That's the CURRENT Australian legal system you're talking there, right? You know, the corrupt-payola, barbaric and feudal English one that even avoids the principle of "truth" in its inquiries and deliberations?

This was more obviously a simple case of state extortion against a compromised and targeted billionaire at his most vulnerable. The civil proceedings merely paid for some larger-than-usual cocaine parties for the silks involved; the real deal concerned the criminal case and its heftier machinery for milking the Visy empire. Developing countries have often been more open about such practice, and used these tactics for ages, especially when caught in an extreme monetarists' pickle of debt and mega-breakdown.

The departed knew that - unless he settled - his main inheritor-son (for one) could be dogged by the state's loot-hunting legal apparatchiks for decades. The only question of interest is: where did most or all of the prised "family honor money" go? Defence? Welfare? Equally vague bail-out pork? Or some other "separated power" of budgetary largesse?

How else to explain the OTT butt-kissing and coffin-polishing by nearly every leading party apparatchik in the country? Hell, it looked like they were about to award him a VC and bar! Wait, "posthumous" could still be on...

Oh no, none of that could happen here. Westminster system, Chesterfield furniture, Rule Bwittania, blah blah.

It is clearly un-Australian to think of Mr Pratt as anything but a shining example of all that is good about this wide brown land of ours.

You know, the nation that thinks Ned Kelly was a dinkum Aussie freedom fighter and philanthropist. The one that sentimentalizes over a petty thief in its national song.

He should be up there next to the emu and the kangaroo, in my view. Let the world know precisely and without compromise what makes our businessmen great.

Most inappropriate to deride someone whose
body has only just be laid to rest, and in whose
case criminal charges have been dropped.
Whatever wrong was done - $36 million was paid
in penalties.

Why not focus now on the good
the man did and the millions that were given yearly
to charity.

Is there any CEO out there that could take being
place under a microscope?

Why do we have this insatiable need to tear down
people - even after they've died?

Now that he has departed this life, Richard Pratt should be regarded as a "Good Jew".

David

Dear David,

No. Why don't we just simply remember Richard
Pratt - as a very generous philanthropist?
Or are you making a subtle comparison here
with Christ?

Strongly disagree Foxy. Being ill, and even death doth not Teflon make.

Amcor admitted wrongdoing. Pratt repeatedly denied it, despite evidence to the contrary. Things would have been considerably different if he did not see himself as above such matters-which he damn well did. Had he admitted alleged (never went to Court..) collusion, then Samuels would have certainly looked as if he had a vendetta against Pratt-as he has been accused-if he; Samuels did not get off Pratt's back.

As it is, Pratt was pursued because there was clearly matters to pursue. The fact that the charges against him were dropped the day before his passing suggest nothing more to me than......., well; then what I think.

I cannot abide the odious excuse "Tall Poppy Syndrome". It is a gutless excuse for 'because I'm at the top of the tree, I can do what I like and you mustn't question it. You're just jealous'. RAPC!!

As for his good works: I am still receiving Meals on Wheels because of some ongoing frailty. THATS good works! Lovely, lovely folk; most older than me, bringing my lunch everyday. I can point to any amount of such wonderful folk. Yet when the Gates';the Pratt's of this world give some of their millions away......

I'm neither glad nor sad that Pratt has died. I just don't see that that absolves him, or anyone else of wrongdoing, and suddenly makes them into a hero. It does not. They are not.

Not in a million years. The comparison never entered my head.

David

I'm so sick of hearing about the guy.

So some rich and powerful businessman died. OK, sorry to hear it. But lets move on with some fresh news items in the next day or two, shall we?

Actually, Foxy, there probably is.

>>Is there any CEO out there that could take being place under a microscope?<<

But you make my point for me. There aren't that many.

We seem, as a nation, to glorify success, by whatever means it is achieved.

To have money, it would appear, is evidence enough that you are a "good bloke", and that any criticism can only stem from envy.

In my twenty-odd years of business in Australia, I have been at the receiving end of deeds of blatant bastardry, conducted by people with wealth that you and I can only dream about.

Not just skirting-the-law stuff - although there was more than a bit of that - but acts of such consummate meanness, vindictiveness and greed, that you would be reluctant to associate with the lowest sub-Saharan despot.

