State and Territory politics

[barbarian]

Amen to that. I am sick of ICAC finding these guys 'corrupt' over and over again. We fucking well know that, get to the prosecution! Throw them in fucking jail!

The credibility of ICAC will ultimately be determined by the sentences handed out by the courts.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

The credibility of ICAC will ultimately be determined by the sentences handed out by the courts.

I disagree. Like everyone, I want to see Obeid charged, found guilty and sent to jail.

There is however a huge gulf between being fit for public office and being a criminal deserving of jail time.

Just because someone can't be found guilty of a criminal offence doesn't mean they should be allowed to remain in parliament.

It's not like they can be easily fired. If they were in a different workplace, the employer doesn't have to wait until their conduct at work requires a cirminal conviction in order to fire them.

 

[Lindommer]

And you're not a lawyer, Bh? On one level I agree with your reply to barbarian's frustration (I'm a firm believer in due process), but, like most reasonable residents of the state of New South Wales, the antics of this lot of crooks helping themselves to the public trough thoroughly appalls me. ANY dishonesty with public money deserves the harshest treatment.

The wheels of justice turn slowly and I'm sure the various prosecuting bodies will catch up with Obeid and Tripodi, as they did after many years with that federal crook, Thomson. I hold great hope the Australian Taxation Office will eventually get their claws into the Obeid family and make the rest of their lives a complete misery. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Runner]

As I have expressed before I am concerned at the ICAC process. You can end up calling a person corrupt on what ICAC considers proof. Yet it would or in this case perhaps not stand up in court.

Remember a number of people over time have been found to have acted corrupty but not enogh to get a prosecution against them.

There was not enough evidence for the ALP to act against these guys even though rumours abounded.

Remember Al Capone didn't go to jail for a single murder he ordered but rather tax evasion so Lindommer may be onto a line of attack.

 

[Braveheart81]

And you're not a lawyer, Bh? On one level I agree with your reply to barbarian's frustration (I'm a firm believer in due process), but, like most reasonable residents of the state of New South Wales, the antics of this lot of crooks helping themselves to the public trough appalls me. ANY dishonesty with public money deserves the harshest treatment.

I agree and I think that was the point I was making previously. I think there are many cases where a politician should be forced to resign because they are not fit for public office but the question of whether they can be found guilty of a criminal offence is uncertain. This is part of ICAC's role.

I think it is fair to hold politicians to a higher standard than just not being criminals.

 

[Braveheart81]

As I have expressed before I am concerned at the ICAC process. You can end up calling a person corrupt on what ICAC considers proof. Yet it would or in this case perhaps not stand up in court.

Remember a number of people over time have been found to have acted corrupty but not enogh to get a prosecution against them.

There was not enough evidence for the ALP to act against these guys even though rumours abounded.

Remember Al Capone didn't go to jail for a single murder he ordered but rather tax evasion so Lindommer may be onto a line of attack.

You seem to be at cross purposes here. Do you think is a bad thing that ICAC found these people to be corrupt even though there might not be the evidence to secure a criminal prosecution (e.g. Tripodi)?

Whilst I would have loved for all this to be uncovered whilst these people were still in public office so it could have been stopped earlier, I'm still glad it has happened now.

 

[Runner]

You seem to be at cross purposes here. Do you think is a bad thing that ICAC found these people to be corrupt even though there might not be the evidence to secure a criminal prosecution (e.g. Tripodi)?

Whilst I would have loved for all this to be uncovered whilst these people were still in public office so it could have been stopped earlier, I'm still glad it has happened now.

We have disussed this before. I want the corrupt caught send to court and convicted according the the legal processes in Australia. This to me has the possibility of McCarthyism in which now just being called makes you look guilty.

 

[Braveheart81]

We have disussed this before. I want the corrupt caught send to court and convicted according the the legal processes in Australia. This to me has the possibility of McCarthyism in which now just being called makes you look guilty.

We have discussed this before (like almost everything in the political threads). Do you not agree that there is a large gulf between what is appropriate behaviour for a politician and what is criminal conduct?

The difference between this and McCarthyism is that politicians are being questioned about events that have actually transpired and the emails, phone calls and text messages these people have made.

Had they not been voted out of office, how long could Obeid, Tripodi, MacDonald etc. continued rorting NSW taxpayers without something like ICAC?

 

[Runner]

We have discussed this before (like almost everything in the political threads). Do you not agree that there is a large gulf between what is appropriate behaviour for a politician and what is criminal conduct?

The difference between this and McCarthyism is that politicians are being questioned about events that have actually transpired and the emails, phone calls and text messages these people have made.

