Sugar tax leaves a bitter taste

The Grattan Institute's report demanding a new sugar tax on soft drinks is a blatant insult to the Australian people.

Grattan, founded by the Rudd government, prides itself on "evidence-based" policy.  Its latest work, which follows Greens policy, smacks of anything but.

Sugar taxes do not work.  Research has found they fail to reduce obesity and have a regressive impact on the poor.  They change the behaviour of very few and reduce consumption of unhealthy food so little that they have almost no impact on obesity.

A study published in Contemporary Economic Policy, which analysed American states that had introduced soft drink taxes, found they had practically no impact on body mass index (BMI) and obesity.  These findings were confirmed by Denmark's "fat tax", which proved economically damaging but did not change the habits of 80 per cent of Danes.  The tax led to a tiny 0.4 per cent reduction in fat consumption in seven months, while food prices increased by 14 per cent.  It was repealed after 15 months.

Mexico's sugar tax has reduced soft drink consumption by just 5 per cent.  Emilio Gutierrez, a professor at Mexico's ITAM University, described it as "useless".

Soft drinks are a relatively small part of our energy intake and can be easily substituted.  Other unhealthy products, such as flavoured milk, will be immune from a fizzy drink tax, thus having no effect on the consumption of other unhealthy drinks.

A study in the Journal of Public Economics in 2010 found that statebased soft drink taxation in the US between 1989 and 2006 had been offset by consumption of other highcalorie drinks.  A Cornell University study in 2012 found it even increased purchases of beer — perhaps not the intended consequence! The tax would also affect the poor far more than the wealthy.  Those on lower incomes tend to consume more sugary products and are less able to pay for alternatives.

Grattan's report is also chasing a declining problem.  According to the ABS, the percentage of Australians who consume sweetened beverages has declined from 49 per cent in 1995 to 42 per cent in 2011-12.  Australians may be getting more obese, but soft drinks are not the primary cause.

Ironically, the measure could also be quite costly.  The UK's Office of Budget Responsibility has predicted an increase in inflation due to their upcoming sugar tax, pushing up the cost of servicing index-linked government bonds by 1 billion in 2018-19.

Not only is taxing people for their consumption choices illiberal, asserting an excessive role for government in personal dietary choices, it also lacks evidential justification.  Obesity is a complex issue.  Taxation has proven to fail as a solution.

Why I joined — and quit — the Australian Republican Movement

As a long-time republican, I made the decision last year to join the Australian Republican Movement.

Having spent the better part of the past decade involved in Liberal politics.  It's safe to say that I hold a minority view in my own party.

I have consistently argued for a republic because I value the ideas of sovereignty and independence.  I don't want a republic because I hate Australia, I want a republic because I love Australia — its history and its traditions, and believe it would be a pathway to strengthen them.

I knew signing up that the Chairman of the ARM, Peter FitzSimons was no right winger.  But what I found was that the opinions and views espoused on behalf of the entire movement show a complete lack of diversity and a complete lack attempt to reach out and speak to anyone with political opinions other than their own.

Their events exclusively offer up guests on the left of politics, from Louise Adler to Australian of the Year David Morrison AO (Sorry David, I'm going to keep calling all of my friends "guys" no matter how much you dislike it).

On the day of the American election, the ARM posted a meme to its Facebook page with a picture of President-elect Donald Trump said "Not *that* kind of republican".  This kind of dismissal of those who don't share their views is something they have in common with the unsuccessful Democratic campaign.

In March the Republican Movement trumpeted a Newspoll showing that support for an Australian Republic had risen above 50 per cent.  As the movement well knows, this doesn't mean they're in a winning position — they still need four out of six states to vote in favour as well.

They should be realising that their support has peaked and be looking for ways to improve on the current set of numbers.  The Gillard Government's proposed local government referendum had bipartisan support and 75 percent community approval, prior to public scrutiny of the proposal, in which support collapsed and it was dropped.  How do they think they're going to go with 50 percent?  They're kidding themselves.

After the Brexit vote in June, FitzSimons published an article in the Fairfax and NewsCorp papers on whether the historic vote would give rise to an Australian Republic.  He oddly claimed that an Australian Republic would boost trade with absolutely no evidence, our Asia-Pacific partners would treat us no differently, (in fact, the Asia-Pacific region treat us more generously in trade terms than most independent states!) and he barely mentioned Brexit, or the reasons for it, only used it as a pitch for an Australian Republic.

