This week saw a prominent politician face a judge and receive a prison sentence for misusing the power of the office he held to enrich his family interests. He has spent his first night under lock and key and he will serve three of the five years before becoming eligible for parole. In addition, it is most likely that he will be stripped of the generous pension bestowed on his retirement and the state will seek reimbursement for legal aid provided to fund his defence.
There are more cases in the legal pipeline waiting to be heard and some of them resulted in profits that ran to tens of millions of dollars. For some time this politician virtually ran this state when he headed a faction with the power to force the abdication of any premier who refused to do his bidding. By comparison, the offence for which he is serving prison time seems minor. His family interests held the lease for restaurant properties at Circular Quay and he lobbied to have these leases renewed without calling for competitive tenders - but carefully concealed the fact of his family involvement.
No doubt being deprived of his liberty and the disgrace of a prison sentence will inflict some sort of punishment for the crimes committed, but the rewards gained from the power he held are massive. He is a very rich man and on release he will return to a multi million dollar mansion and a very rich lifestyle. This does raise the question of the impossibility of ever making the punishment handed down match the crime.
Another case of "misinterpretation " of the rules has resulted in thousands of citizens being fleeced by having to pay for a free service. When we seek a loan the money people usually check our credit profile with one of the rating agencies and a "black mark " can lead to refusal. Years ago many found to their dismay that their credit rating held errors and they were unable to have them removed. A law was passed making every citizen entitled to obtaining a free copy of their credit report once every twelve month period. They were then entitled to challenge any incorrect entry.
One of these credit assessment agencies carefully constructed both their literature and their phone answering dialogue to steer enquirers towards the "commercial " version of the report. The enquirer was led to believe that they needed the "expedited " version rather than what would otherwise take ten working days for delivery. This involved a charge of $ 79.95.
The Australian Privacy Commissioner has found that this agency breached the privacy rules by selling a commercial product to consumers who simply wanted the free copy of their credit report to which they were legally entitled. The Commissioner suggests that consumers make contact with the agency to arrange a refund.
That seems a very unsatisfactory outcome. Many people do not read newspapers or closely follow the other news formats and most will be unaware that they are entitled to get their money back - if they take the trouble to lodge an application. The credit agency has been warned to improve the nature of their procedures so that the availability of free reports is made clear and not closely identified with the commercial product.
If enquirers were deliberately steered towards paying money for what they were entitled to without a charge then a law breach occurred. Surely, forcing the the expense of identifying those incorrectly charged and issuing a refund would be a more suitable penalty - which may deter others from similar actions.
Otherwise, the penalty bears little relation to the crime !
No comments:
Post a Comment