her nail in the coffin of Australia’s democracy

Categories: Arc of instability, Australian Defence Force, Australian Federal Police, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Corruption,Pacific Neighbours, Rule of Law

        

by: Bakchos

Leave feedback | 0 Comments »

“The pattern from the 1980s right through to Haneef is a culture of obsessive secrecy… where the AFP’s major objective has been to look good whilst at the same time avoiding public scrutiny and accountability,”

(Former AFP officer interviewed in October, 2008 for ABC Four Corners programme Good Cop, Bad Cop)

On the same programme, referencing senior Australian Federal Police officers, the former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, stated that the Australian Federal Police do not want to know about corruption in their own department. This in itself should be sufficient reason for there to be a Royal Commission into the Australian Federal Police. You can watch Professor McMillan’s interview with Sally Neighbour in the story titled Good Cop, Bad Cop here. As stated by Shane Dowling in his post Pigs on the run:

“… the fact of the matter is that the Australian Federal Police don’t want to know about corruption in any government department.”

The Kessing Affair

THE Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) has been asked to examine the conduct of the Australian Federal Police during its investigation of convicted whistleblower Allan Kessing.

The call for an inquiry was triggered by concern that Mr Kessing may have been wrongly convicted, because information received by the Australian Federal Police that could have helped his defence was not passed on to his legal team.

Mr Kessing, a former Customs officer, was convicted in 2007 of breaching section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act by leaking to The Australian long-ignored reports revealing criminality and security flaws at Sydney Airport.

The ACLEI was asked to examine the AFP’s involvement by Bob Spanswick, a former official of the Customs Officers Association.

Mr Spanswick said last week’s disclosures in The Australian that information had not been passed to Mr Kessing’s lawyers meant the prosecution might have been affected by corruption.

His decision to refer the matter to the ACLEI coincides with severe censorship of a Howard government briefing paper on the Kessing prosecution that has been made available under the Freedom of Information Act.

More than half of the five-page document was blacked out when it was made available last week to Mr Kessing. “The remaining material adds nothing to what I already knew,” said Mr Kessing.

A Difference of Opinion

There is a strong difference of opinion about how lawyers representing convicted whistleblower Allan Kessing were denied access to evidence that could have undermined the prosecution case.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus provided one version of reality to a Senate estimates hearing. It should come as no surprise to learn that the Negus version implies the AFP did nothing wrong.

The Negus version is sharply at odds with the way barrister Peter Lowe, who defended Kessing, remembers things.

If Lowe is right that the AFP never disclosed that it held information that could have undermined the prosecution case, then Kessing has clearly been wrongly convicted.

That information is contained in a letter from the internal affairs unit at Customs that is held by the AFP and that has only recently been leaked to Kessing, apparently from someone inside the AFP.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor, who is considering Kessing’s application for a pardon, is aware that Negus’s version is at odds with that of Lowe.

Logically, O’Connor will need to get to the bottom of what really happened if he is to properly consider the question of whether Kessing was indeed denied a fair trial.

If he fails to do that, it would call into question the fairness with which he is dealing with the pardon application.

For Kessing, an absence of fairness must now appear to be the hallmark of the criminal justice system. On the face of things, this man has been convicted of a criminal offence after the prosecution suppressed evidence that could have saved him.

Similarities with the Marten’s Case

The thrust of the argument in the Kessing Affair is that the Australian Federal Police withheld exculpatory evidence from the defence. If we look at the details of the Writ of Summons and Associated Statement of Claim filed on 18th February, 2011 by Capt. Fred Martens through his PNG lawyers Peter Penna and Associates in the PNG National Court, Waigani, we will see that the issues are surprisingly similar in both the Kessing and Martens cases.

On page 13 and fourteen of the Writ of Summons and Associated Statement of Claim at sub-sections 44 (b) to (e) makes the following allegations:

(b) in or about April – May 2004 0bserved Leisa James and Richard Terry, who were members of the AFP employed by the COA being Designated persons under the EC Treaty Act, also investigating into the charges referred o at paragraph 13(a) herein, find the passport application of Grace Nabaimu lodged on 13th August 2001 at the Immigration office at Waigani, uplift the application from the office and concealed same.

