NSW Premier resignation (1 Viewer)

[enoilgam]

Regardless of politics, she seemed quite competent and genuinely caring. Hopefully whoever picks up the job will be able to continue the good effort. I'm pretty sure she mentioned it but it was extremely bad timing, if they really were concerned about justice or fairness then they could've delayed it after the whole pandemic crisis went or became more manageable.

ICAC needs to make a splash so it can justify itself at budget estimates. Contrary to popular belief, serious, systemic corruption is exceedingly rare in NSW and Australia as a whole. ICAC cant exactly say corruption is rare, because then people will start asking questions like whether their enormous cost is justified. So they have to try and make mountains out of molehills with anything they find. Every government department is the same, they need to justify their existence so they tend to inflate their importance.

I find the whole chapter shameful, this is now the third Premier that has been forced to resign due to ICAC. The last two, Greiner and O'Farrell were both cleared of wrongdoing and from what Ive seen of the evidence, Id be very surprised if Gladys isnt cleared as well. Im all for anti-corruption, but ICAC shoots first and asks questions later and in their wake they leave behind a trail of needless destruction of otherwise good people. I mean, Im not a Gladys groupie and I have my issues with her, but she is probably one of the most ethical politicians around. It's just so outrageous that she was brought down by an integrity probe.

 

[BLIT2014]

ICAC needs to make a splash so it can justify itself at budget estimates. Contrary to popular belief, serious, systemic corruption is exceedingly rare in NSW and Australia as a whole. ICAC cant exactly say corruption is rare, because then people will start asking questions like whether their enormous cost is justified. So they have to try and make mountains out of molehills with anything they find. Every government department is the same, they need to justify their existence so they tend to inflate their importance.

I find the whole chapter shameful, this is now the third Premier that has been forced to resign due to ICAC. The last two, Greiner and O'Farrell were both cleared of wrongdoing and from what Ive seen of the evidence, Id be very surprised if Gladys isnt cleared as well. Im all for anti-corruption, but ICAC shoots first and asks questions later and in their wake they leave behind a trail of needless destruction of otherwise good people. I mean, Im not a Gladys groupie and I have my issues with her, but she is probably one of the most ethical politicians around. It's just so outrageous that she was brought down by an integrity probe.

I feel sorry for O'Farrell, one of the least shonky NSW politicians (of either labor or liberal) that we've seen for a while.

 

[specificagent1]

ICAC simply states that they are investigating... which is their job

 

[quickoats]

I feel sorry for O'Farrell, one of the least shonky NSW politicians (of either labor or liberal) that we've seen for a while.

Over a bottle of wine...

 

[specificagent1]

Over a bottle of wine...

yes lmao but rules are rules

 

[enoilgam]

ICAC simply states that they are investigating... which is their job

But the consequences of that are severe, in this case a popular Premier has been forced to resign during a major crisis. In other cases people have had to quit parliament, lost their careers etc all because ICAC is "investigating" (ultimately to find no wrongdoing). Also what they are investigating in the case of Gladys if proven is at best maladministration or a minor breach of the Ministerial code, which is not enough to justify removing a Premier.

I have no issue with ICAC's mission of weeding out serious corruption, what I have an issue with is that their methods fly in the face of justice. It's very much a guilty until proven innocent approach with them. That's why in SA, their parliament unanimously voted to strip ICAC of most of its power/responsibilities only 7 years after it was formed there. I do think that if the current investigation into Gladys and to a lesser extent John Sidoti doesn't bear fruit, ICAC will have a lot to answer for from parliament.

 

[quickoats]

yes lmao but rules are rules

It's not really the rules - it's just acting with integrity in light of an ICAC investigation. It's just the ridiculousness of the investigation imo.

 

[enoilgam]

It's not really the rules - it's just acting with integrity in light of an ICAC investigation. It's just the ridiculousness of the investigation imo.

To be completely fair though, the investigation into Daryl Maguire is definitely justified - exactly the type of behaviour they should be looking into.

