Beersheba and philanthropy

It is doubtful that outside of a few media commentators and antitrust zealots, anyone else would see it that way. In one area closest to their daily lives, Australians have in the last few decades seen a duopoly move in to control the greater part of retail grocery trade in Australia. Vast numbers of small businesses have been driven to the wall, often it is alleged, by predatory practices. Petrol pricing and the pricing of land distress Australians. They will probably have little confidence in the efficacy of competition policy.

The Federal Court imposed a massive penalty, some would say disproportionate, on Visy - $36 million. In his comments, the judge went further than what was before him, the statement of agreed facts. He cast doubt on whether Mr Pratt's contrition was genuine. In saying the cartel would not have continued without his approval, he suggested a closer personal involvement than was demonstrated by the statement of agreed facts. He was clearly irritated by any suggestion that Visy was motivated by a desire to take advantage of their competitor.

The case, and those comments from the bench, worked up some journalists into a state of moral outrage. Most are not known for their interest in antitrust matters, and in the intricacies of the law and the working of the markets in conditions of oligopoly. Worked into a frenzy of self righteousness, they came to resemble the bloodthirsty Paris mob in the French revolution.

When such a feeding frenzy begins, not too many in the media and elsewhere are prepared to consider the issues fairly and in a balanced way.

It is surprising sometimes how few will have the courage to ask the obvious, whether this reaction is fair and well considered.

Those who demanded that Richard Pratt be stripped of his honours hardly considered much less balanced the reasons why he had received them, and the enormous contributions he had made against the facts in the case.

It is to his credit that Richard Pratt, a dignified, generous and honourable man, decided not to put the Council of the Order of Australia into the unenviable position of having to consider this, and to stand up to the hysteria whipped up by frenzied self righteous media commentators. It was not after all that he had been convicted of a criminal offence. Even the penalty was imposed on a corporation, not on him. He was criticised from the bench, but further than was in my view justified.

It seems those affected by tall poppy syndrome are never satisfied. Recently there was even a call for Richard Pratt to be stripped of his honorary academic awards. This is mean and unworthy.

Honorary degrees are given in recognition of contributions to the community, and on any measure Richard Pratt's contributions are remarkable and worthy of recognition.

What next - a lettre de cachet incarcerating Richard Pratt?

Will they never be satisfied?

And just who in this frenzied pack has contributed, in any comparable way, to the welfare of people of this nation as Richard Pratt so clearly has?