Peter Lloyd:

Michael Potter writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. While many will sympathise with Peter Lloyd’s plight I would be surprised if many would share the same sentiment expressed in Crikey’s editorial yesterday which in commenting on Lloyd’s sentence stated “the fact that drug use and now criminal conviction was involved should not deter the ABC from a duty of care” and that it (the ABC’s action) “hardly seemed reasonable, caring or fair”. Is Crikey on the same planet as the rest of us? Are we to assume that Crikey believes Peter Lloyd should still hold his job? If so, then presumably it is asking the ABC to condone drug taking among staff and criminal convictions on journalists’ CVs. I don’t think so.

Lloyd’s defence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a common one used throughout western democracies. Someone’s pet moggie could be run over and they could have it. Someone’s side arm could discharge in the mess hall and they could have it. Having spent time in Asia this sort of soft defence is not going to wash with the hard headed judiciary of Singapore. In terms of that country’s law I would suggest Peter Lloyd has been treated very reasonably — he could have been gaoled for much longer and caned.

I suspect the ABC worked hard behind the scenes to get his sentence reduced as far as was reasonably possible. At the end of the day taking drugs is a life style decision. Regrettably it’s also an expression of the times we live in. I suspect we will see this talented reporter back in media at some stage but not in Singapore. Having said that, I hope elements of Australia’s media do not now embark on some misguided effort at trying to free Peter Lloyd earlier or beating the tired old drum of how undemocratic or misguided Asian countries are and how they would be so much better off emulating our much more democratic binge drinking and drug prevalent society.

Ross James, Senior Production Manager at ABC News Tasmania, writes: What absolute tosh… To suggest that Peter Lloyd has been singled out for harsh treatment. Journalists in the ABC are a protected species. Ask yourself what would be the likely treatment for any other employee ABC or otherwise in identical circumstances. No, the news director would not drop everything to fly to foreign climes to hold the hand of the “victim”. Nor would $65,000 be spent providing support.

Should it have been a cameraman, or editor, translator or driver, who was exposed to identical environmental situations they would be fending for themselves and suspended on no pay immediately. Peter was treated as a member of the news royal family. Any other drug peddler would not have had his benefits.

Pat Callinan writes: If you want to be a war reporter, then good luck to you. I praise your heroics, and the fact that you bring compelling stories to newspapers and screens. But to somehow expect your employer (the ABC) to pick up the pieces of your acquired drug habit seems kind of strange to me. The fact that they picked up the tab for a $65,000 legal bill seems weird enough — I can’t think of too many taxpayers that would be happy to put the hat around for a convicted felon. But because he’s a “lauded journalist”, all of a sudden we should care.

It’s always difficult for a media outlet to impartially comment on another part of the media, and in this case Crikey, I think you’ve got it wrong.

Julian Brophy writes: A sad day when Crikey disappears into its navel in defence of Peter Lloyd. Excuse me but are we really saying the ABC did the wrong thing? As a former employee of Aunty who witnessed more dead bodies than I care to remember in the name of keeping the public informed, I don’t recall thinking that I would be granted some special dispensation if I were to commit a crime as a means of coping, simply because I was a journalist. He pleaded guilty to and was convicted of drug offences in a country where he knew the laws were harsh.

On that score alone I would sack him for outright stupidity.

Anthony Morrow writes: Quel bullsh-t regarding Peter Lloyd from the editor’s desk! Oh to have a job that would continue to pay my wage and my superannuation whilst professionally unproductive. Let’s possibly list all those Australian employers who could afford such largesse so that the rest of us working families would include such considerations when career choices arise. Are YOU really suggesting the continuation of wages and entitlements to an employee convicted of a serious drug offence? Love to hear more on this one.

Niall Clugston writes: The case of Peter Lloyd, prompts me to ask: do we really need disasters and atrocities recounted blow by blow, corpse by corpse? I understand that since the Vietnam War there’s been a media credo of bringing harsh reality into the living room, but this isn’t about censorship. No one doubts the horror of such events. No one is enlightened by the constant coverage of carnage. I suspect the majority of viewers are hardened against it. Some are frightened or repelled. And the reporters themselves are apparently traumatised…

Adriaan Bruins writes: How we Australians underrate our exceptional journalists — those foreign correspondents and investigative journalists, who broaden our horizons, and keep our freedoms and democracy healthy. We desperately need these driven, incredibly courageous, and highly intelligent individuals; who search for the facts, the truth, and the stories that define us and inform us. Thank you, Peter Lloyd and Chris Masters, I hope we see a lot more of your good work, and I await the Australia Day when you and your ilk get the big gongs.