I have no personal view of Mr Pratt. We never did business together.

My comments reflect on us. We the people.

And the way we happily let folk who have made their bucks out of our gullibility tread all over us, and then grovel sycophantically when they give a few spare sous to the charity that will get them most kudos.

I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the ACCC case against Pratt. However the way it was done leaves a bad taste.

Graham Samuel and Richard Pratt had a prior history. Apparently the two families had some sort of feud going.

Under the circumstances Samuel should have recused himself from having anything to do with the case. If he felt Pratt had broken the law he should have referred the case upwards and let his boss decide whether to pursue the case.

I can cite a personal example. Some years ago my wife's nephew took a class I was teaching. He was a brilliant student and there was every chance he would graduate with honours. I did not want anyone to be able to accuse him of benefiting from nepotism. After consulting the dean of the faculty I arranged for an external examiner to mark his paper.

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

Interesting to compare the oligarchs' media-run responses to Pratt with those hushed and vague mentions about the death of ex-deputy PM, Treasurer and wartime infantry officer Dr Jim Cairns.

A disgrace, especially from those in the ALP.

"A pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea."

"The pirate smiled, and responded: "What do you mean by seizing the whole earth? But because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor."

Legal Eagle, the article author, reports the use of the term 'honey trap' by Richard Pratt's defence team in describing the ACCC action of "getting Mr Pratt to admit he had met with Mr Jones, promising that this evidence would not be used against him, when in fact this was untrue.". Its use has prompted me to wonder whether that was the only 'honey trap' set for Richard Pratt in a saga that may extend back in time to 1989.

A most disturbing feature of this whole pursuit of Richard Pratt has been the immunity from prosecution extended to Amcor, in circumstances in which there are strong indications that Amcor may not have qualified within the terms of the ACCC leniency policy for such immunity.

One such indicator was the threat, delivered in a letter from the ACCC to Amcor immediately upon Amcor's having revealed its involvement in cartel conduct with Visy on 22 November 2004, that Amcor would prejudice its immunity if it, Amcor, went ahead and notified the ASX that it had confessed to cartel conduct, as was a requirement in law that it should. It is my understanding that the ACCC indicated to Amcor that the reason it wished no report to the ASX be made was that such might prejudice AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. A corollary of there being an ongoing investigation is that the ACCC already knew of Amcor's involvement in a cartel, a circumstance that would have disqualified Amcor from receiving immunity in terms of the ACCC leniency policy.

It may well be that the Amcor board, at the time of its reporting the cartel to the ACCC, did not know prior to that time of the actions of some of its executives in having implemented the cartel. That does not mean that there had not been an ongoing ACCC investigation being conducted undercover within Amcor, simply, if it is the truth that nobody on the Amcor board knew of the cartel, that such investigation was done without Amcor's knowledge or co-operation.

A most disturbing appearance as to procedure.

TBC

Continued

Another indicator that an ongoing ACCC investigation may have been occurring existed in reports that the ACCC had been informed of the existence of an Amcor - Visy cartel in 1996. This post, and subsequent ones by me in a now-archived general discussion thread, document and link to some of those reports: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2625#59389 . In the light of hindsight, collectively those reports may be seen to be more disturbing than they may have been individually when first published.

It is not beyond imagining that the Hodgson tapes, from which the Amcor board claimedly first officially learned of the cartel's existence, whether elicited in the first instance by an undercover ACCC investigation 'playing' Amcor in order to get at Visy, or elicited by Amcor 'playing' the ACCC in order to get the ACCC to take down Visy (Amcor's competitor), were brought into being for the purpose of giving Amcor a believable reason for dobbing itself in and thus 'earning' immunity from prosecution.

A sleazy aspect of the Hodgson tapes, tapes that constituted much of the 'evidence' to the Amcor board that there was a cartel, was the revelation that Richard Pratt's personal life had been the subject of relatively intense surveillance. If there is substance to the construction that the elicitation of the tapes, no matter by whose interests brought about, was primarily to provide scenery and excuse for Amcor's confession and claim for immunity, then it becomes very believable that another 'honey trap' may well have been set for Richard Pratt around 1995 with the desired intent of disrupting Pratt family relationships. Should such ever prove to have been the case Jeanne Pratt could take Amcor to the cleaners.

