Opinion Commentary & Media VI

[Makeshift Park]

The constitution does discriminate against indigenous people by its very existence.

Its quite puzzling why anyone would argue otherwise tbh.

Section 25 of the constitution literally deals with disqualifying certain people from voting in elections on the basis of their race.

The fact that that provision is unlikely to be used these days, thanks to the racial discrimination act, doesn't make it any less racist.

But yes, can we please get these posts related to The Voice moved to its own standalone thread?

 

[Hojuman]

For those who wanted a chaser after watching Carlton's misfortunes last night.

Former PwC boss Luke Sayers has questions to answer on tax scandal​

​

Spoiler: By Deborah O'Neill

May 26, 2023 — 3.29pm


Many Australians don’t read the financial sections of the papers or pay attention to the detail of what’s played out in a financial world so far away from their own family budgeting.

Let’s face it: there’s a whole economics-discourse gap that makes financial literacy a challenge, and not everyone is into the jargon or the detail. But even at such a distance from the financial service sector, knowledge of the scale of the ethical and moral failure at PwC is leaking into the broader community.

​

Finance secretary Jenny Wilkinson says the department was kept in the dark over the extent of the breaches of confidentiality by staff at PWC.
People know it’s something to do with tax and big tech companies not paying their fair share, and a bloke who took confidential information from Australian citizens and used it to make money.
When a senior partner at PwC, Peter Collins, signed three separate confidentiality agreements with the Australian government between 2013 and 2018, he knew what he was doing. He was inside the tent; he had access to confidential information about Australian tax laws being designed to ensure big multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

He sat in meetings with Australian Treasury officials and shared his considerable knowledge about tax law to assist in the effective design of Australian law. But then he went back to PwC Australia and PwC Global and – with the support of PwC colleagues in the US, UK, Singapore, Ireland, and Europe – unethically and collaboratively designed a scheme to profit himself, his colleagues and all the partners in the firm.

PwC attempted to enable major international companies, the names of which I intend to ensure are revealed, to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That is money straight from the pockets of hard-working Australians. The actions of PwC were a direct assault on our nation’s capacity to fund our schools, hospitals and public services – and in that way was a direct assault on every Australian citizen.

Let’s be clear about this: once Collins had the intelligence about what the Australian government was doing on the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Legislation (MAAL), he took it back to PwC to share with colleagues. And share it he did – far and wide across the PwC Australia and Global network. Together with others at PwC, Collins became the central cog in the machine being actively constructed inside PwC to turn confidential knowledge into a product for PwC to flog off to the same multinationals who were trying to minimise the amount of tax they pay in Australia.

The very first time that sharing of confidential material and insights was suggested was the moment PwC should have pounced on Collins and sacked him for multiple breaches of ethical boundaries. The moment of opportunity to do the right thing was lost. What occurred is matter of historical fact: there is a now public cache of communications between Collins and at least 53 different redacted PwC email addresses that fills 144 pages. It is truly shocking material.


A sample: “In total we expect (based on fee estimates that we have agreed with clients) that revenue from the first stage of the MAAL projects will be approximately $2.5 million.” That’s Collins in a PwC love-in that celebrated his deception and delighted in the anticipated flow of dollars into the PwC coffers.
Another: “Don’t circulate it beyond us or discuss it outside PwC – it would really put PwC Australia and me in a real bind.” Not only did Collins know he shouldn’t be sharing the confidential material with anyone, he knew it would be a big problem for everyone who facilitated the process he was leading. No one at PwC Australia or PwC Global stopped him.

Peter Collins, former international tax leader for PwC Australia.

The communications between PwC Australia and PwC Global extends from October 2014 to January 2017. In May 2016, so excited was PwC by the prospect of capturing the multinational tax avoidance market with the insider intel, it held a conference call for global tax partners.
Collins knew what he was doing. It breached the ethical and professional boundary he should have known and observed in spirit and practice. He was banned from practising for two years. But he was not alone and the emails he sent and received implicate many of his PwC colleagues.

