COMMENTARY ON THE DECLINE OF ETHICS, AND INTEGRITY, IN AUSTRALIA
The Impact of Modernity
Where are the ethical role models in Australian politics, business and society?
Click for Articles and Commentary
Governments, and corporations, are spending billions to mislead, misinform,
corrode, corrupt and manipulate the world in which they operate. There are people across the globe using technology tools, human networks and strategies to try and counter these activities albeit in a small way.
They are oft dismissed .
Take an interest in your governments, demand accountability, choose who you will do business with and what products and servuces you will buy.
Demand that enterprises such as banks, and large
powerful corporations, be good citizens rather than
self serving interested enterprises. Challenge the media, the public relations and spin doctors, on their own turf. challenge your governments, politicians and public servants. Build communities of interests, technological and human.
Wikileaks - a global source of information kept from the people of the world
Beyond the horizon sits the Shadow Server
|
IMPORTANT
every portal page uses scripting to update content.
So turn your active content on.
|
Today's World News and Articles On Ethics
|
CRUDE, DISHONEST AND UNETHICAL GOVERNMENT
February 2010: The state of Australia's moral decay in goevrnments is appalling. Yet the electors sem either oblivious, or ignorant, of
this fact. They tolerate dishonest and unethical behviour at state government levels as displayed in Tasmania, Queensland and lately in
Victoria.
What culture pervades our system of democracy to the extent that
political staff would deem it acceptable to propose, in writing, strategies of lying, and misrepresentation, and corruption of public consultation and planning processes?
What is the respect that advisers have for the electorate, the democracy and their own political leaders? At the federal level
Kevin Rudd
is oversighting, and implementing, a destruction of the quality and ethical base of the
Commonwealth Public Service and ministerial integrity. He blathers on, over and over, repeating the same inane statement - "I am stepping up to the plate".
Good, go play baseball in the United States. Political commentators seem to think that the voters are so immune to corruption and lying, waste and dismal ethics that they will re-elect the corroders of the character of
Australian democracy and public service. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne, Australia
|
CORRODING AUSTRALIA'S SOUL AND INTEGRITY
May 23, 2009: The current economic and financial crisis has been blamed on many things most notably on the failure of regulators.
There has been some mention of greed but little examination of the role of world governmment leaders and the business community in the current situation where banks and companies and whole governments collapse.
In Australia, the Liberal Party has cast itself as the consummate
economic manager. It is to my mind quite the opposite. The Australian political leaders of the late nineties (1996), in all govermments (labor and conservative), up to today, may be determined to be abject failures for having brought us here.
That would be far better than the alternative of
either grossly incompetent, or complicit in the activities. Politicians, public servants and their advisers
all claimed to be far more than they are. They have taken large amounts of public monies,
in their political and public sector careers,
and returned very little. Labor NSW, has been so incompetent in government, along with the public service, that they managed to destroy the economic base of
Australia's largest state (NSW) leaving a legacy for the current Premier, a government shackled by party thugs and others who are criminals,
They will, of course, all go through their careers believing the opposite, in self delusion.
Either they were, and are, incompetent in not noticing what was going on, theft, greed, corruption and poor policy
or they were prepared to overlook it. The latter is what I think since they are all well educated and intelligent and they consort with, and embrace, criminals in their midst, and ranks, and in many cases laud them.
Alongside them, to be questioned as to competence are the Australian Treasury, members of the Board of the Reserve Bank, Australian prudential regualtory Authority, Australian Security and Investment Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Then there are
boards of Australian banks and corporations. They all appear quite happy to reap the money, the largesse, and the surpluses in government, that would in 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011
make millions destitute. They rubbed shoulders with the world economists and business leaders.
They examined the books, made budgets and predictions. They told stories and untruths. They manufactured their own facts. They were all wrong. In 2009 Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are fuelling an overpriced housing market either they are dumb or they are after short term political capital.
Either way it seems that it is a sin
for a government to be in debt quite okay for every citizen to be overburned in the economic, and political, interest. The fiannacial crisis is the greatest example of the failure of ethical conscience and moral integrity.
A few weeks back Richard Pratt passed away. He was the creator, and majority owner of the Visy Corporation, one of Australia's
largest package manufacturing. During his life Mr Pratt and his wife became one of Australia's most philanthropic couples. They were apart form the generally measly contributors in the wealthy society.
They rubbed shoulders with Prime Ministers and the elite. They were held in high esteem.
When he died the members of the power collective, and the elite and the media, turned up to pay their respects. The prime ministers past and present showered praise on his life and generous contribution.
A few years back Mr. Pratt confessed to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that Visy, and he personally had engaged in price fixing, with a competitor Amcor. The senior executives and Board of Amcor turned
whistleblower to avoid prosecution and paid their fines and one spent some period in jail. Visy and Mr Pratt were fined tens of millions. Mr Pratt had participated in an illegal, and now soon to be criminal activity, stealing hundreds of millions
from every person in Australia who bought a product packaged here. It was likely that the wealth he donated had at its core been illegally obtained a few cents at a time.
It turned out that this was irrelevat to many of Australia's government legislators, public servants and the people who have a hand in running the nation's governments, institutions and major businesses.
Last week Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the Opposition in the federal parliament, manufactured a proposition that the Rudd labor government was engaged in covering up rorts of expenses. he ws trying to leverage off the British scandal.
He said that the government had published uits expenses responses to questions on the day of the budget.
He knew that this was not true since the government had supplied answers to the asked questions previously to Senator Minchin, an opposition senior politician. Malcolm Turnbull was quite happy to mislead. To put it bluntly he was lying. This is common amongst
most senior politicians. he also demonstrated unethical and poor judgement trying to belittle and degrade politicians as if our system is anything like the British House of Commons.
He ought to spend more time, effort, and intellect, in building respect for the political class. Instead he limits his vision to
puerile opportunities.
In
NSW
government and business are so corrupt and intertwined as to make good governance in the state and any hope of ethical behaviour and integrity a forlorn hope. Their the Premier natahn Rees is a lame duck that quacks when told to by his political (ubelcted masters)
within the party machine. He has to appoint Ministers of limited capability, devoid of integrity and morality to senior Ministerial
portfolios. There is no mechanism in the Australian states to rid the state political system, and government, of crooks and thieves once they are elected.
In
Victoria the politicians and the Premier are more urbane and sohisticated in their corrosion of the system of governance. It is similarly manipulated and contrived and there is large scale
corruption in local government and other sectors of the government structure. The Prmeir resists appointing an independent body to inbestigate preferring to maintain survelliellance through an under funded Ombudsman's office.
Like all governments al large number of parasites infest the government and corporations, their function is to create misleading scenarios, smoke and mirrors. They degrade government, society, business
and community as they ply their trade. The ignomy is that, in the case of government, these people work in the Ministries and agencies, paidfrom the public purse to corrode our government and treat us as idiots unable to think beyond a thirty second ten word sound bite on the television.
John Brumby will leave no legacy to good government as similary Nathan Rees will not. Yet they will both collect healthy pensions for life and will one day leave the offioces they hold beleieving that they were significant sucessful politicians who gave it a red hot go. The spin doctors and poorly talented media and the
members of the power collective will help maintain this facade.
The scandals of the 1980s, extending into the 1990s, came as a profound shock to Australians and New Zealanders. Both countries
have prided themselves – somewhat smugly and naively – on being open, fair and honest societies. So it was very disillusioning to see
both corruption and gross dereliction of duty exposed in
virtually every sphere of public life. Perhaps the most positive outcome, however, amidst an almost daily diet of amazing revelations,
has been the ability of the system – and especially the judiciary and the media – to expose and deal with corruption even at the highest level.
Following an extensive survey and literature review, it is clear that there is now widespread awareness of the need for reform in many areas of public
administration, corporate governance and professional behaviour. However, a continuing cause for concern is the lack of leadership in identifying and addressing complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the areas of conflict of interest and disclosure." (Source: Business Ethics in Australia and New Zealand
Journal Journal of Business Ethics, Publisher Springer Netherlands , ISSN 0167-4544 (Print) 1573-0697 (Online), Issue Volume 16, Number 14 / October, 1997, DOI 10.1023/A:1005898611568
Pages 1485-1497)
when it comes to opinions as to the ethics and honesty of Australian politicians, or trust in the federal government,
the standing of Australian politicians has clearly fallen. While many commentators may overplay the extent of the drop, the fact
that it has occurred is not in question. Moreover, during the same period, confidence in government slumped in various other industrial
democracies. And the trend shows little sign of abating. This has led
to a burgeoning body of literature on the topic of why trust in government is falling, and what can be done to arrest the slump." (source: Explaining
distrust: Popular attitudes towards politicians, in Australia and the United States, Andrew Leigh1, In The Prince’s New Clothes: Why do
Australians Dislike their Politicians? edited by David Burchell and Andrew Leigh,
UNSW Press, UNSW, Sydney, 2002, Chapter 2)
This is not a new phenomena and the fact that people distrust politicians and business (particularly banks) has been around for decades:
The most reliable data on attitudes towards Australian politicians is found in the Morgan Poll data on how various occupations
are rated for ethics and honesty. This survey — conducted in 1976, 1979, 1981, and annually since 1983 — provides not only a means of
observing opinions on federal and state politicians, but also of comparing those with other occupational groups." (Source: ibid)
What is frustrating, annoying and deeply disappointing is that the politicians and business leaders have done little to nothing to rectify this and have actually made conscious decisions to employ
sophisticated mecahnsims and processes to lie, cover their tracks, mislead and obsfucate, dissemble and even corrupt the system as described above in this article. A whole industry (public relations) has arisen and expanded to faciltate this decrepit and
nauseating activity. Adding to this we have the now embedded, and corrosive use of market responses to determine whether our governments are effective. These are the people who also manipulated the system creating the 2008 - 2009
current financial crisis. The people who promoted greed and theft and who still
think that they have a place in society and a contribution to make. We still look to rating agencies and con artsist for commentary and analysis of our government.
"The astounding success of Hansonism is, as much as anything else, a product of the
failure of spin. It is the result of the inauthenticity of Australian politics in the 1980s and
90s, and the ultimate inability of the spin doctors to sustain in the electorate a belief in the
sincerity of political parties. The issue then is why Australian politicians are seen to be so
untrustworthy at this point in Australian history.
Spin doctoring has become a highly sophisticated and apparently indispensable political
art. Labor under Hawke and Keating used it to conceal the fact that it had stolen the
conservative’s economic policies, and to exaggerate the differences between Labor and
conservatives in order to hide their essential similarity. It used spin to persuade a
suspicious and disbelieving electorate that economic rationalism was inevitable, that
globalisation was an irresistible force. It used spin to convince the people that although
the medicine may be unpleasant, the health effects would be wonderful.
Spin became essential in order to conceal the essential bipartisan on economic policy.
This bipartisanship can be traced to the demise of the Whitlam Government. Whitlam’s
election coincided with the profound events that initiated a new era in world history, the
era we now refer to as globalisation. Whitlam and his fellow social democrats were
prepared to take Australia out of the stultifying miasma of Menzies’ post-war cultural
sink. But the Labor reformers were wholly unprepared for the new world that unfolded in
the early 1970s initiated by collapse of the Bretton-Woods system of fixed exchange
rates, the oil price shocks and the onset of stagflation. Whereas economic management
had always been an important aspect of good government, now it became the touchstone
2
of political success. The era in which the commentators look first to the reaction of the
markets to judge their governments had begun." (source: Hansonism and the politics of spin, A talk to Politics in the Pub
Harold Park Hotel, Sydney, Friday September 4th 1998, Clive Hamilton)
,br>
The use of misrepresentation (which is a nicety for lies) and "spin" was on full display when Wayne Swan and
Kevin Rudd delivered the 2009 budget.
THE post-budget political debate has degenerated into public farce, thanks to the antics of the Prime
Minister and Treasurer, a performance matched by an Opposition trying to scare the pants off us with faux horror stories about
deficits and debt, which may be having an effect.
They have certainly succeeded in frightening Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, who have developed a curious but amusing speech impediment
that makes it difficult for them to pronounce the word billion in association with figures for deficits or debt. It follows an earlier
impediment that prevented them pronouncing the words deficit and recession." (source: Rudd's spin more worrying than Treasury forecasts
Font Size:DecreaseIncreasePrint Page:Print
Alan Wood | May 22, 2009, Article from: The Australian)
In dealing with the office of the Prime Minsiter one might come to the conclusion that the operation is not about informative government, answers and
open communication, but about management of crisis, communication and information, to the benefit of Kevin Rudd and the members of the labor government.
The office is staffed and operated with substandard skills, systems and processes focused on the narrow prism of political, self interest.
There is little credibility here and the persona of Kevin Rudd
that promised so mcuh has turned out to be yet another manipulative and corroded old school politician. This corroded. old school ideology infects the public service and they are
staright jacketed into obeying by the same parasitic characteristics that have degraded government in Victoria, NSW,
Queensland
and every other state and territory to varying degrees. In many ways we allow charlatans and questionable characters to take control of our governments and businesses and then bleat.
Alternatively we turn a blind eye and deal with them out of all sorts of justifying motivations. The larger number of Australians are workers. They are narrowly educated and experienced. They have little knowledge, awareness or interest of the
complexities of the systems and the issues raised here. they are "hip pocket" driven and many embrace low level ethics in their own lives.
They are innured to the Brimbanks, the manipulation of prices and the behaviour of the corrupt and greedy. This detachment enables Brumby, Rudd, ees and the behind the sceens amnipulators to ply their wares and trade without too much worry about being held accountable.
The task is to stay long enough in office to reap the never ending reward. This may seem harsh and even contemptuous of the senior leaders of Australia's governments and businesses but so be it.
They rely upon silence and reticence, wield power to bring about compliance or they look the other way denying any knowledge of such things. Like Sol Trujillo at the Futire Review conference in the USA, may 2009, they often invent their own version of reality.
" Public administration in Australia seems to be distressed and ineffectual, due to poorly conceived efforts to improve it over the past
10-15 years involving 'new public management' models which trashed government institutions and in effect transformed them into politicized
pseudo-businesses which merely pretend to govern.
Change in public administration had been sought in the 1990s especially in relation to naive assumptions that Public Service
resistance (rather than real-world complexity) had been the major obstacle to implementing idealistic / overly-simplistic political agendas in
the 1970s, and that increased production efficiency for public services and infrastructure should be sought through
business-like methods so as to provide cheaper economic inputs and cut the cost of government.
In practice 'new public management' has led to (a) politicisation of administration (b) emasculation of Public Services; (c) and ineffectual governance with symptoms including: unbalanced economic gains; consequent social stresses; and chronic weaknesses in infrastructure, service delivery and regulatory roles. The dominant goal of Public Services shifted from helping the public by ensuring good government, to 'helping' the government of the day to retain political power. Ironically
this model often led to unexpected electoral backlashes against state administrations who were seen as 'autocratic' after 5-6 years incubation,
probably because they had surrounded themselves with 'yes men' and thus lost touch with the fact that not everyone shared their assumptions. This
approach was reportedly being put in place in the federal government in 2000.
Blaming failures on 'teething problems' in models that have great future potential is much less credible
than blaming mis-management of change and defects in the models themselves.
While mismanagement of change has been a major issue, this can not be separated from apparent misunderstanding of
three key issues in developing 'new' models - namely (a) the nature of the economic challenge; (b) whether governing involves
nothing more than running a large business; and (c) the Public Service's role - both in the failure of past political initiatives and
in effective administration. As a result, governments' ability to 'govern' or deliver public goods and services declined and institutions
needed to enable the community generally to generate highly productive job opportunities were not developed." (source: THE DECAY OF AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A DIAGNOSIS -
CENTRE FOR POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS,http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/A_Pub_Admin.htm#Qualification)
The internet has given the ordinary person an extraordinary tool to vent their opinions, beliefs and perhaps misunderstandings and biases. A slow dawn is coming on the politicians and the business
leaders. The internet reaches far and wide and crafty web masters can
circumvent monitoring creating the question - where does all of this commentary reach, how far and who reads it?
Finally, who are the most unethical, and immoral, in Australian society? The board members, and managers, of Australia's banks and other corporations or the politicians? Perhaps they are equal in measure?
|
AUSTRALIA'S FLAMBOYANT AND HIGH PROFILE SOCIAL CROOKS
AND THE UNETHICAL ARE HELD IN HGH REGARD BY POLITICIANS
There are manuy examples where the politicians of Australia have exhibited low grade ethics and mediocre to
reprehensible examples of unethical and questionable behaviour. The politicians of the Australian labor party, in
NSW
and
Victoria,
are way out in front in the self interest and corrupt
practice of government and manipulated democratic process, as shown in the Brimbank local government investigation.
"Claims of bullying, intimidation, branch-stacking in local council, The World Today - Thursday, 7 May , 2009 12:50:00
Reporter: Alison Caldwell
PETER CAVE: Victoria's Ombudsman has lifted the veil on allegations of branch-stacking, abuse of power,
bribery and intimidation involving city councillors involved in the Victorian Labor Party, some of whom worked for state and federal MPs.
The scathing expose recommends the State Government consider suspending or dismissing Brimbank Council, the second-largest in
Victoria. The report describes the council as dysfunctional and marked by infighting.
It recommends that some councillors be investigated for possible breaches of the law.
Alison Caldwell reports.
ALLISON CALDWELL: The grubby factional brawl inside Premier John Brumby's very own faction erupted publicly in July last year when an MP
used parliamentary privilege to accuse a fellow party member of treachery and branch-stacking.
In his sights, rising ALP star and former Brimbank mayor Natalie Suleyman, a confidant of senior federal Labor figures
Senator Stephen Conroy and Bill Shorten.
MP George Seitz compared her to none other than Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.
GEORGE SEITZ: I grieve today on behalf of the people in the Keilor electorate in the city of Brimbank, in particular because
of Natalie Suleyman who is the Robert Mugabe of Brimbank. She runs Brimbank same as Robert Mugabe runs Zimbabwe.
With her supporters, they are controlling Brimbank and those councillors that form the majority in Brimbank.
ALLISON CALDWELL: But it seems George Seitz's gamble may have backfired.
A report by the state Ombudsman raises serious concerns about the influence George Seitz and his colleague MP Theo Theophanous
wielded over several Brimbank councillors, some of whom worked for state and federal MPs at the same time.
Speaking soon after the report was tabled this morning, Attorney-General Rob Hulls said he was disgusted and outraged by its findings.
ROB HULLS: The report table today by the ombudsman in relation to the Brimbank Council shows that many councillors engaged in conduct
that was inappropriate, that was not in the interests of their constituents and can I say was frankly bloody disgraceful.
This is just totally inappropriate." (Source of extract: Australian Brodcasting Corporation, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2563497.htm)
Minister Hulls sttetches credibility in the response that no one at Ministerial level knew of this. This is simply not the case. Ministers have denied in parliament that they did not know until the
report came out. That is a blatant falsehood in my opinion. The evidence will show the contrary. In November 2005 the current Minister Justin MAdden was advised in writing of corruption and the very content of the
Ombudsmen's report. What other assumption can be made other than Justin Madden lied in the parliament?
telling untruths and misleading people is not a once off event. Parliamentarians across Australia, at Ministerial level and higher, lie constantly
in and out of Australia's parliaments. John Brumby is the Premier of a corrupted, and corroded, state government and leader of a corrupt
political party in the Australian state of
Victoria,
Labor party members at the highest levels of Australia's federal parliament have their factional power
base in many seats across Australia where corruption is a way of operation, endemic and to the core of the labor party heart. They will slither out of the limelight and
claim ignorance.
Across the nation every day corruption is uncovered. Labor
Queensland and has had a go at the title from time to time and Tasmania
make a dull run when the Oremier accepted freebies from Crown Casino in Melbourne. The relationship between tasmanian members of parliament and business in Tasmania is quite a bit suspect.
In Western Australia everyone wants to be at the front of the money line, and they like NSW, and Queensland, have had the odd politician
go to gaol. In Victoria a Minister stands accused of rape.
These are all very respectable politicans and high ranking members of the labor party. John Howard, as Prime Minister and Peter Reith as Minister, all vied to degrade the nation in some way through with the Children Overboard and the wharfie
war. No one cares because corruption, lack of ethics. lying, cheating and stealing and sometimes thuggery,
is all part and parcel of political life. Donations are made by criminals to the party, one can be a philanthrop and rob every citizen
in the nation and the
politicians will all stand, and laud, the individual's unique place in Australian society. One only has to pay a fine or maybe do some small time in gaol and its all back to normal.
These special types in our society can break the marriage vows and take a mistress and be assured that the most senior
members of our government, and
corporations, will turn a blind eye to their lies and misdeameanours. Stealing millions? Well that is just one of the fpibles of the members of this special clique.
Politicians, and senior people in society, across the board, may even help in the cover up. Gangsters, and criminals, send their children to the best schools and can even
get a reference from a politician especailly a politician in Victoria.
Their money, and donations, are as good as anyone else's. One can buy time with Ministers of parliaments of the nation.
Everything is for sale in the governments and political parties of Australia and probably within the corporations as well. There is a one common denominator in all of this - money. These people have lots of money and others including politicians will fawn
and ingratiate themselves and the corporate high fylers will traet them all as bothers and sisters of a very special privileged group.
Voting in elections is compulsory in Australia. Why? Not for the reasons put about by politicians.
It is because if it was not many of the existing incumbents would not be there because they are not worthy of
representing electors nor worthy of their high office. When one of their lot dies there is garnd funeral and all the characters of public life including the criminals and the charlatans all turn out for the cameras. They make special remarks and extoll the
greatness of the person. All the sins and misdeamanours are forgiven. These are truly giants amongst us. To be respected and never doubted for theirs is the Kingdom and the cake.
|
March 2009:
VICTORIA
AND
NSW
CAN TAKE THE MANTLE FOR POOR QUALITY, AND UNETHICAL, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE
|
November 2008: AUSTRALIAN STATES, AND BUSINESS, IN THE HANDS OF UNETHICAL PEOPLE
Lacking Moral Compasses
The state of NSW has a government that is the property of the labor party and the labour unions.
The make up of government, the persons who hold senior office and the decision makers in the state, including a proportion of the parliament is controlled not by the voters but
by a cabal of corrupt, corrosive, unethical and immoral power brokers. The state of
NSW is in economic, and social, decline.
It was set on this destructive road during the period of the Premiership of Bob Carr.
A practitioner of the black arts known as "media manipulation".
There has been no investment in infrastructure and the taxes garnered from the people, and business,
have been squandered on political self interest and political self benefit. Criminals, and thugs, and people with really bad manners
have been, and are, Ministers. They have really thick hides because these people are a collective joke, ridiculed and lambasted in the media and hed in
contempt by people across Australia from all walks of life and society. I do not recommend that my clients do business with these types.
Gangsters have traded with labour councils and branches, bribes are paid and sexual favours are given and taken. The parliament of New South wales
is dysfunctional. It is a house of
cowards unwilling to make hard decisions and people of questionable intellectual capacity.
The bureaucracy serves the political criminal. The state's highly paid public servants will not, as one, and revolt. Alternatively they will not resign.
The public service is lead by people with no apparent moral compass, a moribund forest of deadwood growing like
algae on the public purse and swimming in the the labor party sewers. The NSW power brokers, of the Labor Party, act in their own interest and not in the interest of the people of the state.
Over 3,000,000 people are held to ransom for there is no mechanism in the NSW Constitution for them to rid themselves of the cancer and the shit that rolls out of the
corridors of the labor party. The government of Nathan Ress will not resign. Rees has no ethical leadership credentials afor he is a puppet of the
labor power brokers put there to maintain their control.
They will take everything they can until their term ends. There is little that the people of NSW can to look forward in the ranks of the
opposition. Therefore they must march on the parliament of NSW, on mass, and demand that the criminals surrender.
In Victoria the Premier, John Brumby, also seems to lack a moral compass. The Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police accepted a $A30,000 gift from Qantas. When questions arose to the efficacy of this she re0plied that
there was no problm. It was inferred by spin doctors that her husband, a former Qantas employee, was the beneficiary and she was merely accompanying him.
The Premier supported the Commissioner. He made no comment as to the ethical considerations because, on past record, like his predecessor, he is probably oblivious to them.
He too is a member of the Australian Labor Party. Finally the Police Commissioner resigned and issued an apology bleating that she had made a mistake.
The Office of Police Integrity has investigated and pointed out that she has breached her own code of conduct. John Brumby as Premier has not said anything
because he has no discerning code of conduct upon which to draw. He is a person that might be held in contempt for his weakness and failure to show leadership.
If you are oonsidering, or are already, doing business with members of the NSW, and Victorian, governments, watch every step
and check everything carefully. If one can pay a fee to get an audience with a Minister, aht does that say about the
quality of our governments?
Victoria is a more sophisticated government and their corrupt, and corrosive practices and self interest, are not so evident.
Yet underneath they are all tattooed with the same brand - "labor".
It would appear that the Marketing and Public Relations people at Qantas, and senior management, up to the Board level, also seem to
lack moral compasses.
Qantas issued a statement that they gave the trip to Commissioner Nixon in her role as Police Commissioner.
Qantas gives gifts to public servants. For what purpose?
In Western Australia parliamentary Ministers of the parliament, current and past raise ethical questions as to capacity, judgement and their behaviour. They do neat things such as sniffing chairs that females have sat on. They accept bribes and are chraged criminal offences. In Queensland similarly labor party members are
charged with criminal activity. One would think that goven this much of a hand up the liberal party could make hay while the sun shines but apparently not.
They too are cut of a cloth that is labelled "to be worn with self interest".
|
|
CORPORATE PUBLIC RELATIONS LACK ETHICAL COMPASSES
May 2008: The two major retailers, Woolworths and Coles, entered the petrol retailing market some time ago. They promote discount vouchers in their supermarkets and chains,
offering up to four cents a litre off the price of petrol at their petrol stations. The
consumer has to spend $A30.00 to get a voucher. Smaller independent retail chains have followed suit but instead have created alliances with the oil companies.
Woolworths, and Coles, own their outlets. They have taken a large slice of the petrol sales market.
To opine that there is competition in Australia's retail marketplace for groceries and petrol is to tell stories of fantasy and
spin. It is a contrived competition.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC)
published a
commentary on petrol prices in the week of May 5, 2008 pointing out that Coles Express outlets were as mcuh as $A0.14 cents higher than competitors negating the value of the vouchers.
A Coles spokeswoman responded immediately with the proposition that Coles was disappointed because, inter alia, it was "competitive" and
she implied that in some way the ACCC was wrong. This was simply rubbish using the tactic of plausible denial. The ACCC was reporting fact whilst she was running her mouth off wit fantasy.
The company was responding with typical off the cuff shallow spin. Treat the audience as if they are dumb. Ramp up the response with aggressive bullshit and trun the exrecises into a circus so that
the media will resport thes toush and not the foundation. Shopping vouchers are in my opnion a marketing tool for the unthinking and gullible.
The spokesperson represents a segment of corporate, and political life, that I believe is reprehensible in its moral and ethical capacity.
Today this discipline (PR, Communications and Media Adviser) has as one of its primary objectives the
representaton of whatever truth is deemed to be in the company's interest. This is not public relations in the real sense. As such it
does not require a person of intellect to occupy the role. They only have to follow template. Best that they be subservient to the will of
their master and
have as little a moral conscience, or deep analaytical capacity, as is necessary to mainatin the basic job description.
They are, in many respects, a blight on society and should be treated with the same contempt they show the public. They corrode and degrade the quality of corporations and government.
The focus on the ability t lie with conviction undermines the discipline of communications, media and public relations. Now we might say that this career discipline, and academic trait,
is a light weight regime of study. We can argue that it is based on the inate ability to lie and misrepresent as its primary core of skill and competency.
One propositio is that the behaviour and response of the spokesperson, and media spin doctor, of a corporation or government,
is reflective of the quality of leadership and the role models conveyed from the management and the Board downwards and outwards.
At the same time that the ACCC is looking at petrol it is also engaged in a study of the Australian grocery market place.
The Chairman expresses frustration that farmers, and others, will not provide solid evidence beyond anecdote of the manipulation
of the market" by major retailers suchas Woolworths and Coles. They will not give actual evidence of the threats and practices they esnure. For example it is common knowledge that Coles and
Woolwroths impose systems on producers well beyond the
legislated requirements. It is knonw that there is an underlying threat of losss of contract.
Woolworths in particular lacks credibility
because it has been fined millions of dollars for anti competitive behaviour and for misrepresentation. The Australian Retailers Association
also has spokespeople who fall into the questionable ethics category spiining the "etical qualities" of their members.
Their function is to deny any impropriety regardless of fact or opinion. The Chairman of the ACCC lives in a vacuum of reality
if he thinks that a farmer is going to risk their livelihood by telling the truth or exposing the rorts and dramas and the implied retaliation that comes from the expose.
Many Australian corporatins are on a moral slide downwards and even if they are caught out they simply believe that the fine is worth it.
One only has to look at the example and attitude of Qantas caught in a global price fixing agrreement to see the slide, decay and arrogance of its management and Board on display.
As if they were nort aware of the
price fixing? There is no jail threat in Australia for collusion, price fixing and telling lies. Until there is the slide is eatng at the social fabric of the nation.
PEOPLE IN CHARGE SCRAMBLE FOR EXCUSES
PEOPLE LOSE LIVELIHOOD ON THE BACK OF GREED AND MORAL TURPITUDE
The Board of one of Australia's leading banks met to discuss the significant damage to the bank's reputation arising out of
the loss of millions of dollars of peoples' invetsments via a company associated with the bank.
" George Lekakis
April 15, 2008 12:00am: Herald Sun - "ANZ chief executive Mike Smith was forced yesterday to take control of an
internal investigation of the group's role in the Opes Prime affair. The move follows an emergency meeting of the ANZ board
last Thursday at which directors discussed the damage to the bank's reputation from the Opes Prime collapse. "It has obviously bruised the reputation of a very fine institution," Mr Smith told BusinessDaily.
"You always have issues in a bank . . . this is a particularly serious one."
The Australian Securities Exchange refused to comment yesterday on claims that liquidity problems at Opes
Prime had been reported to the ASX a month before the broker collapsed."
A process known as margin lending has been put into the full spoitlight as tens of thousands of investors learn of the practice of share lending. There is a significant questioining of the regulatory framewokr as the
Australian Security and Investments Commission comes under scrutiny. Many critics feel that the agency is botb incompetent and negligent. A glaring conflict of interest in the role of the
Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) as commercial participant and regulator goes unaddressed by successive governments. Questions are also being
asked about the capacity of the labor government Treasurer, Wayne Swan to handle the
growing unease, growth in misconduct and failure of the
regulators,
and the consequential damage to Australia's reputation.
" ASIC asleep on the job - Bryan Frith | April 10, 2008 - The Australian (Business section)
THE manifest unfairness of the treatment of many clients of collapsed sharebroker Opes Prime reveals
a complete failure of the corporate regulator, ASIC, in one its fundamental roles - to ensure market integrity.
Quite simply, ASIC should never have allowed Opes Prime and the troubled Tricom Securities to operate stock lending on
the basis that it acquired legal title and beneficial ownership of securities lodged by clients as collateral for margin loans.
The Australian Securities Exchange also must share the blame. It is the main market regulator and is responsible for supervising brokers.
It should have been urging ASIC to ban the practices adopted by Opes Prime and Tricom.
One of the responsibilities of ASIC under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 is to "promote confident and
informed participation by investors and consumers in the financial system".
ASIC's website proclaims that the commission contributes to Australia's economic reputation and well-being "by ensuring that Australia's
financial markets are fair and transparent, supported by confident and informed investors and consumers".
Those claims will have a hollow ring to many Opes Prime clients. The practices of Opes Prime appear to have been well short of
transparent, and many clients of Opes Prime patently have not been treated fairly.
As a result the confidence of investors in the integrity of the market has been undermined and the Australian securities market will
have suffered reputational damage, both in Australia and overseas." (end of extract"
There is a grwoing element of moral turpitude and questionable activity within the corporate sector particular the financial sector and this includes banks.
Executives and Board members are pushing away liability and defelect8ing blame for incompetence, arrogance and perhaps turning a blind eye to behaviour of those who make the enterprise a lot of money.
Australia's legislators, following on the heels of international best practice have created, and groomed a monster, the corporation.
An entity that is a
legal person
the sole objective of which is to make money, even at the cost of human livelihood and life.
|
MORE CANCERS AND CORRODERS IN AUSTRALIA
QUESTIONABLE GOVERNMENT,
MORALS, ETHICS AND CERTAIN BUSINESS IN AUSTRALIA
(Source of following extract: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, www.acc.gov.au, "Bevilles Jewellers corrects two-price advertising
Bevilles Jewellers has acknowledged that its two-price advertising of some jewellery items may have been misleading.
From September 2005 to June 2006 Bevilles Pty Ltd, a jewellery retailer operating 24 stores located in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, published and disseminated a number of catalogues in which some jewellery items were advertised with two prices, a high price struck through with a line above a more prominent lower price.
For example:
50% Off
$399.95 (crossed out on sale ticket implying a "was" price)
$199. 95
In response to the ACCC's concerns, Bevilles has provided the ACCC with court-enforceable undertakings to:
not engage in two-price advertising of jewellery items unless the higher price is no greater than the price at which Bevilles most frequently
sold the item in the eight weeks prior to the promotion or, where Bevilles had not made any sales, it had offered the item for sale at
the higher price in the eight weeks prior to the promotion
distribute a correction notice to residential letterboxes in the regions in which Bevilles' April/June 2006
catalogue was distributed, and display the correction notice within its stores and on its website, and
implement a trade practices compliance program that includes complaints handling procedures and practical
trade practices training for its employees.
"Businesses need to be particularly careful should they engage in price comparison or two-price advertising
that they do not overstate the level of savings on products," ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said today. (19 June 2007)
"Price is at the heart of competition and misrepresentations about price and the level of savings not only mislead consumers in their purchasing decisions but is unfair competition and harmful to competitors.
"The ACCC has been active in urging businesses, including in the jewellery industry, to be wary should they choose to engage in two-price advertising that they do not misrepresent prices and potential savings.
It will continue to monitor such advertising to ensure compliance with the law. " (end)
However it appears that other retailers, and their managers and store operators, are ignorant or oblivious to the Beville's case. One might even assume that many retailers, and businesses, think they can do whatever
it takes to make a sale and survive. Take for example another jewellery store chain.
(Source Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site 18 February 2008, and the Federal Court of Australia)
"Prouds 'was/now' discount advertising misleading
The Federal Court has held 'Was/Now' discount advertising by Prouds Jewellers Pty Ltd to be misleading in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
In proceedings commenced in December 2006 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission claimed that Prouds
discount advertising of certain jewellery items in its mass distribution catalogues published to coincide with
Valentine's Day and Mother's Day in 2006 contravened the Act.
The advertising was in the form of price comparisons such as 'Was $199 / Now $99.50' and appeared in Prouds'
February 2006 Summer of Love catalogue and its May 2006 Love You Mum catalogue. Numerous jewellery items were advertised
in this way in each of these catalogues. The case related to the 'Was/Now' price advertising of 17 items that appeared in both catalogues.
Justice Moore concluded that the 'Was/Now' advertising conveyed to consumers that the jewellery items had been offered for
sale for a reasonable period immediately before the catalogue promotion at the 'Was' price. He also observed that:
"The difference between those two ['Was/Now'] prices would be seen by the hypothetical consumer as the savings that
would be achieved by him or her by purchasing an item during the sale period."
Justice Moore found that each of the 17 items had not in fact been offered at the 'Was' price in that period and
concluded that the 'Was/Now' advertising of each of the items in both catalogues was misleading.
In reaching this conclusion he observed: "…the evidence, overall, plainly points to Prouds not being concerned about
whether items in a promotional sale had been offered for sale at the 'was' price immediately before the promotional sale commenced."
ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said the decision was an important warning to businesses who consistently conduct 'sale'
promotions of the need for accuracy in advertising particularly in relation to price which is so important to consumers' purchasing decisions.
"Comparison price advertising is a common practice in a number of industries," Mr Samuel said. "The ACCC will carefully consider the judgment
and its implications for those who engage in such conduct in a way that may mislead consumers. Advertised discounts must be real and not illusory.
"It is not enough for the seller to simply decide what would be a 'fair' higher price before discounting from that high price. If you make a
was/now price comparison you must have genuinely offered the product at the 'was' price for a reasonable period immediately before your
sale promotion." (end).
In the latter days of the Howard lead Australian government, Federal Treasurer Peter Costello failed to deliver changes to the trade practices act to provide for gaol terms for
price fixers and for managers and board members in companies such as those cited above. In doing so he allowed the consumers of the nation to be ripped off, some might say a lack of action by governments implies
irresponsibility or back hand support for the politician's mates that dominate Australia's business sector.
It can only be hoped that under the new Prime MInister, Kevin Rudd, the changes will be made and those who engage in
such conduct get their just desserts. The state governments could do something but the problem is that they are corrupt, and corroded, themselves.
(Source: News.com.au, " Sex scandal reaches Iemma's office: By Imre Salusinszky and John Stapleton, February 22, 2008
Allegations of bribery at Wollongong council
NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher now involved
Scimone 'hit up' Labor Party for jobs
THE NSW Labor Party has gone into damage control over sensational allegations
of bribery and corruption within Wollongong City Council, suspending five party members implicated in the scandal.
Three ministers have been dragged into the widening furore, with the Government of
Premier Morris Iemma reeling from claims of jobs for mates and a trail of political
donations from allegedly corrupt developers, The Australian reported". (end)
A Minister of the NSW Labor Government has ben charged with multiple sex offences and faces years in gaol if convicted.
In Western Australia Ministers of the Carpenter labor government have lost their jobs for lying and for engaging in misconduct. In Victoria
the police authority has been eroded and the government has ben shown to have engaged in back room deals and
manipulation of the service via the police union and a number of senior officers. In Queensland a ,e,ber of parliament was found guilty of trying to bribe the former Premier.
Bag men of the party permeate the nation's boardrooms and the corridors of power
The stench of corruption in the Australian labor party reaches into
Canberra.
It is not just the owners, and managers, within the small
retailer chains who lack ethics, and morals,
it is also the politicians, and those who run the larger enterprises. It is also the super rich, and powerful,
as evidenced further in this web site content.
|
WHAT STANDARDS DOES MR. RUDD REALLY EMBRACE TOGETHER WITH THE MINISTERS OF THE LABOR GOVERNMENT?
December 2007: In the final weeks of 2007 I am confused by the signals coming from the new labor government regarding two key
perceptions I have of governments in Australia. The first is that I beleve that there is a significant decline in ethics and standards.
It has been announced that Ms Barbara Bennett will retain her role as the head of the Workplace Relations Authority. Her appearance in television advertisements, thinly veiled political advertismets I believe compromised the
Public Service Code of Conduct.
Sydney Morning Herald Newspaper, Damien Murphy, July 30, 2007
"BUFFED and coiffed, with the tightly wired friendliness of an actress on Desperate Housewives, Barbara Bennett
is the soft-focus spruiker of the Federal Government's industrial relations hard sell.
The director of the Workplace Authority, Ms Bennett is now appearing in lounge rooms across Australia,
turning the idea of public service independence on its ear by taking part in the prime-time multimillion-dollar television, print and radio advertising blitz aimed at countering the ACTU's apparently successful "your rights at work" campaign.
Her participation has annoyed public servants and incensed Labor figures so much that she would be unlikely to
survive in the event of a Labor victory in the election." (end of extract - http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/face-of-workchoices-takes-flak/2007/07/29/1185647743473.html
Many unions are annoyed that the authority will be retained but I care little for that aspect. There is clear trend of decline in the
standards of the Australian public service independence. The line between an information parting advertisement and a political clear
was not evident in this episode. Ms Benntt imparted no information as to the process, possible reference of questions or any other enlightening facts. She simply told, in general terms, the broad concept of a fairness test.
There is also the question of her rumoured salary and the role of her husband in the political arena. All in all she should not have made any advertisements during a period of
high politics and electioneering even though a formal campaign had not been declared.
Do we assume that Mr Rudd, and Ms Gilard, put expediency, and pragmatism, before high standards? It is obvious the Prime Minister takes a softly softly approach wanting to offend no one. Thus he creates a picture of a leader who will
compromise principles for political interest.
I believe that this is the first error of judgement of Mr. Rudd and Ms. Gillard and sets the tone for what we might expect when confronted with complex issues of ethics and .
Ethical values
underpin democracy. Our Australian governments are all sadly lacking in embracing, and enforcing,
ethical standards.
Another questionable matter is the government's stand on David Hicks.
He was incarcerated without trial for six years on spurious charges. The Australian government lead by John Howard, and labor opposition, were mute as the Americans abused
their place in the world. They still do and for this they are truly ignorant and uncivilised. Hicks's crime may well be stupidity and the desire of the simple minded to
be in a bigger frame of reference than a mundane life in the burbs. Perhpas he read boy's own books of high adventure? Whatever he served the years and then was brought home because Howard
knew that his incarceration was becoming intolerable amongst the legal fraternity and thinking people.
The government Minister has said little. Similarly he stalls on Doctor Haneef, also treated reprehensibly by Australia's poor performing Commonwealth authoritiesm, namely the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
(ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Haneef deported and Hicks taken to an Australian court to be put on a curfew and report order least he go and train with, or talk to, terrorists and
dissenters. The French heroes of democracy must turn in their graves. Labor is allowing ASIO and the AFP to retain draconian powers without consideration of the competency of the people in whose hands these powers
are held. An acquiescent magistrate and a gullible media and population allow the decline of our democracy. We apparently are a nation that requires that we should fear
the probability of dissent, conspiracy and unknown events and place restrictions on people accordingly. We are a nation where our governments are turning inwards to mediocrity and this is sad.
What price is too much? Mr. Rudd does not inspire and apparently does not know the answer, that is if anyone has bothered to ask him. The Attorney General, well I have no idea who that politician is because they have
said nothing that I have heard or seen. |
LACKING ETHICS
HIDDEN AND OPEN THREATS TO DEMOCRACY AND INFORMATION
The most dangerous news, and current affairs, network in the free world
Distoring journalism
Corrupted Journalists
Politician's Media Staff
How the Government controls the news, July 1, 2005, The Age Newspaper, Melbourne Australia
"Media advisers are being paid from our taxes to spin us a line, writes Sushi Das.
Spin doctors, or propagandists, to use their old name, are a strange breed with disagreeable
mannerisms that set them apart from the rest of the population. They have the extraordinary ability to
be insincere, obscure the truth with irrelevant claptrap, hang up the phone mid-sentence and still be able to sleep straight in their beds at night.
Without them, the federal and state governments would barely be able to control the point of view presented in the media, or "spin" stories,
as it is called. Premier Steve Bracks' media unit employs 20 advisers. Several of the state departments also have media officers. Here are a
few examples of how they go about doing their jobs.
Last week I called the media unit and spoke to Kate Leonard, a media adviser to Transport Minister Peter Batchelor,
in the hope of arranging an interview to discuss the Spencer Street Station redevelopment. I was subjected to a barrage
of questions about my "agenda". I soon realised it would have been easier to ring Buckingham Palace and get an interview with the Queen.
Leonard asked me to submit a list of questions I wanted to put to the minister, presumably so he could script his answers. I refused. Then
I was asked what the "angle" of my story would be. When I said I didn't yet know,
I was asked whether it would be a "soft or hard" story. The conversation went round and round before she said:
"I don't want you to ambush the minister." (Source of extract,
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/how-the-government-controls-the-news/2005/06/30/1119724751008.html)
Corrupting Journalism
|
STEALING FROM THE RICH AND THE POOR
Man, Woman and Child
Australia: November 3, 2007: Russell Jones and Richard Pratt, as heads of their companies, Amcor and Visy,
engaged in corrupt and unlawful behaviour rigging the price of packaging of consumer, and other goods, in Australia.
These two men, and their senior executive management engineered a cartel that robbed everyone everywhere, for years.
They did this while the Australian government sat on its hands. Howard and Costello effectively greenlighted their behaviour by not
changing the law to bring in criminal sanctions. For this negligence alone they deserve to be kicked out of government at the
federal election.
Was it greed, was it hubris and what would lead Mr. Pratt to claim that he was not aware of the
full provisions of competition law? Is he incompetent as a Chairman? His half arsed apology did not extend
to giving back what he and others have stolen. Estimated at $A700,000,000 plus. He and his croney conspirators have stolen much more than money. They deserve to be barred from being in business.
The senior executives of Visy and Amcor who did this, including Jones have left their positions and some have been fined.
Pratt is the major shareholder in Visy. He stays. Why? The system sucks and the rich have immunity in many ways.
The fine of $A38,000,000 levied on Visy, with no personal fine on this ignorant cancer in Austraian society, is deemed to be sufficient?
Is Mr Pratt fit for the senior role he occupies at Visy or anywhere else? There are no criminal penalties just civil ones for rigging the market in Australia. The politicians want an after life in the corporate world so they are lap dogs to the
criminals in the corporate world. Theys erve them in political and parliamentary life. In the cess pool that infests our democracy.
The Australian government, through Treasurer Peter Costello's administration of the portfolio failed to enact criminal penalties legislation for years. The Treasurer in 2002 said that the
government would. It never did, and in doing so allowed people like Jones and Pratt to avoid gaol. Why? Politics and self interest. Power corrupts absolutely.
The Australian government is complicit in condoning unethical behaviour and corrupt activities like the above.
These men should be in gaol. The poor accountability within our regulatory systems provides every major
Australian corporation, and its executives, with ample riggle room. They all take advantage of this. Even as the federal court judge is scathing the Board of Carlton football club, where Pratt is President, plan to restructure the
gambling interests of the Club to esnure that Pratt maintains his role in case the regulatory authorities decide that he is unfit to be in charge of a registeed gaming enterprise.
This is the state of ethics in the nation. The lacl of ethics is on display and the fact that Pratt engaged in conduct that tobbed people of millions over the years is of no consideration. The people who turn a blind eye
lack a moral and ethical compass. The "specila interests club" protects its own and is not subject to any principles except those that are chosen for
their owns elf interest and benefit. On the face of it it seems that Carlton Football Club follows the lead of the Australian Football League (AFL), and its member clubs,
consorting with, and some might say supporting high profile criminals.
|
September 2007: Responding to the arrogance and victimisation metred out by corporations
There is a decline in both ethical and moral imperatives in today's business world. It may well be a byproduct of the rise of individualism and the
notion that people assimilate the perecption of the power of the corporation into their psyche. It could also be a result of the down grading and corrosion of our institutions and the
general tendeancy to mendacity and self grandiosement of people who derive most, if not all, of their influence, power and ego from their job. Who knows? In any event there comes a time when such people
should be told in simple and compelling terms that society may well be better off witout such commercial entities, and the people who work in them continuing in the fashion and ignorance that they do.
An interesting aspect is the level of naivety and/or capacity for being unaware and the failure to anticipate what the
the tactically minded
response
to their actions, and decisions, might be. They may think they operate in a limited, and controlled vacuum, where they think they hold all of the cards. Perhaps they simply do not think at all.
In the case below a corporation manager has invited a breadth of attention onto the enterprise he is paid to manage and work within.
Angus and Robertson (ARW Group) is an Australian chain of book shops which has a mix of franchise and corporately owned stores. It has a view of its place in the market and a set of corporate objectives. I do not shop in these stores because they lack what I am looking for,
expertise and knowledge, breadth of offering and environment. However that is my opinion.
In July 2007 the Commercial Manager of
ARW Group, Charlie Rimmer, wrote to a number of publishing houses stating, inter alia, that some of them fell into the category of "unacceptable profitability". No doubt, a
valid statement from his perspective. Mr Rimmer then invited the company, in the case below, Tower Books to make a "gap payment" that would move the company into the accepted profit range. If this was not done then Mr Rimmer would remove the
cmpany from their list. This is an interesting concept and provocative move. I personally wonder what constitutes blackmail within the legal precepts and also what constitutes
unconscienable conduct under the Australian Competition and Consumer legislation - Trade Practices Act? Below is the response of the Director of Tower Boooks, Michael Rakusen to the A&R correspondence, which ahs been extensively published by Australian media.
"A&R dumps books: Angus & Robertson's demand that small- to medium-sized Australian
publishers and distributors pay amounts said to range from $2,500 to $100,000
in order to have their books stocked in the chain's stores has brought angry reaction from the book industry and book buyers." (The Sydney Morning Herald, Fairfax Digital Entertainment Blog: http://www.smh.com.au)
6 August 2007
Mr Charlie Rimmer
ARW Group Commercial Manager
14th Floor, 379 Collins Street,
Melbourne, VIC 3000
Dear Mr Rimmer
We are in receipt of your letter of 30 July 2007 terminating our further supply to Angus & Robertson.
As you have requested, we will cancel all Angus & Robertson Company orders on 17 August and will desist from any further supply to your stores.
I have to say that my initial response on reading your letter as to how you propose to "manage" your business in
the future was one of voluble hilarity, I literally burst out laughing aloud. My second response was to note the unmitigated arrogance
of your communication, I could not actually believe I was reading an official letter from Angus & Robertson on an Angus & Robertson letterhead.
My reply to you will perforce be a lengthy one. I hope you will take the trouble to read it, you may learn something.
Then again, when I look at the level of real response we have had from Angus & Robertson over the past six or so years, I somehow doubt it.
The first thing I would say to you is that arrogance of the kind penned by you in your letter of 30 July is an unenviable trait in any officer
of any company, no matter how important that individual thinks himself or his company, no matter how dominant that company may be in its
market sector. Business has a strange habit of moving in cycles: today's villain may be tomorrow's hero. It is quite possible to part
from a business relationship in a pleasant way leaving the door open for future engagement. Sadly, in this case, you have slammed and bolted it.
More to the point, however, we have watched our business with Angus & Robertson dwindle year upon year since 2000.
We had to wear the cost of sub-economic ordering from you through ownership changes, SAP installation, new management,
and stock overhang. In summary our business with you has dropped from over $1.2 million at the end of 2000 to less than $600,000 in 2007.
You would be quite correct to question whether our offering to the market had changed in any way. The answer can be derived from the fact that
during the same period our business with Dymocks, Book City, QBD and Borders continued to grow in double digits, our business with your own
franchise stores has grown healthily, and our overall business during the same period has grown by more than 50%.
Six years ago we were allowed to send reps to your company stores and do stock checks. Then these were "uninvited" and we had to
rely on monthly rep calls to your Buying Office. Subsequently even that was too much trouble; your Buying Office was too busy to
see us, so we were asked to make new title submissions electronically. Every few months the new submission template became more and
more complex. This year, we have been allowed quarterly visits to your Buying Office at which we were to be given the opportunity to
sell to all your Category Managers. At the first, we did indeed see all of the Category Managers - but they didn't buy any of the titles offered.
At the second, one Category manager was available, and again no purchases resulted. At the last (only last week), two Category managers attended.
Through all of this, your overworked and under resourced Buying Department never got to see, let alone read, an actual book.
While one may be forgiven for believing that Angus & Robertson is actually a company purveying "Sale" signs, I do believe you are
still in the book business?
That Angus & Robertson is struggling for margin does not surprise me. It amazes me that the message has not become clear to your "management":
there are only so many costs you can cut, there is only so much destiny you can put in the hands of a computer system, there are only so many
sweetheart deals you can do with large suppliers. After that, in order to prosper one actually has to know one's product and have an appropriately
staffed buying department. Most importantly, one has to train sales people of competence. You will never beat the DDSs at their cost cutting game,
you will only prosper by putting "books" back into Angus & Robertson. And it would seem to me paramount to stop blaming suppliers for your misfortunes, trying ever harder to squeeze them to death, and actually focus on your core incompetencies in order to redress them.
How a business that calls itself a book business is going to do without titles such as the Miles Franklin Prize winning book or titles like Rich
Dad Poor Dad (according to this week's Sydney Morning Herald it is still the fifth best selling business title in Australia nine years after
publication) is beyond me. And how in good conscience Australia's self-purported largest chain of book shops proposes to exclude emerging
Australian writers who are represented by the smaller distributors, is an equal mystery.
We too have expectations Mr Rimmer. We have had the same expectations for many years, none of which Angus & Robertson have been willing to deliver:
That we are treated with equal respect to the larger publishers within the obvious parameters of commercial reality;
That your Buying Department is able and willing to assess our books with equal seriousness to those of the big publishers
and buy them appropriately;
That you recognise thefundamental differences between the smaller distributors and the larger publishers and stop demanding
of us terms that we are unable to deliver;
That you would support and help develop Australian literature.
Had you made any effort to meet these expectations you would have found the niche we should have occupied in your business,
as have all other book shops, and you would have found our contribution to the profitability of your business would have been dramatically different.
In summary, we reject out of hand this notion that somehow, even giving you 45% discount on a Sale or Return basis, with free freight to each
of your individual stores, where we make less than half of that on the same book, puts us in the "category of unacceptable profitability".
We have seen Angus & Robertson try this tactic before - about 12 years ago Angus & Robertson decided that unless we gave them a 50% discount,
they would not buy from us any longer. We refused. Angus & Robertson desisted from buying from us for seven months. We survived, Angus & Robertson
came back cap in hand.
We have seen Myer effectively eliminate smaller suppliers. We survived and prospered but look at the Myer Book Departments today.
We have seen David Jones decide that it had too many publishers to deal with and to exclude the smaller suppliers. We survived and
prospered but look at the David Jones Book Departments today.
David Jones and Myer sell other goods; Angus & Robertson does not.
That the contents of your letter of 30 July are both immoral and unethical, I have no doubt. That they probably contravene the
Trade Practices Act, I shall leave to the ACCC to determine. (Five percent interest PER DAY !!!)
If you wish to discuss any of the contents hereof you may call my secretary for an appointment at my office in Frenchs Forest.
I shall be marginally more generous than you and at least allow you to pick a convenient time.
Michael Rakusin
Director
Tower Books Pty Ltd
Carpentaria, Alexis Wright : Winner of 50th Anniversary Miles Franklin Literary Prize, 2007
Copy: Graeme Samuel, Chairman, ACCC
Rod Walker, Chairman, ARW Group
Ian Draper, ARW Group Managing Director
Rickard Gardell, Managing Director, Pacific Equity Partners
Simon Pillar, Managing Director, Pacific Equity Partners
Barbara Cullen, CEO, ABA
Maree McCaskill, CEO, APA
|
Emperors who have no clothes
In Governments, the Public and Private Sectors
Modern Case Studies and Contemporary Examples
|
September 2007 and the former Premier Steve Bracks squirms as the spotlight comes on him from a state parliamentary enquiry into how
lottery licences are awarded in the state. Steve Bracks has always claimed that he acted above board and he disputes other people's testimony to the Upper House Committee.
He declines to appear. Thus his denials are hollow. This enquiry may very well be a political witch hunt but it has great public interest value.
It shines a light into the murky world of
enterprises who make billions from the citizens of the state and other gamblers. It shows us how the game is manipulated and the stakes in play.
It also shines a light on the nature of the relationships of the people (business, politicians and lobbysists) at these heady levels
as well as on the relationships within the
Victorian state labor party. This light may be annoying to the people, on whom it shines, but that is democracy.
Unfortunately Steve Bracks when he was Premier never effectively demonstrated tat he understood or lived his days in politics according to "world's
best practice", whatever that might mean. The new Premier, John Brumby, similaroly seems to find democracy whatever he deems it to be. He has failed to
deamnd probity and compliance and demeans the parliament of the people when he is quiet and supportive of Bracks' non appearance.
He similarly echoes the "witch hunt" line. In the world of labor party government democracy is wahtever they say it is and the parliament can like it or lump it.
Small men in big jobs taking big money under their own terms.
When Steve Bracks was elected to the office of Premier of Victoria in 1999 he promised an open and consultative government.
Well just over seven years on he has a record somewhat different. In place of these high aspirations the state got a mediocre, secretive and corrosive government ethically
challenged and lead by a Premier who critics in industry and commerce as well as general community describe as challenged when it comes to distilling complex matters and policy. Victoria is folowing the
trend in declining ethics
in Australia's
governments.
"Yet when it comes to opinions as to the ethics and honesty of Australian politicians, or trust in the federal government,
the standing of Australian politicians has clearly fallen. While many commentators may overplay the extent of the drop,
the fact that it has occurred is not in question. Moreover, during the same period, confidence in government slumped in
various other industrial democracies. And the trend shows little sign of abating.
This has led to a burgeoning body of literature on the topic of why trust in government is falling, and what can be done to arrest the slump." (Source:
Explaining distrust: Popular attitudes towards politicians in Australia and the United States, Andrew Leigh, In The Prince’s New Clothes:
Why do Australians Dislike their Politicians? edited by David Burchell and Andrew Leigh, UNSW Press, UNSW, Sydney, 2002, Chapter 2)
"The Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, has defended spending $1 million on an advertising campaign to sell the Government's water strategy.
Local Tony Eake says there has been no consultation with landowners about the desalination plant and says it will ruin his business plans for his property.
"We will fight as hard as we can, we will fight it," he said. (Source: "Desal plant ad campaign vital, says Bracks,
Posted Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:00pm AEST, ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1956758.htm )
It appears that the government prefers to spend the tax payers money to avoid having to face their critics and explian themselves where they can be challenged and questioned. There is a history of cowardice and the media spin specialists act as
gatekeepers corrupting democracy. They are, to my mind, ethically challenged and there should be a legislated
charge of bordering on criminal intent to pervert the course of democracy. (Kevin R Beck)
"But sometimes democracy can be very annoying. And when you're a Government that hasn't planned very well for a water crisis or a port's capacity to bring in supercargo ships carrying Chinese steel — you sometimes throw process and consultation to the wind.
This is precisely what the Bracks Labor Government has done with the two major capital works projects on its books.
A couple of Fridays ago, the Port of Melbourne Corporation announced it had begun a "procurement and investment program covering public tenders" as part of the proposed channel deepening project.
In plainspeak, the port had booked the dredges that will deepen the bay's shipping channel and secured the steel and concrete required to cover the Hobsons Bay sewer crossing under the Yarra for a January 2008 start. All this while the independent inquiry assessing the impact of channel deepening was still hearing evidence. It was breathtakingly arrogant stuff.
In short, the Port of Melbourne Corporation, a statutory arm of the State Government, had started spending our money on a project before it has been approved — environmentally or politically.
And all while the people opposed to the project — ordinary citizens concerned about the future health and amenity of Port
Phillip Bay — were putting together submissions for a public inquiry so they felt part of a democratic process.
Perhaps Bracks should simply tell the people planning to deliver their opposing submissions to the channel deepening inquiry next week they shouldn't bother?
It would certainly end what is already making a mockery of "process" and mugs out of anyone opposed to the project. How can a public inquiry call itself a public inquiry when the public can't actually challenge of any of the pro-channel deepening "data" being presented?
But if you thought that was brazen, the channel deepening "process" isn't a patch on the Government's $3 billion desalination plant in South Gippsland. No consultation. No process. Just a government announcement that it's happening.
Both projects have been presented to the people of Victoria as a fait accompli.
In the case of the channel deepening, the initial findings of an inquiry that found 137 reasons why it shouldn't go ahead were thrown out by the Government and a new, streamlined panel of non-experts convened to re-assess it.
In the case of the South Gippsland desalination plant, not even the Mayor of Bass Shire knew it was coming, let alone the landowners who'll now have a massive industrial development on what is one of Victoria's most pristine coastlines.
How on earth Victorians can have faith in the integrity of either of these projects is anyone's guess.
But the risk they pose to the very notion of democracy in this state has far more sinister implications."
(Source: The Bracks way means to hell with democracy
Tracee Hutchison, July 14, 2007: The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-bracks-way-means-to-hell-with-democracy/2007/07/13/1183833765262.html
Tracee Hutchison is a Melbourne writer and broadcaster.)
"If politicians want the electorate to believe they are awash integrity then they have to behave with integrity. It seems Thwaites has stepped over the line between public duty and private interest and if he had any of Jessica's "intenstinal fortitude", he he would admit it.
It is this sort of thing that trips up pollies all the time - when "caught out",
they try to justify their behaviour, take the offended moral high ground approach and
spin such "Yes Minister" clangers as if they think the public will swallow their tosh.
I suspect the public would have more respect for pollies they put their hands up to goofing up
occassionally and accepting responsibility, rather than trying to defend their own suspect actions." (Source: Kat on June 21, 2007 11:06 AM, The Age Blogs http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2007/06/taking_the_pist.html
|
September 2007 and the CEO of the Australian Football League (AFL) has learnt nothing. The code is embroiled in another drugs scandal and it responds through the players association banning interviews with the
journalist who broke the story. The media published transcripts of medical reports of footballers. These are private. The taking, and peddling of drugs, on a small, or grand,
scale is a crime and covering it up is not in the public interest. Yet there are according to these high flyers one
set of rules for them and one for the ordinary person. Footballers who are publicly known to be drug users and who have been taped in telephone conversations by police, have
not been charged because they are celebrities? Does this mean that the state goverment political, and legal systems, are corrupt and subject to influence by pwoerful organisations? Are there separate standards for classes of people? Of course there are.
Are the police, and politicians, under the thumb to someone not visible? Why has no football player in recent time (2007)
been charged with drug related offences, by police anywhere, since these scandals began piling up, day after day, week after week? Even the media appeared cowed before the blackmailing power of the players.
It is alright though, because the AFL has a three strike drug policy code. It is above the law and provides for a number of tries at using drugs and getting caught.
The Australian Football League
(AFL)
leads the way in public demonstrations of unethical behaviour and a lack of moral compass not to mention arrogance and perhaps even stupidity.
In Australia it is apparently condoned for a footballer to take drugs. The AFL is not at this time (May 2007) a signatory to the world anti-doping
agency
(WADA)
agreements that cover other sports. The AFL has
problems
with WADA. It is it seems, quite okay for AFL football senior players to be taped by
police discussing the purchase and
consumption of
illegal drugs.
It is apparently so acceptable, to the AFL and to football clubs, that certain football clubs
can send their stars for drug rehabilitation in the USA and then ask the AFL to contribute. They spend teir money on drug users.
"Should Cousins pay his own way? Your say, 17th April 2007, 14:15 WST
Reigning premiers West Coast have defended their decision to fork out $60,000 to help
former captain Ben Cousins beat his drug addiction and risk breaking the AFL salary cap, raising the possibility of incurring serious sanctions." (source:the west.com.au)
"Ben Cousins admitted to rehab, by Mark Robinson and Sam Edmund
March 22, 2007 12:00am Nws Limited, the Australian newspaper,
"Cousins admitted to Perth medical clinic,
Speculation of West Coast drug use
Doping agency says users should be named
FALLEN superstar Ben Cousins is fighting back by starting rehab after months of drug abuse.
Cousins went to a Perth medical clinic with his father on Monday and again yesterday.
And it is believed Cousins is considering flying to Arizona in the next few days to attend a drug and alcohol rehab clinic.
It also emerged yesterday that Eagles coach John Worsfold was warned five years ago that drugs were a problem at the club."
Drug users are under Australian law, criminals, but the football stars identified in the police tapes and by others, are not treated as such
for they occupy a separate plant. No footballer has been arrested and charged in the latest scandal.
In one major football some six players are known to be avid drug users. Does the AFL penalise the club, take their pennant or championship points? No. The CEO of the
AFL has denied that he has had knowledge of such drug taking contradicting more credible people. Why do Australian governments give the AFL money if the administration of the sport are going to
engage in questionable practices, and place themselves and their stars above the law? Added to the drugs are rape, bashings and a plethora of antisocial behaviour reported in football codes.
There are many people in Australia's communities who are as limited in their conceptualisation of ethics and morals. Gere are some comments from blogs:
" The Eagles are to be commended for their loyalty and willingness to help Ben.
Why kick him while he is down? Drug addiction is the same as any other addiction and deserves the same help.
Where are all the people who have been singing Ben's praises over the years and how proud we were of
all his efforts as captain to bring the Eagles to being one of the top teams in the AFL? Are we blind?"(source:the west.com.au)
On the other hand:
"The Eagles paying for Cousins rehab would just be sending a message to other drug-taking
footballers that should you be caught then the club will bail you out. Last weekend's win shows that
life goes on without Cousins; this is a team, not a one-man band. (identifying name deleted)(source:the west.com.au)"
|
Alan Jones
is a Sydney, Australia,
radio (2GB) broadcaster. He holds an extraordinary influence over
Australia's federal and state (NSW) politicians and governments. It is not clear why this shoulkd be so since his
broadcasts and editorial comment are invariably shallow in content and breadth of intellectual
debate. His audience of several hundred thousand listeners are at the conservative spectrum. Jones' reach is largely limited to the metropolitian area of Sydney so it cannot be said that
he is a national broadcaster. He has been
investigated
for his practices in broadcasting. In April 2007 the
Australian Media and Communications Authority foundn that he had incited racial villification and
committed breaches of the broadcasting code of practice.
"The Australian broadcasting watchdog has found that 2GB and
its prominent breakfast presenter Alan Jones breached the radio
code of practice during broadcasts just before the infamous 2005 Cronulla riots.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority today found that
the company and Jones broadcast material - specifically comments made
by Jones between December 5-9 - was "likely to encourage violence or brutality and
to vilify people of Lebanese and Middle-Eastern backgrounds on the basis of ethnicity". (Source: Sydney Morning Herald, Australia,
Jones rapped for pre-riot 'scum' remarks, Dylan Welch, April 10, 2007.
Jones immediatley used his broadcast to rant about the unfairness of it all and to whip up outrage and support. He attacked the
Chairman of the Auithority in a baseles and typically bullying fashion of the egotist who finds his
personal perceptions of his own wroth and contribution in society threatened.
This is in itself is not the thrust of this article. It is the sad fawning on our most senior politicians particularly the
Minister for Communications, Senator Helen Cooonan. She described Jones in glwoing terms. This, from my perspective lowered the
respect for the Minister who until now may have demonstrated levels of integrity and competency in her role without too much of a blemish.
|
"COMMUNICATIONS Minister Helen Coonan has refused to support
the nation's media regulator in its ruling against broadcaster Alan Jones.
Asked by The Age to respond to the Australian Communications and Media
Authority finding that the Sydney broadcaster had encouraged violence and
vilification of Australians of Lebanese and other Middle Eastern backgrounds,
Senator Coonan issued a statement backing Jones. She also hinted that the Government
was prepared to review the broadcasting rules which Jones had been found to have breached."
(Source: The Age Newspaper Melbourne, Coonan gives her support to Jones, Matthew Ricketson and Russell Skelton
April 13, 2007)
There is no doubt that Jones would have found this comforting reinforcing his view of his
personal political power and special person to the government and not only them but also to the leader of the
Australian federal labornparty, Kevin Rudd.
" PRIME Minister John Howard has backed embattled Sydney
radio identity Alan Jones a day after he was found to have
incited violence and vilified people of Middle Eastern descent in
the days before race riots in Sydney." (Source: News.com.au
Howard quick to back embattled broadcaster, by staff writers and wires, April 11, 2007)
" JOHN Howard described Alan Jones as an "outstanding broadcaster"
and Kevin Rudd insisted he would be happy to appear on his show as the
Sydney radio host took to the airwaves yesterday to savage the media watchdog
that has found him guilty of
inciting violence during the Cronulla race riots." (Source: The Australian Newspaper,
Guilty Jones attacks media watchdog,Michael Bodey and Patricia Karvelas, April 12, 2007)
The Australian governnment has a questionable history of special friends and a tendency to
overlook the law and to separate the general public out from the special people.
An ordinary citizen would be pilloried as would a lowly newspaper journalist, but not Alan Jones.
Kevin Rudd has only begun to demonstrate his questionable moral and ethical compass, firstly in the testimony of his life,
secondly in the Channel 7 Sunrise programme
debacle with Rudd's office. They were exposed for considering a fake dawn service involving Rudd. And now this one.
Kevin Rudd likes the Sunrise programme because it rates well? Or is it that he is not goijng to be tested
since the two hosts are unlikely to set the political world on fire by any deep debates and thought provoking
questions of Kevin Rudd.
|
"THE office of Kevin Rudd was warned more than
two weeks ago that plans for a stage-managed pre-dawn
service at Long Tan, Vietnam, in which the Labor leader
was slated to take part, risked "seriously offending" veterans and others.
A series of emails obtained by the Herald also reveal Mr
Rudd had booked flights and was confirmed to attend the event,
which was scrapped only four days ago when it became public.
Last night Mr Rudd admitted his office had received the email which
warned about the possibility of causing offence, but said it had not
been brought to his attention." (Source: Sydney Morning Herald,Rudd admits
gaffe over TV dawn service in Vietnam, Phillip Coorey, Chief Political Correspondent
April 13, 2007). Of cpurse Rudd would not know would he? What sort of morals and ethical values do you think Rudd's staf may have and
does he think they are okay and good for his pitch at being Prime Minister? They seem to be the normal run of the mill, low grade
staff political staff models of behaviour don't you think? He
will probably have a good chance at the tilt in November 2007 with them by his side. They
already know how to be sleazy, misrepresentative and stealthy, in politics. They will surely be spectacular in government.
In reviewing Mr Rudd's interview on the ABC Melbourne radio 774, (April 2007)
I note that he appears to avoid doing interviews where he will be questioned by a competent interrogator.
The quality of role models in our political spectrum at any level in the nation is as demonstrated above, very poor.
Why would any citizen have respect for a government authority such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority when it is undermined
by the very people we might expect would give it substance and authority. As Jones railed against the ruling he demonstratede that not only did the
government agency not have authority but it was singularly lacking in the senior
politicians, cited above. This is yet another reason why Australia's senior government leaders
and politicians generally are held in such low regard. As
Crikey.com
poses the question
there are many who would say it has already been answered.
Does the Communications Minister back
her own regulator? In case of Alan Jones, what comes first?
Gloria or governance? Does the Parrot take priority?" (Source: Crikey.com. 14 April, 2007).
"Uhr distinguishes ethics from morality.
He sees ethics as emphasising rules and
safe behaviour and so as ultimately concerning
self interest, but morality as a trait of character and so
about making decisions in the public interest.
The trend here is towards an appeal for elected governments
to trust public servants more and to show the kinds of leadership
that will cause the bureaucracy to behave with integrity.
Unfortunately governments seem less interested in setting such
examples than they are in demanding loyalty from their bureaucrats." (Source:
Review: Terms of Trust: Arguments over ethics in Australian government
By John Uhr, Sydney: UNSW Press, 2005,
238 pages, paperback, $39.95. Reviewed by
Tony Smith in the August 2005 issue.
Australian Public Intellectual Network.
|
Tristar is a Sydney, Australia, based
car components manufacturer. The company's Board, and management, have been in the
Australian media, and
political spotlight,
for a range of reasons. I think they got to this place through their own management incompetece and ineptitude and
not least a lack of possessing an
ethical and moral compass.
There is concern in the Australian community about
corporate ethics
and morality. Concern as to the
lack of integrity displayed by those in positions of
business influence and power. Despite the apparent disreagrd for such weakness in the maucho world of corporate
power,
ethics is important
and it often comes back to bite the unwary.
"About 500 people were employed by the car-parts
manufacturer when Arrowcrest, Tristar's parent company,
bought the business from TRW Pty Ltd seven years ago.
All but the longest-serving employees have been given
redundancy in the past year or two, as Tristar wound down in
Australia and prepared to set up operations in India and China.
That still left 35 men and women. Since last winter they
have reported for work to a corner of a large, empty shed in
the inner-Sydney suburb of Marrickville.
Their case hit the headlines when the Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union tipped off Jones about company accounts manager John Beaven.
Tristrar had refused to accept his application for voluntary redundancy
after Beaven told the company he needed the money for his three children
because he was dying of cancer. The company gave him a $50,000 redundancy
payment two days before his death." (Source:Elisabeth Wynhausen,February 03, 2007,
The Australian Newspaper).
The questionable human resource management practices, the ethical and
moral nature of Tristar's management, and Board actions and for general ignorance and some might term stupidity. The company now finds itself embroiled in a situation of its own making and one they
seem intent on making worse in every aspect. Firstly by denying that they were deliberately keeping a number of workesr without work in order to
manipulate redundancy and other employment provisions and secondly by foolishly embroiling a federal Minister of Parliament into their scheming tactics.
"WORKPLACE Relations Minister Joe Hockey has denied he ever told a
Sydney car components company to sack its workforce and re-employ
workers on individual contracts. "The minister suggested we make
them (the workers) redundant then re-employ them on contracts,"
Mr Hong told the (Industrial Relations) commission in Sydney.: (Source: March 23, 2007 03:10pm, News.com.au)
The company is being legally challenged on a number of fronts. The company executives calimed that they meet Minister Hockey in
Canberra where he, according to them, asserted that they should manipulate the Australian government's Wprkplace Relations Act.
Now I )Kevin R Beck) find this personally difficult to believe. I meet federal and state members of parliaments and Ministers formally and socially.
When I meet them formally about business issues or in their Ministerial capacity there is an adviser in the room and often another person taking minutes.
In my experience where the matter is politically as charged as this one the Minister never is as blase and
likely to behave as described by Mr. Hong.
Listening and watching the Board and management of Tristar I am lead to be suspicious of their claims.
There is no history of this company, that I can see publicly, that indicates they are high minded and at the forefront of modern management practices and business ethics.
" Mr Hong told the commission on Friday
that representatives of the Office of
Workplace Services had attended meetings in Canberra during
which, he alleged, Mr Hockey suggested alternative courses of action.
"The minister suggested we make (the workers) redundant, then
re-employ them on contracts," Mr Hong told the commission hearing.
"Our financial director said that's probably going against the law."
However, OWS director Nicholas Wilson yesterday denied representatives of his
agency were at the meetings." (Source:Sid Marris
March 26, 2007, The Australian Newspaper).
I personally find it a stretch that the company's "financial director" would be cognisant of the law of employment given the
practices that got the company where it is today.
What would possess them to enter the murky waters of politics? Perahps they feel they are well versed in questionable ethics,
are well experienced themselves, capable of mixing it with those who make an art of
fine line wriggling.
It is not plausible that a seasoned politician, and senior member of the government, Joe Hockey is going to act as cavalier as Hong implies.
I also have some interaction with Mr. Hockey's office and with his Chief of Staff and Joe Hockey is very unlikely to engage in the unethical and immoral practices claimed by the
"lacking in credibility" management of Tristar. The federal labor party and state labor party immediately jumped on the claims
demanding Hockey resign. Jula Gillard, a front bench member in the federal (labor party) parliament
wants Hockey to front the NSW tribunal.
"If Mr Hockey said this, it would be a breach of the law,"
she said. "If he wants to be taken seriously he has to
front the NSW Industrial Relations Commission and deny it under oath." (Source: Sid Marris
March 26, 2007, The Australian newspaper).
I am fairly sure that Ms Gillard would decline the invitation herself if she were being accused.
This only resulted in demonstrating a lack of ethical and moal disposition that has infested the Australian labor party over the past decade.
They are among the most corrupt of Australia's politicalparties and governments and yet have the gall to point the finger at others in the corroded political system.
|
How long should executives and Board members hang on and drive a great company into the ground?
Is it hubris and ego, or the unshakeable belief of some, in the heady world of Australian business, about their abilities?
The demise of the great creation and legacy of
G. J. Coles
raises the issue of morality and ethics and the
failure of so many in corporate life who place their own careers and interests before the interesst of others.
Decision makers take away peoples' livelihoods and savings and they too often destroy the creations of others.
It seemed to me that Senator Santo Santoro
could not bring himself to be open, and admit his errors and duplicity,
when he resigned from the Australian Senate in March 2007. The Senator persisted with a charade, and facade, of propriety and
quality performance in office. When Minister for Ageing it is reported
that he visited state offices of his portfolio unannounced. He liked to
catch people out? As a Senator he wasted time and public money on a frivoulous, and quite stupid, pursuit of the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation misusing his parliamentary office to ask inaiodiculous that everyone knew he was impotent.
He tended by this wasteful and pernicious exercise of power to
look like the fool some hais not one to be applauded or emulated.
He degraded the already
corroded and corrupt
systems of governance and democracy in Australia.
The judgement of the Prime Minister, in appointing Santo Santoro as a Minister in the
Australian government, may be called into question.
"Good riddens to bad rubbish" is a saying that may be applicable in the demise of some from the high office of government and
representation within our parliaments.
|
|
LOGGING COMPANY ORDERED TO PAY SLAPP COSTS
Source of Article
"The Tasmanian logging company Gunns has been ordered to pay the
legal costs of 17 environmentalists and 3 environmental groups,
after the third version of its $A6.9 million ($US5.2m) damages claim
was thrown out of court. The legal costs are estimated at more than
$A1 million ($US760,000). Since December 2004, Gunns has filed three
statements of claim and sacked two legal teams. Victorian Supreme
Court Justice Bernard Bongiorno gave the company until November 2 to
file a fourth claim. Gunns' legal actions have sparked calls for an
overhaul of Australian laws to ensure that corporations cannot
initiate legal actions aimed at stifling community participation in
public policy debates, or SLAPPs. Earlier in the week, Gunns
informed the court that it had dropped one part of its claim in
which it sought $A500,000 ($US378,000) in damages, alleging a
co-ordinated campaign involving all defendants."
SOURCE: The Australian, October 20, 2006, for more information or to comment on this story,
click here
Manipulating Victoria's State
Election in November 2006
There is an advertisement running in Victoria for the 2006 state election.
It uses a segment of material from the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, without approval. It also uses the voice of the opposition leader Ted Balleiu, from an ABC interview, without approval.
It is a labor party advertisement and they have refused to
remove the segment. They effectively have pirated it and they are now going to spend money in the federal court. This is the quality of the Australian labor party and in particular the Bracks' lead state labor
government.
The Premier either feigns blindness to principle or simply has no
moral compass to guide him. In the state of Victoria the Bracks government spends a million or so dollars on a handful (about six) senior media staff and more
to pay the salaries and costs of an additional fourteen.
He needs twenty people to advise and control, corrode and manipulate. This is the man who told us how terrible the liberal Premier, Jeff Kennet, was in
controlling information, in being secret and manipulative.
The function of the six senior staff in the Premiers media unit is, among other things, to corrupt, and defile, the democratic process. It is a common belief that
the unelected staffer, Media Director, Ms. Sharon McCrohan, wields as much power and influence as the state Treasurer, John Brumby. It is also reported that
Ms.McCrohan interferes in the activities of elected members of parliament. There is a particular incident where she actively thwarted a member of parliament's intention to put forward a private member's bill.
Apparently she berated this member, Ms. Carolyn Hirsh, who attempted to act in good conscience or
personal belief demanding that they get with the programme and toe the party line. Nothing can be put to the
parliament without the Premier's approval.
I do not think my statement is quite accurate. The
Premier
is very substantially an image creation. Millions are spent to make him look sqeaky clean and on top of things.
Listen to his speeches and one gets the impression that he is the
main character in an orchestrated show with little human substance and marginal quality in tems of governance and
innovative policy and vision.
The reality is that nothing gets into the parliament unless it is sanctioned by a handful of faceless people who include the unelected
and the morally questionable. Why do we bother to elect representatives if this is the case?
The members of Victora parliament are treated as if they are lackies of the leadership rather than elected representatives of the
people. This is an outragous corruption of democracy and if true people such as Ms MCCrohan shouild be barred from holding public office in Australia.
These people are not there to represent citizens they are paid out of the public purse, not political party coffers, to carry out partisan political functions.
The labor government has spent half a billion dollars in the past three years on political advertising. Not from party coffers but from the public purse.
The Premier's media group are a blight upon Victoria's democracy. Bracks, who lambasted Jeff Kennett over his penchant for secrecy has turned out to be a hypocrite. If it were not for the
experience and talent of Treasurer of John Brumby, the Victorian labor party would be a very average lot.
Continuing the Corrosion of Australia's Democracy
Senior labor party politicians across Australia should
hire a shuttle bus and go out together to get a mass purchase of moral compasses. They might also consider hiring tutors to
ground them on basic
public policy
and democratic principles.
A Minister in the New South Wales (Australia) parliament, Carl Scully, mislead the parliament about the existence of a damaging report in to
race riots at Cronulla Austalia, in 2006. The Premier Morris Iemma stood by the Minister and supported him. On a second occasion it suited Minister Scully to attempt to
spin fact and circumstance. On display in the full glare of public light was a senior labor party politician who
represented the propensity of the modern politician to lie, scheme, misrepresent, spin the truth and play
everyone for a fool. There are no ethics left in Australia's political system. Labor, in power at the state and territory levels, seems to have taken this trend to new heights.
Public policy
and public interest have well and truly taken a back seat over political interest and personal interest. Labor members of parliament are intent of keeping position and power
at all costs. On Wenesday 25th October 2006 the Premier finally asked Mr. Scully to resign his Ministerial portfolio. Even as
Scully annnounced his resignation he could not keep to the truth and showed the under lying core of our seemingly rotten representation.
Every effort is made and no public cost is too much for the in house media to try and make it look like we have a quality governments across the nation. He described how it was no longer feasible to persist with
the charade. I did not see contrition, or remorse, in the face of Scully,
just arrogance and hubris. Under the labor system in Australia he can be resurrected.
Factional power is everything in this moribund and immoral political party. Carl Scully obviously believes he has that. Now we can wait for the pay back and the petty puerile
tantrums and egotistical displays that are the hallmark of the NSW labor party.
The people of NSW and the nation observed the unedifying and arrogant display live on their televisions as it was relayed from the
parliament and broadcast on the news programmes. The question arises: does the Premier, Morris Iemma, have any standards? He protected a Minister who was blatantly lying and treating the
house of the people, the parliament, with contempt. A Minister educated within the factional political system of the
labor party which shows nothing but contempt for the people whilst taking the
spoils of public office as their own. The liberals cannot "cast the first stone". The people have come to
understand that politicians, without exception, lie. The additional question s whether Morris Iemma condones and endorses liars?
The evidence on balance does not seem to be in his favour. He apparently does.
There are little lies, big lies, core and non core promises. There is corruption in the labor party in Victoria.
A sitting member of the Victorian parliament's upper house, George Seitz, under investigation for corrupt behaviour is protected by the
Premier, Steve Bracks. He seems to have
lost his moral compass, along with Tasmanian Labor Premier, Paul Lennon
some time ago. I am awaiting a reaction to the contrary. I wrote and asked if he had but never received a reply.
In Tasmania, two former labor Ministers of the parliament are
also under investigation for corrupt behaviour, interferring with a public official.
The Premier Mr. Lennon appeared on the front page of
Australia's press for accepting free hospitality from Crown Casino, in Melbourne,
owned by Mr. Packer, just as the Tasmanian state government, awarded Mr. Packer's
enterprise and Betfair a gambling licence. There are tremendous political role models for our children to emulate and for others in public and corporate life to
copy. The Gunn Company, in the article above is the major employer in Tasmania. Does it have Director's who are ex politicians? Does it have
deep links to labor and the conservative parties?
Does the copany enjoy political largesses by the bucket load? Does the Tasmanian government Forestry Department raise questions about probity, neutrality andarms length dealing in the state?
Are the senior public servants there leading lights in Australia's bureaucracy?
In Western Australia Brian Burke, labor light and former political party senior identity,
mired the state in scandal and corruption. Some time later he
was allowed back in the fold. He was even allowed access as a consultant and lobbysit with access. The new Premier, Mr. Carpenter lifted the ban
imposed by the former Labor Premier. Now Burke is under investigation over
certain payments to
local government councillors and the activities of a development company.
The Australian labor party is a party made up of good people, very few who are in office or allowed to participate.
The to ecehelons and power brokers are lowly educated trade union thugs,
criminals, semi literate buffoons
and highly educated, but it seems quite immoral
individuals. They are of course vengeaful and not keen on negative opinion.
In amongst the party are the hacks and the sycophants.
Kim Beazley, leader at the federal level, and the aspirant Prime Minister in 2007,
pleads to be
elected Prime Minister.
The writing is on the wall that he will never be allowed to contest the 2007 election. He
is a very nice bloke but
no one takes him seriously as a contender for Prime Minister unless they are wearing
blinkers.
Australian Labor is the party of national scandal and a very bad and expensive blight on democracy.
In Victoria, Steve Bracks will go to election in November 2006 and Morris Iemma,
some five months later in 2007. They do not deserve trust, and high office, yet
the majority of the
population apparently cannot read, think or care, about the state of the democracy.
The duopoly of labor and liberal is held in such general contempt, that one can only wonder what Ted ballieu, leader of the
Victorian liberal party and Peter Debnam, leader of the same party in NSW, think they may have to offer that is so scintillatingly different?
This is indeed a sad state of affairs, and one where we may well "cry our beloved country".(Kevin R Beck, October 26, 2006)
|
John Howard appears to have methodically trudged across the landscape of Australia
implementing his idealism in a series of minute steps. It is not clear if those close to him politically are aware of this
or are knowledgeable in the mosaic of his strategies. It seems that he has a very talented team of advisers and workers who put the flesh to his idealism.
On the other hand the Australian labor party and its leaders, advisers and strategists appear to be inept and under performers by comparison.
There is no one in the labor decision making team in Canberra that has the lateral thinking capacity to go back in time and find each influence
that has set John Howard on his path. When Pauline Hanson stormed onto the political scene in the latter years of the nineties
the academics, commentators, media and outraged politicians particularly labor and the even some conservatives saw her in isolation of
the psyche and the social landscape. I doubtJohn Howard saw her like that. He probably saw her in the context of "Australian Values" as enunciated in a hidden study from 1984.
He knew well enough what well she was tapping. Today in 2006 the labor party lead by Kim Beazley is as mystified, and ignorant, of the
under current as it was then.
In the week of September 11, 2006, the leader of the Australian Labor in the federal parliament, the Honourable Kim Beazley
announced that labor would seek to have immigrants, and tourists, commit to a respect for the laws and values of Australia. In this manner
the Australian political debate entered the nebulous world of ideas largely founded on ill thought precepts and rubbish. There has been no deep thought given to
the rush to set an agenda as to who can "out politicise" the other (all over the place federal labor opposition versus federal
conservative coalition) on making those people who scare us and threaten our way of life toe the line. Kim Bezaley and John Howard et al, would be totally at sea if they had to define
coherently and in detail what they are talking about. The message politicians have to give is one of simplicity, the quick media grab. For this reason they are failing to enunciate the substance because
this topic does not lend itself to quick media bites except in an inflammatory and confronting way.
|
"EDUCATION Minister Brendan Nelson has
bluntly told Islamists who do not want to accept and teach Australian values that they should "clear off".
And John Howard has warned that mosques, prayer halls and Muslim schools will be watched" to
the extent necessary" to ensure they do not give comfort to terrorism. A day after the Prime
Minister's summit with Muslim leaders, the Government stepped up its push to get "Australian values" — epitomised,
it says, by the Anzac story of Simpson and his donkey — taught comprehensively to Muslim children." (Melbouren Age, August 25, 2005: Gratton, M)
So what is the liberal and national party doing and what has it been doing? What has labor been doing or not doing?
Perhaps the answer lies in a prescient piece of reaserach conducted by the Roy Morgan Group, which Mr. Howard may well know.
"The left, with the connivance of the media, have been allowed to set
the agenda of public debate. Thus, sensible and well-reasoned right wing perspectives
are labelled as extremist, reactionary, etc. On the other hand, social engineering schemes and
even extreme policy decisions are presented in the guise of moderation. The reason is that the
right (including the Liberal/Country Parties), with a few exceptions, have not stood up for values which are
likely to gain widespread community support and which are in tune with liberal principles. They have also not been
willing to attack social engineering schemes and demonstrate their true radical, counterproductive nature. If such an
onslaught were launched, ridicule could be expected from sections of academia and the media. However, the public would be
very receptive. The political opposition must lead such an onslaught but it does not have the guts to do so. It does
not (a few exceptions apart) challenge the agenda of public debate laid down by the left and the media."
(The Australian Values Study,
Roy Morgan Research Centre, Sydney, Melbourne, (August, 1983).
"As post-modern Australia seeks to articulate its place in the regional and global order inevitable
focus is given to the cultural values and norms that underpin our society. Many commentators, it
seems, agree that there is a dominant or underlying set of ‘shared values’ that somehow serve to
unite Australians’ thinking and perceptions – especially when events impact the national
consciousness. Some have characterised their analysis of values against a backdrop of apparent
ambiguities(i). They highlight that, while the economy is doing well many seem not to be sharing
in the benefits and many feel pessimistic about their futures, we are diverse but not divisive, that we
are great consumers of technology but not dominated by it, that we care deeply about the human
condition and yet apparently approve of the government’s response to those seeking asylum in this
country.
One commentator speaks of the significant impact that the prevailing Australian culture has on our
values and refers to what he calls the ‘bush culture’ forged in the 19th century and the ‘suburban
culture’ of the early to mid 20th century. He adds there appears to be emerging a third culture – a
‘beach culture’ and that this will itself “define a new demographic concentration of Australians
during the early 21 century.” This commentator questions what value changes are underway at
present in Australia and how might these impact the mass market and business?(ii)
What then are the so-called ‘shared values’ that appear to be so enduring in Australia? These might
be said to include respect for democracy, a strong sense of justice, a sense of fairness, of tolerance,
a caring for others, a powerful sense of egalitarianism, a less selfish society, loyalty and freedom of
self-determination.
Running in parallel with these apparent ‘shared values’ are we seeing in Australia the emergence of
a new set of values that the so called ‘baby boomers and Xers’ readily relate to and which appear
unfamiliar to those over the age of fifty? (Intro:
AUSTRALIAN CULTURAL NORMS AND VALUES,
Research Paper for the Business Council of Australia, Scenario Planning Project, ‘Aspire Australia 2025’)
The need to appear to be proactive is making many in the debate look particularly stupid.
According to Mr. Beazley, this commitment would be incorporated into tourists Visas,
above the signature line. The policy announcement was echoed by labor's spokesperson on immigration, the Honourable Tony Bourke, who then tried to
put substance into an open ended topic with little effect. Having failed to do so it was the Honourable Stephen Smith's turn. He
looked decidedly ill at ease as he grappled with advanced sociology 101.
One might wonder where Mr. Beazley gets his advice or if he actually talks to anyone with common sense or knowledge? Firstly Tourist Visas are in most cases electronically generated, if required at all. Secondly
one wonders what values it is that the tourist, and immigrant might have to sign on to? Is it
traits or values
that the politicians are referring to? Do they or their advisers and media spin doctors actually know the difference.
There is the nebulous "fair go" principle which is being challenged constantly
across the nation by all sorts of Australians as a result of the Australian government's newly enacted industrial and employment legislation.
The principle of a fair go is thoroughly tested by the
immature, confrontational, aggressive and from time to time illegal,
activities of
governments,
employers, unions and vested interests.
Then there is the politician's notion of equality of the sexes.
This was trotted out by who knows whom on which side of politics, despite the fact that women earn less than men and are required to work, raise children and perform other non paid duties which are not recognised as
contributory by any government or political party, whether it be labor, liberal or national party. The national accounts do not reflect the non paid contribution of women so how is it
that politicians can espouse that immigrants sign on to equality? Perhaps it is a narrow than rather broadly defined value for women
that is implied here such as allowing them to go to school,
not castrating them and not making them cover their faces and bodies from head to toe. Is that the values types the politicians mean?
The debate is not helped by the maturity of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Honourable Andrew Robb, (he is new in parliament) who talks of chucking citizenship around
like confetti" and laughs at serious questions put to him on radio only to realise his gaff. Could it be the value of "mateship" which is a nebulous concept?
A mateship overtaken by a self interested, individualism, gripping the nation creating the class of "aspirants", "the haves" and the "have nots".
When politicians were asked about going to other countries and being required to sign on to values there was a perplexing look and of course
there are
problems such as countries with the death penalty, torture
and other unpalatable hobbies and beliefs.
It is indeed ironic that Australian government politicians, particularly, would lecture on values when they
display appalling judgement. The Prime Minister and senior Ministers accused people of throwing children into the sea,
whilst unknown persons doctored the pictures they relied upon, to suit
their erroneous claims. There is the engineering of the waterfront reform by Minister Peter Reith.
People were persuaded into taking on training contracts in Dubai and politicians, in concert with business and associations,
organised elements of the Australian community to confront Australian waterside workers creating violent
confrontations to bring about reforms. Then there is the myth of the weapons of mass destruction to justify invasion,
now the videoed record of Australian soldiers emulating the
stupidity of the American soldiers in clowning around in Iraq, and scenes portraying the humiliation of Arab persons.
Perhaps we could have immigrants
sign on to the values espoused by the Ministers of the Howard government who were dismissed in the first term of government
or they could adopt the values of the politicians who rorted their travel allowances.
Alternatively they could be advised of the values of the One Nation party subtly and not so subtly adopted by the Howard government.
The immigrants could be asked to adopt the values of the senior management of the
Australian Wheat Board and Tigris described below in this site. They seemed to be quite "matey" with members of government and the bureaucracy.
This could be "mateship" in all of its mendacious and corrosive effects. There are a plethora of values to choose from.
Mr. Beazley could offer a truly broad set of values including the "whatever it takes" values of one of Mr. Beazley's former labor
colleagues, a Minister of government, Mr. G. Richardson.
It is indeed a great irony when seemingly hypocrites demand things of others that they themselves have extraordinary problems with.
Even as Prime Minister John Howard, stood in a club, expounding the need for immigrants to understand English so that they might make a contribution, above him
a large number of Australian citizens, who cannot speak English, were going about their daily lives as good contributing citizens.
Perhaps Mr. Howard
might like to subject some of the politicians of Australia or other citizens such as aborigines, to English tests to
see the results.
Politicians walk into a minefield when they start dealing in the sociological intangibles. Particularly if they are not well versed and not
expert in the field in which they are pontificating. Perhaps even more so when the debate is created with a particular agenda and targeting of specific groups of people.
The sad thing for labor is that it is reduced to a party scampering hard to
demonstrate that it can be as ignorant as its nemesis.
|
Senator, the Honourable Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration, demonstrated the fine line of unethical behaviour, and standards, that are
demonstrable of political behaviour in Australia today. The Minister, subjected daily to a barrage of unethical behaviour and exploitation by employers in Australia, of immigrant workers,
resorted to questionable action to counter her critics, the Australian trade unions.
The Minister, Amanda Vanstone, had her advisers and departmental officers, access
the files of her department to determine which trade unions were employing
immigrant workers. The advisers and officers who do these things display as much unethical and immoral judgement as their political masters.
The Minister published the details in the parliament and via media releases. The government has a very poor record of lies, misrepresentation and questionable behaviour. Some would regard their actions as people driven by
desperation, with a mix of hubris and arrogance. One thing is clear the Australian government fails too often to set examples of ethical behaviour and quality leadership. They are not alone as the states, and territories, vie for
the lowest moral compass register.
The Australian
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
could be described as the major Australian
human resources
agency. This is largely due to its activities in the employment marketplace, through Job Network and
its carriage of the Australian government's industrial relations agenda. The Department or DEWR as it is known does not have a public reputation for
ethical reporting or practices as indicated in reports of the Australian Productivity Commission,
statistical analysis and publishing, media and Journals such as the Institute of Public Affairs Review, Number 2, July 2006, Cutliffe, T,
"Bureaucratic ego and Aboriginal Employment". There is an extensive reporting of DEWR and the industrial reform and other matters in
this Mosaic Portal web site
DEWR is the evolution of privatisation of the former
federal government's Commonwealth Employment Service. It is a social experiment that is touted world wide as a first of its kind.
Therefore DEWR has an interest in ensuring that its performance looks good. This creates a conflict between its public interest activities as a public service agency and
its commercial objectives and ego. DEWR is bound by the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct however continued adverse reporting of the
operation of its Job Network, waste of public funds, misappropriation of monies by agencies and questionable statistical counting methodologies and
public claims raises questions as to the adherence to the code.
As a person with some hands on experience of DEWR activities through years of engagement in providing services to the long term unemployed and a major research thesis on DEWR published in the
University of Melbourne, Education Faculty in 2004, I have a strong mistrust of DEWR. I have seen the department place employment advertisements and attended sessions where presentations and claims
of future opportunities have not been converted into reality. Cutliffe in his article quoted above charges DEWR with "devising unemployment strategies in total isolation of
the on the ground reality in Shepparton, Victoria, Australia". I am inclined to the proposition that DEWR does this nationwide as a practice and accordingly makes the figures suit the story they want.
This is not politicisation because I believe the Minister in charge of DEWR, Kevin Andrews is credible and wants to help the unemployed and the Aboriginal people particularly. I think he has no idea of how DEWR calculates the figures and what goes on
inside the bureaucracy. According to Cutliffe, "For public service reputations, careers and promotions to be protected, the bureaucracy must build measurement structures that create the chimera of success by
assembling discordant and selective achievements into press release headlines". This assertion I find credible as my own master's degree research thesis lead me to this conclusion about DEWR and its reporting in the years 1996 - 2002.
I think this misrepresentation continues into 2006. DEWR counts an aboriginal person, who is on Community Development Employment Programme payments as being employed. By whom? The Australian government or its agents? This is welfare not employment. There is little training, supervision or career
development in a DEWR managed employment initiative in the nation particularly aboriginal programmes of this type. People who find a job for fifteen hours per week for one week are counted as employed.
Research and media exposure demonstrates agencies in the Job network and DEWR multiple count the same person through multiple service providers. The DEWR Job Network system is grounded on the payment of success fees for outcomes. Any outcome regardless of quality and content.
Cutliffe states, "and government figures will count this as six jobs created. Thus the Australian governhemnt's published claims of job creation in a any period are suspect. "The system is heavily geared to mythical figures", Cutliffe says.
The jobs have been double claimed by agents.
Some believe that DEWR deliberately puts
successful competitive projects out of action (Ladders to Success Programme in Shepparton) through removal of
funding in order that their lesser performance is not exposed. Employers in Shepparton appeared to express a preference for the locally managed
Ladders programme as against dealing with DEWR. DEWR ensured that the actual costs of the Ladders programme against their own efforts would never see the light of day.
There are incidences where this is similarly so across the nation. Tafes were successful because they had local influence.
DEWR is Canberra bound and managed by bureaucrats in offices.
When DEWR was formed very successful public programmes managed by Tafe Institutes across Australia
under the former labor government initiatives were simply disbanded. They were ineligible to apply. This was a deliberate government policy. Some might argue, and believe,
that DEWR has maintained,
and reinforced through questionable and perhaps unethical practices, the facade that the
government's initiative is delivering when the reality is it not. For so may people to question DEWR's ethics and practices casts a blight on the
credibility, and codes of practice, Australia's public servants and other agencies.
In another of the government's linked portfolios, the Department of Immigration,
barely a week goes by without another scandal of
exploitation of international workers granted temporary work visas to fill Australia's labour shortages. The government passed its punitive industrial reforms focused in denuding
union's influences and power in workplaces. If it were not for unions the exploitation, robbery and perhaps even slave labour conditions would not come to light. The Department of Immigration and DEWR in no way
take the same level of interest and care about people and their conditions of employment. Political ideology and public service indifference and
incompetence are potent mixes.
Valuing human talent
is not a forte of the Howard government Ministers and the relevant public service
agencies. This might be attributed to a number of factors. The decline in public service standards and capabilities and loss of corporate memory.
Altered service parameters and notions of serving the "government interest" as against the "public interest" with
and assumption that they are the same.
Poorly experienced divisional managers, and staff, as evidenced by the
scandals
that have enveloped the
Immigration Department during the past years including erroneous arrest,
incarceration
and deportation of Australians.
"New scandal sweeps Immigration Department AM - Saturday, 7 May , 2005 08:08:00, Reporter: Nick Grimm
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Now to the latest scandal enveloping the Department of
Immigration. Fresh details are emerging about the Australian woman
who was mistakenly deported to the Philippines four years ago". (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)"
" The Herald now has documents which detail
the lengths gone to by Immigration and Foreign Affairs officials
to keep a lid on the Alvarez scandal.." (Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, 2005)
This article directly raises questions about the ethical values of the Australian public service, its management and the Ministers of the
government to whom they report. The citizens of Australia are derelict and do not demand a better quality of
ethics, behaviour and performance
from those whom they employ in public service and in politics. Similarly we do not hold corporate executives to account except when
they are openly engaged in criminal behaviour. Even then they seem to be able to maintain their status in society.
"And dealing with under performance when it occurs
is not something we all do that well in the public service". (
Launch of Better Practice Guides:
Workforce Planning, Performance Management & Absence Management
Mural Hall, Parliament House, 22 June 2006)
From my experience and belief the behaviour and performance of people in their work environment is a direct outcome of the quality of management and the
leadership, including that of the Ministers and their advisers. In the latter case stories abound around the public service of
abuse heaped upon public servants by advisers out of Ministers offices at state, territory and federal levels. Particular Ministers and their staff are internally, and externally known, for
exhibiting poor traits. Advisers who "cream" at public servants who purport to speak for the Minister, who breach their authority and position.
These people are known and will be outed if they continue their diatribe.
Abuse is not the province only of advisers. Even contractors employed, in departments, have heaped abuse and vitriol upon people
outside the public service, people such as myself. I have been subjected to abuse and breach of public service codes by a contractor working in the
Australian Department of Defence. Their justification for their action was that I had communicated with the Minister.
I reported it to the Secretary, received a speedy reply that it would be investigated and
that "we take these matters seriously" and nothing happened. This is no surprise since that particular Secretary is retiring and the Department of
Defence has its own public reputation for poor performance.
Doing business with them is not a pleasant and rewarding experience. It is quite costly with little
return on courtesy and professionalism. They have little regard, and to my mind appreciation,
for an individual's commitment to the national welfare. Still one can only persist in attempting to participate in the national security agenda
against the tide.
Perception in a complex society is shaped by many forces, education, events and experiences and isolationism. There is a tendency for governments
and agencies to be secretive as indicated in the content of the Mosaic Portal web site on
Australia's governments.
Many Australians do not educate or inform themselves and rely uon anecdote, their social circle and
talk back radio and tabloid news and television grabs for their information. Perceptions are dangerous and feed
conspiracy theories and beliefs
and anti-social behaviour. These perceptions can feed into social framing creating pockets of unethical behaviour and
other malignant forms of social corrosion.
|
"Vic police squad under investigation for corruption -
The World Today Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Thursday, 6 July , 2006 12:30:00
Reporter: Josie Taylor
ELEANOR HALL: The Victorian Police force is itself in damage
control mode today over revelations that one of its most prestigious
crime squads is the target of a major corruption investigation.
Victoria's independent anti-corruption body has called for the entire
Armed Offenders Squad to be disbanded.
And the Office of Police Integrity says criminal charges could be
laid over allegations that officers from the squad bashed and intimidated suspects.
In Melbourne, Josie Taylor reports.
JOSIE TAYLOR: Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon fronted a lively
press conference this morning, and said she'd been completely aware of the Office of Police Integrity's investigation.
She named herself and two other senior police as supportive of the OPI's actions, and their raid on the Armed
Offenders Squad offices yesterday." (end of ABC extract)..
Elite armed police squad scrapped: By Gary Hughes, Courier Mail newspaper Brisbane, Australia, September 08, 2006 11:47am
VICTORIA Police is disbanding its elite Armed Offenders
Squad ahead of planned public hearings into its activities by the state's police anti-corruption watchdog.
The scrapping of the squad, which had been the subject of an investigation by the
Office of Police Integrity, was announced by Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon this morning.
It will be replaced by a new taskforce called Taskforce 700, which will target serious armed offences.
It is understood the OPI has scheduled public hearings into the activities of the squad,
including allegations that suspects were seriously assaulted, from September 18."(end of extract)
"Police told to give evidence on intimidation claims, Nick McKenzie, Michael Bachelard and Dan Oakes
The Age newspaper Melbourne, Australia, September 9, 2006
THE state's police watchdog has ordered a quarter of Victoria Police's
armed offenders squad to give evidence at public hearings over allegations they assaulted and intimidated suspects.
Only hours after subpoenas ordering nine of the squad's detectives to appear at
the hearings were issued by the Office of Police Integrity, Chief Commissioner Christine
Nixon announced the disbanding of the 35-member squad." (end of extract)
Some commentators have noted the move by the integrity body to publish its hearings and video tape showing police
assaulting suspects violently, just prior to a state election.
The leader of the liberal Opposition,
in state parliament, The Honourable Ted Ballieu, demonstrated yet again why it is that the liberal party can get no traction in state
politics anywhere in the nation. He said that if elected the Ballieu government would examine the contract of Chief Commissioner, Christine Nixon. Why and on what grounds?
Ill though out, off the cuff and in my view an unethical promise. The issue of police
assaulting criminals, and suspects, is a complex and grey one yet
Mr. Ballieu's naivety would place it in black and white terms. Does he condone vigilante tactics and behaviour?
Does he condone breaking the law? The police involved broke the law and in doing so they broke their oaths to uphold the law. They also
break their oaths when they stand arrogantly and deny the obvious in the hearing. All of this appears to hold little import with Mr. Ballieu.
|
Privacy Statement, Uses and Motivation
|
MOSAIC PORTAL SITE MAP
 | The specific category pages of the Mosaic Portal
includes the latest news about your work, profession, hobby or interests and lots of other relevant stuff?
Eliminate the tiresome irrelevance of a general web search by using the specific categories of the Mosaic Portal and let the Mosaic Portal bring it to you
|
A deep extended index of subjects and subtopics where the research, and search, has been done to find sites with news, articles and resources about your work, study, family, lifestyle, interests, hobbies, entertainment, beliefs, and more
|
The Chief Executive of Australian television station Channel Nine has a penchant to "bone" employees. This is Chief Executive, Eddy McGuire speak for giving them the sack.
He has a target number of 100. He also likes to deny things
only to be exposed for telling porkies a few weeks later.
Mr. McGuire demonstrates the endemic, some would claim,
unethical nature
of modern corporate executive behaviour
particularly in relation to
human resources
management and the devaluing of people.
Perhaps in his limited experience in managing a multi-million dollar enterprise (does he have any?) he
equates ratings, and advertising revenue, with
brand.
|
The Federal Court of Australia has just (June 2006) ruled that one of the nation's
largest retailers, Woolworths, committed illegal acts engaging in activity to reduce competition. The company, under the leadership of
Chief Executive Roger Corbett pressured independent smaller retailers in the liquor industry to sign agreements limiting the products they could sell.
Roger Corbett responded to the finding with a defence that what he and the company executives was, to his mind, legal. He claims the New South Wales
legal regime supported compromise negotiations to settle objections between parties over new licenses being issued. Corbett seems oblivious to the matter of ethics.
What he presided over was the destruction and belittling of people who did not have the resources to fight back. Some might think Corbett is a corporate thug. I think he is a person who
gets his power and self esteem from borrowed resources. Since he demonstrates a low ethical sense he might be
nothing without his CEO trappings. His is a referred status and prestige. Roger Corbett is praised for his management tole at Woolworths by people who value share price above ethics and a human approach to
running an influential corporation. Coles, another large retailer admitted its guilt in a similar approach paying the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission just under $5,000,000 in fines.
Coles would not admit guilt over reducing competition. The executives of both of these companies will escape any personal liability. Demonstrating a lack
of moral compass and ethical sense is not
a crime even though in this case it has damaged the livelihood of others.
Eddy McGuire, the CEO of aforementioned Channel Nine, may have inadvertently
demonstrated that he is both ethically, and senior management skill, challenged,
in his role, when he
spoke of "boning" an employee, Ms Jessica Rowe, openly to others.
Apparently this term is not to be interpreted as we might expect, that is wanting to engage physically but measn something
quite different.
Instead it
is purported to mean giving her the sack from her job. Unusual choice of words. This was not the only example of poor judgement
that has been the bane of Mr. McGuire's early days at the company. He has gone about sacking one hundred employees.
That seems to be the only methodology that Eddy has in his management arsenal. Perhaps he is neither experienced nor well read. Meanwhile
the two leading executives of the owning entity, PBL, Messrs. Packer and Alexander, are off enjoying their extraordinary wealthy occupations,
not for them the sack. Some at Channel Nine have to eat a "shit sandwich" and take massive pay cuts.
But not Packer, Alexander and McGuire. They are far too important and valuable.
All of these CEO's will still be welcome in the world of business and politics.
The latter is a world of similar characteristics to the corporate empires above.
People in Australian political spheres exhibit poor morals, questionable ethics and low quality values. We have to stretch the imagination
to believe that a moral vacuum has values in it.
Among the many demonstrations of questionable ethics we note that a number of Australia's senior political leaders have little regard for findings in a court and the quality of the people with
whom they associate. They too, like many of Australia's corporate executives, seem plagued with a lack of moral and ethical sense.
John Howard, Alexander Downer and Philip Ruddock have demonstrated very poor ethical
judgements in their own right. Their most blatant, bordering on criminal behaviour,
in public office is their treatment of Australian, David Hicks. They act illegally every day that they leave him in Cuba.
They offend the democracy and the nation's legal heritage. Held illegally in Cuba, at the pleasure of the President of the United States,
he has been abandoned by his Australian government. He has committed no crime under Australian law. He has
committed no crime under US law and under any other law.
He has been judged guilty of doing something that Howard and others do not like.
He has been judged guilty of training to be a terrorists without ever having engaged in a terrorist act. He has been judged guilty of hanging out with
people who carry out terrorist acts. He has been judged guilty of consorting. What an irony there is in that when we look at the people with whom
Messrs. Howard, Downer and Ruddock consort with.
John Howard has judged that treating David Hicks in this fashion has no political consequences about which he should worry.
The farce is that both Bush and Howard profess christian values. They neither know what the word "christian" nor the world "values" means.
The three Australian politicians have pronounced, continuously, the legal foundation of the incarceration was valid. They were all wrong.
Two of them are lawyers. The bigotry of this passerine trio should lead thinkers to conclude that the judgement of the Honourable John Howard,
The Honourable Alexander Downer and the Honourable Philip Ruddock could be suspect in many spheres of
Australian governance. Their competency in such high office is clearly in question though the greater number of Australians are simply dim witted
when it comes to deep analysis of governments' deprecatory
inclination towards those who disagree with, or challenge, the power collective.
These three liberal politicians, among others, have been proven wrong on all the significant moral and ethical issues
they have addressed during their ten years in government to June 2006.
The cost of their misjudgement, maladministration and incompetence is very high, valued in tens of billions and in intangible damage to the nation's prestige.
Such incompetence in an employment role would normally lead to a poor performance review and subsequent dismissal from employment. The problem is that there is no
performance appraisal of the talent of our senior politicians.
Australia finds itself without a remedy to this terrible affliction. As for David Hicks, blatant ignorance. and abuse of power, keeps him in a cell.
Many people are suspicious that rigging the price of petrol
might be a national pass time, in Australia, for petroleum company executives, operating in concert with a clubby international cartel. Politicians, governments and agencies such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission must tread warily for this is the most powerful corporate mafia on earth. Energy is the life blood of nations. The method used to control the avaricious tendencies of this industry, and its executives, is a mixture of complex economics and corruption of the market. Australia's governments. like others throughout the world, profit extensively from high fuel prices in more ways than just revenue in taxes.
From a public policy angle they cover up the real action through the payment of subsidies and tax breaks and other incentives.
"Senators to Big Oil: Where's the money?
Considering a bill to block industry mergers, lawmakers call on executives to explain record profits, and offer ways to rein in prices. By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
March 16, 2006: 7:10 AM EST.
NEW YORK
(CNNMoney.com)
Senators, considering a bill to restrict energy industry mergers and tax breaks, grilled oil executives again Tuesday as to why they are reaping record profits while consumers pay record prices at the pump."
Every now and then a small fish in the pond is captured and used as an example to at least create an impression that governments, and agencies, are not cowed by, or captive to, the oil giants.
"Federal Court orders $470,000 in penalties for Brisbane petrol price-fixing.
Pecuniary penalties totalling $470,000 were ordered by the Federal Court yesterday for price-fixing .....Issued: 1st December 2005 Release # MR 294/05, source: Australian Consumer and Competition Commission".
The Presidency of George Bush similarly is engaging in a smoke and mirrors action to appear to be challenging the corporations' power in the market place.
"Bush orders probe into possible price-rigging for gas, cites no evidence
Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:21:13 EDT, Source: CBC News, USA:
Former Texas oilman George W. Bush said on Tuesday he has
put several government departments to work trying to learn
whether high gasoline prices are the result of price-rigging".
"In other words, this administration is not going to tolerate manipulation," the U.S. president said. "We expect our consumers to be treated fairly."
He also said the government will pump less oil into its strategic
petroleum reserve over the summer to limit the drain on supply.
"So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more
oil on the market," he said. "Every little bit helps."
One can hope that the rise in
"whistleblowing"
will expose the entrenched activity of
cartels
and executives in electricity, oil, telecommunications, food, drugs and every other facet of
big bucks international enterprise.
They adopt the justification that their activities are not illegal, or immoral, but are the realities of a complicated international world of competition. They meet regularly to discuss aspects of their particular industry, trends, challenges and possible new sources of revenue and profit.
"What are the profits that are raising eyebrows? Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch/Shell reported total earnings last quarter of nearly $33 billion. The industry's third-quarter profits jumped 62 percent. And, Exxon Mobil, the nation's biggest oil company, posted the biggest corporate profit in history."
Source: NOW, PBS - Gas Price Politics.
Politics in Australia, and elsewhere is corrupted by donations. The Australian government is changing the law to enable donations to be hidden across a number of external political related entities furthering entrenching the corruption of democracy. This is music to the ears of corrupt business and the cartels for it means less exposure. In this regard the western nation's politicians, are a more polished version of less developed nations. Australia's petroleum producers do not want to invest in new plant when they can take maximum revenue from the economy. and the government can cream taxes from higher prices, without either having to invest in infrastructure. Why is this different to say Nigeria or Zimbabwe?
Uncle Sege was not satisfied. In the year 2002 he gave what he considered to be a warm new-year speech to the people of Nigeria by hiking petrol price from N22 to N26 per litre, diesel from N21 to N26 per litre and kerosene from N17 to N24 per litre. Attempt by NLC to get a price reversal through a strike was not as effective as the 2000 experience following arrests of labour leaders and an indecisive court of public opinion which felt a marginal increase of N4.00 was affordable. The hikes, according to him, marked the beginning of the liberalisation of the oil marketing industry.
"Another obnoxious fuel price hike by the General Olusegun Obasanjo administration, which was made known to the public by Chief Rasheed Gbadamosi, the chairman of the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), on Friday June 20, 2003 was a confirmation of his pledge for "continuity" during his campaign.
According to the new pump price structure, petrol was to sell for N40, diesel N38 and kerosene N38. As usual, he was forced to reduce the price through with the effort of the NLC and its affiliated unions to N34.00 per litre for each of the products.
Barely three months on, the president, who was not satisfied with the N34.00, now came up to announce another increase to N40.00 through the major oil marketers on the eve of Nigeria 43rd anniversary. This act of the government has clearly revealed the extreme callousness and insensitivity of the Obasanjo/Atiku administration, which has increased the prices of petroleum products four times since its inception in 1999 - a period of 4years and some months without giving thought to fixing the nation’s four refineries."
Source: Africa Today
Daily Mirror, Zimbabwe
Petroleum companies hike fuel prices
Shame Makoshori, issue date :2005-Apr-09
PETROLEUM companies have hiked fuel prices in Harare amid reports that
reserves have dwindled due to panic buying by motorists in response to
indications that imminent shortages are looming.
Petroleum Marketers Association of Zimbabwe (PMZ) president Gordon Musarira
this week expressed ignorance of the shortages despite the re-emergence of
winding queues in the few outlets that had supplies.
However, a survey carried out by The Business Mirror in the city centre on
Thursday showed that most fuel outlets had run out of petrol with only two
of them selling diesel.
Motorists swum the Fourth Street Engen service station, the only outlet that
had both petrol and diesel where at least half a kilometre long queue
formed stretching from Fourth Street into Robert Mugabe.
Out of 10 other service stations visited, officials said fuel supplies had
suddenly disappeared in the past week and were in a quandary as to when
supplies would resume. Managers at most outlets said they suspected that suppliers were holding on to stocks in anticipation of price adjustments, pointing out that the nation
could be bracing for a fresh round of astronomical hikes."
Source: Zimbabwe Situation
|
Across the world the cartels are plying their trade, masking their activities behind the curtains of war, acts of God and calamity and the greed of despots and the
corporate person,
an entity that has no soul.
"The world-wide rise in fuel prices was at first a blessing to Arab nations and their citizens. Until now. For the first time in 25 years there was real panic on the streets. The night before Black Thursday, the 1st of September, saw residents of Dubai rush in vehicles of of all shapes and sizes to the nearest petrol pump before fuel prices increased. Traffic came to a standstill for several kilometres around petrol stations as everyone tried to obtain that low price just one last time.
For the first time in 25 years the price of petrol (or gasoline) increased from 4.75Dhs (USD1.29)a gallon to 6.25 Dhs (USD1.70). Before Katrina hit and raised prices in North America, Black Thursday saw petrol prices rise in an area that had taken the oil for granted to the extent that the next day saw several SUVs up for sale. A price change like this would not be unusual in Canada or the US, but for the inhabitants of a country like the United Arab Emirates, where petrol has remained a steady and reliable commodity for so long, it is a crisis.
Source: By Isaac Oommen, Guerrilla News Network
Enron, the Australian Wheat Board, World Com, and every other example of corruption, will continue, until such time we as citizens take control of our democracy and say very clearly to the politicians, and the executives, you will not donate money to political campaigns, you will not hide from us the manner of your ways or if you do you will not be allowed to hold down your jpb. The agencies, law enforcement, the competition watch dogs and so on are the tools and agencies of the people not the politicians. In Australia the governments of the day are dictating to the agencies and to the public servants what they will, and will not, reveal or do in the public interest. Every government in Australia is in some way corrupting our democracy. Is this any different to the rest of the world? IN Victoria the Bracks labor state government employs well over 700 people working on the public payroll in "spin" communications and spends another $100,000,00 on false, misleading and unproductive, advertising. This is but one of eight governments in the nation that engages in this questionable activity. They copied the models, and practices, from corporations. It is effectively the "cartel model, of politics and government" under the control of the duopoly of Australian politics, the labor and liberal parties.
A selection of Australia's emperors are appearing before the
Cole Enquiry.
One can follow the
lapses of memory of the senior executives of very big and prestigious companies. But far more enlightening
are the lapses of memory and selective responsibilities
of
senior Minister of the Australian government.
They decide what parts, and what level of responsibility, they will comply with
in federal legislation about the responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown.
Seven years ago BHP (before it merged with Billiton)
sent a $5,000,000 wheat shipment to Iraq. They were told by the Department of Foreign Affairs that the wheat must be a donation.
Ignoring the advice (perhaps direction) of the federal department the BHP management proceeded to treat it as a debt. They took steps to recover it with interest.
In doing so they showed their contempt for the public service, for the government of the nation and for law and ethical management. They corroded and tarnished BHP's image for in their belief system,
arrogance and limited world of accountability, they are the owners of BHP not the
shareholders. They are beyond the law and if caught will lie to escape judgement.
In many respects the governments of Australia generates this contempt, by business and the corporate world,
through their own questionable ethics, practices and examples. These BHP executives showed contempt for the rule of
international law and for the people, around the world, people working hard for the people of Iraq. Greed and power.
The executives of BHP who participated in this unethical behaviour should be dismissed from Billiton BHP forthwith.
If they are gone then they and anyone still there, with knowledge of this, should be
individually prosecuted, and hopefully jailed, for their contempt. The perpetrators should be banned from working in any company, within Australia, and any
that has dealings in international trade even to the [point of being banned from working internationally by a United Nation's sanction or an international tribunal.
They should be shunned for their actions as stewards of one of the world's largest corporations.
Since their memories are so bad, and their moral compasses out of whack, they should be referred for psychiatric counselling and treatment for public interest dysfunctionality.
Paul Lennon is the labor premier of Tasmania, in Australia. There is some basis for asserting that he should not be in a parliament in Australia.
He became premier through the death of Jim Bacon. He is now facing an election (March 2006).
The people of Tasmania have rarely experienced quality, ethical governance. It is a small island state, with limited working population and a small bureaucracy.
Such is the economy and political landscape that it is difficult to avoid nepotism, conflict of interest and breaches of
law and morality
that
does not plague the other Australian states to the same extent. The merging of
public and corporate interest
is common place (under labor and liberal governments) in Tasmania as if they are synonymous.
This is largely due to the size of the economy but also the attitudes and quality of
executives (government and corporate)
.
Paul Lennon however has taken conflict of interest and slip siding on the ethical slope to a new dimension.
He has been captured, by the media, accepting largesse (gifts, in the form of favourable accommodation and other services) from Melbourne's Crown Casino whilst personally negotiating, approving, signing and licensing
a
$700M gambling deal with BetFair and PBL.
He did this in the face of opposition from every other state
that had refused to issue Betfair and PBL a license.
He fobbed off the question of ethics and as is usual became aggressive and belligerent.
He simply ignored the arguments put by other states who had refused the license.
"Later, Harry told
The Mercury
there was a bad, second-rate and sleazy smell about the Government's
dealings with Gunns, Federal Hotels and now Betfair.
It all gives the appearance that this place is up for sale to
the highest bidder and that money talks." (Tasmanian Times, archives)
A similar thuggish response emanated from him when questioned about funds flowing to his
brother's business
from departments for which Lennon has responsibility.
The Auditor General gave him a
clean card
stating there was
no impropriety. The Auditor General's audit was less than thorough. Paul Lennon, and his brother, deem it unnecessary to answer questions about the allocation of public monies. He has publicly endorsed his brother's company whilst offering no similar endorsement to
other businesses. One may assume that the premier is available for product and service endorsements of anyone should ask.
Paul Lennon is not one of Australia's stellar political figures and will upon retirement from parliament fade into obscurity. Unfortunately for Tasmania and the
quality of governance in Australia, it may not be at this coming election. Yet on balance he should be turfed out.
And so it goes. Corruption of Australia's ethics is in large part
administered by our governments. People who take an oath to serve the public interest. Here is Queensland's contribution.
"Mr. Clare gave
evidence
that governments of both political persuasions in the
period of his tenure from 1997 (initially the Borbidge Coalition Government and
then the successive Beattie Labor Governments) abused the Cabinet process in
order to avoid information deemed sensitive or politically embarrassing falling
into the public arena. This was because s36 of the Freedom of Information Act
1992 provided for an exemption from Freedom of Information disclosure of
documents which, in effect, were submitted to Cabinet.(558 Exhibit 387; T6075-T6088,
Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of
Inquiry Report
Mr. Clare gave evidence that, during the period of the Borbidge Coalition
Government he procured a 'fridge trolley' in order to deliver and retrieve
documents associated with Cabinet submissions which collected surgery waiting
lists in Queensland public hospitals. In response to a Freedom of Information
application which had been lodged seeking hospital waiting list documents.559
In this way that Government concealed from the public the surgery list.
Following the election of the Beattie Labor Government in 1998, Mr. Clare said
the remitting of such waiting lists to Cabinet was continued and formalised by
the inclusion of the same on Queensland Health's 'Cabinet Forward Timetable'.
6.533 Mr. Clare said that, on a number of occasions, his instructions were received, in
relation to this issue, from Dr Stable. It was plain that Mr. Clare inferred that Dr
Stable was responsible for submitting waiting list information to Cabinet.
6.534 Dr Stable gave evidence that the decision was a political one made by the
Minister and Cabinet of the day in a conscious endeavour to engage the
Freedom of Information exemption.560 I accept Dr Stable's evidence in this
regard.
Below when dealing separately with the conduct of former Minister Edmond, I
again address this issue of waiting lists. Her conduct, consisting of a campaign
by press release, was plainly undertaken with the full knowledge of Cabinet.
All this reflects poorly on the politicians involved in the stewardship of
Queensland Health. There was a bipartisan (in the pejorative sense) approach
to concealing from public gaze the full waiting list information. Only the (shorter)
surgery list was published from 1998."
All of this, and more has come to light when one nurse spoke out because she could no longer stand by and watch
people suffer, and die.
Then what did the bureaucrats, doctors, managers and politicians do to her? They ridiculed her, humiliated her, abused her and punished her.
What did the people of the state do? They re-elected the Ministers and the Premier and the government. In 2006 who is fixing the broken, and dangerous, system of public health in Queensland?
You already know the answer. The people who created it, ran it and degraded it, less a few embarrassing ones.
Australia has been developing a long history of unethical and seriously flawed politics and governance.
|
In the early days of John Howard's government he lost several ministers and parliamentary secretaries to
breaches of codes of behaviour and ethics.
It varied from conflicts of interest, non declaration of interests and travel expenses rorts. Yet nothing much changes in the government of John Howard.
Ethics and standards are not high on his list of ministerial and parliamentary members performance criteria.
Within Australia's parliamentary frameworks is a declaration register of interests.
This register has existed, and been focused on, by the media and the parliamentary question time,for decades.
You might think it is a vital part of the honesty, and integrity, of
Australia's parliamentary process and democracy. It is supposed to demonstrate that parliamentarians are free from conflict and self interest.
Think again. All Australian parliamentarians seem to treat the register as a joke.
The former leader of the federal National Party, former Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Transport, John Anderson, tells us that he forgot to complete the register when he sold his shares in the
Australian Wheat Board (AWB)
a few weeks ago (February 2006).
This is particularly relevant when you read the material about AWB below. There is a Royal Commission into AWB and the payment of bribes to Suddam Hussein in violation of
international laws and United Nations sanctions. Testimony at the AWB occasion like that of leading people in Enron, One Tel, HIH Insurance and any other
public scandal revolves around loss of memory, forgot and being deaf or unable to read due to a disability. Anderson is in good company since James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch also suffer from forgetting.
AWB shares have crashed. How convenient for John he sold them and therefore he cuts links with an embarrassing company.
John Anderson simply forgot. Australia's wheat trade is in crisis and the government is under fire, the media are prowling and Anderson simply forgot.
AWB is obviously not a big issue for this man who is semi- retirement looking forward to the public pension whilst being casual about important ethical issues and practices.
There is no mechanism in place in the federal parliament despite all of the past history that this register has.
There has been no system put in place despite the appearance of corruption of members of parliament who always seem to forget.
Why is there no system? Because to have one might actually expose these people to registering actions
enabling anyone who wanted to look at the register at an inconvenient time.
Rather than accept that John forgot, why would we not lump him in with the opportunistic hypocrites,
who demand standards and compliance by public servants, by companies, by Directors, by citizens.
Complaince from everyone except their own kind, Prime Minister Howard will chastise him in the parliament and that will be it.
Many Australian politicians are in a class that we might label the "weasels, and stoats", a term I have borrowed from the famous literature works, "Wind in the Willows" or
on this occasion, John, to use an Australian colloquialism, "blow the excuse out from where all hot air tends to come".
Then a mere matter of weeks later we learn that more senior Howard government ministers have failed to register their interest, among them the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Alexander
Downer. The Prime Minister in usual style, has dismissed this as trifling. As the Prime Minister, and senior members of Australia's government, travel the world and
negotiate trade deals and other ventures, is it that they deal only with like minded people? Those whose moral and ethical compass
is skewed and bent like John Howard and a number of his Ministers? What happens when ethical people have to deal with these politicians? Do they feel nauseous?
Why are ethics almost non existent in Australia's governments and corporations? Apart from the fact that the electroral system is rigged by the duopoly,
and the same bunch of directors control the major company board rooms,
politicians love inanimate objects. Things that have no heart and soul, like markets.
Australia's governments, politicians and corporate leaders are besotted with economy and the
narrow short term objectives of profit. Intertwined is a growth in greed, personal interests and a hollowing out of Australia's
ethical core. There are few, if any Australian society, leaders who can claim the high moral ground legitimately.
Political and corporate spin practitioners are whispering in the ears of the powerful.
and hundreds upon hundreds of millions of shareholder and public dollars are spent, by them, without authority or accountability
Every day we see examples of
corruption and corrosion of values.
The greater number of uneducated, uncaring and apathetic public, are
held spell bound by trinkets and consumption, engrossed in their own problems and individual self interest.
The nation's ethical soul has shriveled and perhaps died.
|
Questions of legitimacy and consistency
The
Cole enquiry
into the payment of bribes to Suddam Hussein's regime for wheat shipments raises a number of questions,
and issues, well beyond the pragmatics of how world trade works.
- Australia donated well over $1,000,000,000 to Asian governments for the
tsunami. When it was discovered that our aid was being creamed off by political and
business interests we were incensed. The Australian government has long argued that our aid is being misused. Yet when Australian commercial entities behave unethically, and engage, in
greasing the palms of the business and political interests of other countries, to further our international trade, that is the way business is done.
