2001, after a 10-year career with the Queensland Police Service.

The seat of Dickson, about 25 kilometres north of Brisbane CBD, is a working-class area and a mix of built-up housing estates, industrial parks and more affluent suburbs with acreage plots. Mr Dutton lives in the latter.

The Opposition Leader approaches the 2025 federal election on a razor-thin margin of 1.7 per cent, after a nearly 3 per cent swing to Labor on a two-party preferred basis at the 2022 election.

Labor candidate Ali France is going up against Mr Dutton for the third time and, despite her confidence, admits claiming victory will be "absolutely difficult".

Many Queensland residents would be aware of Ms France's personal adversities, which have driven her to become an advocate for people with disabilities.

Ms France had her leg amputated in 2011 after she was pinned between two cars during an incident in a suburban shopping centre car park. One year ago, Ms France's son Henry died of leukaemia, just months after Henry's father and Ms France's ex-husband also died from cancer.

The Labor candidate and para-athlete is certain Mr Dutton's time is up in the electorate but admits it will be a hard task coming up against such a public figure.

"Especially when you've got the Opposition Leader who's on television every single day," she says.

"But we just focus on speaking to as many people as possible, right across the electorate."

Ms France has some reason to feel confident heading into the election. While Mr Dutton has his staunch supporters, the results from the last federal election show there is plenty of groundswell for change. Mr Dutton went into the 2022 election with a 4.6 per cent margin on a two-party preferred basis, which fell to 1.7 per cent after a fierce campaign by Labor.

On the ballot paper this year is also the independent candidate for Dickson, Ellie Smith, who's received funding from Simon Holmes a Court's Climate 200, and Greens candidate Vinnie Batten who claimed 13 per cent of the primary vote last election.

Ms France and her team of volunteers are spending their days door-knocking the suburbs, which she says is in contrast to the "huge war chest" Mr Dutton has available for flyers and billboards.

When I join her for an afternoon of door-knocking in Strathpine, those who answer the door are keen to hear about Labor's policies. She reminds them about Labor's revised tax cuts, fee-free Tafe and energy bill rebates. One resident thanks her for increasing wages for early childhood educators.

The Coalition's commitment to cutting public service jobs has gone beyond the national capital, despite Mr Dutton's attempts to make the job cuts appear targeted towards "Canberra-centric" roles.

Cuts to the public service are something Ms France discusses with residents as she door-knocks through the suburbs. She believes the idea of shrinking the public service is important to the people of Dickson, even if the "government waste" the Opposition Leader is targeting has been incorrectly pitched as entirely Canberra jobs.

The sacking of more than 12,000 state public servants under former Liberal-National premier Campbell Newman is still fresh in the minds of Queenslanders, Ms France says.

"The ghost of Campbell Newman, it still haunts us here in Queensland," she says.

"So when [people] hear cuts to public service, they know what that means here. And I think as we get closer to the election, people are going to have to take a closer look at that."

When she speaks to residents, Ms France points out what she believes job cuts could mean for Queensland residents.

"It will be to things like people working for the NDIS, people working for Centrelink, people working in Veterans' Affairs, people working in Medicare," she says.

"These are all the services that people in this electorate rely upon."

Voters have their own opinions on public service job cuts. Some say they worry about those who'll be sacked and left without work, while others are concerned about the potential for increased government spending on external contractors.

But others, like Mr Revell, believe cuts are a good thing.

"There's too many people in the public service," he says.

"All public servants, whether it be in Canberra or where it is, you ring up and they say 'I'll pass you onto another person,' and then they put their feet back up on the desk."

If they don't cut jobs, the government should amalgamate departments, Mr Revell says.

Similarly, Peter Aquino says there's room to cut some jobs. Speaking outside a Woolworths in nearby suburb Warner, Mr Aquino says from personal experience, "There's a lot of people that just don't do anything."

"Even if he cuts some I don't think it's going to make much of an impact," he says.

Petrie resident Judy Hughes is indifferent about who the next prime minister should be but praises the Labor government for her cheaper medicines and electricity bills.

"I haven't paid an electricity bill for a year," she says.

But Ms Hughes also talks of Mr Dutton as a nice person, whom she met when he visited her workplace, Meals on Wheels. She says he "treated everyone well" and even offered to buy a new cooker for the kitchen.

Vickie Pentecost is another Dickson resident who has personally met Mr Dutton. She says his strong focus on community engagement is part of his success.