All this occurred during the leadership in Australia of Luke Sayers, PwC’s then-CEO. He has questions to answer about the behaviour that took place on his watch. Tom Seymour, PwC’s head of tax at the time and later CEO of PwC Australia, has already stepped down. We’re told by PwC that he will retire in September, about the same time as the PwC internal review is expected to land. But what about all the others?

The Australian people deserve better from one of Australia’s biggest assurance companies. It’s time for PwC to face the music and to name the names of all involved. No delaying; no mucking around; no hiding any longer. Name the names. As the PwC saga continues, I think it’s time to call out the behaviour of a leadership team now in damage-control mode.

Deborah O’Neill is a Labor senator for NSW and chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

Special place in Barwon for *ricks like this.

Throw away the key and make an example of him.

 

[koshari]

For those who wanted a chaser after watching Carlton's misfortunes last night.

Former PwC boss Luke Sayers has questions to answer on tax scandal​

​

Spoiler: By Deborah O'Neill

May 26, 2023 — 3.29pm


Many Australians don’t read the financial sections of the papers or pay attention to the detail of what’s played out in a financial world so far away from their own family budgeting.

Let’s face it: there’s a whole economics-discourse gap that makes financial literacy a challenge, and not everyone is into the jargon or the detail. But even at such a distance from the financial service sector, knowledge of the scale of the ethical and moral failure at PwC is leaking into the broader community.

​

Finance secretary Jenny Wilkinson says the department was kept in the dark over the extent of the breaches of confidentiality by staff at PWC.
People know it’s something to do with tax and big tech companies not paying their fair share, and a bloke who took confidential information from Australian citizens and used it to make money.
When a senior partner at PwC, Peter Collins, signed three separate confidentiality agreements with the Australian government between 2013 and 2018, he knew what he was doing. He was inside the tent; he had access to confidential information about Australian tax laws being designed to ensure big multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

He sat in meetings with Australian Treasury officials and shared his considerable knowledge about tax law to assist in the effective design of Australian law. But then he went back to PwC Australia and PwC Global and – with the support of PwC colleagues in the US, UK, Singapore, Ireland, and Europe – unethically and collaboratively designed a scheme to profit himself, his colleagues and all the partners in the firm.

PwC attempted to enable major international companies, the names of which I intend to ensure are revealed, to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That is money straight from the pockets of hard-working Australians. The actions of PwC were a direct assault on our nation’s capacity to fund our schools, hospitals and public services – and in that way was a direct assault on every Australian citizen.

Let’s be clear about this: once Collins had the intelligence about what the Australian government was doing on the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Legislation (MAAL), he took it back to PwC to share with colleagues. And share it he did – far and wide across the PwC Australia and Global network. Together with others at PwC, Collins became the central cog in the machine being actively constructed inside PwC to turn confidential knowledge into a product for PwC to flog off to the same multinationals who were trying to minimise the amount of tax they pay in Australia.

The very first time that sharing of confidential material and insights was suggested was the moment PwC should have pounced on Collins and sacked him for multiple breaches of ethical boundaries. The moment of opportunity to do the right thing was lost. What occurred is matter of historical fact: there is a now public cache of communications between Collins and at least 53 different redacted PwC email addresses that fills 144 pages. It is truly shocking material.


A sample: “In total we expect (based on fee estimates that we have agreed with clients) that revenue from the first stage of the MAAL projects will be approximately $2.5 million.” That’s Collins in a PwC love-in that celebrated his deception and delighted in the anticipated flow of dollars into the PwC coffers.
Another: “Don’t circulate it beyond us or discuss it outside PwC – it would really put PwC Australia and me in a real bind.” Not only did Collins know he shouldn’t be sharing the confidential material with anyone, he knew it would be a big problem for everyone who facilitated the process he was leading. No one at PwC Australia or PwC Global stopped him.

Peter Collins, former international tax leader for PwC Australia.

The communications between PwC Australia and PwC Global extends from October 2014 to January 2017. In May 2016, so excited was PwC by the prospect of capturing the multinational tax avoidance market with the insider intel, it held a conference call for global tax partners.
Collins knew what he was doing. It breached the ethical and professional boundary he should have known and observed in spirit and practice. He was banned from practising for two years. But he was not alone and the emails he sent and received implicate many of his PwC colleagues.