Maxine Hardinge writes: How far should the duty of care of one’s employer extend? Surely, the employee, who rather than seeking treatment and counselling for his distress, chooses to self-medicate with a notoriously dangerous and illegal substance (in one of the world’s most drug-intolerant and highly policed countries) has given up all right to succour from their employer. I think the ABC has been more than compassionate and generous.

Douglas Piening writes: I had to read this bizarre piece of writing twice… Are you seriously being critical of the ABC (an employer) who has dismissed a journalist (employee) convicted of an indictable drug offence? Employers have the right to dismiss employees who engage in illegal activity of this nature and the fact he is a journalist should not afford him any exemptions or special treatment. I think you’re a little off the mark here mate.

Rob Keniger writes: Give me a break, talk about one law for journalists and another for the rest of us. Post traumatic stress disorder or not, the guy committed a crime and is going to jail for it. After already forking out $65,000, is it really necessary for the ABC to give Peter Lloyd any more generosity? If he actually has PTSD, perhaps he should have seen a psychiatrist rather than hitting the meth?

The economy:

Jackson Harding writes: Re. “GDP cold comfort as Australia slips into reverse” (yesterday, item 1). Glenn Dyer just like the rest of the meeja followed the herd and tried to find bad news wherever possible. The economy grew 0.1%, but if we take out the farm sector it shrank 0.3%, as so many farmers vote for the National Party they really don’t belong in the economy, so we’ll ignore them. Yippee, we’ve created some bad news when Australia actually has about the only economy left in the world that is still in forward gear! Last time I looked the farm sector was part of the economy.

Why don’t we go the whole hog, let’s remove heavy manufacturing, light manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, gaming, alcohol, tourism and hospitality, financial services, retail, shipping and aircraft purchases from the equation too. On the basis of what’s left (sales of crinolines and hoop skirts, dirigible construction, pedal radio production and whaling) hell on that basis it looks like the Australian economy has been going backwards for a century.

Short selling:

Joe Boswell writes: Pete Wotton (yesterday, comments) wrote: “If I were to sell a house or a car which I did not own, then I would be guilty of fraud. But if I sell a stock or security which I do not own, it suddenly becomes legal and respectable. Somehow the logic escapes me.” You are not committing fraud so long as you deliver the house or car (in your example) at the time agreed. In fact, so long as you seriously intended to deliver, if you fail you would still not be committing fraud, but you would have broken your contract.

Plenty of people sell things they do not have every day. Examples include meals sold to customers in restaurants that have not been made yet; houses bought “buying off the plan”; potatoes that have not been grown and harvested. There’s only a problem if the thing is not delivered when the contract says. It’s very simple.

Patrick Cross writes: Hasn’t Pete Wotton ever heard of “buying off the plan”. In that circumstance you are buying something that doesn’t exist, but may at a future date. I don’t have an issue for selling something you don’t own… most of society let that concept go centuries ago. The issue for me is that this kind of rentist economic activity is presented as a legitimate form of wealth creation and that the people who do it are somehow contributing to society when really they are just leeching off it. They are parasites in the truest sense of the world and the have just about killed their host.

Rainfall:

John Richardson writes: Re. “Nationalising our rainfall” (Tuesday, item 17). Only a dud like Rudd could dream-up this stupid idea. If the federal, state, or any other government for that matter, want to claim ownership of rain water that falls on my property, then they better find a way to collect and remove it. Otherwise I will feel obliged to invoice them for storage costs. Meanwhile, the Murray-Darling is in its death throes. God politicians are pathetic.

TOFU:

Kirk Muddle writes: Re. “CBA determined to please its CEO” (yesterday, item 20). Andrew Crook wrote: “It’s amazing what an $11 million incentive will do to drive internal change (and no, we don’t know what ‘TOFU’ is either).” For Andrew’s education on Commonwealth Bank acronyms, TOFU stands for “Take Ownership and Follow up”. I think it’s been used elsewhere. When my nephew-in-law who works for Commonwealth calls me back when I leave him a message, I always say “Thank you for putting the FU in TOFU”…

Medical colleges:

Nigel Henham, Director, Communications Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, writes: Re. “Menadue: COAG’s billions are a wasted opportunity for health” (Tuesday, item 5). John Menadue’s claim that “medical colleges place barriers to entry” is a myth that doesn’t bear critical scrutiny.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) does not control numbers of specialist anaesthetists entering the profession because the College does not regulate the number of trainees in the system. That is determined by state departments of health which fund training positions in hospitals.

