From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: NSW Court of Appeal exonerates Greiner?
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:07:14 GMT
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Distribution: aus
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

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.

>
>The crucial finding by Temby (and one which should be within the ICAC's
>power) was that the behaviour or Greiner and Moore would have been
>reasonably held to have been corrupt in any other area of society other
>than the political. The court ruled that he couldn't make that finding
>at all, because of the lack of tests.

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.
To find that they are corrupt the other important ingredient is that
they have broken a law, but alas this was missing too, so we are left with
Mr Temby's opinion alone. The funniest thing about this situation
was Mr Temby's Friday conference where he said that he had been found
to have made a mistake, "but there was malice in it" I nearly fell
down laughing, because that is exactly the point of law that he screwed up.

>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. One could argue that if

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.

>Temby had left his statement without the part that you object to that
>there would have been insufficient popular support for the independent
>MLAs to carry out their threat - they say "no".

The independents would have caved in, as it is they have probably been in
breach of the charter of reform that they had signed with Greiner in
that they could only support a no confidence motion if the government
was found to be corrupt, certainly that label has been removed.
At best they would have had to support a no confidence motion because
they disliked a political action that the government undertook, but then
again what is a politician's signiture worth anyway?

>Finally, (and I don't know what they were saying in Liberal Party
>branch meetings) the overwhelming community view was that the behaviour

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. I also
liked the way the Independents carried themselves through the whole affair
showing the sort of "independence" that their electorates voted them in for,
I can't remember how often I heard them say "I'll have to discuss this
with my colleagues" whenever they were asked a question without
their two other party members about.

>of Greiner was outrageous. Had an election been held, he would have been

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

>soundly defeated. Indirectly, the Liberals have scored by getting a new

Even at the time the polls did not support this view, they certainly
support it less now.

>clean-skin leader who might save their bacon, and possibly even assist
>Mr Hewson in his tilt at Federal hegemony.

The best result for Hewson would have been a baton change in NSW, of
course this would have led to a spend like hell federal budget and
a very early federal election to take advantage of the "honeymoon".

>Can't have it both ways, Ray!

Yup, I agree, you can't be corrupt and not break the law, thank god
we finally agree on something. So when Clover Moore talks of the
ICAC findings with great reverence, I guess you remind her of her
April letter to the Attorney General criticising the ICAC, its method
of operation, its ability to make adverse findings without prosecution,
the lack of an appeals process (which is why the Supreme Court action
could only be fought on technicalities), all because some of her
constituents have had adverse findings against them, you can't have it
both ways Clover Moore.