ROB Oakeshott intervened in a government investigation on behalf of a campaign donor accused of dumping thousands of tonnes of contaminated waste.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/oakeshott-intervened-for-campaign-donor-in-toxic-waste-dumping-case/story-fn6tcs23-1225954661458

Since Rob Oakeshott effectively defied the wishes of electorate and supported Labor, the intense spotlight of the media has focused on him and his exploits.

What has emerged from this scrutiny is certainly the appearance that his personal interests take priority over those of his electorate.

I hope that he has the good grace to resign.

Shadow Minister seems to think that only the Labor party is involved in undesirable actions, of course people who are party fanatics will always point at the other party, even if their own wonderful party is also involved in the same practice. We might again some day get a party with integrity, intelligence and loyalty, but it is hard with the news media not being responsible to that idea, they have chosen their "god" as well, haven't they.

This is why we need either CIR, to abolish or recraft the states, and reform the structure of state governmence- all to possibly break up this corruption that has clearly permeated our state through and through.

Interesting twist on the situation, merv09.

>>Shadow Minister seems to think that only the Labor party is involved in undesirable actions, of course people who are party fanatics will always point at the other party, even if their own wonderful party is also involved in the same practice<<

Ahem. I think you might find that Mr Oakeshott stood as an independent candidate. So, good sharp volley of grapeshot, but in entirely the wrong direction.

As far as I could tell from the report, Mr Oakeshott's position is that he was acting on behalf of a constituent in a complex dispute.

The accusation is that he was going into bat for an individual who had supported his campaign financially, while the rest of the electorate suffered.

And I am absolutely sure, given the source of the article, the latter is the view the journalist would like us to adopt - hence Shadow Minister's spray, right on cue.

The interesting aspect, though, is that there is no Party machine available to discipline Mr O, or to rebut the allegations with any kind of privileged understanding. So it is entirely up to his own sense of honour to decide whether he has overstepped the mark or not.

That is, however, one of the rarest of qualities, in any politician, of any stripe or flavour.

The political arena is rife with this sort of stuff, but facts can be distorted by both sides of politics for the purpose of muckraking.

According to SM's link, Mr Oakeshott is prepared to answer to his critics on this accusation. Maybe we should wait and see what the facts are on this one, then make a judgement. The comment at the end of the article from a local PM resident is also interesting.

Oakeshott sided with Labor so it is only to be expected he, along with Tony Windsor, will cop a hiding from the Coaltion, while politicians like Bob Katter can continue unscathed and uncensored. Governments should be held accountable by the voters and the opposition, but lets not kid ourselves that it is an ethical principle at stake, it is just more of the same old politics.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/18/barry-ofarrell-sticks-his-neck-out-on-donations-reform/

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/06/big-tobacco-not-just-in-liberal-pockets-crikey-reveals-the-labor-links/

Support followed by lucrative job offers post-parliamentary service in some cases.

Pericles,

There are a number of issues with this that are dodgy:

1 - Rob Oakeshott has tens of thousands of constituents, of which the Birden group (who helped fund and run his campaign) is but one. Most of his constituents' lives are not enhanced by having tens of thousands of tonnes of contaminated waste dumped in their area. Whom is he representing?

2 - Rob's "meeting" with the EPA's star witness convinced him not to "agitate" further contributing to the EPA's case collapsing.

3 - There is no sign of Rob O putting any pressure whatsoever on Birden to clean up the waste.

Rob Oakeshott has not denied any of this and looks set to brazen it out.

Please feel free to point out where my interpretation is wrong.

Merv,

As there is very little evidence of Liberal MPs compromising themselves, but almost weekly scandals with Labor MPs, either Labor is far more corrupt, or simply stupid enough to get caught.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to recent scandals with Liberal MPs, as I can't seem to recall any.

There are less 'recent' scandals with Liberal MPs because they do not hold government except in one state so not only would their indiscretions will be less likely to hit the radar, but they have little influence in political decision making.

The ALP does seem to continually trip over themselves lately with one scandal after the other.

The Coalition is not without tarnish though if one remembers AWB, children overboard, Peter Reith's phone bill and one of my favourites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_pamphlet_scandal

You are right to raise this issue SM - but it would be nice to see you show some impartiality and honesty in your zeal in exposing corruption.

