I really don't understand how "it seemed very hard" is a good excuse for a national anti-corruption commission to use when deciding not to investigate something.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Chair asks the obvious question. Robodebt Royal Commissioner referred it to the NACC directly because it seems she viewed they had a role to play. Brereton says that isn't a fair characterisation. "It doens't involve an expectation that the referred body will do something," he says.
Commissioner Brereton says he is "frankly not as pessimistic as some" about the state of public trust in the NACC. Sort of insinuates that it's partly from people who were never going to be happy. He says the answer is for the Parliamentary Committee to express confidence in their work!
Brereton always defines corruption as typically being engaged in "for a private benefit" which is explicitly NOT what his own Act requires. They even have a clause saying: "Conduct involving a public official may be corrupt conduct even if the conduct is not for the person’s personal benefit."
Two main problems as I see it. They should have kept their original "open hearings as deemed appropriate by Commissioner" (not Dutton's "open hearings only in exceptional circumstances") AND choice of Commissioner an absolute failure.
'Frankly'
🤔
Now there's a word the LOTO has a certain penchant for...& often when he utters it, it seems to carry a rebuke to whoever he happens to be addressing of
👇
'What would you know anyway!'
For eg
>>insert name of any ABC reporter here<<
Ya think? 🤦
He just doesn't get it. Wrong person for the job.
The ground work was done by the Royal Commission. NACC's job was to review the work, identify missing information, use their resources and mighty powers to investigate further if necessary, refer to the courts with absolute evidence. 🤷
I’ve worked on a few Qld state commissions of inquiry and I can confirm that all large investigations are very hard and take lots of time but we somehow managed to find and prosecute the bad guys through hard work and good investigators and leaders. 🤷♀️
If all professionals used the too hard excuse in my profession as an intensive care nurse people would die. Now people did die and too hard doesn’t even cover this. Try harder.
Comments
I’m hurling SO many swear words at the device
My GOD his emPHAsis
🤦🏼♀️
Contemptible individual
This guy 🙇♀️
What if that friend is Person One?
That way Labor could tick off an election promise
Actually achieving anything was always going to be an added bonus
The perfect ALP policy really. All appearance with no functionality
🤔
Now there's a word the LOTO has a certain penchant for...& often when he utters it, it seems to carry a rebuke to whoever he happens to be addressing of
👇
'What would you know anyway!'
For eg
>>insert name of any ABC reporter here<<
Brereton must surely be deranged.
HELD BACK her report so it could be submitted AFTER the NACC came into existence
🤬
He just doesn't get it. Wrong person for the job.
The ground work was done by the Royal Commission. NACC's job was to review the work, identify missing information, use their resources and mighty powers to investigate further if necessary, refer to the courts with absolute evidence. 🤷
I CALL BS
🐂💩
Yep, that works.
If it’s hard, perhaps it’s a sign to take the L and resign.
Brereton not the only problem.
Rose was also NOT qualified for her previous role at Austrac
Of course it's fucking hard.
That's your fucking job.