Either way, the fact that the ACCC case effectively alleges the cartel commenced with verbal agreements in 2001 between Jones and Pratt, when there was documentary evidence of a cartel existing presented to the ACCC in 1996, would seem to betray an intent to get Richard Pratt to the exclusion of all else, welfare of container customers included.

I tend to agree with Ginx on this.

Philanthropy would suggest an altruistic concern for the welfare of others. Does the means by which a philanthropist amasses his fortune count for anything? Is he to be absolved of responsibility merely by the act of philanthropy?

Lets rather praise those un-sung volunteers who go about quietly providing help to the needy, who may live on a meagre pension but give of their time, their company and even a little of what they can little afford to spare.

I am not advocating we demonise the man, but lets also not get too carried away with standing ovations despite his huge donations to worthy causes.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/22/richard-pratt-rich-man-beggar-man-thief/

I suppose for a man like Richard Pratt whose life
was such a paradox, as James Kirby points out in
his article in, The Age, 26 Apr. 2009, his
"strengths and flaws are magnified."

Kirby tells us that Pratt, "constantly topped the lists
of Australia's most charitable, giving away $14 million
a year, he also topped the lists of tycoons in trouble
with the law."

It's therefore understandable that public opinion about
Richard Pratt would be divided.

However, the charges against him have been dropped.
The evidence against him was somewhat murky. He paid
the penalty of $36 million. The matter should have
ended there. What personal agenda the lawyers had in
pursuing Pratt - who knows.
We don't need to "glorify," him, as one poster commented,
however, we don't need to blacken him either.

The man is dead.

May he rest in peace.

I can understand a close friend Mark Leibler claiming "He'll at least pass into the next world knowing that he has been vindicated, and he is innocent,", but when the Age's Ari Sharp writes of Richard Pratts's 'historic victory' over the ACCC then I feel things have gone a little far since it was very far from that.

Foxy is probably right in that it is not appropriate that we pass judgement on the man at this time, but I get the feeling there was enough murkiness around the man's business dealings for many of us to be unwilling to ever call it one way or the other.

While acknowledging the contribution to the 'common wealth' many Australians needed to be convinced that the amount contributed to charity was greater than any amount made by nefarious means. The tragedy of Mr Pratt is that his conviction on price fixing has seeded doubt.

However this was also the fate of a person I know who was found to have stolen $400 from a small sporting club to fund a gambling habit. A record of more than 20 years of contributing time, effort and money to the club did little to redeem her in the eyes of the members.

Along with a sense of a 'fair go' in this country comes a notion of 'copping it sweet' as this lady has done. In a sense this is what Mr Pratt had done with his 'statement of facts' but it doesn't apply just to the deed itself but also the judgement of the community.

The loyalty and grief of those close to him will obviously excuse them from readily accepting that judgement but entreaties for the rest of us to glorify this man I think are in vain. Ultimately the best on offer is a sense that he was a larrikin Australian who had a 'red hot crack', gave a bit back and like us loved his footy, but also like most of us had decent servings of good and bad.

Certainly not a saint but obviously a blue.

R.I.P. Richard Pratt.

I have to agree with Pericles on this on ; Mr Pratt was in all essence a very good man ; both in business and in spirit – his successes came from the innovative and professional abilities – Not just in the simple Cardboard industry , but in the design and manufacturing of advanced technologies- as well as power plants-
It is the innovative, and the exploitation of such talents in cutting fields of engineering, and associated fields.


It is my understanding, the only thing he was guilty of was to submit to the Useless Idiots propaganda to end the entire saga of the accusations – but as it is typical of Useless idiots and Government departments – it became a badge – or better explained – A scalp and a trophy of a less talented and intellectually challenged bureaucrat.


The second part to this argument is Now there are less of these forward thinking innovative minds – who are by virtue of their success , are very generous and Philanthropic ;-

I would like someone to explain in a simple language; how it is Governments and their Bureaucrats become the new Philanthropic consciousness , when they actually are the statutory recipients of Wealth of those people who have something to offer – then it is divided into taxes to support the New age Proletariat Philanthropy paradigm;-

I often wondered when all the People like Mr Pratt, and others like them are gone or destroyed-
Where will the new age proletariat philanthropy – no -, it just does not sound right- But that is Government and its departments for you

Richard Pratt was estimated to be worth $A6 billion, and is reputed to have given about $A14 million a year to charity. If I used my calculator correctly, he was giving away less than 0.25% of his wealth each year. Forgive me for being underwhelmed. I suspect many Australians are more generous than that, and do it with no fanfare.