(c) knew that Tania Stokes (a member of the AFP employed by the COA being Designated persons under the EC Treaty Act) swore an affidavit on 27th April, 2005 stating that “…the Director of Operations for PNG Immigration Department advised that most of the records were stolen in 2004…” and that there was no passport application for Grace Nabaimu; knew the statement was made to support the Prosecution knowing that he facsimiled the passport application and other documents to Tania Stokes on 13th May, 2004 shortly after they were uplifted and four (4) months before the plaintiff was arrested.

(d) knew or ought to have known that Dr Mondia, who witnessed the passport application declaration and photographs of Grace Nabaimu on 1th August, 2011 was interviewed by Tania Stokes in 2005 and the statement was concealed and never disclosed by Tania Stokes.

(e) came to know an Affidavit sworn on 24th August 2004 wherein Tania Stokes asserted that Grace Nabaimu’s passport and visa application were attended to in March 2001 when he knew thatTania Stokes knew or ought to have known as early as 13th May 2004 that this statement was false. (My emphasis)

While all of the above mentioned allegations relate to the Second Defendant Detective Inspector Moses Ibsagi of the PNG Police, they refer to crimes committed by serving Australian Federal Police Officers against Mr Martens in PNG which he witnessed.

Sex tapes and Money

The current Defence Force sex tape scandal is almost exactly the same as the current Reserve Bank Bribery Scandal. Both had complaints made to the Federal Police. On both occasions the Federal Police did nothing until the media became involved.

The Australian Defence Force sex tape scandal involving an 18 year old girl was initially swept under the carpet by the Australian Federal Police, only to be investigated after:

“… Channel 10 ran an interview with the girl on the nightly news, or that is what the Australian Defence [Force have been] implying by their public statements. Both Defence and the Australian Federal Police have been contradicting each other … in their public statements.”

Now who are we to believe on this one? Dowling goes on to say:

“The Reserve Bank bribery scandal involves a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia called Securency which makes and sells bank notes. As it turns out they have been caught bribing overseas officials to win contracts. It is illegal under Australian Law to bribe overseas officials.

A whistleblower who worked for Securency went to the Australian Federal Police in April 2008 armed with hard evidence. The Federal Police tried to sweep it under the carpet which they did successfully until May 2009, when The Age newspaper in Melbourne ran a story exposing the corrupt deals at Securency.

In an interview with ABC Radio on the 26th May, 2010 this is what Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus said:

‘There was an initial assessment done of that material and at that time, over the coming months, it was decided that there was insufficient material to launch an investigation. Looking back, there could have been more done at that time, I think, to look further and deeper into the issue.’

‘At a later stage there was more material provided to the Australian Crime Commission, which was again provided to the AFP; at about that time the matter was formally referred to us by the RBA after the matter was featured in The Age newspaper.’”

Let’s compare Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus words in the Securency matter to what he said after his police service was publicly exposed in the ADF sex scandal:

‘That advice that was provided by defence didn’t really fully comprehend the magnitude of what we now know to be the case.’

I looks to me like the authors of the ‘why I didn’t do my homework’ excuse book have expanded into the ‘why I didn’t investigate a crime’ excuse book market!

Recidivism and the Australia Federal Police

The term ‘recidivism’ originates from the Latin ‘recidere’, which means to ‘fall back’; the term is often used interchangeably with ‘repeat offending’ or ‘reoffending’.

What Australians are led to believe they have in the Australian Federal Police is a glamour force of supercops smashing drug rackets, tracking terrorists and making Australians feel safe.

Indeed, so successful have the Australian Federal Police spin doctors been, that grateful politicians showered them with praise and hefty budget increases. Officers of the Australian Federal Police and their canny chief Mick Keelty could do no wrong. Or so it seemed. Now, the once-lionised AFP is now ridiculed for apparent bungling, excessive secrecy and cosying up to political masters.

The problem with the Australian Federal Police is that all the glamour was nothing more than a tart’s ‘war paint’; in the morning the glam was gone and the reality remained.