Ms Pentecost believes Mr Dutton would make a good prime minister.

"I just think Albanese stuffed up a bit, I don't think he's ever recovered from losing the Voice," she says.

However, there is plenty of uncertainty in the lead-up to the election, even among those who are certain of their vote.

Mr Aquino says he would put his bottom dollar on Mr Dutton winning the election, but also wants to see more policy detail from the Opposition Leader.

"This nuclear thing, I don't know how it's going to go in Australia," Mr Aquino said.

"It'd be nice if someone could give us a full rundown of how it's going to work, whether it's going to affect people and stuff like that."

But a policy that's light on detail doesn't appear to concern some voters in Dickson, many of whom seem content with the idea of their local member becoming prime minister.

The question is whether his smiling billboards and community-man persona will help him secure his seat for a ninth consecutive term, or if Labor's message of an out-of-touch pollie ready to slash jobs will be enough to change the tide.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8909494/opinion-its-only-peter-dutton-who-has-a-problem-with-aps-working-from-home

QUOTE BEGINS

There's been a bit of talk this week about flexible work and working from home.

Is it good? Is it bad? Does it work?

The research says that flexible work improves workforce participation, and that people are just as productive, if not more so when working from home. Hybrid working arrangements, which is what overwhelmingly applies in the APS, are positive and productive.

The reality is that flexible work and working from home is important to lots of workers - especially women. Which is why there have never been more women working full-time in the APS, instead of part-time, than right now.

Earlier this week the Coalition, copying Donald Trump's homework once again, announced they would be ordering all public servants back to the office five days a week if they win the next election.

This announcement really is a solution in search of a problem.

Because the real story is that flexible working arrangements and working from home are working well for both workers and public services.

In fact, there are clear and enforceable enterprise agreement provisions that establish both the right to request flexibility and the factors the supervisor will take into account when considering the request.

There is not a problem that needs fixing.

The CPSU's 12th What Women Want survey, which we have released just this week, paints a very clear picture about how important flexible work is for women in modern Australia.

96.7 per cent of women said that flexible work arrangements are important or very important to them and the following stats will clarify why.

68.2 per cent of respondents had caring responsibilities for either dependent children, older parents, partners, adult children or other relatives and friends

And 36.2 per cent of respondents had dual caring responsibilities. That is, they were the primary carer for dependent children and had caring responsibilities for others. And of those with dual caring responsibilities, seven in 10 also worked fulltime.

These figures make it abundantly clear that women are balancing a lot, and that the ability to be flexible about when and where they are working is helping them to keep their heads above water.

This is probably a good time to mention that the monetary value of unpaid care work in Australia has been estimated to be $650.1 billion, the equivalent to 50.6 per cent of GDP.

So, you'd think governments would be bending over backwards to support people to balance work and care. But Peter Dutton took things in the opposite direction and told women that if his return to the office mandate was a problem, maybe they should consider job sharing instead.

The reality is that flexible work is helping women increase their working hours, with benefits for both them and their families, as well as increased productivity.

Indeed, since the introduction of greater workplace flexibility, the proportion of women electing full-time work over part-time has increased. In 2020, 72.2 per cent of women working in the APS were working full-time. And as of June 2024, that had jumped to 79.9 per cent - the highest percentage on record.

It is, of course, not just women who benefit from increased flexibility and working from home. Flexibility has opened the doors of employment to people who have otherwise been shut out, including people with disability and people from regional and rural Australia.

But it must be said that the biggest winner in all of this is the APS. Thanks to flexible work arrangements, the public service is now tapping into talent from right across Australia.

In the past, rigid expectations about where work can be done would have locked many out of pursuing public sector employment.

Fundamentally, it is important for the public service to be representative of the people it serves.

A broader and more diverse public service with connections to communities right across the country is a good thing.

It means our public sector can tap into the talents of all Australians, it makes the public sector more resilient and more representative.

And that's important.

It's important that we have people with lived experience of disability working in the NDIA so that families accessing the NDIS can be better supported.

It's important that we have culturally and linguistically diverse Australians in agencies and departments that contribute to policy development and increase the accessibility of our public services for all Australians.

It's important that we have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working in agencies like National Indigenous Australians Agency, informing policy development and the services that impacts them.

It's important that we have people from regional and rural Australia working on the ground in regional and rural Australia, supporting the communities they live in.

Representation matters - and you don't achieve it by shrinking the public service or locking diverse talent out of a career in the APS.

