Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament will be ‘very good’ for Australia" video.

@B_591 No I don’t expect actual evidence would mean anything to you, but the question wasn’t directed at you it was directed to someone who claimed ASTIC was corrupt. I am perfectly prepared to accept this if this can be shown to be true with fact based evidence. Why is this unreasonable?
2
Could you please point to one instance of corruption or a conviction in a court of law of an official in ASTIC for corruption. Thanks.
1
@janii4 The fraud charges Geoff Clark is facing are related to a Aboriginal family trust and have absolutely nothing to do with ASTIC. All this is evidence of is that Geoff Clark may or may not be a criminal. Clark has also been convicted of an assault charge in a pub brawl and has paid civil costs in a rape offence of which he was not criminally convicted. Would I have a beer with Geoff Clark? Absolutely not, he is in my opinion not a bloke I would associate with and I make no defence of him. I just stated the facts and your comment is literally worthless as evidence of ASTIC being corrupt. Now do you have any actual evidence of corruption within ASTIC?
1
@penguinvic9892 The Howard government didn’t like the advice it was being given. It set up an independent review. The review recommended it be restructured. The Howard government dissolved it anyway. To my knowledge no findings of corruption were ever found. ASTIC was mainly a service provider not an advisory body and its functions were rolled over to other organisations. The fact that you attempt to equate ASTIC with the voice and attempt to associate both with criminal behaviour just shows to me the vacuousness of the No campaign.
1
@penguinvic9892 So if you knew the truth and understood why ASTIC (it was not functioning properly is a matter of opinion. An independent report recommended some restructuring of its administration and that it continue) was dissolved by legislation that passed unopposed through the parliament then why suggest it was corrupt. You clearly knew it wasn’t. The central point of the initial comment was a voice would be corrupted the same as ATSIC was and you knew that to be a false statement and factually incorrect. Their rest of your comment is an attempt to sidetrack. My point was ASTIC was not corrupt, never found to be corrupt and you agreed with me. My only question is why would the No campaign knowingly lie when according to you there are legitimate reasons to vote no. Seems strange to me.
1