I’m going to indulge myself here and drop in some lines I penned about a friend, a Berlin transvestite, though the lines could equally pertain to the Australian Federal Police:

Full lips, zones erogenous

Curled lashes, hot flashes

Androgynous

Aqua eyes, brows defined

Nose turned, cheeks of rose

Eyes lined black, chiseled bones

Legs lean, shaven clean

Torso toned, smooth chest bared

Female whims, fishnet skin

Words tender, hands slender

Sculpted arms  all feline charm

I don’t care who you are

As long as you’re beautiful

Androgyny

It takes over me

With sweet breath and perfume

Your ambiguity

Captivates me

It’s hard to see

Just who you wish to be

Let your kiss paint

Your sole identity

High heels, leopard prints

Lip gloss, dance sweet floss

Mouth inviting, tongue exciting

Beauty queen, with faded jeans

Touch of a woman

Coarse as a man

Androgynistic, cunning linguistic

Feline aggression, a carnivore

But nurturing more

All at once and neither at all

Falling between, at the centre extreme

I don’t care who you are

As long as you’re beautiful

Androgyny

It takes over me

With sweet breath and perfume

Your ambiguity

Captivates me

It’s hard to see

Just who you wish to be

Let your kiss paint

Your sole identity

Sequins shine, squeal of delight

Swollen pout, in, out

Outcast feeling, weary tears

They’re watching you

The prettiest girl

Painted nails, ears pierced

Rhinestone cuffs, furry muffs

Glamour fades, stubble grows

Shed your skin, be liberated

Hungry for lust,

In your beauty I trust

I don’t care who you are

As long as you’re beautiful

Androgyny

It takes over me

With sweet breath and perfume

Your ambiguity

Captivates me

It’s hard to see

Just who you wish to be

Let your kiss paint

Your sole identity

The point here is that “Glamour fades, stubble grows” and your kiss can no longer paint”your sole identity”.

The Australian Federal Police and Sex Tourism (A Study in Recidivism)

2004 seems to have been a turning point within the Australian Federal Police. Prior to then there had been some inkling, such as the Ridgeway case in South Australia, of the fading glamour of the Australian Federal Police, but 2004 seems to be the year in which they shed their institutional skin and became liberated.

Both the Moti and the Martens cases were initiated by the AFP in 2004. In both cases a considerable period of time had elapsed between the alleged crimes; six years in Moti’s case, three in Marten’s, before the Australian Federal Police commenced their investigations. This is despite the fact that the accusations were first brought to the attention of the Australian Federal Police’s in Moti’s case at least three years prior to any enquiries being made and in Marten’s case at least five months earlier.

Both cases coincide with Australia’s efforts to reassert itself in the so called ‘arc of instability’ in the face of alleged terrorist threats and a resurgent China engaging in its version of Realpolitik in the Pacific.

Given the comments made by the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal when it quashed Marten’s conviction, as referenced above and comments made by Moti’s Defence Council Jim Kennan SC that the Australian Federal Police regarded the chances of extraditing Moti as “highly unlikely” rom mid-2006 and began looking for alternative options, the only reasonable explanation is that both prosecutions were politically/commercially motivated and represent clear examples of the Australian Federal Police cosying up to political masters.

What is striking in both the Moti and Marten’s cases is that the Australian Federal Police were prepared to disregard the ‘rule of law’ in order to secure Australia’s political and/or commercial interests in the Pacific. These actions need to be viewed against the apparent refusal by the Australian Federal Police to investigate the allegations in either the ADF sex scandal or Securency until the media and the weight of public opinion forced them to act, both of which appear to be genuine crimes.

Assuming that this analysis is correct, it seems that at some point around 2004Australian ceased being a ‘government under the Constitution’, with a Constitution that binds the branches of government to comply with their Constitutional limits, to being something entirely different and much darker. A something that can call on a papa-military organization, the Australian Federal Police, to enforce the political will of the government, even if that will is at odds with the ‘rule of law’.

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Shane Dowling for use of this information. I recommend you read his post

- See more at: http://blakandblack.com/2011/06/03/another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-australia%E2%80%99s-democracy/#sthash.k4gqslEx.dpuf

Parking Fine Appeals	Search this site

Home Council Parking Fines Private Companies FAQs My Story Latest News Forums Legal Info Media Free Legal Advice About Contact us Recommended Council Parking Fines Woman felt "stalked"more...

