Commenting on the story: Parliament to consider clipping ICAC’s wings
One has to question why Parliament wishes to clip ICAC’S wings.
We need independent bodies who are ‘not in bed’ with government or law enforcement agencies for the greater good, to ensure on so many levels ordinary Australians are protected financially and morally. – Margie Steffens
It seems all SA’s politicians want to adopt the Trump approach to investigating maladministration in SA; stop testing and results improve.
Stop investigation of politician’s behaviours and there will be no problems or corrupt behaviours (or any the taxpayer will know about, anyhow.) – Phil and Marg Lawrence
Even less reasons to trust our politicians! – Ian Greig
ICAC doesn’t seem like an independent body if the Attorney-General is considering amending the Act.
How convenient for the Liberal Party to amend the Act when they have a country MP travel scandal hanging over them. So much for transparency. – Patricia Zollo
Good governance including accountability and transparency is a reasonable expectation of governments.
The ICAC under Bruce Lander has performed a necessary check (and balance) within our democratic processes of government. So why clip the ICAC’s wings?
Taxpayers, and indeed all citizens, need to have confidence that our governments behave appropriately and follow proper legislated and regulated procedures. Otherwise why have them? Government administration is a large and complex operation even in this state. We need the appropriate tools to safeguard its proper functioning.
If the Act which governs the ICAC needs streamlining/improving, then by all means undertake this work. The timing though of the suggested “clipping” suggests that it is being done to protect the interests of our Government’s institutions and individuals, not those of South Australian citizens.
Transparent government processes and practices are central to democracy. The SA Government leadership and its Department of the Premier and Cabinet should model this behaviour.
Nobbling the ICAC is in no citizen’s best interest. – Gael Fraser
If Tom Richardson’s scoop on the outcome of the Parliamentary review of the functions of our key integrity bodies is accurate, then we are likely to see a big change in the role of the Independent Anti-Corruption Commissioner.
The report suggests matters of maladministration and misconduct will be re-legislated to be within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman – with the ICAC more tightly focussed on its primary role.
I suggest consideration also be given to the public administration education activity currently the sole province of ICAC. In his words, the Commissioner has sought to ‘influence those in public administration to act with integrity’ through his ‘education sessions’.
Unfortunately the perception of ICAC’s threatening approach to reporting misconduct and maladministration has served to limit reports of that very behaviour. Commissioner Lander has himself admitted that public servants are scared to make reports and complaints.
As part of the debate about the future of the ICAC, the Parliament would be well advised to refocus the education role of integrity bodies. The emphasis should be on raising standards of public administration across the board, including patchy management standards. It is not enough to just tub-thump about abuses of public office. – Kym Davey
Commenting on the story: Heritage facade to be demolished as Pirie St Hyatt gets green light
Regarding the reader view you published (Your views, August 28), honestly, why would you publish such a ridiculous point of view?
As a very frequent traveler for business and leisure I can tell you that a 4 or 5 star hotel like the Hyatt is a reason to come to Adelaide. Adelaide needs world class hotels to match its world class food and wine and there is little choice at present.
Anyone who believes that the lack of a pretty mundane, crappy faux stone façade, which would in fact drastically impact the light flow into the lobby and inhibit its function is going to stop people from visiting a city doesn’t understand travel.
And anyone who wants to retain such a second rate monolith with zero set-back in place of world class architecture doesn’t understand what a good streetscape is.
I thought your publication was supposed to be a better alternative to the ‘Tiser but it seems to be slowly morphing into exactly the same thing. Tired, old insular opinions. – Joe Hensonn
Want to comment?
Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.
We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.
Make your contribution to independent news
A donation of any size to InDaily goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. South Australia needs more than one voice to guide it forward, and we’d truly appreciate your contribution. Please click below to donate to InDaily.