All this occurred during the leadership in Australia of Luke Sayers, PwC’s then-CEO. He has questions to answer about the behaviour that took place on his watch. Tom Seymour, PwC’s head of tax at the time and later CEO of PwC Australia, has already stepped down. We’re told by PwC that he will retire in September, about the same time as the PwC internal review is expected to land. But what about all the others?

The Australian people deserve better from one of Australia’s biggest assurance companies. It’s time for PwC to face the music and to name the names of all involved. No delaying; no mucking around; no hiding any longer. Name the names. As the PwC saga continues, I think it’s time to call out the behaviour of a leadership team now in damage-control mode.

Deborah O’Neill is a Labor senator for NSW and chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

People reckon the unions have been screwing the Australian taxpayer ( and in some cases likely so) but the likes of Deloitte, Ernst & Young , PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and KPMG make them look like jaywalkers.

 

[Lomas]

People reckon the unions have been screwing the Australian taxpayer ( and in some cases likely so) but the likes of Deloitte, Ernst & Young , PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and KPMG make then look like jaywalkers.

Making out like bandits for years. Public service ‘head count’ down, overall costs up. The temp agencies made a killing over that number shuffle too

 

[QueenslandRoo]

Its quite puzzling why anyone would argue otherwise tbh.

Section 25 of the constitution literally deals with disqualifying certain people from voting in elections on the basis of their race.

The fact that that provision is unlikely to be used these days, thanks to the racial discrimination act, doesn't make it any less racist.

But yes, can we please get these posts related to The Voice moved to its own standalone thread?

Section 25 does not permit the disqualification of people from voting on the basis of race.

It accepts that, at the time of Federation, the states had the right to deny the vote, for their own Parliaments, to Aborigines.

The Commonwealth never had the power to prohibit the states from doing this because, had it insisted on such power, Queensland and Western Australia would likely not have joined the Federation.

The Constitution cannot be described as ‘permitting’ discrimination since it had no power to prevent it.

Section 25 could not even be described as accepting discrimination, since its intent was to eliminate discrimination.

The section begins by referencing Section 24 which sets out how many seats in Parliament a State is allowed. (It's on the basis of population).

So ... Section 25 makes clear that if States decided to use the power they already had to discriminate against Aborigines in the vote, that decision would reduce their population for the purposes of determining how many Parliamentary seats they were allotted and thus potentially reduce their representation in the federal parliament.

Again, Section 25, properly understood, was included to REDUCE the chances of States disenfranchising Indigenous people.

Our country really is a LOT better than most of us give it credit for!

 

[koshari]

Making out like bandits for years. Public service ‘head count’ down, overall costs up. The temp agencies made a killing over that number shuffle too

they even make no attempt to hide it they are so engrained in the scene, i know a bloke who is pretty high up in PWC, ( actually i know a couple but one of them in particular cant keep his mouth shut and likes to boast a bit) . Some of the pig trough antics he speaks of show absolute disregard for the public purse.

 

[Lomas]

they even make no attempt to hide it they are so engrained in the scene, i know a bloke who is pretty high up in PWC, ( actually i know a couple but one of them in particular cant keep his mouth shut and likes to boast a bit) . Some of the pig trough antics he speaks of show absolute disregard for the public purse.

I guess all the tax officials needed to go somewhere after the efficiency dividends kicked out n.

 

[Hojuman]

Any chance Carltank's contract makers and salary cap " fixers " getting advice from PWC ?

About 80% chance l reckon.

 

[Lomas]

Any chance Carltank's contract makers and salary cap " fixers " getting advice from PWC ?

About 80% chance l reckon.

Only if they are also working for the AFL in setting up salary cap adherence measures.

 

[Hojuman]

Only if they are also working for the AFL in setting up salary cap adherence measures.

100% chance then

 

[Makeshift Park]

Section 25 does not permit the disqualification of people from voting on the basis of race.

It accepts that, at the time of Federation, the states had the right to deny the vote, for their own Parliaments, to Aborigines.

The Commonwealth never had the power to prohibit the states from doing this because, had it insisted on such power, Queensland and Western Australia would likely not have joined the Federation.