My Story‎ > ‎ Brian's story Brian parked his car in a supermarket car park in Melbourne.  He paid for a 2 hour ticket from the ticket machine and displayed the ticket on his dashboard.  When he returned to his car one hour later he found a fine from Australian National Car Parks on his dashboard.  The fine was for "parking in a disabled bay".  Brian looked out of his car from the driver's seat and couldn't see any signs saying it was a disabled bay.  He got out and walked right around his car and still couldn't see any signs indicating his space was a disabled bay.  On the contrary there was signs at eye height saying that he was parking in a casual parking area.  On the way out of the car park, he decided to have a drive around which is when he noticed disabled bays at the other end of the car park.  He noticed that these spaces had signs at eye level saying they were disabled bays and well painted marks on the ground on each spot with a painted wheelchair.  Now that he knew what to look for, he drove back to the spot where he had been fined.  Again he found no signs at eye level.  However, on this approach side (the opposite to how he drove into the car park earlier in the morning) and knowing what to look for on the ground he could see a very, very faded paint on the ground of a wheelchair.   Walking over to the other side of the spot (to the side he would of approached from in the morning) the paint was not visible as it was so worn, and the sun was shining in his eyes.  He also noticed on the post next to his spot that there was some faded and grubby glue spots still there at eye level, and it seemed there used to be a sign there but it must have been removed many years ago. When Brian got home he wrote to ANCP explaining the situation, how there was no sign at eye height, and the paint on the ground had faded, and asking them to withdraw the fine.  Brian received this letter back from ANCP.  It seemed that they ANCP not even bothered to read his letter.  So he wrote back again, explaining the situation again and asking them to withdraw his fine.  ANCP wrote back withthis letter.  Brian was totally distraught and upset.  He didn't know what to do next, but he decided he wouldn't pay it as he hadn't broken any rules and had paid for a ticket. About a year passed, when out of the blue, he got a demand from Australian Recoveries and Collection's solicitor Michael G Roper.  Brian immediately wrote to both ANCP and Michael Roper to remind them the matter was in dispute and to leave him alone.  A few weeks later he received a letter of demand from Australian Recoveries and Collections.  He then wrote to ARC and explained the whole thing again to them, and reminding them the matter was in dispute.   He heard nothing from ANCP and Michael Roper, but a short time later he got a further demand from ARC that said if he did not pay within 14 days, he would end up paying more, that they would take him to court, and that the debt would go against Brian's credit rating.  Brian was wondering if ARC was aware that the debt was in dispute and that ARC should not have been writing to him with these demands.  Brian contacted Australia Post to find out who had been signing for the letters he had sent to ANCP, Michael Roper and ARC.  Australia Post told Brian where to go on their website to see who was signing for the mail.  This is where he found this Australia Post document.  That document, along with two others, showed that all mail Brian had sent on this matter was signed a the post office by Paul Gyles who was, at the time, a director and owner of both ANCP and ARC.  So it was clear that ANCP and ARC knew about the matter being in dispute and that ARC were part of the scam.  This Paul Gyles was also intercepting Michael Roper's mail. By now Brian was totally exhausted by the whole thing and gave up and paid the fine, which was what ANCP and ARC had been trying to do all along - that is to exhaust and demoralize Brian until he gave up and paid.  Well, your scheme certainly worked Mr Gyles.

Pink batts/ Royal commission/ incompetent  Cabinet  Prime Minister exposed
Well Well ... all this will show how Government fucks over anyone who makes complaints.....
forget ever going to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and trying to expose systemic corrupt conduct because this department will cover it up also the Australian Public Service Commissioner Sedgewick and Karin Fisher  fuck over  whistleblowers or complaints made about Agency heads under S41 APS Act.
Now Magistrate Lisa Stapleton of the NSW Judiciary is attempting  to protect corruption in Government agencies as well. It is unclear what her motives are or how she could benefit from this but stay tuned  and I will find this out.

Kevin Rudd reveals cabinet discussions in statement at home insulation royal commission

• SARAH ELKS
• THE AUSTRALIAN
• MAY 15, 2014 6:16PM

• Print
• Save for later

Kevin Rudd arrives at the royal commission into the home insulation scheme in Brisbane today. Source:News Corp Australia

< Prev

Next >

••

KEVIN Rudd has accused his public service of not warning him of safety risks associated with the government’s botched home insulation scheme, even as installers started to die.

