Skip to main content

How it pays to pay-up

Billionaire Richard Pratt is, it is reported, to plead guilty to breach of the Trade Practices Act. He will admit that he and his company, Visy Industries, engaged in conduct which probably resulted in all Australians paying more for their packaging.

The fine to be paid is said to be a record-breaking $40 million dollars. One would have thought that Pratt, despite all his money and with his company already having seriously breached the Trade Practices Act once before, would be somewhat on the nose. Oh no! The Australian PM and his Treasurer haven't taken that position at all - evidently if there is a substantial donor ["investor"?] to the Liberal Party - as Mike Carlton puts into context in his weekly column in the SMH:

"A quick trawl through the files of the Australian Electoral Commission reveals that the price-fixing Melbourne cardboard tycoon, Dick Pratt, has donated more than $1.6 million to various bits of the Liberal Party since 1999.

Most of this largesse went to the party's federal headquarters. Some went to the Free Enterprise Foundation, a Liberal Party front outfit, and some to the state divisions. Throw in handouts to the National Party and the figure heads towards $2 million.

No other individual or company has stumped up so much for the conservative cause. And Pratt might well have splashed out even more in this election year; the declarations for 2007 are not in yet.

Perhaps it was this lavish lubricating of the wheels of democracy that prompted the Prime Minister to rush to the crooked old mogul's defence on Tuesday.

Pratt was a generous Australian and a good citizen, he gushed. "My own dealings with him have always been very positive, and I like him."

How very loyal. Yet Pratt's private company, Visy, and its main competitor, Amcor, were engaged in a cartel (for cartel read racket) to rort prices in the cardboard packaging business, an industry turning over some $2 billion a year."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...