Telstra continues down the path to irrelevance as Thodey tries to woo MPs with canapés & cocktails

Historical share price table from Telstra website

Market share not what it used to be, share price in a downward spiral since 1999 and reaching a record low recently, dividends not as golden as they used to be, profit margins getting slimmer, a company profile which is often a public relations nightmare - and now national telecommunications 'giant' Telstra has added insult to injury by trying to lobby a federal MP who just happens to have seen Thodey's razor gang at work in her own electorate.

This is the Member for Page's response to David 'let them eat cake' Thodey in a media release on 28 September 2010:

Saffin condemns Telstra decision to close Call Centre

Page MP Janelle Saffin said Telstra Business has today shown its contempt for its employees and for Regional Australia with its decision to close the Grafton Call Centre on November 23.

Ms Saffin said with this move Telstra missed an opportunity to turn around public opinion and show it can be a good corporate citizen.

"By ignoring the unprecedented local campaign to save the local Telstra jobs, Telstra has made it pretty clear how much it values us here in the regions.

"The organisation has chosen to ignore its employees, the union, the Mayor, and State and Federal representatives and about 6000 local people who signed a petition asking to keep the centre open.

"Telstra will now find it has very poor standing in the local community and faces the loss of a lot of local business.

"This decision shows a total lack of imagination. Telstra couldn't see that expanding their operations in this region could have been a cost saving.

"I note that CEO David Thodey regularly talks about Telstra's new push to improve customer service, but the Corporation somehow believes that the best way to improve customer service is to cut jobs.

"Today in Parliament all MPs received an invitation to cocktails with Mr Thodey in Canberra next month.

"I have answered that along with more than 6000 people in the Clarence Valley, I want the 108 jobs in Grafton and not the canapés and cocktails.

"Today I have lodged a Notice of Motion in the Parliament calling for the condemnation of this appalling decision.

Daily Examiner photoshops Telstra CEO with predictable results

Never say there will be no lingering bitterness over Telstra's decision to axe around 180 jobs in the Clarence Valley and strip about $6 million in wages from the local economy.
In today's Daily Examiner David Thodey's image has obviously been photoshopped as an invitation for a bit of anatomical comparison.
I'm happy to oblige...........

BEFORE

























AFTER

Just how thick is Tony Abott et al?

Fair dinkum!

Abbott's mob put up Bruce Scott who, despite the comments that follow about the coalition parties, is more than a half decent bloke for the spot of Deputy Speaker.

And, surprise, surprise, Scott was rolled 78 votes to 71.

Gee! That was an earth-shattering surprise!

Who, apart from Abbott and his half (and that's an extreme exaggeration) brained deputy Julie Bishop would have thought Scott, with his National Party baggage would capture the imagination, let alone the votes, of the Independent MPs who had previously seen the light and jumped ship from the terminally diseased National Party and its inbred relative the Liberal Party?

It isn't just lack of money which makes for a shorter life - it's often discrimination by the health care professions

Last Monday morning I caught a news item on ABC radio concerning a study commissioned by Catholic Health Australia which reportedly showed that an affluent person lives longer than a poor person. Around three years longer.

I immediately looked down at my wristwatch and began to count the seconds - as surely as night follows day it came across the airwaves.

In this instance it was a certain Jesuit priest Fr. Frank Brennan (pictured opposite); who baldly stated "If you come from a poor, dysfunctional family without education, of course your health outcomes are going to be worse than if you are from a well-off, functional family which has a good education."

Yes, that's right, the bottom line is that it is all the fault of the dysfunctional family.

Never mind that Australian society subtlety discriminates against those who are obviously in the lower socio-ecomonic strand. That the social determinates of health and well being are a lot more complex than alleged family dysfunction.

When giving such a statement to the media don't make an effort to point out that the affluent and articulate are likely to be seen by the medical and related heath care professions as being the peers of people in these groups and, therefore more time and energy is frequently expended in exploring treatment options and providing medical care even within the public health system.

Stay silent on the fact unofficial medical service rationing is occurring in this country and that it is not often occurring to those with money. In fact it has already been admitted that living in regional Australia often results in lower life expectancy for some life threatening diseases and, there is some evidence that those with higher incomes may receive more referral to specialist doctors if New Zealand research translates to Australia as I suspect it might.

Do not even consider that such unconscious systemic discrimination (based on socio-economic status, ethnicity or diagnosis) leads to poorer health outcomes in our supposedly democratic and egalitarian society.


* A quick Google search using the term "discrimination by health professionals" displayed over 83,000 results including discussion of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, diagnosis and income levels.

Journalism and ethics - can they ever share the same bed?