The former prime minister this morning forced the Commonwealth of Australia, instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor - which sits in Attorney-General George Brandis’s department - into an embarrassing backdown on its gagging of him when it redacted his statement to the insulation royal commission.

His 31-page unredacted statement has now been released and offers an unprecedented insight into cabinet deliberations, normally kept secret for two decades.

ABBOTT: PM backs release of cabinet discussions

Yesterday: Kevin Rudd's redacted statement

Today: Kevin Rudd's unredacted statement

The $2.8 billion Home Insulation Program was cut short in February 2010, after the deaths of four young, inexperienced installers, and 224 house fires.

Mr Rudd told the commission today that he and his cabinet relied on regular reports from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to alert them of any government program “going off the rails”. No report, until after four men died, told cabinet the HIP was anything but “on track”, he said.

“It also used a colour signal system: green for “on track”, amber for maintaining “close watch”; and red for “in difficulty”,” Mr Rudd said.

“I understand that there were eight of these reports over the 2009-2010 period. I cannot recall any of these reports through until March 2010 identifying that the Home Insulation Program was anything other than “on track”.”

After a Public Service Taskforce report warned of “significant program design risks, notably safety risks” cabinet then accepted a recommendation to terminate the program.

Mr Rudd’s unredacted statement shifts responsibility for the scheme’s genesis to the public service, and also for its July 1, 2009, rollout deadline, which has been widely criticised as rushed.

“I believe the 1 July date has its origins in that (departmental advice),” Mr Rudd told the commission.

“That is the date that found its way before cabinet’s... deliberation on this question in late January (2009).”

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC: Key parts of Rudd’s redacted statement revealed

Mr Rudd said cabinet was never warned by public servants that the rushed deadline would put safety in jeopardy.

“Had any public servant or any minister advised the cabinet that there was a safety risk to either workers or householders, I’m confident to say the reaction of ministers would be to say ‘whoa, this has to be dealt with’,” Mr Rudd said.

“If that was to involve a delay (of the start date), that would be the response.”

Installer Matthew Fuller was electrocuted when he drove a metal staple through foil insulation into a live wire on October 14, 2009.

In his statement, Mr Rudd said that two weeks after the death, the Cabinet Committee reviewed a September 2009 progress report - prepared by the Office of Coordinator-General - on the government’s strategic plan.

The HIP was not raised as one of “nine critical issues for the Prime Minister’s attention”.

Two more installers died in November 2009.

Another meeting of the Cabinet Committee on January 18, 2010, Mr Rudd said, considered a December report into the government’s strategy plan. He said the report insisted the insulation program was “on track”.

“I understand this did not change until the February 2010 report (considered by the Cabinet Committee in March), which for the first time noted difficulties in the program.” Mr Rudd said.

Mr Rudd is testifying now. He is being painstakingly taken through the lead-up to the HIP’s introduction by barrister Keith Wilson QC, who is acting as counsel assisting the commission.

The former prime minister stepped into the witness box this morning after the father of Mitchell Sweeney, the installer who died on February 4, 2010, read a brief statement.

Martin Sweeney was tearful as he thanked the commission, led by Ian Hanger, QC, for the “hard work” being undertaken.

“No family should ever have to go through what we’ve been through,” Mr Sweeney said.

“We love you very much Mitchell, and we haven’t stopped missing you.”

Mr Hanger thanked him for his courage in coming forward, and called Mr Rudd.

Mitchell Sweeney was the fourth installer to die. Mr Rudd’s statement reveals that nearly a fortnight later, the Cabinet Committee considered a Public Service Taskforce report into the HIP, which was urgently commissioned in response to the death.

For the first time, the public servants warned Mr Rudd and his ministers of “significant program design risks, notably safety risks”. The date was February 17, 2010. Four men had died.

The Cabinet Committee then accepted the taskforce’s recommendation to terminate the program.

Today Mr Rudd said, as prime minister, he accepted ‘ultimate responsibility’ for the “deep tragedy” of the insulation scheme.

