If you missed it, I blogged earlier this week about the Andrew Stoner "scandal".
In short, whilst Labor was still in power, there was an inquiry into the solar panel rebate. For about two months there was speculation that once the inquiry was completed the rate would be reduced, but that those that had already signed up would retain the higher rate.
In due course, on 27 October 2010 Keneally announced that, as of midnight that night, the rate for all new signups would be reduced.
Labor got their knickers in a knot earlier this week about the fact that, later that same day, Stoner got a pair, shot out and signed up for the scheme.
|Full release can be seen here|
Accusations of hypocrisy was bandied about, and my view remains that they are ridiculous.
The Coalition's position has been that the scheme is a waste of money, but for me there is no reason that he, being a taxpayer himself, should miss out.
Earlier this morning Kristina Keneally continued her efforts to revitalise her twitter profile - linking articles, retweeting mentions, and generally getting involved.
Among all those tweets, I spotted this:
The article linked was this one:
|Full article here|
But, nonetheless, the fact that the matter has been referred to ICAC looks, to me, like a blatant attempt at mud-throwing.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption does what it sounds like - investigate corruption.
What exactly is Stoner meant to have done that can be described, in ANY way, shape or form, as corruption?
The Tele article makes this new and rather odd allegation:
The only other mention of this $100 allegation is this article, also on the Tele website:
|Full article here|
It's also odd that it is only the Tele that is making the $100 allegation - Sean Nicholls wrote a piece today about the scandals plaguing the Coalition at the moment, and makes no mention of it.
I don't know whether Stoner was required to pay the deposit before midnight or not. Even if he was, I still don't see how what he did is "corruption".
The ICAC website defines corruption as follows:
Even assuming that Stoner really did pay the $100 after midnight, and assuming that a deposit was required before midnight, there is zero evidence that anything he did fits in the above categories.
To refer the matter to ICAC in the absence of any such evidence (and if there was any, you can bet we'd have heard about it) is nothing more than mudslinging.
And Labor should be ashamed for engaging in it.