In defence of journos (well, somebody has to), Janet Albrechtsen is NOT a journo, but a lawyer and board member of the IPA. She seems to be only good at spewing out ultra-right-wing columns for The Oz.
Absolutely! The IPA otherwise know as the
Institute for Paid Advocacy has little transparency with its funding arrangements.
What has been revealed unintentionally through several court cases is that Gina Rinehart is a substantial contributor:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...906-25fpq.html
I still like to read what JA says. The problem is not so much what she is saying but what she isn’t. Sponsors of Janet’s are famous for comments such as this:
"The evidence is inarguable that Australia is becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export-oriented business.
"Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future." Gina Rhinehart ($4 million dollar contributor to the IPA)
Of course there’s a legitimate view to the voice of Capital speaking out in defence of shareholders which we all are to a greater or lesser degree. Having said that, organisations such as Qantas, the big four banks and Hancock prospecting ultimately have only one reason to exist and that is to improve shareholder value. Those that do it well will take a slightly longer term view recognising that the loss of trust is indeed deleterious to said aim but ultimately the aim remains the same whether that be at the expense of jobs, the environment, workers rights or any other social value that we may as a community all benefit from. Until a much brighter light is held up to the broader social context in which these organisations function I will continue to pass over such article as Janet’s with little more that a chuckle.
But good luck to her.