Australian Rugby / RA

[Strewthcobber]

Motion just passed.

Terms of reference attached

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Strange motion really.
5 teams to 4 in the "national competition"?

Seems to me the ARU will be able to use the NRC to answer most questions brought forward by these terms of reference

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[daz]

And this motion and subsequent steering Commitee has the power to do what exactly? Yes, compel the ARU, RugbyWAand others to give evidence, and map out some already established timelines, but to what end?

As far as I know, the government can't re-instate the Force, or sack the ARU board. I guess they may be able to use any compelling testimony to sue the ARU for state-controlled asset cost recovery, i.e. Stadium and tax-payer costs, etc.

And of course, it makes Ms Reynolds a popular figure in her electorate, fighting the evil East on behalf of the victimised West.

 

[Quick Hands]

Strange motion really.
5 teams to 4 in the "national competition"?

Seems to me the ARU will be able to use the NRC to answer most questions brought forward by these terms of reference

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Very easy to amend it to "super rugby"competition. You're in Parliament, not a court of law.

EDIT: And of course you've also noticed clause (f)?

 

[Quick Hands]

And this motion and subsequent steering Commitee has the power to do what exactly? Yes, compel the ARU, RugbyWAand others to give evidence, and map out some already established timelines, but to what end?

As far as I know, the government can't re-instate the Force, or sack the ARU board. I guess they may be able to use any compelling testimony to sue the ARU for state-controlled asset cost recovery, i.e. Stadium and tax-payer costs, etc.

And of course, it makes Ms Reynolds a popular figure in her electorate, fighting the evil East on behalf of the victimised West.

A politician doing something that means something to their constituents, scandalous.

 

[Spieber]

Reynolds tweeted: "Hi Christiaan, if needed, the Senate has the power to summons witnesses to appear and also to order the production of documents."

 

[Quick Hands]

Reynolds tweeted: "Hi Christiaan, if needed, the Senate has the power to summons witnesses to appear and also to order the production of documents."

And the good senators might enjoy seeing Clyne squirm, given his NAB past.

 

[wamberal]

And the good senators might enjoy seeing Clyne squirm, given his NAB past.

I had the pleasure of appearing at a senate hearing many years ago. I think he will survive. This has got nothing at to do with his past as a banker, and no senator would be stupid enough to think that it does.

 

[Killer]

I had the pleasure of appearing at a senate hearing many years ago. I think he will survive. This has got nothing at to do with his past as a banker, and no senator would be stupid enough to think that it does.

The documents may be helpful with a timeline, also some with nothing to gain will not be willing to perjure themselves. I doubt Clyne has many friends in that den.
I agree though, senators are mostly useless at interrogation.

 

[Quick Hands]

I had the pleasure of appearing at a senate hearing many years ago. I think he will survive. This has got nothing at to do with his past as a banker, and no senator would be stupid enough to think that it does.

Of course not

 

[daz]

And the good senators might enjoy seeing Clyne squirm, given his NAB past.

Look, I'm no Clyne apologist, but he is a former NAB boss, which means appearing before Gov Steering Committees is hardly new or worrying for him. He knows exactly what is expected at these things, and I have no reason to doubt he will be prepared accordingly.

And regardless of what many think, it really does appear that the ARU followed the correct process and have a clue legally. FFS, 2 Judges agreed with him and found in the ARU's favour.

If anything, the QC (Quade Cooper)'s and AF and the Force board clearly weren't as secure as they thought. That says quite a bit.

There is a question in transparency and when the Force were really internally targeted. That appears to have been early in the piece, but to be fair, the statement of timelines and commentary released by the ARU yesterday did explain much of that.

That lack of transparency actually does bother me, because I would have liked to know the Force were targeted back in Feb as well; that would have saved much worrying by the Rebels and their supporters.

Anyway, the last bit of the circus needs to play out. Then, with the greatest of respect to the Force, it will be time to move on.

 

[brokendown]

move on to where?

 

[wamberal]

What is that sound I hear? Could it be the flogging of a dead horse?

 

[Killer]

move on to where?

Walk away BD, it's just garbled nonsense

 

[Quick Hands]

Look, I'm no Clyne apologist, but he is a former NAB boss, which means appearing before Gov Steering Committees is hardly new or worrying for him. He knows exactly what is expected at these things, and I have no reason to doubt he will be prepared accordingly.

And regardless of what many think, it really does appear that the ARU followed the correct process and have a clue legally. FFS, 2 Judges agreed with him and found in the ARU's favour.

If anything, the QC (Quade Cooper)'s and AF and the Force board clearly weren't as secure as they thought. That says quite a bit.

There is a question in transparency and when the Force were really internally targeted. That appears to have been early in the piece, but to be fair, the statement of timelines and commentary released by the ARU yesterday did explain much of that.

