McGinty replaces the rule of law with the “vague” rule of men.The Desert Rat issues a simple challenge to Jim McGinty; to answer three questions:
- What lobbying, in which Burke and Grill were involved was against the public interest and why was it against the public interest?
- What criminal or corrupt conduct were Burke and Grill involved in?
- Is there any evidence or suggestion that Burke or Grill bribed, forced, or intimidated anyone in their lobbying activities?
Vague legislation undermines the rule of law because it sets the stage for tyranny, and real corruption of the political process by those who administer the legislation.
We should not pass laws so vague that you cannot know whether your actions are lawful.
Knowing whether your actions make you liable for punishment is not a matter of reading the legislation but of predicting the sensibilities of people in the Corruption and Crime Commission. That is not just predicting their sensibilities towards your actions but also towards you.
The Desert Rat watched Jim McGinty on Rebecca Carmody’s ABC Stateline program in 2006 which you can read here, where McGinty thoroughly defamed Burke and Grill without making any specific allegations of misconduct against them. Corruption, criminal conduct, misconduct and misbehaviour were sprinkled throughout the interview by McGinty. He predictably praised the wonderful work of the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) for exposing “it”.
What was not clear to the Desert Rat is what McGinty was specifically alleging in this nasty and gutless attack aimed at tainting both men. This defaming of Burke and Grill seems to have become common form for Carpenter and McGinty, to the point of obsession.
Former CCC head Judge Kevin Hammond acknowledged this problem when speaking to a group of lawyers during his tenure. He highlighted the problem of vague legislation when he said “... it could be difficult to precisely define misconduct. Misconduct occurs when a public officer abuses his or her authority for personal gain or generally acts contrary to the public interest.”
Therein lies the problem. When the citizens cannot know in advance of taking an action as what they are permitted to do, they can be at the mercy of ruthless and insidious forces. They can continue their legitimate business as usual and find themselves in a legal and political maelstrom.
The Desert Rat believes there is a substantive case of misconduct which could be raised against the Corruption and Crime Commission.
When we undermine the rule of law, potential targets of government such as Burke and Grill, are judged on the whimsy of unknown “faceless” individuals in the CCC because the law is so vague.
Allegations were also made against John D’Orazio by the Corruption and Crime Commission and he was publically investigated and humiliated. John D’Orazio was not found to be guilty of any corruption, or criminal offence or even the vague charge of “misconduct”. Rather than clear D’Orazio, the CCC authors besmirched him and “found” D’Orazio guilty of the non-existent “offence” of “acting inappropriately”.
He had not broken any law, regulation or guideline to the knowledge of the Desert Rat, but he got a gratuitous damning comment from unknown people in their Corruption and Crime Commission in their report. The Desert Rat suspects the vacuous finding was to avoid loss of face or credibility and was to justify the enormous resources invested by the CCC to build a case to have D’Orazio charged. No such case existed.
A large part of the problem is that McGinty’s CCC laws are too vague and they result in these messy subjective processes and findings. Vague legislation undermines the law and the Desert Rat believes there is a price to pay for undermining the law, because it sets the stage for tyranny, and real corruption of the political process. The longer the CCC continues its activities; the truth of this prediction will become evident.
Most of the CCC staff have 12 months left on their 5 year contracts and because of normal financial commitments will be desperate for “success” and re-employment. The incentive to get political scalps, no matter what the cost, is extremely strong especially in the case of Grill and Burke.
McGinty has little incentive to fix the CCC Act so that it is easier for them to tackle organised crime, while their hounding of arch enemies Burke and Grill consumes most of their budget.
It is easy to be spineless and hide behind the cowardly style of innuendo in the Stateline program. Does Jim McGinty have the courage to state his case or is this inquisition just a hopeful fishing expedition to destroy your political rivals?
McGinty should put up, instead of tainting people with vague epithets and hiding behind vague legislation that serve his own political ends. We are waiting for your answer to the three questions, Jim.
We now have the appalling situation as seen in this morning’s "The West" 25th January 2008 which calls into question the integrity of those curious creatures at the cranky creepy CCC.
ReplyDeleteThe report is in relation to the findings of the CCC against what we now find is two innocent men. Two innocent men whose lives have been destroyed by the likes of McGinty and his Goons and those curious creatures at the CCC.
The CCC found that these blokes had acted in an inappropriate manner as public servants but an independent person or persons have provided an autonomous assessment of the case and the evidence used by the CCC and surprise, surprise have found that these blokes have no case to answer.
Only under the watch of McGinty and his Goons could this happen. And why? Because of McGinty's pathological hatred of Burke and his desperate desire to see Burke destroyed completely and if it means that a few others go down with Burke who cares as long as it is not one of McGinty's Goons.
It is a sad day to see the ALP used as a tool to destroy other people and an even sadder day to see most if not all members of this State ALP Government lose its integrity and it's way because they are too scared to stand up to the likes of McGinty
When McGinty appointed Dr. Neale Fong as Health Department Sumpremo I had two, simultaneous, thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe first was that here was a Minister insulating himself from accountability by inserting a sacrificial 'anode'into the system. Please pardon the electrical metaphor; it was all that came to mind.
The second was that the appointee was either naive or greedy or possesed some measure of each. Did he not ask himself why McGinty agreed to pay so much for what is, after all, a job that could be undetaken by any competent administrator who had the desired levels of intellectual horsepower, energy and balls!
Nevertheless he took on the role and has been given the boot in an effort to buy McGinty time.
I look forward to the day when McGinty and his daggy mates are sent off in disgrace and integrity becomes a prerequisite for those desirous of sitting in either House of our Parliament.
Lamentably, I know this will not happen without a major whistleblow from those who have had enough and a Parliament , not government,looking to attone for it's past neglect.