Ditch the training
The fact that KPMG is teaching ethics to top public servants is risible enough (Jason Koutsoukis, “Exclusive: KPMG takes $1.3m to teach public servants ethics”, June 27–July 3), but why do officials in high office even need a course in ethics? After all, these are highly educated people who occupy positions of great responsibility. Requiring them to undertake ethics training is tacit admission that the vetting process is totally inadequate. And what happens when ethically bankrupt people are appointed to top positions, such as those uncovered by the robodebt inquiry? It’s clear that no amount of training would lead them to an ethical epiphany. My advice is to ditch ethics training and improve the processes by which public servants are appointed.
– David Clarke, Battery Point, Tas
Fox tittle-tattle
The story about the Fox family (Ben Butler, “You are passing another feud”, June 27–July 3) is largely a potpourri of unsourced assertions and tittle-tattle. Disputes and differences in family businesses are not uncommon. What is disturbing about the so-called investigation is that much of it is untrue. More fundamentally, it mixes two separate stories: alleged family disruption and the Armaguard negotiations. Let’s be clear about the position of Armaguard, of which I remain a director: there is no Fox family division about the objectives or functionality of Armaguard. Peter Fox remains chair of Armaguard with the support and blessing of Lindsay Fox and major shareholder Prosegur. Armaguard is viable and profitable. The past financial problems, according to independently commissioned inquiries, were almost entirely due to the savage price reductions given and taken by the six largest customers. It is true that work on an independent pricing mechanism has taken longer than expected, but it is not a price fix between Armaguard and eight customers – all customers have to be consulted. In any event, the independent report is ready to be lodged and we will be talking to as many customers as possible. Those discussions are within the terms of our commitment to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The story is not about the Fox family. It is about the transformation of the industry, adaptation to change and the role of banks, governments and regulatory bodies. But even then, it will not be a simple B-grade western where there are goodies and baddies.
– Bill Kelty, director, Armaguard
Tripartite rebuttal
Professor John Hewson (“The value of our institutions”, June 27–July 3) claims I was the head of the Institute of Public Affairs, the head of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and that I called for the commission to be abolished. All three are false. I was a policy director of the Institute of Public Affairs; the head is the executive director. I was Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner; by law the head is the president of the commission. Nor did I call for the abolition of the commission. On my appointment, the then shadow attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, attributed the comments of others calling for the abolition of the commission to myself. Dreyfus should know continual propagation of a lie might make it believable, but it will never be true. That’s in comparison to his tenure as attorney-general. Dreyfus left the office of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner vacant (which is why I was appointed) and tried to pass laws that would have abolished the office. He did so at the very same time the Gillard government was locking asylum seeker children in detention and denying them an education. Not company I would want to be associated with.
– Tim Wilson, Liberal member for Goldstein, Vic
Collective mission
Missing from Andrew Leigh’s article (“Charity in a scratchy age”, June 27–July 3) enjoining us to volunteer, participate in local groups and donate to charities, is a recognition of the dominant logic of the neoliberal capitalist order that militates against such activities and promotes individualism rather than collectivity. Successive governments have adopted a hegemonic order that normalises and perpetuates inequality, precarity, inadequate social supports, and an ethic of individual aspiration and competition rather than fostering community, care and solidarity. Leigh locates responsibility for our “scratchy age” at the level of the individual rather than recognising the government’s role in sustaining conditions that run counter to the neighbourly, participatory community that he advocates. A government committed to a fairer, more egalitarian society that nurtured human flourishing – and was built on care of all its people and the environment – would create the conditions for the more cohesive, participatory society Leigh champions.
– Angela Smith, Clifton Hill, Vic