Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

That's not the issue  He's licenced whether he keeps paying or not. It would hardly be a big sum and it's his choice of whether he takes advantage of his position on this matter or not. Surrendering the licence is not a requirement. It's unlikely to be demanded and Charles may decide it's not a good look which would be fair enough.  Nev

  • 1 month later...
Posted

Here's the next instalment of the synopis.. this time Week 7. It is long - 1.5 hours.. But well worth the watch. The coal face personnel of the department were in no way unclear in their memory of wehat went on, while those senior public servants were very haxzy.. It makes you wonder how they can be claim to be experienced professionals if they can't remember that experience to apply it to theiur jobs?

 

What is amazing is that even in the face of objective evidence, they can deny they knew about income averaging or fdor some reason they can't explain, they came to a different conclusion than emails they either read or authored themselves. One senior public servant claimed they did not even understand the email they wrote at the time!

 

Good on Legal Aid and good on Professor Peter Hanks - as well as Deanna Amato - for finally casting this chapter of iinjustice to the history books.,

 

 

Made my blood boil...

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

The sheer Nastiness and Vindictive nature of this foul exercise should NEVER be forgotten. Smirko doesn't admit any wrong doing. Now widely viewed as Australia's WORST PM ever.   Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Posted

ScoMo was the leader of the parliamentary arm of a political party. He became PM because of that party's parliamentarians voted for him to be their leader. All those parliamentarians who supported him as leader are accomplices in what he did.

  • Agree 3
Posted

…and that same gang is currently having great success undermining efforts to recognise our indigenous people- over a century after NZ went much further and reserved seats in Parliament for their indig. 
 

Australia, the land of could-a-been.

  • Agree 1
Posted

There are already 11 indigenous members of parliament, hundreds of indigenous representative bodies, as well as the National Indigenous Australians Agency with a staff of 1,400. If the government opened their ears, they wouldn't need a change of the Constitution to hear what the indigenous Australians want and need. If they don't listen now, they never will, Voice or no Voice.

  • Winner 3
Posted

It will divide the nation. 

Who-so-ever looses . Will NOT be happy .

SO there will be NO winner .

So much money spent , without anything constructive being achieved. 

The polies are trying to get Names into history .

spacesailor

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • 1 year later...
Posted

Our illustrious leaders of the nation have chosen to wait, pontificate, & hide from basic ethics and fainess, until the whole issue fades from the public consciousness.

  • Agree 2
  • 5 weeks later...
Posted

That does not excuse no action, and justice delayed is also justice not done.

 

ScoMo's conduct certainly looked like a prima face case of perjury; and the evidence tended certainly looked like a prima facie case of public malfeasance.

 

The others also have allegations to answer.

 

The NACC said they wouldn't investigate as the Royal Commission had already investigated and there was nothing more to investigate or be gained by investigating. Their remit is not to make political judgements, but to investigate poential corruption and abuse of position. They did not come out and say that there was no case to answer.

 

It makes no difference whether those involved have moved on or not. If there is a case to answer, there is a case to answer.

 

Of course, the sealed section of the rRoyal Commission report, and the secrecy of the NACC means the public don't have the opportunity to scurtinise.

 

And, BTW, if the consequences of the government actions has been that people are alleged to have taken their lives as a direct result, if that is not exceptional enough circumstance to make the information public (of course, there is no requirement in the legilsation to do that - only the hearings), than what is? Easy way to keep it from the public - don't have a hearing!

 

 

  • Informative 1
Posted

I have Family severely impacted so you don't have to convince ME. I' will hate their GUTS with a passion forever. I hope they ROT in HELL.. They KNEW what they were doing. Nev.

  • Sad 1
Posted

These Investigatory Bodies are not Courts of Law It did go to court I think and they refunded 1'75 Million is the figure from memory. That certainly did not cover any damages. IT was just  the overpayments.   Nev

  • Informative 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...