There needs to be reform surrounding political donations, that would go a long way to preventing scandal on both sides. We need more checks and balances, transparency if we are to really foster accountability in a democracy.

http://www.democracy4sale.org/

I obviously cannot do that, Shadow Minister.

>>Please feel free to point out where my interpretation is wrong.<<

You may be right, you may be half-right, you may be entirely wrong. It is, after all, simply your "interpretation".

But as I said, it is an interesting situation where an Independent is acting on behalf of a constituent, instead of being at the beck and call of Party factions. It becomes a matter between himself and his constituency, and in the due process of our parliamentary democracy, will be resolved at the ballot box.

After all, if matters stand as you interpret them, the voters will desert him en masse.

But it is interesting, is it not, that all this stuff happened well before the last election. So the source of the contamination, the intervention of Oakeshott and the "'meeting' with the EPA's star witness" was public knowledge before they went to the ballot box.

My "interpretation" of that is that not enough of them actually care that much.

Do you know differently?

Pelican, you are clutching at straws.

The children overboard claim was based on the report from the Navy, which actual as of yet has not be altered. So the claim was based on supposedly sound evidence. That prior to an election the libs may have guilded the lily a little is hardly a scandal. It is notable that the senate inquiry that found this to be false was stacked almost exclusively with Labor senators.

Similarly the AWB affair was the actions of a private company, for which Labor tried unsuccessfully to tie to the government, which were at worst oversight by the relevant departments. The closest the judicial enquiry could get was a couple of emails in which mild concern was expressed, which were probably not even read by the ministers concerned.

The only example with any validity was the phone card incident which is from over a decade ago

Given the string of scandals this year from Labor, and previously the pink Batts, the BER rorts etc, none of which Labor wants exposed to a judicial inquiry, the vast preponderance of scandals are on Labor's side.

Should have known, Shallow Minister. No comment for fear of encouraging him/her.

SM why would I be clutching at straws when you are not? Do you know the full truth about the Oakeshott events, do you really care or are you just about muckraking.

Are you are seriously that the Liberals did not use the Children Overboard scandal (think Downer using inflammatory comments like "we don't want those sort of people here in Australia"), and that the Howard government knew nothing about AWB well before public revelations, and that the Lindsay pamphlet event did not happen.

Gee these Libs are truly as pure as the driven snow.

Are you about greater transparency as in my earlier post or not - it has to be applicable to both parties to work.

Pelican,

Of course the libs used the children overboard to their advantage. However, it did not originate from the libs, but from the navy, the only question is when the libs became aware of it.

As far as the AWB scandal, there is not a single shred of evidence that the libs knew of the rort whilst it was happening, and they even allowed a judicial inquiry to occur which subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of documents and emails. I don't have any reason to believe they knew. If you have, please share it.

As for the pamphlets, it was decade ago. If I was to dredge up every labor malfeasance there would not be space in this thread, compared to the handful of petty or manufactured examples you have given.

The libs are not as pure as the driven snow, but by comparison, Labor reeks of continuous and rampant corruption.

Rob Oakeshott referred to NSW corruption watchdog
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/rob-oakeshott-referred-to-nsw-corruption-watchdog/story-fn6tcs23-1225955228651

"As far as the AWB scandal, there is not a single shred of evidence that the libs knew of the rort whilst it was happening, and they even allowed a judicial inquiry to occur which subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of documents and emails. I don't have any reason to believe they knew. If you have, please share it."

'Shred' being the operative word. Just because an inquiry is conducted does not mean that all evidence is forthcoming just as in the Children Overboard investigations where it was proven public servants and advisers who lied about when the government knew were rewarded later with senior roles.

Do you really think any evidence to the contrary would make it to the light of day. Does the phrase "protecting the integrity of government" mean anything to you. Sometimes stability comes at any cost including ethical ones.

Try getting ALL the Cole Inquiry papers under FOI before you make up your mind on this one.

There was a great deal of criticim about the narrow terms of reference of the Inquiry thus the government, DFAT and other relevant parties were not included in the terms of reference and hence did not come under any semblance of close scrutiny. Disgusting given the circumstances.

