richard pratt dead, page-55

I am not suggesting that cartel behavior should be tolerated. I would love to see true free and open markets.

Pratt continued to *own* Visy - rather than exclusively *run* Visy. Im sure that an owner like Pratt would have continued to have influence, but that was always going to be the case as long as he owned it - and Im not sure how we could have possibly "ceased" to own and hence be involved with it once the allegations were made!

He did however, significantly step back from its day to day operations and amongst other initiatives, employed Alan Fels, former head of the ACCC to help re-educate Visy and bring its policies in line with the 21st century. He also went a step further and selected key people to the company board from its customer base, and an ex fosters CEO (John Murphy) to lead the company forward and ensure that its policies were much more customer oriented... I would suggest each of these are progressive steps to fix a situation. This is on top of paying a stauatory fine which was deemed enough by the judge presiding over the case. I have not followed Amcor's moves to remedy its corporate culture, nor do I know if its chairman ever stepped down or when if so.

The accusations - they were made against Visy Pty. Ltd, whom agreed to certain things - and there is a significant difference between Visy the entity and Richard Pratt the man. This line seems to have been significantly and uncharacteristically blurred in the case of Pratt-Visy - and this blurring is something that I believe does not benefit our community in the slightest..

With regards to proceeds of crime legislation, I don't believe there has been any crime committed - these offenses do not yet fall under any crimes act - and therefore it cannot be applied. Furthermore, the judge in the case decided that a $36m fine was sufficient to close the issue. He certainly had all the facts before him to decide what might be appropriate - and more than enough time to make an informed decision on what might be appropriate. His ruling saw neither any limitation on a penalty, and it was by all measures a record penalty to impose. Why would anyone suggest its not sufficient?