ANZCA already trains many more anaesthetists than the Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee said we should, but ANZCA’s position is that if state health departments create increased numbers of training posts, we will provide the training.

It is a myth that colleges like ours keep the numbers down by maintaining high fail rates at examinations. It is a common — but mistaken belief — that pass rates are something like 20 per cent. That is not true. ANZCA pass rates are around 80 per cent.

ANZCA is concerned about maintaining quality standards for the benefit of patient safety. This is extremely important in view of recent high-profile cases involving a failure of standards. ANZCA prides itself on its education and training assessment processes which have given Australia and New Zealand anaesthesia among the best patient safety records in the world.

Smoking:

Bede Fennell, Head of Public Affairs, British American Tobacco Australia, writes: It is disappointing to see that Mr Daube and Mr Chapman (yesterday, comments) have again engaged in personal attacks and abuse rather than rationally contributing to the debate on public health. For the record BAT does not “promote” its products. One would hope that Mr Daube would be aware that in Australia the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act forbids tobacco companies from promoting their products — and British American Tobacco abides by this law.

It is regrettable that both gentlemen hold such an intense and personal view about us. However, despite this, and in the interests of achieving professional public policy formulation, our offer still stands to meet and work with Mr Daube and Mr Chapman. In future I hope we can discuss such issues in person rather than over the internet.

Daphne Haneman writes: Re. “Mission Australia under fire for tobacco links” (27 November, item 6). British American Tobacco Australia’s website declares its ‘Workplace Giving Program’ permits employees to make pre-tax donations to nine nominated Australian charities, including the Abused Child Trust, Mission Australia, Northcott, Conservation Volunteers Australia, and others. While it is certainly not news that most Australian charities take their money from wherever they may, even from a tobacco company, it is news that some charities find ‘doing anyone’ ethically unpalatable.

A well-known Australian marine charity, for example, invokes ethics training for its employees and refuses to accept donations from inappropriate benefactors. But they are in the minority. Queensland’s Abused Child Trust director told me a few years ago “we don’t care where we get our money.” And I never attended another ACT function. Impressions count in the kingdom of charity. Particularly those impressions one’s left with, after the smoke has cleared.

Julie Bishop:

Ross Waraker writes: Julie Bishop interview on Lateline late night was an interesting case in observation of the political creature. More specifically, whether they live by and uphold the values of which they speak, or adopt what suits them on the day. From where I sit, in relation to Julie Bishop it is the latter. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh, or maybe she has recently turned over a new leaf. When asked about the James Midgood incident, she responded on cue.

“Well Leah, this is obviously a very disturbing incident and I think we should be very sensitive about it and out concern should focus on the welfare of the man involved.” Later in the interview, as the presented focussed more on the negative press and perceived performance of Julie Bishop as shadow treasurer, she offered up this line. “I would hope that they would start to answer them and provide some substantial responses to the questions I ask because I am doing it on behalf of the Australian people. That’s what the opposition does, we ask questions, we hold the government to account, we expect sensible responses.”  Let’s rewind to January 2007, when I was working pro-bono for Robert Jovicic. His special purpose visa was about to expire for the umpteenth time & he was being pressured by the then Minister for immigration Amanda Vanstone to (absurdly) apply for Serbian Citizenship in order to remain in Australia.

The Minister either had to give Jovicic another visa or detain and deport him. Problem was Amanda was off in Mumbai on some other jaunt, and only the minister had the jurisdiction to make this decision.  The responsibility was passed to Julie Bishop (then minister for education) to make the decision. So we waited in a locked room (Jovicic was technically illegal again) for hours while Julie Bishop made ‘the decision’. Her decision perpetuated his nightmare, and the Special Purpose Visa (normally reserved for dignitaries and heads of countries) was renewed for one month. I tried to call Julie Bishops office following the decision. At first, she was available to talk to, but was ‘on the phone’, her staff would get here to call me back immediately. After not hearing from JB, I tried calling her back. Her staff assured me she was available, they weren’t sure why she hadn’t called, she definitely was given the message. I called back a third time and advised that Julie Bishop would not be taking my call and I would have to call her chief of staff in Canberra Stan Piperaglou. That was about as fruitful as talking to a clock going in reverse. So, as a minister, she wouldn’t even take representation or questions from the party that her decision impacted upon – let alone show any sensitivity in another very disturbing immigration case. She ran from the question. But now it seems she holds the torch of truth and all things right for all Australians in the moral crusade of politics and the treasury. A case of do as I say, not as I do?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name — we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.