That lack of transparency actually does bother me, because I would have liked to know the Force were targeted back in Feb as well; that would have saved much worrying by the Rebels and their supporters.

Anyway, the last bit of the circus needs to play out. Then, with the greatest of respect to the Force, it will be time to move on.

His last performance wasn't a good as you might think.

Well, there was one case in which the courts (rare) did prevent the NAB from destroying a customer at its discretion, in Kay v NAB (NSWSC 1116, 30 September 2010) Rothman J found:

“From day one of the contract, NAB was in breach … NAB continued in breach for the duration of the contract”.​

Rothman awarded Kay et al compensation for NAB’s illegal penalty interest charges. The NAB, unrepentant, was initially intending to appeal, but eventually succumbed to mediation. The media person who had given Kay et al crucial support during a long conflict got Independent Senator Nick Xenophon along to the mediation. Here is an exchange at hearings of the Senate Economics Reference Committee inquiry into banking competition in late 2010 (13 December):

Senator XENOPHON — Finally, I attended, as did Senator Williams, for much of a day a mediation between the bank and three individuals—Ozzie Inak, Memhet (sic) Ali Kay and Memhet (sic) Canli. This was in relation to what I think you could say was quite an ugly dispute that ended up in the New South Wales Supreme Court before Justice Rothman, where certain findings were made against the bank. Fortunately, that matter was resolved as a result of the intervention of senior bank officers — and all credit to you for that. But it was a long, drawn out dispute; it was very ugly, it was very unfortunate in terms of the personal impact it had on a number of those individuals. What can be done so that these sorts of things do not get out of control? Again I emphasise that fortunately it has now been resolved. How do you prevent things from going haywire in the first place so that you do not have that enormous toll on the individuals and also the resources of the bank tied up in that sort of long-running dispute?

Mr Clyne — Obviously, it would be inappropriate for me to comment—

Senator XENOPHON — Just in terms of the systemic issues.​

Mr Clyne — We have over three million customers in Australia and, inevitably, given the millions of interactions we have with those customers, there are going to be situations where we do not do the right thing by them. What we have been trying to drive is, I think, evidenced by our push on the fee front. We have been heavily criticised for that by a range of people who suggest that we are trying to drag the industry down. What we are trying to do — and what we are saying — is: ‘No. We want to provide a competitive offering.’ At the heart of that is our desire to have a better relationship with our customers. There will be situations — not wanting to comment on the specifics of that case — where we do not do the right thing by our customers. I think what we have to do as an industry, and certainly what NAB is committed to doing — is step up, acknowledge where we have made a mistake and try to rectify it. We deal in a regulated industry as well and, in many cases, you have to deal in black and white. You have to be very clear in the terms that you are providing and in the nature of the contract you have between the bank and the customer. Inevitably, when there is a dispute, there is grey. Unfortunately, those things often take time to resolve because you do not want your bankers dealing in grey. You need to do most of what you do in black and white in order to make it fair and transparent for the customer, and sometimes it does need to be escalated, unfortunately, where people make a pragmatic and common sense assessment on individual cases. We would like to see that resolved more quickly in most cases, but that is generally, unfortunately, what drives it. It gets to a situation where there is a dispute and an element of grey. Generally, it has to then go to more senior members in the bank to try and —

Senator XENOPHON — Although, in this case the Supreme Court said that it was black and white.

Mr Clyne — I cannot comment on the individual details of that case.​

Here is Clyne in the flesh, with no Office of the Customer Advocate as cover. The ‘push on the fee front’ is a regular diversion. Fee waivers are irrelevant if the customer is being taken down for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

‘I think what we have to do as an industry, and certainly what NAB is committed to doing — is step up, acknowledge where we have made a mistake and try to rectify it.’​

Here Clyne knowingly misleads the Committee. The NAB never acknowledges a mistake — and is not happy to rectify one if called to account. The same incompetent and corrupt practices continue under Clyne’s watch (or negligence?). It will be business as usual.

The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority’s March 2004 Report into Irregular Currency Options Trading at the National Australia Bank provided a rare insight into the phenomenon of corporate culture and dysfunctional cultures in particular. (This report has been removed from the NAB website, and is not available on the APRA website.) Here are some snippets:

Lack of willingness by senior management to accept and acknowledge issues, resistance to escalation of issues and less-than-open responses to ‘external’ parties all are significant drivers of culture within an organisation, and so signals what is expected of staff within that environment. (p.75)

Managing the message was frequently given equal, or greater, priority than dealing with the underlying issue. (p.74)​

Managing the message remains the NAB’s top priority. Clyne’s 29 May performance on 3AW has one online commenter noting astutely:

‘He sells this crap like a used car salesmen selling a car with a blown engine for full price. Conveniently not addressing the most important issues and relentlessly presenting the irrelevant.’​

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-nab-spin-machine-in-overdrive,4199​

 

[TOCC]

What is that sound I hear? Could it be the flogging of a dead horse?

