John Barilaro's lawyers are arguing:

“There’s no subterfuge, no dishonesty, no fraud, according to that particular this is something my client openly and proudly does,” she said. “It doesn’t fall within the notion of a corrupt conman.”

They are running this defence because Barilaro hadn't even tried to hide it in the past:

“Well my name is John Barilaro, call me Pork-Barilaro, and I have no apology because at the end of the day I will stand up and fight for our communities,”

As Bernard Keane writes in Crikey:

"Pork-barrelling is the most costly form of soft corruption in Australia, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in wasted taxpayer funds at the state and federal level.

And corruption it is: Transparency International defines political corruption as including “manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers.”.

Pork-barrelling involving the allocation of taxpayer funding away from outcomes in the public interest to partisan goals or to reward friends is merely a large-scale version of what is widely accepted as illegal if done on an individual basis.

Indeed, there are laws against what is termed electoral bribery: the Commonwealth Electoral Act outlaws asking for, receiving, giving, offering or promising “any property or benefit of any kind” in exchange for a vote, but “a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action” is exempted: bribery is prohibited, but announcing a policy to bribe is not."

Was Shanks right in your opinion for labeling pork barreling corrupt?

And corruption it is: Transparency International defines political corruption as including “manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers.”.

Well under that definition everything that the executive does would be corruption. Because under the Westminster System that we inherited from the mother country the executive branch is made up of members of parliament. Many commonwealth countries would be corrupt by this definition.

Also under our system the members of parliament are there to represent THEIR constituency. In fact it is even more restrictive than this- they are there to represent only the wishes of the majority of their constituency. They not there for the whole of the populace of the Nation/State.

And regarding a whole parliament overall, I personally cringe whenever we get a new PM/Premier and in their acceptance speech they say that the new government will govern inclusively for all Australians/the state populace. That's not what they are meant to do. They are there to do what the majority wants them to do, they shouldn't give any consideration to the wishes of a minority of voters that oppose the majority neither should they do what they themselves want to do if what they want opposes the majority.

SR

Little difference between sports rort, free solar panels, and a policy which favours a particular class of the voter with specific benefits which are not supported by an opposition party.

Political corruption is in evidence with the Obeid and McDonald insider trading in coal mine licences.
They stood to make millions in the corrupt deal. Obeid is now back in Jail again, as the system hunts him down. That’s good.

Very fine lines between good business and blatant political corruption is well exampled with Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire realestate deals in the area of the new airport at Badgerie creek.

And what was the result of a thirty million dollar purchase of land by the commonwealth worth three million in market value, also at the site of the new airport.
All mysteriously quiet now as were swamped with Covid distractions.

Dan

Pork Barrelling by any stretch of the imagination is corruption. Various forms are systemic in the political sphere in Australia, both at the Federal and State levels. Unfortunately the Australian public has become rather cynical about it all, and very much accepting of it. The absolute need for a Federal ICAC is apparent as politicians take advantage of the taxpayer to advance their own political ends. This is not done in any small way it involves hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lowering of standards in politics is now accepted practice. In the days of 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, and 'Blackjack' McEwen of the Country Party they were both hard as nails politicians, but they drew the line at certain behaviour within the Coalition. The likes of Barnyard Joy would not be returning as he did, but rather he would be aholed to the far flung reaches of political oblivion. Of course McEwen was able to squeeze many favourable concessions from Menzies for his cow cocky constituency, but it wasn't corruption as it is today.

I've always believed that on the whole our politicians
were honest and went into politics to make a difference
because I assumed that the life was hard for them and their
families. Yes, I know that was naive of me. And as the
various scandals began to surface especially under Jeff
Kennett as State Premier in Victoria where "Jobs for the
boys," was the norm, as were buying apartments and
properties as investments at much cheaper prices.

I guess power does corrupt - and to stay honest becomes
increasingly hard. Today, corrupt pollies are becoming
more and more the norm - and the public takes it in their
stride. I'm sure if there was a commission into corruption
we'd all be amazed at what and who crawled out from under
the shadows where they're hiding - or from out in the open
where some of them can be found. Of course pork
barreling is corrupt - but if everyone does it - who's
going to get caught?

Why do a couple of people here always ask questions, like "Is pork barrelling by politicians corrupt", in this instance, when they have already made up their minds on the subject, particularly when it's done by politicians whose politics they oppose.

Pork barrelling is defined as "the utilization of government funds for projects designed to please voters or legislators and win votes". It is done all the time by all politicians. But some pea brain latches onto a maybe case by the wrong side of politics (according to him), and starts the Lefties rattling their cages.

Pork barrelling is not illegal. It has been common practice for at least a century according to the Australian Law Society Journal; without it, pre-election campaigning would not occur. Candidates couldn't make promises, and nothing would get done. 'Vote for me, and I will do "X" for you' is what we hear at every election; and all the promises cost taxpayer money to fulfill. Politicians don't get voted in for their looks or personality - they have to buy their way in. You can call it pork barrelling, corruption, or whatever you like, but your own side of politics does it too, so get over it

The concept of pork barrel politics came to mean
spending by a politician done primarily for the
benefit of a group of people in exchange for their
support, often at the expense of the broader
public.

Money and politics often go hand in hand as the cost
of mounting an effective political campaign is quite
high. We've had many examples of pork barrel politics
in Australia particularly regarding marginal seats.

Of course pork-barreling by politicians is corrupt.
And Australia has a long and not so proud and not
particularly creative history of political pork
barreling. The following link gives an example
of a particularly brazen one:

http://www.abc.net.au.news/2020-01-16.bridget-mckenzie-saga-pork-barreling-brazen-example/11874224

cont'd ...

Excuse my typos. Here's the link again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-16/bridget-mckenzie-saga-pork-barreling-brazen-example/11874224

I always find it amusing that those who are most in favour of big government, for whom the answer to every societal issue is more government, are the ones most offended when, inevitably, government is shown to be inefficient, corrupting and self-serving.

If you have a system where vast sums of money and influence are given to those who control government, it's inevitable that those funds and that influence will be used to the benefit of the few against the interests of the many. Absolutely inevitable.

Its beyond the scope of human ingenuity to design a system where massive government can be controlled exclusively for the unbiased benefit of populace. It's never happened. It can't happen.

If you don't want corrupt government, don't have big government. If you want big government then you just have to accept that unscrupulous activity will ensue.

On face value, I think it's a fine line.

I think there's a fair argument that the person who wins the election is given a mandate by the majority to do what they promised in their campaign.

That person isn't there's to enact the oppositions policies, they're there to enact the policies they won the election with.
In this way, the person in government doesn't really owe anything to those who didn't agree and didn't vote for them.

Who cares what they say or think... BUT

I watched this documentary last night.

The USN Mothball Fleet - Storing up for a rainy day
http://youtu.be/MqNKreV8KGg

It kind of showed me how ENORMOUS amounts of money could be put into something under one government or administration; and then be wasted completely when an opposition government or administration comes in with entirely different ideas.

Switching back and forth in completely different directions every few years probably isn't good for anyone.

Should there be some standard rules to make a better outcome - playing field for the citizens best interests?
I don't know, probably.

Look at these Sydney riots, going to be a lot more Covid now.
I think if peoples right to publicly protest is temporarily suspended (and maybe it should be to prevent spread of Covid)
- Then governments right to enact new laws and regulations during this period should also be suspended.

They really are incompetent, they haven't really managed any of this that well at all. Flights going everywhere in and out of the country, no proper quarantine facilities, and people getting fed up.

in the 1990s, Ros Kelly was forced to resign from cabinet (and not return) after a procedural breach that made porkbarrelling possible. A quarter of a century later there's blatant porkbarrelling, procedures to prevent it are ignored or don't exist, and Scotty From Marketing thinks they've done nothing wrong.

I wonder what Ros Kelly's doing now? And if she decides to run against the PM, would he lose his seat like Howard did?

__________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
> Why do a couple of people here always ask questions, like "Is pork barrelling by politicians corrupt"...
To see if the others here agree with them, of course.
Indeed the results have been quite surprising - I'd expected some might disagree, but I didn't expect anyone to take the view that corruption's no big deal.

__________________________________________________________________________________

thinkabit,
>they shouldn't give any consideration to the wishes of a minority of voters that oppose the majority
What? You actually WANT the tyranny of the majority?
Haven't you seen what that led to in Zimbabwe?

