From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: NSW Court of Appeal exonerates Greiner?
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:11:19 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <1992Aug25.220714.24052@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:

>In article <chris.714733702@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>>In <1992Aug25.015204.25364@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>>I guess we know where _you_ stand politically, Ray.
>
>My guess is that you don't, although if you are saying that people take
>stands on this issue based on political leanings rather than fact,
>then I guess we also know where Mr Temby stands politically too.

I guess he's not a Liberal camp-follower, yes.

>The critical finding by the Supreme Court was that Temby's reasoning
>was faulty, and no finding of curruption could be sustained. For a
>person to have acted corruptly in law, he has to have had malice
>of forethought, Temby himself found so such malice in Greiner or Moore.

This is where you need a jury, and where I agree with you about the
problems with the ICAC act. Only a jury (at least under our judicial
system) is capable of deciding if someone could be reasonably expected
to have known that what they were doing was wrong (ie malicious).
Without this you would have the ludicrous position that Russ Hinze
popularised "Conflict of interest? I'm Minister for Racing and I own
racehorses. They fit together perfectly. Where's the conflict?"

>>What matters, of course, is how accountable politicians are to the
>>people for their partial behaviour. In the case of NSW, they were
>>immediately and devastatingly accountable.

>The point is when did this "new" accountability occur? Was it in force
>for Whitlam? Fraser? Hawke? Wran? Unsworth? Or is it only an artifact
>of the NSW minority government, i.e. all of the above performed
>similar "partial" appointments but knew that they had a majority
>in the lower house.

So it is a function of the minority government. Are you suggesting that
that is an undesirable result of the democratic choice of the people?
Of the leaders you mention, a significant part in the downfall of all
(even including Wran) was their perceived abuse of partiality. The people
had to wait their chance to say so, however.

>I sure am glad that you can read the community's mind, funny that
>the only poll that I heard during the whole thing was one conducted
>in Mosman (in the independent Peter (I listen to my constituents) MacDonald's
>electorate), which found that 56% of people wanted the Independent Party
>to wait for the appeal before proceeding with any action.

Peter MacDonald's electorate is Manly. There were a series of polls
run in the Independent held seats by the Liberal party with such weighted
questions that everyone laughed at them. Do you remember how many of
those surveyed said that they approved of Greiner and Moore's behaviour?

>Funny, I find the behaviour of Keating outrageous at times, but we
>don't hold an election each time do we?

But we're not a majority are we, Ray... And of course, the people trusted
Labour enough in 1990 to give them a good working majority in the Reps.
And then too, the Federal Government wasn't silly enough as to make a
rod for it's own back like Greiner did with the ICAC. I seem to remember
the civil libertarians pointing out how draconian the ICAC legislation
was when it was first proposed. But then it was intended to show how
corrupt Labor had been when in office in NSW. Sadly for the Liberals,
the very first case involved corruption in a Liberal controlled council
(Waverley), then it was the National party's coastal real-estate deals,
and so on...

"Very courageous, Minister".

-- 
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd		Internet: chris@softway.sw.oz.au

PHONE:	+61-2-698-2322	"I'm waiting for X-Windows to become just that;
FAX:	+61-2-699-9174	 Ex-Windows" - A McGrath.