I'm still trying to puzzle this out.
After interviewing a blogger apparently on the proviso that his anonymity would be preserved, a journalist later decides to out that same blogger on what seems to be a personal slow news day.
Or was old fashioned jealousy at the root of this unethical outing?
This is James Massola in justification mode:
"As I wrote on August 7 after interviewing Jericho (preserving his anonymity) about the piece that sparked debate: "Across Twitter a conversation bubbled and crackled as journalists and readers debated the merits of reportage from the campaign trail. Such a public conversation about journalism was unimaginable five years ago. If for no other reason, the incident demonstrated why Twitter, and blogs, matter."
So why did I out Grog if I thought he should keep blogging?
As a prolific blogger and tweeter, Jericho was putting information in the public domain to provoke discussion and debate. It might have been a hobby, but by engaging directly via Twitter with dozens of journalists, Jericho and his views became part of the public debate - and in an age in which the dissemination of information has been democratised, his scribblings had an influence."
Whatcha been drinking Jimmy?

A new electorate for Luke Hartsuyker?

I know my hearing isn't anything like it was in my younger days (and some say I'm selectively deaf), but I'll swear black-n-blue that Luke Hartsuyker was sworn in as the Member for Cowan in the House of Representatives this morning.

That left me wondering, who is the Member for Cowper?

State sanctioned assassination: and you thought the world was scary enough as it is..........

Ever since the 11 September 2001 terrorists attacks in the United States of America started a global hysteria and two unlawful wars, the minds of Australian legislators and the legislation they enact have been quietly converging towards a point where they march in tandem with repressive excesses found in American law.

So this latest example of how insane the US Federal Administration has become is disturbing in the lead it gives Australian politicians of all political persuasions:

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

The legal arguments can be found at Scribd in Alaulaqi v Obama Complaint* and at FireDogLake in NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf and as next ) friend acting on behalf of ANWAR AL-AULAQI v. BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; and LEON E. PANETTA, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency**:

* 4. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. The summary use of force is lawful in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. A targeted killing policy under which individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on these lists for months at a time plainly goes beyond the use of lethal force as a last resort to address imminent threats, and accordingly goes beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.
5. The government's refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.
6. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury; and an injunction prohibiting the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi outside this narrow context. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the government to disclose the standards under which it determines whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.

** This case is a paradigmatic example of one in which no part of the case can be litigated on the merits without immediately and irreparably risking disclosure of highly sensitive and classified national security information. The purpose of this lawsuit is to adjudicate the existence and lawfulness of alleged targeting decisions and to compel the disclosure of any "secret criteria" used to make those alleged determinations. Plaintiff's complaint alleges (i) that the United States has carried out "targeted killings" outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, Compl. ¶ 13, (ii) and has specifically targeted Anwar al-Aulaqi, Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, and, in particular, (iii) that Anwar al-Aulaqi is allegedly subject to the use of lethal force "without regard to whether, at the time lethal force will be used, he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, or whether there are reasonable means short of lethal force that could be used to address any such threat." Compl. ¶ 23. At every turn, litigation of plaintiff's claims would risk or require the disclosure of highly sensitive and properly protected information to respond to allegations regarding purported secret operations and decision criteria. Even if some aspect of the underlying facts at issue had previously been officially disclosed, the Government's privilege assertions demonstrate that properly protected state secrets would remain intertwined in every step of the case, starting with an adjudication of the threshold issue of plaintiff's standing (i.e., whether or not there is an alleged "target list" which includes plaintiff's son, and whether he is being subjected to the threat of lethal force absent an imminent threat or a reasonable alternative to force), and the inherent risk of disclosures that would harm national security should be apparent from the outset.

The now retired Hon. Justice Michael Kirby's early words of caution have largely gone unheeded by successive federal and states attorneys-general in this country and, there is no guarantee that a Gillard Government would be anymore respectful of the human rights of citizen's than the Obama Government in America.

AUSTRALIAN LAW - AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, 11 October 2001:

It is impossible for Australian lawyers to collect in Canberra and to proceed in these next few days as if nothing has happened. It is impossible for us to see our Constitution as if it speaks only to Australia and Australians. It speaks of us to the world. It is impossible to pretend that the comfortable topics of the legal profession have the same priority as this moment. It is necessary for us to reflect upon the moment. But to do so keeping our priorities and viewing recent events in the context which our Constitution, our institutions, our law and our tradition of human rights demands that we take.....
In the course of a century, we, the lawyers of Australia, have made many errors. We have sometimes scorned those who, appearing for themselves, could not reach justice. We have gone along with unjust laws and procedures. We have been instruments of discrimination and it is still there in our books. We have not done enough for law reform. We have often been just too busy to repair every injustice. Yet in some critical moments, lawyers have upheld the best values of our pluralist democracy. In the future, we must keep it thus. To preserve liberty, we must preserve the rule of law. That is our justification and our challenge.