Australians don't want to see the Coalition import yet another anti-public service, anti-diversity agenda from the United States. They want a strong, capable public sector- one that's ready to serve the community when it matters most.

Whether it's supporting veterans, safeguarding our biosecurity, regulating aged care, delivering the NDIS, or responding to disasters like Tropical Cyclone Alfred - with agencies like Services Australia, the National Emergency Management Agency, the ABC, and the Bureau of Meteorology working together to protect and support Australians-a well-resourced public service is essential.

Progress has been made in rebuilding public sector capacity and there is still more to do. But the Coalition's plan to cut one in five jobs and strip workplace rights won't fix anything. It will only weaken the services Australians rely on.

The real question isn't whether flexible work is working - we know it is. The question is why the Coalition is so determined to tear the public service down.

• Melissa Donnelly is the national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump #misogyny

Best case scenario: Fully-fueled Air Force 1 has mid-air crash with FF AF2, over the deepest red state in Merka.

#TuckFrump

Well well well... who could have known that Liebs are scumbuckets? Totes amazeballs. 🙄🤦‍♀️

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8897571/nacc-clears-zoe-daniel-of-corruption-claims-mp-blasts-liberals

QUOTE BEGINS

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has issued a rare statement advising that a referral involving teal MP Zoe Daniel did not raise any issue of corruption.

"The essential issue raised by the referral was a suggestion that Commonwealth resources under Ms Daniel's control (ie, a parliamentary staffer) may have been misused by or on behalf of a parliamentarian, to lobby on behalf of a donor," the NACC said in a statement on Thursday.

The NACC said it had assessed the referral "to determine whether it raises a corruption issue that the commission can investigate", and had concluded that no such issue arose.

Ms Daniel, the independent member for Goldstein who won her seat in 2022, welcomed the finding and urged the commission to "call out" the misuse of its function for political purposes.

"Vexatious or politically motivated referrals undermine the NACC and waste its time and resources," she said.

"I hope the people of Goldstein see this episode for what it was - a deliberate dirty tactic by a Liberal Party operative to tarnish my reputation to prevent me winning my seat."

In October, a former Liberal MP made a referral to the NACC over allegations that a staffer believed to be working for Ms Daniel had lobbied the Australian Financial Review to withdraw billionaire Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes a Court from its annual AFR Power List.

The former MP is understood to be Jason Falinski, who lost his seat of Mackellar to independent MP Sophie Scamps at the 2022 election and is now the NSW Liberal Party president.

Political editor Phil Coorey had reported that independent Wentworth MP Allegra Spender walked into the newspaper's Canberra press gallery bureau to request that Mr Holmes a Court be scrubbed from the list and that a staffer from Ms Daniel's office "had already rung with the same request".

The NACC found the person was not a staffer, but a consultant acting on behalf of a third party, which The Canberra Times has confirmed to be Climate 200.

The individual had ceased being employed by Ms Daniel as a parliamentary staffer and now worked as a consultant, with both the MP and the political donations aggregator as clients.

The alleged approach to the AFR "was not made with Ms Daniel's knowledge or authority", the NACC said.

Ms Daniel had engaged her former staffer to provide part-time consulting services through her private not-for-profit company, meaning there was no use of Commonwealth resources.

The independent MP said in a statement on Thursday that she had run for office in 2022 "because I believe that the people of Goldstein and Australia deserve a better type of politics built on honesty, respect, integrity and trust."

"A robust and effective National Anti-Corruption Commission is an essential pillar in rebuilding that trust in government," she said.

"I will continue to practise a different kind of politics, and to fight, work and act on behalf of the people of Goldstein and Australia for the values we all deserve; accountability, transparency and honesty."

The MP faces a challenge from former Liberal member for Goldstein Tim Wilson, who is campaigning to win back the seat at the federal election due by May.

The NACC noted that the consultant "disputes the accuracy of the AFR report of the substance of their representations", but said it was "unnecessary for present purposes to resolve that dispute as the outcome is the same".

It is understood the consultant phoned one of Mr Coorey's colleagues at the AFR to convey on behalf of Climate 200 that Mr Holmes a Court did not think he should be on the Power List.

The NACC said the commission was aware of media reporting of the referral in October and was "making this public statement because the referral is in the public domain, being satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so."

"Ms Daniel has fully co-operated with the commission," the statement said.

"The matter is now closed and the commission will not be making further comment on it."

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump