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. Shpping 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 |
|
