Playing by the Rules !

A lot of Australians got a very unpleasant shock when they read their morning paper this week. Centrelink has just trialled a plan to weed out welfare cheats by intensive scrutiny of Facebook entries and the result in the selected suburb in both Sydney and Melbourne delivered a bonanza of questionable claims.

It seems that gaming welfare seems to be a national pastime.  That ranges from downright fraud to just "bending the rules " a little.  A lot of beneficiaries are claiming at the single rate while they actually live with a partner and fail to declare this cohabitation.   Another dodge is hiding assets that would make a claim for a benefit ineligible.  The information that Centrelink uses to process a claim takes the form of a statutory declaration by the applicant - and knowingly providing false information is a criminal offence that can result in a term of imprisonment.

Some very bright bureaucrat hit on the idea of scrutinizing Facebook to unmask those who are cheating the welfare system, and now it looks like a careful analysis of what we disclose to friends and what boasts we make about how clever we are may come back to haunt us.  Centelink may roll out a person by person comparison of what we have revealed on Facebook with the official record we provided to justify whatever payment we are receiving from that agency.

No doubt many people will call foul and think that is unfair.  Some may even compare it to bugging our phones or intercepting our emails, but what we put on Facebook is very much "on the public record " and if we are putting our hand in the pocket of the Treasury and getting money we are not entitled to receive the Facebook investigators have a duty to plug that loss.

We are often lectured on the "ethics " that are an expected obligation of the average citizen.  We have laws that crack down on racist abuse and the "glass ceiling " that has impeded women from management opportunities is slowly shattering, but the rules are far from clear when it comes to high finance in the business world.

There seems to be a clash between "moral obligation " and " legal responsibility " when it comes to the management of companies - and the people that work for them.   The business world has always been a hazardous place for both shareholders and employees.  Demand for a product can fade away or someone else may invent a better product, but both management and workers are expected to do their best to maintain the viability of an enterprise for mutual gain.

The fact that a Queensland nickel mine has ceased production and two hundred and thirty seven miners are suddenly out of a job is sad news for the families involved.   To some degree, a slowdown in China has caused a drop in demand for most resorce stocks and the price of nickel has dropped sharply.   Many other mining companies in Australia are cutting back production and shedding staff.

What raises many eyebrows is that this mine is owned by a very colourful politician.  In fact, this politician is the leader of a flailing political party and it is revealed that he withdrew ten million dollars from the funding of that nickel mine to prop up political activities.

The man is extremely wealthy and was claimed to be a billionaire, although the recent downturn may have imposed limitations.  There seems no doubt that when a person owns money, he or she is legally entitled to move it about as per their will, but if removal of that capital leaves the company unable to pay the entitlements it's workers are awarded by law there is a severe clash of responsibility.

No doubt this legal aspect will be carefully scrutinized.  Often company ownership is obscured by using a mix of shell companies, but when the employees walk away without the entitlement protection provided by law simply because the company capital is immune to their claim - then exactly the same principle that applies to cheating the welfare system applies.

Both ends of town - are not playing by the rules !