Blimey, All-, if your post is designed to show how much you agree with me, then you have a pretty elastic definition of the word "agree"

>>Mr Pratt was in all essence a very good man ; both in business and in spirit<<

I'm not sure where I have expressed that opinion.

>>his successes came from the innovative and professional abilities <<

I tend to the view that price-fixing and monopolistic practices had some hand in his personal wealth-creation.

>>the only thing he was guilty of was to submit to the Useless Idiots propaganda to end the entire saga of the accusations<<

The more normal behaviour of a wealthy, innocent man is to fight every inch of the way to protect his reputation. To sign a confession and then protest that "I only did it to get the whole mess off my plate" is disingenuous.

>>Now there are less of these forward thinking innovative minds<<

There are many "forward thinking innovative minds" who are not inclined to operate with, shall we say, a lack of candour. When these folk are ripped off by less ethical operatives, the standard Aussie reaction is to laugh at their misfortune, and applaud the ripper-off.

>>I would like someone to explain in a simple language; how it is Governments and their Bureaucrats become the new Philanthropic consciousness , when they actually are the statutory recipients of Wealth of those people who have something to offer – then it is divided into taxes to support the New age Proletariat Philanthropy paradigm<<

Before that can happen you need to phrase your question in "simple language".

Candide. You and I don't get a tax deduction for our donations either, so in effect we are also copping the bill for the donations made by the rich and famous through their companies.

David

David
I'm pretty sure my donations to charity would be tax deductible, though I haven't tried claiming on any, as that seems to be going against the spirit of giving. I think all you need to claim the deduction is an income above the tax threshhold.

The reality is that most people on small incomes probably don't bother to claim as their marginal tax rate is low. Also, not all contributions are tax deductible anyway.

David

It is often forgotten that Mr Pratt would have been charged on a criminal offence, rather than the civil offence which brought about his fine, had Messrs Howard and Costello lived up to their promise to introduce legislation to properly punish the largest cartel operators.

As to whether he would have (or should have) died in jail, that is a matter of opinion most likely affected by one's political persuasions and affiliations.

Well Pericles; I do not quite understand your first point and how far your vivid imagination stretches; or what voices have spoken.
But here is what you had written;

“It is clearly un-Australian to think of Mr Pratt as anything but a shining example of all that is good about this wide brown land of ours.

You know the nation that thinks Ned Kelly was a dinkum Aussie freedom fighter and philanthropist.
The one that sentimentalizes over a petty thief in its national song.

He should be up there next to the emu and the kangaroo, in my view. Let the world know precisely and without compromise what makes our businessmen great”

Those are your words Pericles, not mine.

Your second point; - Well it is obvious you know nothing other than the Envy proselytized by the Propaganda media - We have more cartels and corruption in Government - even if Richard Pratt had done something – and He had not;- it pales into insignificance compared to the Corruption and Organized criminal Cartels in Government Institutions;-
The only think Mr Pratt was guilty of was the fact he gave in to the Useless Idiots – when he could have fought it and Won- but he signed an agreement – and was fined – then the Useless Idiot Entrapment was enacted.

That and he was not a financial Member of the Labour party, and undoubtable did not have any Undepravdom Documentation - So he was always going to be a sitting duck for all the Useless Idiot wood docks to attack.

There are many thousands of YOU KNOW WHO’s - have escaped prosecution from fraud – and they are all the ones who invoke the Envious principle

Your third point Pericles, I am not sure if it back to your Elitist tendencies and your Jerry Seinfeld ( All About Nothing approach) - well you ought to have listened to your Mothers advice all of those years ago-
If you cannot say anything pleasant or have any relevant point ; Then Shut Up.
No one cares.

I wasn't impressed by the public relations exercise either before or after his death.
Thank God for the Devil's Advocate in canonisation processes before deciding on who deserves a halo. And it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. Although SBS would never point this out in any of their promo voiceovers for any anti Church doco they put on or their second rate petulant undergraduate left/liberal political hiss commentaries during SBS evening news.