“As prime minister you accept responsibility for the good and for the bad, for anything that a government does over the period which I am prime minister,” Mr Rudd told the commission.

“I have accepted ultimate responsibility for what was not just bad, but a deep tragedy, as it affected the lives of the families concerned.”

He continued: “Ultimately, as prime minister of the day...I’ve said before and i’ve said again, as prime minister I accept ultimate responsibility.”

Released yesterday, Mr Rudd’s redacted statement was still revealing of his relationships with the public service and his one-time colleagues Mark Arbib and Peter Garrett.

Mr Rudd revealed the program was not recommended by ministers, but by the public service itself. He hits back at suggestions the scheme was hurriedly drafted by bureaucrats in one January 2009 long weekend at his direction, or the direction of his department.

Mr Rudd also refuted the suggestion he drove an unreasonable and rushed timetable for the scheme, by announcing a July 1, 2009, rollout date when he launched the scheme on February 3 that year.

“The 1 July commencement date for the full program was part of the original recommendation from the public service,” Mr Rudd said.

Mr Rudd said while he chaired cabinet, that body “collectively approved” the public service’s program and “at that point assumed collective ministerial responsibility”.

He gave an insight into the intensely busy cabinet process, revealing the body handled more than 1000 cabinet submissions between 2007 and 2010. For much of 2009, he said, his government was dealing with “multiple and major” financial and economic challenges, aiming to “do everything possible to avoid a second depression”.

He described Mr Arbib as a “highly competent, highly effective individual”, and said that was why he appointed him to oversee the implementation of the government’s stimulus program. However, he revealed that at the end of 2009, his relationship with Mr Arbib broke down about other political and policy matters.

Mr Rudd insisted that when recommendations to improve safety were made, they were accepted speedily through cabinet or through correspondence with then environment minister Mr Garrett.

“Nonetheless, despite all of the above, four innocent lives were lost in horrendous workplace accidents,” he said.

The hearing continues.

Nick Greiner / ICAC

A member of the Liberal Party of Australia, Greiner unsuccessfully sought to enter the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for the safe Liberal seat of Willoughby in 1978. Although defeated in his first bid to enter the legislature by local bus driver Eddie Britt as part of the "Wranslide" Labor victory that year, Greiner successfully contested a 1980 by-election for the electorate of Ku-ring-gai.

In 1981 Greiner unsuccessfully ran for the Liberal leadership but was narrowly defeated by John Dowd. However, in 1983, Greiner ousted Dowd in a leadership challenge. Highlighting allegations of corruption against the Australian Labor Party government of Premier Neville Wran during the 1984 election campaign, Greiner managed to cut the Labor government's previously overwhelming majority in half, from 41 seats to 21. In the process, he regained much of what the Liberal–National Party Coalition had lost in the previous two "Wranslides," placing it within striking distance of winning the next state election.

Wran retired in 1986, and was succeeded by Barrie Unsworth. In what proved to be a harbinger of things to come, the Liberals came within 54 votes of derailing Unsworth's bid to enter the lower house (he'd previously been a member of the Legislative Council), and managed to take Wran's old seat on a large swing. At the March 1988 election, he led the Coalition to a landslide victory, scoring a 22-seat swing.

Premier of New South Wales[edit]

Greiner handed over a number of responsibilities previously associated with the Premier's Department to other ministers, but in a rare move, served as his ownTreasurer, in order to focus on repairing the State's parlous financial position. The Greiner government, which promised "sensible, moderate but progressive" government, wasted no time in commencing its legislative agenda, announcing across-the-board spending cuts and plans to announce a mini-budget in June. A key government policy was to cut costs in education, including increasing charges for public education, eliminating free public transport for school students and reducing teaching staff (2,400 teaching staff and 800 support staff) through creating composite classes and closing smaller schools, while looking for public assets to sell (ultimately $340 million of assets were identified) and capital works projects which could be abandoned. However, it was forced to defer its plans to repeal Aboriginal land rights legislation (an election commitment) and reduce the power of the Ombudsman to investigate the police when Democrat and Call to Australia members of the Upper House combined with Labor to defeat these pieces of legislation.^[4] By September 1988, having promised at the election to run the state like a business, the government were able to announce serious progress towards reducing the state debt and its first budget projected a surplus, and were trying to resolve housing pressures caused by rapidly increasing house prices (which rose from $65,000 to $165,000 in the twelve months to October).^[5] Another election promise realised by the new Government was to create the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) capable of investigating allegations of corruption and graft against the government and within the state. In its first year, it investigated large donations to the Labor and National parties. Despite significant pressure from the parliamentary Nationals, whose leader was implicated in one of the investigations, Greiner refused to budge or to dilute ICAC's powers.^[6]