Had they not been voted out of office, how long could Obeid, Tripodi, MacDonald etc. continued rorting NSW taxpayers without something like ICAC?

Now here we agree

 

[boyo]

Why privatising poles won't reduce your electricity bill

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-privatising-poles-wont-reduce-your-electricity-bill-20140610-zs2tl.html#ixzz34IWD0PEy

"Privatisation of the poles and wires in NSW will not bring electricity prices down. All it will do is transfer guaranteed returns on investment from government budgets to private shareholders.
Whether the poles and wires are privately or publicly owned, the price of the service they provide to ratepayers is determined by the government according to a formula. That formula guarantees the owners of the poles and wires a return based on the value of their assets. It provides an incentive to increase the value of assets and has led to what has been labelled the "gold plating" of the poles and wires in states where they are owned by the government and also in states where they are owned by private companies."

"Government owners have made an admirable job of showing us how ratepayers can be made to pay rising prices for an essential service under the pricing formula. The difference that private ownership will make is that private owners will keep those generous profits rather than passing them back to the government. Any efficiency gains, that will no doubt come at the cost of jobs and system reliability, will just add to their profits. Moreover, the influx of cash to government coffers from the sale will be at a much higher price than just borrowing the cash."

 

[barbarian]

The point of the sale is not necessarily to reduce prices though. The best you could hope for is a slower rate of rise in prices.

They are selling the poles and wires (provided they are re-elected) to fix the infrastructure backlog. I think it is a worthy aim, and if done right can set the state up for the next 40 years or so.
.

 

[Gnostic]

Amen to that. I am sick of ICAC finding these guys 'corrupt' over and over again. We fucking well know that, get to the prosecution! Throw them in fucking jail!

The credibility of ICAC will ultimately be determined by the sentences handed out by the courts.
.

You haven't had much to do with the Commissions like ICAC have you Barbar.

The burden of proof in a "finding" is totally different to that of a criminal case.

The credibility of ICAC doesn't hinge of the number of convictions it achieves, because it doesn't achieve any. It is a legal forum for the examination of the evidence of allegations of official corruption and misconduct. That is it.

I predicted many pages ago that no conviction will be made, or at best they will be trivial in nature compared to the allegations.

 

[Gnostic]

We have discussed this before (like almost everything in the political threads). Do you not agree that there is a large gulf between what is appropriate behaviour for a politician and what is criminal conduct?

The difference between this and McCarthyism is that politicians are being questioned about events that have actually transpired and the emails, phone calls and text messages these people have made.

Had they not been voted out of office, how long could Obeid, Tripodi, MacDonald etc. continued rorting NSW taxpayers without something like ICAC?

Without ICAC it would have been like Qld between the 1940s and 1980s. Officials at all levels served their time in office, complete careers in many cases and whilst surrounded by rumour and innuendo they were never exposed or suffered and effects from their corrupt behaviour. It too the the Fitzgerald Inquiry to really open the lid.

Because nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, because the very apparatus of the state has been perverted and made to work to disguise the activities of the corrupt to such a point that such doubt will always exist, without a standing commission like ICAC these individuals will act with impunity until the stink is that great they are elected out, they will however be resurrected by their cronies into a nice highly paid position of influence where they can continue their ways.

 

[Gnostic]

On the Electricity Privatisation - there is nothing that anybody can do about it now. It will happen no matter pack of fools is voted into Parliament next time. They at best pay lip service to the will of the electorate and this is the final step of bi-partisan moves that have been taking place over the last 30 years.

Just on the Electricity system.

It was built by numerous state owned by independently run business entities.

1. The Electricity Commission (EC) was responsible for the Generation of power, building Power Stations and transmission grids, and their maintenance. The seed funding was provided by the State Government and the Commission ran at a profit of approx 4%. It is there in the historical records. This profit was not returned it funded the next stage of the network. The Government ROI was 0.

Lets remember that the EC built the power stations on top of reliable and Coal mines which it owned and operated.

2. Local Distribution was the responsibility of County Councils. That was the provision and retail to customers. Most of these units were profitable as well, but also returned 0 to the Government.

The first steps to Privatisation were taken in the early 80s by the destruction of the above model and creation of entities which had to pay a dividend to the State Government and the employees of these entities becoming Government employees. You will note that every Government continued the policy of not paying the Superannuation Liabilities of their employees just jotting it down in the red ledger.