Is the Australian Rugby community the dead horse and the ARU the ones flogging us??

 

[mst]

Strange motion really.
5 teams to 4 in the "national competition"?

Seems to me the ARU will be able to use the NRC to answer most questions brought forward by these terms of reference

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

The ToRs are deliberately designed to be broad and can be amended and refined by the committee as they are not experts (key thing to remember!). Most who have to deal with them also read them in terms of what ruled out as well as in. Two things you don't do is take the piss or be a smart-ass if your the one(s) answering the questions.

 

[Killer]

His last performance wasn't a good as you might think.

​

Managing the message remains the NAB’s top priority. Clyne’s 29 May performance on 3AW has one online commenter noting astutely:​

‘He sells this crap like a used car salesmen selling a car with a blown engine for full price. Conveniently not addressing the most important issues and relentlessly presenting the irrelevant.’​

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-nab-spin-machine-in-overdrive,4199​

Brilliant QH, this one para perfectly encapsulates Clynes tactics when being questioned

 

[Quick Hands]

The ToRs are deliberately designed to be broad and can be amended and refined by the committee as they are not experts (key thing to remember!). Most who have to deal with them also read them in terms of what ruled out as well as in. Two things you don't do is take the piss or be a smart-ass if your the one(s) answering the questions.

Clyne's been there before and was able to treat them with contempt as he was running one of the big banks. No longer has that up his sleeve.

EDIT: He also has a far more independent and far less deferential senate than he had back in 2010. Can't see Hinch, Lambie, Hanson et al being concerned about annoying him.

 

[mst]

So for those that want to play along at home here is your chance to have your say.

Its an audience and at least you get to have a say. Will it do anything? Saying or doing nothing certainly wont.

Your submission could ensure the committee are well informed about the game and are prepared if they call witnesses.

The players:

Senate Community Affairs References Committee

Senator Rachel Siewert Australian Greens , WA
Senator Slade Brockman Liberal Party of Australia , WA
Senator Sam Dastyari Australian Labor Party , NSW
Senator Jonathon Duniam Liberal Party of Australia , TAS
Senator Louise Pratt Australian Labor Party , WA
Senator Murray Watt Australian Labor Party , QLD

So for those at home this should move forward (as expected now) and more details should emerge on this page over time: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs

For the keyboard warriors I would suggest that submissions that are balance and factual and not emotive usually hold more weight and relevance. Consider the committee and its purpose and write to the audience and within the ToRs. Be concise and to the point EG: (examples only)

• Will funding be balanced in WA compared to the East coast? (including promotion / marketing).
• Should the Super Rugby being professional and for profit be under separate governance away from amateur and community rugby (especially due to Gov funding),
• impact on WA school programs,
• Impact on WA business that invested in sponsorship's now gone
• Impact on those who were employed in WA rugby
• Impact on families of young players now pathways have changed, wasted infrastructure etc.
• Should players be discriminated against by the ARU of a rebel / other league is set up?
• Player welfare (pro / amateur/ junior) going forward

Remember this is about what the Government can do which mostly could be around governance and funding.
Submissions can be from all points of view so don't feel you need to be on a side or a particular side.
Please be aware that most submission are made public unless there are really compelling reasons why and its requested.

Submission link: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Making_a_submission

About: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...Senate/Community_Affairs/About_this_committee

Attending a public hearing

• Anyone can come to a public hearing but only witnesses are invited to speak

Most hearings are held in public and anyone is welcome to come and listen.
If the hearing is in Canberra, the venue will usually be a committee room in Parliament House. Hearings outside Canberra are usually in venues such as town halls, community centres, hotel conference rooms or the state parliament.
The secretariat can tell you the date, time and place for each hearing and help you find the list of witnesses on the inquiry website.

• It is up to the committee to decide who will be a witness at a public hearing

Committees generally choose witnesses from those who have made written submissions to the inquiry. Committees aim to hear from a variety of organisations or individuals representing different views or with different concerns. Sometimes, to ensure a variety of views, a committee may ask an organisation or individual that has not made a submission to be a witness.
Because time for hearings is limited, usually only a small proportion of submitters will be invited to give evidence. If you wish to be considered as a witness at a hearing, you should note this in your written submission to the inquiry.

• Public hearings are broadcast live on the internet

If the hearing is held in Canberra the video and audio of the hearing will be broadcast live on the internet.
If the hearing is held outside Canberra, only the audio will be available.
Media may also be present. If you have concerns about being recorded, photographed or filmed, you should raise this with the committee secretariat before you start to give evidence. The committee can decide whether to allow the media to record you or it can impose conditions on any recording of the hearing. In making the decision, the committee will balance principles of open proceedings, public interest, and fairness to the witness.