“Do you see the impression it causes?”

That was a question posed by Virginia Trioli of @TheirABC this morning to Scott Morrison. This is in relation to a water buy-back that is causing some kerfuffle. The correct answer is:

No. What impression, precisely, does it cause? Explain to me, precisely, what your allegation is.

But people don’t do that.

This whole “perceived conflict of interest” shtick needs to be called out. It exposes individuals to having to defend themselves from vague allegations dreamt up by conspiracy theorists.

This was a particularly enjoyable segment of the recent Ridd v JCU judgement.

  1. This is an extremely peculiar finding by the University. The University has found that Professor Ridd preferred his own interests, and those of the Institute of Public Affairs (“the IPA”), above the interests of the University. The University found that this was in breach of the obligations under the Code of Conduct to “take reasonable steps to avoid, or disclose and manage, any conflict of interest (actual, potential or perceived) in the course of employment”.
  2. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.
  3. As I said during the course of the trial, I could understand if there was an allegation that Professor Ridd declined to fulfil his duties to the University and instead went off on a frolic for the IPA. I could also understand if there was a demonstrable conflict between the University and the IPA and Professor Ridd put the IPA above the University.
  4. But there are no allegations of this sort.
  5. The fact that the University would not concede that this finding was unjustified, yet made no submissions to allow me to even consider how the finding was justified, is symptomatic of the way in which they have conducted this litigation.

Just made up – yet enough to get you sacked.

This entry was posted in 2019 election, Politics of the Left, Shut it down. Fire them all., Taking out the trash. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to “Do you see the impression it causes?”

  1. stackja

    ALP & unions a conflict of interest?

  2. Sinclair Davidson

    ALP & unions a conflict of interest?

    No. That’s called a direct financial relationship.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    That’s what the Left has been doing to Trump these last 2 years.
    Also to Kavanaugh and Moore.
    As a tactic it works, as Richo might say.
    Hopefully Trump will now justly return the favour.

  4. Mother Lode

    Saw an article in the Simply Moaning Heaemorrhoid this morning while waiting to make my cup of tea (the ordeals never cease) about some company donating $200k to the Libs.

    Then it went on to say that the Federal Treasurer is a part owner and of the company and that the company did this while bidding on a contract.

    First thing that struck me was “Why would he have to bribe the Liberals to get the contract?” Unless there were other Liberals in the running. As for the Liberals getting a sizeable donation – he could as easily have made it after the contract was awarded. Besides which his company did not win the tender.

    I would say the Treasurer was planning on his company (the extent of control of which I have no idea – maybe a lot, maybe a little) was planning on directing donations to his own party all along.

    But for Fauxfacts every bit of rumour, gossip and innuendo that can serve the greater good…

  5. Behind Enemy Lines

    “Do you see the impression it causes?”
    Posted on 11:15 am, April 23, 2019 by Sinclair Davidson
    That was a question posed by Virginia Trioli of @TheirABC this morning to Scott Morrison. This is in relation to a water buy-back that is causing some kerfuffle. The correct answer is:

    No. What impression, precisely, does it cause? Explain to me, precisely, what your allegation is.

    But people don’t do that.

    There’s the problem, all right: people don’t do that.

    What ‘people’ should do, since this particular ‘people’ is ostensibly in charge of the government, is to cut ABC and SBS funding to the absolute minimum possible under legislation. It really is the most basic rule of politics: don’t support your enemies.

    But the LibNat surrender monkeys have given up on this, as with so much else. Imagine how spineless you’d have to be, to pretend to be conservative while handing billions of dollars in public funds to the left-wing lie machine which exists to attack you.

  6. C.L.

    The Australian’s headline is open to misinterpretation: Trioli turns on PM.

  7. Allen

    This comment was refused at The Australian story of the Trioli interview, perhaps better luck here.

    “The Labor Party has promised increased funding for the ABC, according to Trioli’s reasoning this puts the ABC in The Labor Party’s pocket. In the interests of transparency, the ABC should start every political interview with a statement such as “The Labor Party has promised to give the ABC more money than the Liberal Party and viewers should keep that in mind.”

  8. Dr Faustus

    During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.

    I particularly enjoyed this too.

    Although perhaps a bit rough expecting a hired hand to dance his way around explaining the obvious conflict between Professor Ridd’s legitimate academic interests and JCU’s interests in the many millions of public dollars available for Barrier Reef research.

  9. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.

    Dr Faustus at #2995432, posted on April 23, 2019 at 1:20 pm is correct.
    Counsel knew what the conflict of interest was but couldn’t say it out loud (he was hoping the Judge might get it with a nod and a wink?).
    The Great Barrier Reef has gone from being a National Treasure and Resource, to a one big university campus for all the “Perfessers” and “Researchers” to live off of.
    These leeches are costing Australia tens of billions of dollars.

  10. stevem

    True to form the ABC is finally reporting upon the Ridd decision in an article titled “Are climate sceptic Peter Ridd’s controversial reef views validated by his unfair dismissal win?”. The article seems to suggest the win was on a legal technicality not really worthy of discussion.

    Predictably the final line is a quite from the climate alarmists: “Our predictions weren’t wrong, they just weren’t extreme enough.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540

  11. Tim Neilson

    The Australian’s headline is open to misinterpretation: Trioli turns on PM.

    Yes, but you’ve got to admit that a second’s thought would dispel the double entendre.

    [PS what do they mean “turns on”? Are they suggesting that Vitrioli has been an enthusiastic member of the ScoMo cheer squad up till now?]

  12. Squirrel

    “Do you see the impression it causes?”

    Typical of the fake news style of the ABC – so often we hear, from our taxpayer-funded broadcaster “questions are being asked”, “pressure is mounting”, “the push is on” etc. etc. and yet we never seem to hear who is asking the questions, who is mounting the pressure, who is making a push.

    It’s always, of course from a “progresive”/Left position, so we rarely, if ever, hear these well-worn phrases being used against Labor or the Green party.

    Surely, if this election is lost, the Liberals will (at long last) use their time in opposition to develop a Senate-proof, ready-to-roll option for dealing with the ABC when the political pendulum swings back.

  13. Petros

    No, what impression…

    Reminds me of Maggie Thatcher’s response to a journalist about what people are saying.
    Which people? Who are these people? Or words to that effect.

  14. amortiser

    When Murdoch, counsel for JCU, raised this issue it was in terms of Ridd receiving dollars from the IPA. Apparently this occurred after Ridd had initiated his court action against JCU. Wood immediately jumped to his feet and warned Murdoch that proceeding down this line would open his client to contempt of court action.
    At this, Murdoch immediately sought an adjournment.

    On resumption little more was heard of the actual details of the alleged conflict.

    JCU had charged Ridd for receiving financial support from the IPA for his court action against JCU. JCU was in effect interfering in Ridd’s court action.

    Murdoch, I think, then knew what the nature of JCU’s action was all about and was not willing to pursue it and put his client in legal jeopardy.

  15. Reminds me of Maggie Thatcher’s response to a journalist about what people are saying.

    Our very own George Negus.

    “What people”

    “Name them”

  16. egg_

    Asteroids make quite an impression, so I’m told.

  17. egg_

    Typical of the fake news style of the ABC – so often we hear, from our taxpayer-funded broadcaster “questions are being asked”, “pressure is mounting”, “the push is on” etc. etc. and yet we never seem to hear who is asking the questions, who is mounting the pressure, who is making a push.

    Jeremy Clarkson in BBCese “Some may say…”.

  18. Habib

    I’d like to see an impression on Trolopini. A meteorite of around a cubic metre would be ticketty-boo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.