They saw immediate profits (probably in the way of a few Obeids as well) to make the books look good and sold the coal mines from under the power stations. The price to generate went up exponentially from there as instead of producing their own raw material they had to buy it on the international market. The whole generation enterprise became a loss maker from there on as the sale price was regulated but their input price was determined by the market and the Government remained liable for it at the polls and the Treasury. Idiots sums it up nicely, but idiots without vision does so even better.

Instead of looking to build infrastructure slowly and long term with long term jobs growth and security and slow trickle of capital, every government is focussed on a three to five year plan of sell up big to fund their next "infrastructure" promise to buy their next election.

The system is broken and is selling us out of own own country.

 

[boyo]

A few points on the proposed privatisation:-

• The poles and the wires are assets of the NSW people, not of the government, therefore it's not theirs to sell.
• Why can't the income/dividends from the electricity assets couldn't be diverted to fund such infrastructure instead of the only option being to sell the assets and using the funds from the sale.
  Isn't it better in the long-term to keep the assets and the income derived from the assets rather than selling them off for a short-term cash influx?
• The buyer will have to borrow money at a higher interest rate than the government can borrow it. They then expect to be able to service the loan and make a profit on top of the loan repayments.
  So, if the revenue from the electricity network can pay for a loan that size then why doesn't the government just borrow at a lower interest rate and keep the revenue?
• Public assets can only be sold once. Governments of the past did so much more with so much less. Governments of today cant seem to do a thing - and yet we have a bigger population than ever, a larger economy and hence our government should have more tax revenue than ever - why isn't this the case?
  Once our public assets are sold - that's it - you we will never get them back.
  Our government implores that privatisation creates competition and that competition will push prices down and service quality up. This has never been the outcome - not once - ever.
• Never privatise a natural monopoly

 

[Rob42]

I think you'll find, Boyo, that the concept of governments being able to borrow at a low rate is very much contingent on them marinating an AAA credit rating, which in turn requires them not to borrow too much, ironically. Obviously the credit rating system is even less reliable than a state government, but that's what will determine the borrowing rate.

It seems to be very much economic models at 10 paces at the moment, as regards whether privatisation slows down the rate of cost increase, so I'll be a little more circumspect than your absolutes.

If the money could be borrowed so easily, and at less cost, why do you think Mike Baird is going down the privatisation route? It's brought several of his predecessors unstuck, and it remains very unpopular. Please don't just say ideology, because most politicians will cash in their ideologies for an easy run at the next election, which Baird is now not going to get.

 

[Runner]

Hawke and Keating privatized 20 odd government enterprises. That was called economic reform by the ALP. Anyone else trying to do is wrong.

The government is like any board of directors and can sell the assets of the company. If the shareholders don't like it they get a new board.

Gnostic remember Wrans dividends and then we had power black out as not maintance was done. That caused the gold plated system

 

[boyo]

@Rob42,
Wasn't Mike Baird's father, Bruce, the Transport Minister of NSW?

 

[Rob42]

@Rob42,
Wasn't Mike Baird's father, Bruce, the Transport Minister of NSW?

Yes.

 

[barbarian]

A few points on the proposed privatisation:-

• The poles and the wires are assets of the NSW people, not of the government, therefore it's not theirs to sell.
• Why can't the income/dividends from the electricity assets couldn't be diverted to fund such infrastructure instead of the only option being to sell the assets and using the funds from the sale.
  Isn't it better in the long-term to keep the assets and the income derived from the assets rather than selling them off for a short-term cash influx?
• The buyer will have to borrow money at a higher interest rate than the government can borrow it. They then expect to be able to service the loan and make a profit on top of the loan repayments.
  So, if the revenue from the electricity network can pay for a loan that size then why doesn't the government just borrow at a lower interest rate and keep the revenue?
• Public assets can only be sold once. Governments of the past did so much more with so much less. Governments of today cant seem to do a thing - and yet we have a bigger population than ever, a larger economy and hence our government should have more tax revenue than ever - why isn't this the case?
  Once our public assets are sold - that's it - you we will never get them back.
  Our government implores that privatisation creates competition and that competition will push prices down and service quality up. This has never been the outcome - not once - ever.
• Never privatise a natural monopoly

Fair points.

I dislike the 'it isn't theirs to sell' argument, because they are taking it to an election. Ultimately we will decide if it is sold or not.

I also dispute the fact that 'Governments of the past did so much more with so much less. Governments of today cant seem to do a thing'. Viewing history with rose tinted specs, perhaps? Bob Carr sat on his hands for years and look where we are now!

There is a point to which we can sit back and try and eat away at the State's problems incrementally, but it is like putting your fingers in the dyke. Not to mention the fact that the State-owned companies themselves are bloated and cost the state way more than they should.
.