It is justifiable lest we lose trade and future business. People, justifying trade at whatever price, will tell us that only fools try and set an example in being ethical if it costs. Why did the Australian government sign the international agreements, and legislate, to outlaw bribery and corruption if it intends to ignore the laws? What respect do Australians have for their signed agreements and their laws? Apparently only where it is convenient for them and where they are not required to adhere to any hard moral action that might prove costly. What value do we place on ethics, on democracy and on our strength of character? Are these the values to which the Australian politicians refer when they lecture us and pontificate? If so we seem to be lacking in them, quite substantially. What values will we impart to immigrants who want to become citizens? The four most valuable that we hold dear and which our governments continually teach us and reinforce by word and action, their own tenets self interest, greed, expediency and money. These we understand and lovingly embrace.
- The Australian government has made security and the war against terror a platform of their
superior performance in government. If that is the case why would they ignore warnings on this issue from the United Nations, the United States Congress, Canadian Wheat Board
and others? The payment of $300M contravenes the international strategy, and complementary legislation by Australia,
to track, and stop, the funding of terrorists and money laundering
- The competency of the administration of the Australian government, the actions of the Attorney General, Ministry and Department, particularly in relation to the tacit and blind acceptance of American hegemony, David Hicks incarcerated in Gauntanamo Bay Cub. The administration of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry and Department particularly in relation to the Australian Wheat Board and responsibilities to the United Nations.
- Why have legislation, in Australia,
that makes the payment of bribes a criminal offence if an acceptable justification is
to be a pragmatic," that is how things are done and it is okay?"
- Why have ethical
codes of conduct,
standards for corporations and legislation?
- What is the impact, on the quality and outcomes of our democracy, of unelected
political advisers, and senior public servants, second guessing Ministers and deciding what Ministers, governments and the
public should know.
- Senator Coleman from Minnesota, in the USA, is angry that Australia's former ambassador
influenced him to cease an investigation into the payment of bribes by Australian wheat interests.
The US is dribbling on about charging Australian business interests, and other people, with breaking US laws.
Is the Honourable Senator willing to
investigate his own country's corporate, and political interests, so assiduously? Do members of the
US Congress think that thinking people, in the USA and around the world, are not aware of US hypocrisy, and sanctimonious,
harping and lecturing? Many in the US seem to occupy a unique universe of their own fantasy.
Hypocrisy and Cant
Extract from the
web site of AWB.
"Corporate Ethics and Code of Conduct."
"The Boards of AWB Limited and AWB (International)
Limited are committed to clearly promoting and demonstrating
that their business affairs and operations are at all times
being conducted legally, ethically and in accordance with the
highest standards of integrity and propriety. The AWB Code of
Conduct policy is based on this principle
and its observance provides the foundation on which the Company's
reputation with growers, customers, suppliers and stakeholders is based.
The Code of Conduct policy sets out the values,
responsibilities and obligations of all Board
members and all people employed, contracted by,
associated with or acting on behalf of the AWB Group."
View AWB's
Corporate Ethics and Code of Conduct Policy (PDF 205 Kb)
Updated August, 2005
The Australian Wheat Board (AWB), and management,
more than adequately demonstrate the decline in corporate ethics, and standards, in Australia.
Prime Minister John Howard government is again caught in a spotlight of reality and exposed as the Emperor who has no clothes. The role of the Australian government, Australian Public Service Departments, the Australian Wheat Board, Billiton BHP and other Australian companies
in the scandal of the
Food for Oil programme in Iraq
is yet another example of the corrosion of Australia's reputation and values by leaders of this nation. The Australian government
under the pressure of exposure by the US Congress and
United Nations
has, under duress, established an enquiry with the powers of a Royal
Commission. The government has deliberately, in a manner calculate to isolate it from the fall out, has limited the terms of reference.
However the Australian government of John Howard has a solid reputation of lies, misrepresentation, bordering on fraud (altering pictures and documents) and denigrating
the parliament and the peoples' democracy. This episode is more icing on a corrupt cake.
Senior legal counsel assisting
Commissioner Cole,
has queried whether the Managing Director of AWB is a fool?
Time after time, under questioning,
controversial Managing Director, Andrew Lindberg,
stated that he could not remember specifics and he
continually refused to give direct answers.
This virus seems to spread rapidly amongst people, of (self perceived) elite status, when put on a witness stand.
Like
Mr. Lachlan Murdoch,
and
Mr. James Packer,
appearing in an Australian court on the
collapse of One Tel telephone company, Mr. Lindberg has memory loss. He cannot remember the details of major transactions and contracts
particularly the dynamic Iraq contract which had international ramifications due to United Nations sanctions
and Australia's involvement in the invasion and war.
Another senior manager of AWB has stated that it was normal business practice, for all companies, to
pay bribes to do business.
Other major companies such as Billiton - BHP have been implicated along with many more. He also stated that
he was not aware that Australia was a signatory on the international convention against paying bribes. He was not aware that it was illegal to
breach United Nation published sanctions on the food for oil agreement for Iraq. He was not aware of any ethical issues, he was not aware, not aware, not aware...why are these managers employed when there are
son many competent people without work who could do a better job?
In the wider
wheat farming community,
it was well known that AWB was paying bribes.
"Farmers well aware of wheat kickbacks, COMMENT: Caroline Overington, the Australian Newspaper,
January 16, 2006. "
ASK any Australian wheat farmer whether they were surprised to
hear Saddam Hussein was taking a cut of Australian wheat contracts,
and they would likely say: "No, that sounds about right to me".
The Board, and management, have been
described as arrogant, untrustworthy, focused on profit and their own self interest and benefits (bonus payments) and their actions
are damaging farmers.
AWB was a publicly owned government enterprise when John Howard, and the national - liberal coalition, came to power. It was transferred into a corporation and given a monopoly to trade wheat through a single desk operation.
The company's constitution shields the Directors from shareholder, and public scrutiny, and pressure due to a complicated tier share voting system. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, Agriculture (formerly Warren Truss and now peter McGauran) and Trade,
Mark Vaile, along with the Departmental Secretaries and senior managers of Departments involved in wheat seem to have either had their heads in the sand, or to be have been derelict in their duty
or perhaps complicit in corruption. Regardless this is another extreme example of the incompetence of the administration under John Howard and his hand picked Ministers and senior staff.
Officers of the Australian government department traveled to Iraq with AWB when the politics of war threatened the wheat contracts.
Politicians, and senior bureaucrats claim that they had no knowledge of the payment of around $AUD300, 000,000 in bribes. What were they doing when AWB negotiated with Suddam Hussein's Ministers of government?
Why were they there? It beggars belief that they were not aware. What was
Alexander Downer being told
in regular meetings with AWB executives, and senior bureaucrats, about the problem of
possibly losing wheat contracts?
The Prime Minister trots out his standard, tarnished line, which he has used hundreds of time since becoming Prime Minister, "I was not told!", "I was not aware!"
The record, in office and the number of scandals, financial losses and waste within departments and squandering of public money,
implies that he is as incompetent, and derelict, in his public duty, and leadership ethics, as the people exposed in the Cole Enquiry.
Everyday there are
examples
of members of the Australian government and major Australian corporations engaging in
lies,
a lack of ethical standards and
cover ups
and demonstrations of poor values and
competency. As personified by the media, John Howard, is definitely average and so are many of our corporate, and institutional, leaders and managers.
The economy is going gang busters, profits in companies are up and the citizens are collecting the eggs laid by the geese.
John Howard, his Ministers and Australia's senior federal bureaucrats, are
obviously held in high regard,
by thinking Australians
enamoured with the
quality and operation
of our democracy.
Australian Greens Senator
Rachel Siewert
in Perth, on 21st January, 2006, said, "The Government could confiscate AWB profits if Iraqi payments are found to be bribery if the Cole inquiry finds that AWB illegally
paid $300 million to Saddam's regime to ensure AWB could sell billions of dollars of wheat, then the Commonwealth might
confiscate profits from the wheat sales under the Proceeds of Crime Act. This could potentially
add up to hundreds of millions of dollars of profit - at the expense of a UN humanitarian aid program."
Under the Criminal Code (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Act of 1999 it
is an offence to pay or provide benefit to a person in an effort to influence a public official (including contractors and intermediaries) in order to retain business or retain a business advantage.
The Government needs to determine if 'compensation payments' and fees paid to
Jordanian intermediaries qualify as bribes to foreign officials under the Criminal Code,
The UN program was set up to ensure that food could get through to the Iraqi people in danger
of starvation in the face of UN sanctions aimed at preventing Hussein's
regime from buying weapons of mass destruction." For more information or comment call Chris Twomey 61 0 407 725 025 or email: senator.siewert@aph.gov.au
|
The ethics and the activities of politicians, government executive members, corporate board members and executives in Australia
and elsewhere in the developed world.
Telstra senior management join ethical desert
In the week of December 15, 2005, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) completed an investigation of
Telstra's market disclosure procedures and their behaviour. It found Telstra engaged in unacceptable conduct but decided not to fine or
prosecute Australia's largest corporation.
Immediately Telstra Company Secretary, Douglas Gration, told the media, and thus the market, that
Telstra had done nothing wrong. Private manipulated briefings to certain parties and non disclosure of that information to the market as a whole is okay by him and the Board.
He was confident that the company had abided by the regulatory provisions. So why have the ASIC investigation at all? Telstra has shown contempt for the government, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, its shareholders and its customers.
Telstra has lost billions in investments and poor judgement and the corporation has been poorly managed, and operated, for the past ten years culminating in a devaluation approaching $14 billion.
Its share price is around half of its last major tranche issue. In Mr. Gration's world it is all okay of his statement is taken as reflection of what he sees as
benchmark standards and practices. The response from Telstra is typical of the modern day, arrogant approach of people who are besotted by the
power of large corporations and their positions within them.
There has been much debate about ASIC's decisions and approaches to regulating market behaviour
by publicly listed companies. The Telstra Company Secretary basically told the Chairman of ASIC, Mr. Lucy, that he and the
government regulatory body are irrelevant and he does not care what they find or what they perceive
about the behaviour of the company for which, in this case, he is responsible as Company Secretary.
The Australian government under John Howard, and his senior ministers, has denigrated and degraded public administration particularly in the area of
in the rea of integrity and ethics. Economics always puts its soulless objectives before the intangible values. The Australian government are first, foremost and lastly,
political economists. The Treasurer Peter Costello, Finance Minister Nick Minchin and the Telecommunications Minister, Helen Coonan, have nothing to say.
This is typical because to respond on a matter of ethics, and integrity, raises
questions about the government's moral compass and the conflicts of interests its
policies continually generate.
In the absence of government leadership on these vital elements of our society, people
like Mr. Lucy, in high public office, should fill the void and give the corporate world leadership to envy and aspire to.
|
We were told another porky
Ten days before the Australian federal election of 2004 the Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, made a solemn promise that
about the government's plans for the location of a low waste level nuclear dump. He stated categorically that it would not be on
Australian soil. He said, "the only options we are pursuing are on off shore islands. I think the reality of this
is that there is no one on the mainland who particularly wants
a nuclear waste dump in their backyard and that is why we are pursuing the practical option of going to an off shore island, so that the
Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute categorical assurance."
(Quote from source Australian Financial Review: Friday 18 November, 2005).
The government was concerned that it would lose two federal liberal - country party member
seats in the Northern Territory.
In July 2005, Education and Science Minister, Dr. Brendan Nelson, announced that the government
had shortlisted
three potential sites
in the Northern Territory.
I have a perception that morality, conscience, responsibility,
ethics and accountability
have taken a back seat to
expediency and self interest in society particularly in politics, government and
business.
Safeway fined $9m for price-fixing
PM - Tuesday, 31 January , 2006, 18:45:00
Reporter: Peter Ryan
The Australian supermarket giant Safeway has been fined
almost $9 million for price-fixing and misusing its market power in the bread market.
After what's been a long-running case, the Federal Court found Safeway's
misuse of its market power against other retailers was anti - competitive.
Justice Alan Goldberg ruled that Safeway had arranged for the
price of bread to be fixed at the Tip Top bakery store in Melbourne's
Preston Market in April last year."
Extract from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Safeway is owned by Woolworths, one of two largest supermarket retail chains in Australia. Safeway acted to damage competitor (small and medium) businesses.
"those I abhore are the unprincipled men
who use unethical means to obtain undue profits they hoard currency or
commodities to force the value up, or they dominate the markets to
rob the commoners of their profit, or they encroach on
others' land destroying the livelihood of the orphan or the
weak, or they wander from one government office to another to
look for profits to be made I will have nothing to do with such people."
-
In business, ethics may be 'incidental.
-
The underlying problem is community standards.
-
When survival is the issue, ethics may be 'suspended'.
-
Is greed good, bad or 'natural'?
-
The quality of personal relationships (with customers and employees) is regarded as a symptom of corporate ethics.
-
The person at the top is crucial.
-
Corporate ethics have a direct impact on our lives.
Extract from a speech by Simon Longstaff on Business Ethics
St. James ethics centre, Australia
These statements, and questions, apply equally to the state of Australia's politics and
governments.
A high profile internationally recognised executive, who runs major public corporations, appears
in a court case examining the billion dollar collapse of a company of which he was a Director when it collapsed:
"He then went on to say that he
couldn't remember anything ...."
There is a lack of integrity, and spine, in so man people at every level of
society. Codes of conduct in the
Australian parliaments
and the politicisation of our
public services
may be nothing more than hollow documents designed to imply a situation that in reality does not exist.
The governments of Australia preside over
departments of the public service
whose in competency, inter alia, can result in Australians being jailed (as illegal immigrants) and deported, jailed on the
presumption they are illegal. They can be tortured mentally for years, branded and treated with contempt, in defiance of
international law, conventions and human decency.
The disadvantaged (aboriginals, the mentally ill and the handicapped) in our communities are left to their own
devices and bitter existence, whilst the politicians,
and the public servants and consultants draw the salaries
and swan through life without a care. There is purportedly a link between
ethics and performance,
which implies that
decline in performance might mirror a decline in ethics.
They have enquiries and then the relevant government, federal, state or territory,
says that
there needs to be changes in the law or administrative procedures.
No one takes responsibility and no one
loses their job or their livelihood. Is there such a thing as
legislative ethics?
Can we expect the general population to engage with ethics when our political leaders, and Ministers of the Crown, are
such poor role models.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted, and lost, on
ministerial incompetence
and substandard
administration,
compounded by
errors of judgement,
poor governance and lousy public
policy,
and a decline in
ministerial responsibility
in a system
wasting billions.
|
In the case of the Australian Wheat Board set out above, no one is responsible or guilty of anything.
It is all a misunderstanding, a lack of awareness, a lack of knowledge and ignorance of the law and ethics.
It is all about achieving the objective at any price.
The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) was a federal government statutory authority trading Australia's wheat. One of its major contracts
was within the food for oil programme to Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations.
AWB freighted its wheat overland in Iraq using a Jordanian company, partly owned
by the Iraqi government of
Suddam Hussien. Hussein siphoned off billions in the food for oil programme including
hundreds of millions paid by AWB using the Jordanian transport company.
AWB's response to this is that they did not know. That the transport contract was approved
by the United Nations. There was no
aforethought by AWB to check that all of its contracts were above board in terms of international compliance, m,omey laundering, funding of terrorists, in breach of sanctions.
None of that. It simply left that to the Foreign Affairs Department, which approved them under the Ministry of Alexander Downer.
It left these issues to the United Nations.
John Howard says it is not the government's problem because the government floated AWB on the
Australian Stock Exchange in 1999. This is a man, who in public office, conveniently side steps responsibility, where
that would cause him political, and personal, embarrassment or damage. How convenient for everyone, the AWB Board, their management, the Prime
Minister and the responsible federal Ministers. When it was in government control, the Prime Minister and the Ministers,
were conveniently unaware. Yet evidence before the Cole Enquiry implies otherwise.
It is always someone else's fault but no one is responsible or accountable. When fined $9M for price fixing,
Safeway put out a communication that it was something that happened ten years ago, that it had strenuously defended the claims, that it had advised all employees of their legal
obligations. This implies that it hand clean hands, that it was something not really of concern, not really damaging and
we should all forget it.
Governments in Australia, together with many corporations and other enterprises and institutions
adverse to telling the truth and engage in window dressing.
People who earn their living from such disreputable, and contemptuous means, spinning the truth and
altering facts and engaging in minimisation of the value of ethical and responsible behaviour really are contemptible. They damage society, the nation and its values.
|
Many Australian, and multinational companies large and small cut
corners, as evidenced by the above example. Many mislead with false labelling and descriptions, they
breach consumer and trade practices laws, willing to risk it until they are caught,
every day across Australia as
standards decline.
Prominent
people in business engage in criminal activity,
fraud and questionable activities,
misusing their positions. Regulatory agencies are selective in who they prosecute and are
politically manipulated by legislation that shackles them.
On November 12, 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper reported (page 44) that "directors at the majority of Australia's bigger companies
are trading shares in breach of Australian Stock Exchange rules and the Corporations Act....Directors at 123 of Australia's top 200 companies
or sixty percent, failed in 2004 to meet ASX listing rules requiring them to notify the market of any change to their interests within five days".
The paper goes on to report how Directors of Australia's leading companies loaded up their personal share portfolios several months prior to
announcing takeovers and they traded in the "black out period" set by law between the results period and results announcement.
Source: BT's Governance Advisory Service Report (Erik Mather) prepared for the Public Sector and Commonwealth Super Scheme, Catholic Super Fund,
Emergency Services Super Fund, Northern Territory and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme, Northern Territory Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme and VicSuper.)
Directors trade in breach of their own companies' policies and in breach of the law with impunity.
They are sure of their security and position because they are in powerful corporate empires protected by the collective system.
It is a simple matter to "buy politicians, and thus governments, of all colour" through party donations, largesse, patronage and personal favours.
What politician in a major political party can resist the lure of an overseas study trip, a front seat at the Australian Grand Prix, the football final, the Melbourne Cup and Spring Racing Carnival?
And when their political careers are done what about a seat on the board or a consultancy?
For public servants, and former heads of senior politician's offices,
there are CEO and other management roles. Thus a long serving politician, public servant or political hack, can double dip and get two or more income sources. One from their public pension and the other from their new jobs.
The executives of companies cannot be jailed, in Australia, for collusive behaviour to rig markets and for trade practices breaches. They can be fined.
In cases where individuals have been fined, or jailed for insider share trading,
they continue with their business activities, even in jail and admit
little, if any, guilt. They appear to remain rich and comfortable.
Australia's iconic organisations,
banks,
institutions,
universities,
and publicly listed companies,
have been the homes of fraud, theft and
maladministration. Institutional share traders are more concerned with the value of their investments and their own
personal wealth interests than they are with ethics, morals and good citizenship or obeying the law.
They are consumed by the culture of greed and excess. Ordinary people, with just one or perhaps no job, may well wonder if the things above are examples of
blatant corruption or perhaps legitimised prostitution?
|
|
|
|
I'm in charge of the
