State might as well ditch CCC if it plans on ignoring them
WELL, that's awkward.
The Crime and Corruption Commission's savaging of the state's proposed conflict of interest laws is to what I refer, with the fix clearly not living up to the CCC's vision.
This is despite the state saying the watchdog was happy with them in November.
As I said, awkward.
And really, who in the hallowed halls thought this was the best course of action?
When is it a good idea to roll out a fix to an integrity scandal - which you created - that leaves out key recommendations by the group that investigated you?
It's like being given a 10-step chart for tying your shoelaces, and deciding you don't need steps three, five and eight. How was that ever going to end well?
Did they think the CCC wouldn't read the proposal?
Or did they think the CCC wouldn't care?
And if the plan was to ignore the CCC's recommendations, why have the group in the first place?
The CCC isn't perfect, but I'd bet someone's farm they're better experts on corruption than your standard, off-the-shelf politician.
So instead of putting an end to a discomforting part of recent political history, the state instead can fairly be accused of trying the "Hey look! An eagle!" approach to ending the conflict.
The CCC takes aim at proposed changes to council conflict-of-interest laws, too, saying they will replace the new scheme with a "significantly inferior one" and will " introduce a corruption risk by discouraging openness and transparency".
Because that's the best way to solve well-justified concerns over council integrity, right?
And let's not overlook the submission states there is "no evidence base" to support these specific proposed amendments.
So if the state isn't making evidence-based decisions, then what exactly are they doing? Flipping a coin?
Although that would explain a lot.