Dear Shadow Minister,
All are capable of great honor and All are capable of great depravity For All fall short of Gods best. Only in the anointing do we have the power to resist temptation. Religious tradition does not hold us true to our chosen course as Simon Peter found out in his hour of pressure. After the anointing arrived his resolve was strengthened where he could say "Not my will but thine be done". Believing is not enough for we need the daily dose of power. That is why Jesus took the time out to go and have dialog with his father (pray) daily. It takes putting God First place in your life which we are incapable of doing without His help. Without a Holy reverence and fear of God according to accurate knowledge honor can not be restored and a mans word and his handshake are again his worth or value = character. The answer is not found in man for it is found in Gods Word.

Pelican,

As I thought, only conjecture.

If there was nothing to hide why not widen the terms of reference as far as communications between DFAT and the government and other agencies?

Try and get all the information from participating agencies under FOI and get back to me on your success.

Pelican,

With the enquiry costing more than $1m a day, to extend the terms of reference and the inquiry by months would have required more than Labor's desire for a fishing expedition.

With no evidence produced from the most likely sources, there was no justification for wasting time and money on tenuous sources.

Using your own logic, if Labor has nothing to hide, why are they strenuously avoiding an inquiry into the the pink batts, the BER, or a productivity inquiry into the NBN when for all of them there is huge evidence that all is not well.

Well there was a review into the pink batts with the findings showing that there was a poor oversight and negligence in taking advice about safety aspects and rorting. It was pretty obvious anyway that the whole thing was a shemozzle and even the PM took responsibility so there is no need for a formal judicial inquiry.

I don't know enough about NBN matters to comment specifically but what would the terms of reference be that are not already covered in policy or in the process of establishing the network? Yes there could be greater transparency but this is true of most policy initiatives on either side.

I agree with you that if Oakeshott intervened in protecting a political donor from scrutiny after dumping toxic waste into the river then that should be exposed or at least investigaged (as should all incidents of this nature).

It just does not behove well when the same poster raises issues that reveal the negatives on one side of politics on the basis of 'fighting corruption' but fails to do the same on the other.

As for AWB - widening the terms of reference would have assured the public that all avenues were investigated thoroughly including communications between government and DFAT/PMC/AGD etc and AWB executives. The inquiry, in the end, did not even probe into what the government knew or when they knew, or what actions were taken/not taken. That is negligence and makes a mockery out of any inquiry that purports to facilitate transparency and accountability.

It is more a waste of money to run a Clayton's Inquiry than to do it properly.

Pelican,

For someone that berates me for being unbalanced, you want to extend the terms of reference on the AWB rort far and wide after the most obvious avenues had yielded nothing, yet for the pink Batts disaster which killed 4 Australians, burnt down nearly 200 homes, and wasted billions of taxpayers money, an internal review is sufficient. Puleez!

Garrett got a slap on the wrist.

What of the BER rorts? more internal white washes? The department run buildings cost twice what similar buildings run by the independent schools cost, and left only 30% of principals happy that they got what they asked for. This was either mind blowing incompetence, corruption, or back handers for union buddies. Of $16bn, this should have been done for no more than $9bn.

Considering these previous 2 examples, a productivity study would seem a no brainer for the NBN.

Well I'm all for a productivity study. That should be part of any major expenditure no matter who is introducing it.

Why an Inquiry into pink batts if the outcome and errors are already transparently exposed and documented. What would the point be other than feeding the Coalition propaganda machine.

What would an Inquiry achieve that has not already been widely acknowledged? Given your concern about expense to taxpayers - how does duplication benefit the public right to know in this case (given they already know)?

Pelican:

"Why an Inquiry into pink batts if the outcome and errors are already transparently exposed and documented"

I would agree, but we are yet to see any independent review, only an internal audit which found that Garrett was essentially not responsible for anything that occurred within his department.

The same goes for the BER. Even the Victorian Labor treasurer acknowledged that by mid 2009 that the stimulus was no longer required, and that there were serious delivery issues, but the internal "review" found that the BER met its stimulus requirements and most of its delivery goals.

When is a government department reviewing itself going to find much wrong. These were complete white washes, and external audits are called for, perhaps not a judicial enquiry, but not an internal back slapping.