 

[quickoats]

To be completely fair though, the investigation into Daryl Maguire is definitely justified - exactly the type of behaviour they should be looking into.

More talking about O'Farrell and (most likely) Berejiklian losing their political careers over this.

Do you think Gladys will hop over to the private sector?

 

[specificagent1]

It's not really the rules - it's just acting with integrity in light of an ICAC investigation. It's just the ridiculousness of the investigation imo.

i was replying to the wine bottle thing...

 

[specificagent1]

But the consequences of that are severe, in this case a popular Premier has been forced to resign during a major crisis. In other cases people have had to quit parliament, lost their careers etc all because ICAC is "investigating" (ultimately to find no wrongdoing). Also what they are investigating in the case of Gladys if proven is at best maladministration or a minor breach of the Ministerial code, which is not enough to justify removing a Premier.

I have no issue with ICAC's mission of weeding out serious corruption, what I have an issue with is that their methods fly in the face of justice. It's very much a guilty until proven innocent approach with them. That's why in SA, their parliament unanimously voted to strip ICAC of most of its power/responsibilities only 7 years after it was formed there. I do think that if the current investigation into Gladys and to a lesser extent John Sidoti doesn't bear fruit, ICAC will have a lot to answer for from parliament.

yes i agree in that aspect ICAC operates in a fashion that is contrary to how court of laws operate or values they up hold

 

[quickoats]

i was replying to the wine bottle thing...

I don't think there are any rules that stipulate that one *has* to resign whilst being investigated.
Although stepping down (and leaving their political career) is the best looking option.

 

[enoilgam]

Do you think Gladys will hop over to the private sector?

Probably, but more so in a board capacity as opposed to being a chief executive or c-suite officer like Mike Baird. Assuming she is cleared, she will probably also have opportunities in the public sector, I could see her being called up by the government to run a crisis commission or maybe run a key initiative. I think the latter is more likely, Gladys is someone who in my view has a lot to offer. A lot of politicians get cushy jobs when they leave parliament by virtue of being connected. Not the case with her, she will get work because people know she is damn good.

She is a very capable person and people inside the public service who have worked with her see her as being extremely competent and pragmatic. The main knock on her in her earlier years was that she was a touch of a smart Alec and a "my way or the highway" type person. She wont disappear that's for sure.

 

[Trebla]

But the consequences of that are severe, in this case a popular Premier has been forced to resign during a major crisis. In other cases people have had to quit parliament, lost their careers etc all because ICAC is "investigating" (ultimately to find no wrongdoing). Also what they are investigating in the case of Gladys if proven is at best maladministration or a minor breach of the Ministerial code, which is not enough to justify removing a Premier.

I have no issue with ICAC's mission of weeding out serious corruption, what I have an issue with is that their methods fly in the face of justice. It's very much a guilty until proven innocent approach with them. That's why in SA, their parliament unanimously voted to strip ICAC of most of its power/responsibilities only 7 years after it was formed there. I do think that if the current investigation into Gladys and to a lesser extent John Sidoti doesn't bear fruit, ICAC will have a lot to answer for from parliament.

ICAC never said Gladys was guilty of anything. They are just investigating to seek more evidence. The alternative is to not investigate her at all, which would mean ICAC is not doing its job.

It was not ICAC who removed the premier, it was her conscious choice to resign. She went one further by leaving Parliament completely when she could have just stepped aside. If she really is certain that she will be cleared, then why choose to leave Parliament altogether? That’s why many were surprised she did resign, and lots of people expected she would hold her ground or at least hang around until the scandal boils over (her federal counterparts certainly did).

She said herself that if any one of her MPs were to be subject to an investigation then she expects that they step aside. So naturally she has follow her own standards, otherwise it will not go down well politically/reputationally. It’s the standard the government had set for itself that led to this resignation, not ICAC. They could’ve easily just set a different standard and persist business as usual while the investigation was happening.

 

[nilatar]

ICAC never said Gladys was guilty of anything. They are just investigating to seek more evidence. The alternative is to not investigate her at all, which would mean ICAC is not doing its job.

