Sensational-Adelaide.com

I've said it so many times...

We really need a Federal ICAC with teeth that oversees all Federal, State and territorial governance. Look at SA, look Qld, Vic, NSW, WA, look at the current Federal Govt. They are all under a cloud of suspected nepotism and corruption. About time we cleaned house across the entire country.

Fine words, mono.

Let's hope that our complex, secretive IPOD/ICAC system can yield some results.

I've waded through the 96 pages of its last annual report. As far as I can tell, there are 38 people working at the IPOD/ICAC offices, which cost just over $6 million dollars to run from September 2013 to June 2014..

929 matters were reported to the IPO. But the ICAC has yet to claim a single scalp.

Stumpjumper, you around? I note the SA ICAC now has 2 scalps, or is perhaps mid-scalping the 2nd at the moment.

Are they starting to earn their income? $It costs 6m or so a year to run the SA ICAC i believe...

Paging Stumpy...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-14/g ... sa/6853402

Readers of the thread may know that I lodged a complaint with ICAC alleging possible maladministration by figures in the Gillman saga. I was gratified but also disappointed to find that Bruce Lander, the ICAC Commissioner, has found that 'the Urban Renewal Authority and two Urban Renewal Authority executives had engaged in conduct amounting to maladministration in public administration in relation to the sale (of State-owned land at Gillman and Dry Creek to Adelaide Capital Partners)'.

That much has been made public. As far as I am aware, exactly who did what has not been revealed in full. The maladministration itself is an issue, but so is the loss of trust in public administrators that the finding creates. I'm no angel, but I can see that sales of public assets to private interests, particularly when those assets have the potential to yield significant profit, must occur on just terms for the vendors - the public to whom the administrators owe a fiduciary duty.

In future situations like the Gillman deal, there must be an effective means of ensuring that the public's interest is protected. That need not dilute commercial confidentiality where it is required. Invigilation by a qualified, neutral party could be arranged, with disclosure only in the event of an issue such as maladministration arising.

The Gillman episode whatever the outcome for those criticised should be the catalyst for a means of ensuring proper administration in the future.

It's surprising that with the failure of Adelaide Capital Partners to front with the first payment for its Gillman project, there is no thread on Sensational Adelaide about it, despite the extensive media coverage. Am I missing something?

1. There is a thread on it.
2. There would be more discussion if something concrete was actually proposed or built. I don't think this forum was created for the purpose of discussing politics, but development.

Norman wrote:1. There is a thread on it.
2. There would be more discussion if something concrete was actually proposed or built. I don't think this forum was created for the purpose of discussing politics, but development.

Exactly, this isn't the forum for politics, sure there are a couple of threads in the pub but that's not what I come here for.

What im more surprised about is not the lack of a thread of active discussion on that topic but that they haven't banned this obvious political troll yet.

rev wrote:What im more surprised about is not the lack of a thread of active discussion on that topic but that they haven't banned this obvious political troll yet.

He's not done anything to get himself banned. Posting something you or I disagree with isn't cause for a ban.


Not necessarily related to anyone in this thread, but generally the rules of thumb I use to allow respectful free speech:
* Posting interesting ideas leads to discussion.
* Posting supported contrary ideas leads to discussion and debate.
* Posting unsupported ideas gets those ideas critiqued.
* Posting unsupported ridiculous ideas gets those ideas ridiculed.
* Posting attacks on persons gets the poster warned or banned.
* Posting spam gets those posts and the poster deleted.

I'm not into silencing anyone. Perhaps I will move an off topic discussion to somewhere more appropriate (As Ben said this is not a political forum, but sometimes politics are involved.). Or I might ask a poster to retract an attack. But I pretty much allow people to freely express their ideas, as long as they are prepared to support their position. I'd also like to them to reassess their position when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Well maybe it's time to make a rule about being a political troll(probably paid)..?

The purpose of this forum, is it for political party hacks to push their parties agendas?
Should it contimue?

I mean most of us are here because we are interested in developments and progress in our city and state, and one guy is here only to push a political parties agenda. He posts only when there's some political crap to push against aLabor government.

As per monos post though rev, sometimes it's not possible to separate the various proposals from the political discussion as often the developement themselves good or bad, come fe political pork barrelling, or economic reasons, and are therefore by default political. So long as attacks aren't personal, there should be no reason for sensorship.

The problem with rules, Rev, is that they are too hard to enforce because of grey areas. Like where do you draw the lines? If you do try to enforce a particular line you will get screams of "BIAS!!"

Better to have structured freedom, with extreme cases of obvious abuse removed.


A few years ago, during the second to last state election campaign, this forum was accused of being an "astroturfing" site by the state Liberals. Even though it ostensibly isn't about politics at all, and had been operating for years before the election.

We were amused, and still don't know what particular post/s led them to that conclusion. Especially since at the time most of us were kind of spruking their Torrens Lake development idea.

For your information, rev, I am not a member of any political party and have nothing to do with any political party. I have about the same negative view of all politicians, whatever party they belong to.

I'm in favour of fair dealing, and fair, open dealing where public property and interest are concerned.

You say this forum should be about development not politics. I say it's not possible to separate the two when the political body is up to its nose in development. The state government whatever party it is is one of the state's biggest developers. Because the government makes the rules for development and is also a player, and has access to huge funds, the connection between development and politics is always there and is crucial.

So back off with your accusations of paid political trollery. I'm neither politically connected nor paid. I just don't like rip offs, and I don't like incompetence. That means most developments the government's involved with come under fire.