By 1989, the government's position could be described as higher government charges and reduced government services. Increased taxes and fees on motor vehicle drivers, petrol, water, public transport and child care, as the aforementioned cuts to education took effect, the pay of health workers was frozen, workers' compensation to injured workers was limited (although this was later blocked by the Upper House) and state assets were sold off.^[7] A series of strikes on the part of teachers and the growing unpopularity of Education Minister Terry Metherell caused problems for the Greiner government during the latter stages of its first term. In August 1989, the Industrial Commission ruled against the government in determining that class sizes were an industrial issue rather than the sole discretion of the Director-General. The government also cut rail services to the north coast, deeming them commercially unviable, and cut 8,000 State Rail Authority employees in an effort to offset the authority's $1 billion annual debt — however, this left the Pacific Highway as the only land transport link for several major towns, and in October and December 1989, two major crashes on the road, both involving passenger buses, claimed a combined total of 54 deaths and 55 injuries.^[6] While Opposition Leader Bob Carr made the link between pressure on roads and withdrawal of the country services,^[8] a coroner's report in April 1990 pinned the blame on the Federal Government and its "piecemeal" approach to repairs of the Pacific Highway. The government meanwhile reduced speed limits for heavy vehicles to 90 km/h after the accidents, but a work-to-rule campaign by the Transport Workers Union disrupted Sydney's peak-hour traffic and Greiner overrode the Transport Minister to restore the previous 100 km/h limit in late January 1990.^[9]

In May 1990, Greiner asked Metherell to try and resolve the ongoing battle with the State's teachers, and they were offered a 9% pay rise, although the disputes continued. Lecturers in the TAFE system, also within Metherell's portfolio, joined them after the government indicated its willingness to implement a report by a private management consultant envisaging a public-private partnership and massive staffing cuts. Metherell resigned from his position in 1990 but the disputes with teachers continued.^[9]

Regarded as a fiscal conservative, Greiner was still considered much further to the left than many of his fellow Liberals in terms of social policy. He criticised then Federal Opposition Leader John Howard's controversial comments on immigration policy during the late 1980s, and was widely respected within the ethnic community.

Buoyed by his government's strong performance in the polls, Greiner called a snap election for 25 May 1991. Despite widespread predictions by political and media commentators that Greiner would be easily re-elected to a second term, the impact of the Government's policies, particularly in terms of service cuts and increased charges, caused many voters to turn back to Labor. The election saw the Coalition win 52 percent of the two-party vote. However, much of the Coalition margin was wasted on landslide margins in its heartland, while Labor took back many marginal seats it had lost in its severe defeat of three years prior. The result was a hung Parliament, with the Coalition one seat short of a majority. Greiner was forced into a minority government, relying on support from four Independent MPs. His parliamentary majority was further eroded with the decision of Terry Metherell to become an Independent in late 1991, and with the loss of The Entrance in a 1992 by-election following a Court of Disputed Returns overthrowing the original result.

Greiner was only the second head of government at either federal or state level in Australia who was born outside the Commonwealth of Nations, the first being Chris Watson, Prime Minister in 1904.^{[citation needed]}

ICAC investigation and resignation[edit]