It was not ICAC who removed the premier, it was her conscious choice to resign. She went one further by leaving Parliament completely when she could have just stepped aside. If she really is certain that she will be cleared, then why choose to leave to Parliament altogether? That’s why many were surprised she did resign, and lots of people expected she would hold her ground or at least hang around until the scandal boils over (her federal counterparts certainly did).

She said herself that if any one of her MPs were to be subject to an investigation then she expects that they step aside. So, naturally she has follow her own standards otherwise it will not go down well politically/reputationally.

Agreed here, but keep in mind that she probably feels as though history will continue to repeat itself, and got disconcerting deja vu from last year's investigation... Resignation was undoubtedly a strong choice given the said history & her own standards that she set, and whilst total estrangement from politics seems a tad extreme, maybe we need to think about the possibilities that she's simply put, had enough. Don't blame her tbh. Either way, we'll just have to see what the folks at the ICAC come back with this time.

 

[dan964]

But the consequences of that are severe, in this case a popular Premier has been forced to resign during a major crisis. In other cases people have had to quit parliament, lost their careers etc all because ICAC is "investigating" (ultimately to find no wrongdoing). Also what they are investigating in the case of Gladys if proven is at best maladministration or a minor breach of the Ministerial code, which is not enough to justify removing a Premier.

I have no issue with ICAC's mission of weeding out serious corruption, what I have an issue with is that their methods fly in the face of justice. It's very much a guilty until proven innocent approach with them. That's why in SA, their parliament unanimously voted to strip ICAC of most of its power/responsibilities only 7 years after it was formed there. I do think that if the current investigation into Gladys and to a lesser extent John Sidoti doesn't bear fruit, ICAC will have a lot to answer for from parliament.

From what I've read, the SA laws swing too much the other way.
That ICAC should actually have a substantial case before going public with allegations/accusations of misconduct; and I agree it should be proven guilty rather than presumed guilty.

 

[enoilgam]

From what I've read, the SA laws swing too much the other way.
That ICAC should actually have a substantial case before going public with allegations/accusations of misconduct; and I agree it should be proven guilty rather than presumed guilty.

Agree 100% and this is what Im trying to get at with my comments. ICAC knows full well that saying they are "investigating" is enough to cause serious harm to a persons reputation and career, as well as destabilising the government. Make no mistake, ICAC aren't some neutral, above the fray crusaders for justice. Like any other government department, they play politics in order to further their funding and agenda.

You imagine, you are a senior public figure and ICAC drags you through a public investigation spanning several years, only to find no wrong doing. Sure it is only an "investigation" and you were "cleared", but in the meantime, your reputation has been tarnished, you are unable to work and colleagues and friends want nothing to do with you (because they are scared of ICAC). It is wrong - ICAC should investigate privately and only go public once they have substantial evidence proving corruption.

 

[BLIT2014]

Perrottet is the front runner, but he seems rather ghoulish

Also, he probably doesn't have time given he has six kids he should be co-parenting with his partner.

 

[Life'sHard]

Agree 100% and this is what Im trying to get at with my comments. ICAC knows full well that saying they are "investigating" is enough to cause serious harm to a persons reputation and career, as well as destabilising the government. Make no mistake, ICAC aren't some neutral, above the fray crusaders for justice. Like any other government department, they play politics in order to further their funding and agenda.

You imagine, you are a senior public figure and ICAC drags you through a public investigation spanning several years, only to find no wrong doing. Sure it is only an "investigation" and you were "cleared", but in the meantime, your reputation has been tarnished, you are unable to work and colleagues and friends want nothing to do with you (because they are scared of ICAC). It is wrong - ICAC should investigate privately and only go public once they have substantial evidence proving corruption.

But then could you sue them for defamation? Surely dragging someone through the mud without any consequences when found innocent just goes against the justice system. Even for court cases that span over a couple of years, in the end the party that was innocent receive a reimbursement for their time and damages.

 

[sab13562]

bruh all the candidates look so shady

This resignation is shady.