A $20,000 fraud investigation

into an alleged $15,000 fraud? 

I think I must be missing something here - and I am not the only who thinks this way.  How can this possibly have been justified? What were those pursuing the case trying to achieve?

We have had a case before our supposedly "Independent Commission Against Corruption" for several years now. The man at the centre of the case was head of a large government  entity. He apparently hauled some of his staff over hot coals for harassing a young female member of staff - and has paid an enormous price for doing the right thing. 

Complaints and allegations were made about him. ICAC was asked to investigate. Had he made a taxpayer funded trip to a horse race in another state? Had he had a holiday overseas instead of working as he claimed? 

It went on and on. He denied it all. His legal team produced evidence to show he could not possibly have done these things. ICAC went ahead anyway. The matter was thrown out of court for lack of evidence from the prosecution. 

Instead of accepting that, ICAC tried again with various government figures telling them how important it was to succeed. Why? 

ICAC sent people overseas to see if they could find the evidence. They did it without informing the relevant authorities there. Even if it had not been required in law (which it certainly was) it would have been courteous. Two people went and they spent longer there than the man they were prosecuting spent there. They took a "weekend break" so they did not need to work for ten days straight. The two investigators found no evidence apart from evidence which backed up the claim that the man they were investigating was actually working while he was there. It cost them more to do this than the claims made by this man.

No, they did not give up at that point. They came back and started to pursue the matter in the courts again. It was not until two days ago the prosecution finally admitted they had no evidence of any wrong doing at all. They actually had evidence supporting his claims of working while he was there. The case was dismissed.

All that has happened is that a man apparently innocent of any wrong doing has had his life turned upside down. He has no job, no career prospects, no money in the bank, massive legal bills and his health has suffered. The only thing that can be said in all this is that his family has remained steadfastly loyal to him.  

Compensation you ask? Getting compensation is not going to be easy - even getting his legal costs might be an issue. The taxpayer will ultimately pay. In an interview he said he is leaving that up to his legal team.  He was quiet, polite but obviously emotional as he was speaking.

It has also brought ICAC into disrepute - the very entity which is supposed to prevent this sort of thing. It has brought the legal system into disrepute as well. 

I don't know this man. I have never met him and I am not likely to meet him. I do know someone who does know him and they say he is exhausted, so exhausted he can barely feel relief.  

We are supposed to be getting a similar ICAC at Federal level. It is supported by both major parties. The previous government may have been able to bring legislation in had it not been for public service delays and distractions. There are already concerns it will be used in a manner not intended, as a "witch hunt" rather than for the intended purpose. 

In another state similar legislation is being used to investigate matters which involve the current Premier. He is using his position to delay any findings being made public until after an election is held. 

Politics in Downunder is not free of corruption. Our Public Service is definitely not free of corruption. We have a political system which can be and sometimes is manipulated. That said, we can vote. Our election campaigns are largely free of violence - although not necessarily of intimidation at times. Almost everyone can put themselves forward as a candidate too.

So, why in the heck did only thirty percent vote in the non-compulsory council elections in this state? Why do some council areas have to hold additional elections because of a lack of candidates? 

We can do better.