Greiner and Environment Minister Tim Moore decided to offer Liberal-turned-independent MP Terry Metherell an executive position in the Environmental Protection Authority. If Metherell accepted the position, he would have to resign his parliamentary seat, which the Liberal Party was confident of winning in a by-election. While Metherell initially agreed to the position on 10 April 1992, it was criticised by Labor and the independents, and documents were ultimately released showing he had applied for a job in the Premier's Department and then been seconded to the EPA, and had applied after the closing date, but was appointed within hours of his application. Greiner was accused of misleading the parliament, and in late April, Labor and the independents passed a no-confidence motion in Greiner's leadership (though, critically, not against the government) in the Legislative Assembly. The pressure led to Greiner moving that the Assembly refer the matter to ICAC. The inquiry began on 5 May, and following detailed evidence by Metherell that his resignation was part of a package negotiated with Greiner and Moore and the release of Metherell's diaries, Greiner and backbencher Brad Hazzard admitted their statements to the inquiry were wrong. Greiner as a witness could not recall 20 key events under investigation, and the inquiry heard that the director-general appointed Metherell when it was discovered he could not legally be appointed to the EPA.^[10] On 19 June, ICAC commissioner Ian Temby concluded that while Greiner had not acted criminally and had not set out to be corrupt, he would be seen "by a notional jury as conducting himself contrary to known and recognised standards of honesty and integrity".^[11] Temby found strongest against Environment MinisterTim Moore, a friend of Metherell's who was central to the offer. However, the Commission did not recommend taking action against the two ministers, saying that this was properly the role of Parliament.^[12] Greiner focused on the words "honesty and integrity" and argued he was only "technically corrupt", but by 21 June, it was clear the independents would support a vote of no confidence in Greiner and Moore. Greiner lodged a case with New South Wales Court of Appeal and argued any such motions would breach natural justice while the appeal was being heard, but Labor and the independents argued that the Parliament was the body which should decide Greiner's future, and scheduled a vote for 24 June.^[10] The independents told Greiner that unless he resigned, they would withdraw their support from the government and support the no-confidence motion.^[13] Additionally, federal Opposition leader John Hewson and the state secretary of the Liberal Party urged him to go as the affair was damaging public support for the party, evidenced by a finding in a Saulwick poll that 59% of voters thought Greiner should resign. (Greiner would return the favour to Hewson when he said that Hewson should have resigned immediately, but didn't, after losing the 1993 Federal election.)

Accordingly, Greiner resigned, and was succeeded by John Fahey.^[10]

Greiner successfully appealed against the finding in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, which in a 2-1 vote on 21 August 1992 overturned the ICAC findings.^[14]The court found that ICAC had "exceeded its jurisdiction" in ruling against the two ministers^[15] and granted "declaratory relief that the Commission's report was wrong in law".^[16] Following the affair, a parliamentary committee inquiring into ICAC's powers in December 1992 recommended that Section 9 of the ICAC Act, on which the successful appeal was based, should be repealed as it was too narrow in defining corrupt conduct.^[17] While the section was not repealed, a sub-section was ultimately added in 1994 which addressed the behaviour of ministers and members of parliament, and gave legislative enforcement to ministerial and parliamentary codes of conduct.^[18]

Subsequent career[edit]

In 1994 Greiner was made a Companion of the Order of Australia "for (his) service to public sector reform and management and to the community."^[19]

He went on to hold directorships with many of Australia's leading companies. Greiner was chairman of the board of WD&HO Wills and then British American Tobacco Australia for the period 1996 to 2004.^[20] In 2011, he was Chairman of Bradken, Citigroup Australia, The Nuance Group, QBE Lenders’ Mortgage Insurance, Blue Star Print Group and Playup; and Deputy Chairman of CHAMP Private Equity.^[21] In May 2011, Greiner was appointed as Chairman of Infrastructure NSW by theO'Farrell government.^[22]

In the few years after leaving State politics, Greiner had been touted for a tilt at Federal politics including the prospect of replacing Alexander Downer as Federal Liberal Leader and becoming Prime Minister by leading the Coalition to victory at the 1996 Federal election but none of this eventuated.

James Packer/ Gambling Licences / corrupt directors
So it appears   there is an inquiry that James Packer is a suitable person to hold the  Gaming Licence at Barangaroo and assessments are currently  carried out by the Independent Liquor and gaming Authority in  NSW.
I am unaware of the  integrity of this NSW Authority though the Victorian  Commission Gambling and Liquor Regulation's Adam Toma, director of  Licensing and Approvals is shonky and corrupt and in his previous position as National Enforcement Manager at AFSA or ITSA protected fraud.