Great article Michelle. Well done.

Michelle - if you really want your article to make a difference you are going to have be more specific. As I understand it you are complaining that ANZ is lending money to companies which, among other activities, make parts which are being used by quite differnt make cluster bombs. What countries are we talking about? Can you name any of the cluster bomb makers(which would seem more to the point)? What sort of parts are in question? Are they being made specifically to order, or are they parts that could be used in anything but happen to get into cluster bombs? You must know these companies but are reluctant to name then. Why? Fear of defamation actions? (If so, you should say.) Those are a just a few of the more obvious questions.

Curmudgeon - the info you require is in the report referenced in the article. Click the link. The report states that ANZ finances two US-based companies, L-3 Communications (US$99m) and Lockheed Martin (US$36.5m) which have both been producing cluster bombs and their parts.

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for that. Depleted uranium and landmines should also be focused on.

I will do my best to circulate your article.

Quite an interesting article. I think the crucial info re 'references' was buried but I understand that the ANZ aren't going to suddenly come out and admit that some of their investments are for cluster bombs.

I'm no friend of the banking sector but this article might have been stronger by quoting what others have found about ANZ's lack of ethical investments. Banks are not known as being all sweetness and light. That is, if they think there's a buck in it, their snouts are well and truly in the trough and if we dug deep enough in to other banks investment strategies, who knows what we'll find?

Thankyou M Fahy, I take your point. However, that still doesn't excuse Michelle from giving basic facts about the report in her article. All its requires is a paragraph or two, including an explicit mention of the report, who produced it, and why she thinks its trustworthy etc etc, all up high where it can be seen. Also, she has to say, in a paragraph or two, what the report says. Otherwise you have to read the report to gain an idea of what on earth is going on, or to access just how much ANZ is to blame for anything.
No, article was poorly done. Michelle, less hand wringing, more facts.