The Constitution cannot be described as ‘permitting’ discrimination since it had no power to prevent it.

Section 25 could not even be described as accepting discrimination, since its intent was to eliminate discrimination.

The section begins by referencing Section 24 which sets out how many seats in Parliament a State is allowed. (It's on the basis of population).

So ... Section 25 makes clear that if States decided to use the power they already had to discriminate against Aborigines in the vote, that decision would reduce their population for the purposes of determining how many Parliamentary seats they were allotted and thus potentially reduce their representation in the federal parliament.

Again, Section 25, properly understood, was included to REDUCE the chances of States disenfranchising Indigenous people.

Our country really is a LOT better than most of us give it credit for!

I didn't say that Section 25 "permits" disqualification - but it in effect did.

By providing a provision that penalised states via their Federal parliamentary representation, if they passed a law that disqualified members of a particular race, it was effectively accepting that states have the power to discriminate, but they'll get less voting power should they do it.

I appreciate that the intention was to discourage states from doing this, but it was also affording states the constitutional power to do it.

Furthermore, the intentions of Andrew Inglis Clark et al may very well seem noble in the context of 1890s racial theory. But the interactions between S25 and the repealed S127, which of course denied indigenous folk personhood for the purposes of S24, was downright odious.

There's a good Anne Twomey article that makes a similar point to yours, that the original intention was noble, but ultimately accepts there is also a good case for repealing section 25. Sounds like you may have read it, but just in case: An Obituary for Section 25 of the Constitution

 

[Zondor]

Kudos to Albo and the Labour Party folk in it's ability to unite the Country with the "Voice". Meanwhile cans of Chocolate Quik have increased from $5.50 to $6.50 whilst I am still waiting for my $275.00 saving on my electricity bill. If only we had voted in King Kong Bundy we would actually be discussing the media in this thread, football in general and O.K. the merits of Hulk Hogan beating the great man at Wrestlemania 2 but wouldn't that be a better topic to discuss? :stern look

 

[marklovesbeer]

Soooo… how about that footy, hey?

 

[blackshadow]

Soooo… how about that footy, hey?

I’m too busy trying to come to terms with the fact that Quik became Nesquik in 1999.

 

[Samsquanch]

Deloitte
Ernst & Young
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)

Don't get me started.

 

[Samsquanch]

I’m too busy trying to come to terms with the fact that Quik became Nesquik in 1999.

Really??

I never liked it anyway.

 

[blackshadow]

Really??

I never liked it anyway.

Yes really.

And it goes to show how much I like it if I didn’t know for 20+ years.

 

[Zondor]

Really??

I never liked it anyway.

Twinkletoes I want to draw to your attention this clear case of blasphemy. Do your thing. :stern look

 

[Gasometer]

 

[Gasometer]

Seriously enough

This is about North news

The news is out, take your arguments elsewhere

 

[zoomba23]

No issue with the club making a statement on the topic. As other's have said, our co-captain is indigenous so it'd be sort of strange not to.

What I do find odd is the - we feel this way and so you should too...nudge nudge

Where the hell is the nudge nudge implication. Unless you believe that the phrase 'informed decision' means 'decision that aligns with our beliefs'

 

[Kangaroos techno]

Where the hell is the nudge nudge implication. Unless you believe that the phrase 'informed decision' means 'decision that aligns with our beliefs'

#randomthoughtsnotworthyofathread

 

[ferball]

Kudos to Albo and the Labour Party folk in it's ability to unite the Country with the "Voice". Meanwhile cans of Chocolate Quik have increased from $5.50 to $6.50 whilst I am still waiting for my $275.00 saving on my electricity bill. If only we had voted in King Kong Bundy we would actually be discussing the media in this thread, football in general and O.K. the merits of Hulk Hogan beating the great man at Wrestlemania 2 but wouldn't that be a better topic to discuss? :stern look

Why not ask KingKongBundy himself?

 

[ferball]

#randomthoughtsnotworthyofathread

Its not even called that anymore. Whole place has gone to shit since [insert appropriate annoyance here].

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I’m too busy trying to come to terms with the fact that Quik became Nesquik in 1999.

Wokism gone mad.