Looking at a less extreme example, do you think the Singapore situation, where the tactic of effectively punishing voters for voting against them (by withholding funding from opposition controlled seats) has helped keep a single party in power since independence, is in any way desirable?

The purpose of democracy is accountability, not division!

For any one still in doubt about pork-barreling
by politicians, the following link explains
things beautifully:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2021/03/19/pork-barrelling-dirty-country/

Dear Steele,

Here's a link from The Age as to why politician's
pork barrelling should be made illegal:

http://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/there-s-every-reason-politicians-pork-barrelling-should-be-made-illegal-20210705-p586vy.html

"All pigs are equal...politician pigs are more equal."

Of course it's a corrupt practice, as are many things government does, such as awarding contracts to mates or breaking them up into smaller components to avoid the public tender process.

The problem isn't so much the blatant misuse of taxpayers' money to buy votes it's the fact that so many people simply no seem to longer care.

The Job of MPs is not only to represent their constituents but to push for their interests which includes funding for infrastructure etc in their constituency.

When hypocrites such as SR and Pauliar equally criticise the rampant pork-barreling by Labor and the greens under Juliar pouring $ms into the constituencies of Tony Whinger and Oakeshott to try and save them from the rage of their betrayed voters, then maybe there may be a case.

It's a fact that both parties have used "pork-barrelling" but this current bout - federally and in NSW is on a whole new scale.

I remember the outrage over Ros Kelly's whiteboard but when the NSW Premier admits shredding documents and deliberately deleting files that's more like corruption than opportunism.

Likewise when official advice on grant allocation is ignored and replaced by electorally based colour-coded spread sheets and handouts given during the caretaker period that's worthy of an ICAC style investigation.

It's like the dying days of the Howard era when that surplus he trumpeted in his last budget was all but spent by the time of the November election in a desperate attempt to buy votes.

I wonder if there will be much media scrutiny before the next election. I doubt it.

From Crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/2021/08/06/morrison-canberra-corruption

"Scott Morrison and Alan Tudge might have been hoping that they would have left the year's biggest corruption scandal -- car park rorts -- behind them in the winter break, but then press gallery began doing its job -- something that the government seemed entirely unprepared for.

When Tudge crept out from under a rock to hold a media conference on Wednesday, Nine's Jonathan Kearsley was waiting for him and chased him back to the ministerial wing demanding answers about his role in formulating a list of marginal seats where the car parks were to be allocated, in consultation with Scott Morrison. If the footage looked like a dodgy tradie being pursued by an A Current Affairs reporter, that was entirely appropriate, except that Tudge had rorted far more money than any tabloid TV crook ever has.

Yesterday it was Morrison's turn to look like a spiv turning tail, as journalists peppered him with questions about his role in the rort, forcing him to shut down a press conference on what should have been a positive story on the government's Closing The Gap implementation plan."

Good to see them finally getting held to account by our usually lame MSM.

Got to give it to those Liberals, when it comes to ripping off the taxpayer they are the "master rorters extraordinaire" Not since the days of the Fascists government of Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland in the 70's and 80's has Australia witnessed ripping off of taxpayers on such a grand scale.

The 'Car Park Rort' makes the 'Sports Rort' look like small beer. Who can forget the party of economic gurus paying a mate $30 million for a block of dirt at Leppington Sydney, worth $3 million. Or the cash grant paid to the mega rich Morrison Happy Clapper church in Sutherland. Old Joh must be cheering th liberals from Hell.

Pauliar, SR,

I should expect your selective amnesia, but the hypocrisy of the left whingers has no shame.

The pork barrelling and corruption of the Labor government put the liberals in the shade. That the greens spent $ms on travel and SHY took her child on a taxpayer-funded tour means that they would be just as corrupt as labor if anyone was stupid enough to vote them into office.

shadowminister,

Ros Kelly resigned as a Labour minister when her scandal broke, was never reinstated, and did not contest the next election.

Liberal McKenzie is back in the ministry after 18 months and is open for business for whatever rort her portfolios permit.

That you think there is any equivalence with how the two were treated then you are bonkers.

SR,

Mackensie documented her reasons for providing grants outside public service recommendations. Ros Kelly kept no records whatsoever. The report into RK indicated that while she did nothing illegal it castigated her for her complete failure to keep any records.

Apples and oranges again mate.