The Brexit movement was about reclaiming the culture and sovereignty of Britain, which the people felt had been taken away from them by a bloated European Union.  Brexit had a hopeful, optimistic, forward-looking message of opening itself up to the world, and taking back control of their sovereignty and their country.  Australians actually do cherish the traditions of our history and foundations of western civilisation that have served us well for centuries.

Here in lies the ARM's problem.  Just like the modern left in Australia, it views Australia's past, its history and its culture as something to be ashamed of.  It views a change to a Republic as a way to wipe the slate clean of our "sins".  This is not where public sentiment is.  According to polling, more than 90 per cent of people are proud to be an Australian and more importantly, almost 80 percent of people agree that our country has a history, about which we can be proud.

The ARM's number one campaign it is plugging at the moment is little more than a whinge, calling on Queen Elizabeth II to release all the correspondence in relation to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 in her past dealings with the Australian Government and Parliamentarians.  I don't think your average punter is discussing the release of the Queen's letters at a Sunday afternoon BBQ.  This kind of petty introspection is pathetic and is only appealing to their own flock.  The ARM is supposedly a bipartisan organisation.  But it has the character of an obsessed Labor baby-boomer.

While it was still running the campaign to try to get some letters from the Queen, the most grievance sin occurred that should have been a no-brainer for the ARM to speak out on.  In October Tasmanian Governor Kate Warner publically challenged Pauline Hanson's views on Muslim immigration.

Surely a Vice-Regal representative criticising an elected Senator should be on the ARM's radar.  Constitutional law expert Professor George Williams labelled Governor Warner's comments concerning and unwise as the role of a governor is one that is meant to be above politics.  The ARM stayed silent.

One can only imagine the ARM's response if an unelected Governor was to enter the political fray on an issue like lower taxes or government spending?  There would be cries of outrage.

Well, you can save your crocodile tears because the current rabble that is the Australian Republican Movement is not one I want to be associated with.

Donald Trump vote was all about voters having a different choice

Last Wednesday afternoon, just as it was becoming clear Donald Trump would win the US presidential election Aaron Patrick, senior writer at this paper reported on an insight he had gained from an unnamed minister in the Turnbull government.

When asked about whether there were any lessons for Australia from what had just happened in the United States the minister "denied there were any significant implications for the Coalition from Trump's popularity".

Coalition MPs who hope to keep their seats at the next federal election should start to get worried if that unnamed minister is advising Malcolm Turnbull on political strategy.

Yes, Donald Trump himself won't be on the ballot in Australia.  But variations of what he represents will be.  Trump's position on trade bears the most resemblance to the Greens.  Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young issued a media release the day after the US election endorsing Trump's policy against the Trans Pacific-Partnership Agreement.  And of course Trump's stance on immigration has similarities to Pauline Hanson's One Nation party.

Outside the consensus

Trump's campaign was run firmly outside of the prevailing consensus of both the Republican and Democratic parties — and yet he won.  Whether or not the Greens are outside the consensus of the Australian political class is debatable.  They're probably not.  But One Nation certainly is.

If anyone thinks Donald Trump can't happen in Australia they're wrong.  They're forgetting the Palmer United Party in 2014 had three senators in the commonwealth Parliament, and MPs in both the Northern Territory and Queensland Parliaments.  To compare Trump to Palmer is unfair to Trump.  For one thing Palmer never had a policy of cutting the top rate of personal income tax to 33 per cent.

The minister Patrick was talking to went on to say:  "There is a larger anti-Trump vote.  It was a Republican base that reacted against their establishment.  Then in a fractured country it split along racial and educational lines.  Australia is simply a better country."

A simple reading of the electoral math proves this statement wrong.  It was traditional Democrats, not Republicans that got Trump elected in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The one point of the minister's analysis that's correct is that no party's "establishment" can afford to take their "base" for granted.  Clinton took her presumed working-class "base" for granted and the result was large proportions of that base either voting for Trump or not bothering to turn up.

Here in Australia, Liberals have to understand that their "base" doesn't like higher taxes.  The ALP have a different problem.  It has to work out who its base is — which explains why Labor's primary vote sits at historical lows.

The idea that Australia is now somehow a "better country" than the US because Donald Trump won the election is simply a left wing trope.  As more than one commentator has pointed out — the country that last week elected Donald Trump president also elected, not once but twice — a black man whose middle name is Hussein.

Ludicrous suggestion

The suggestion from both Labor and the Greens that because someone they don't like is now president Australia should reconsider its alliance with the US is ludicrous.  That something like this could be suggested before Trump is even sworn in reveals just how tenuous the commitment of Labor and the Greens is to our most important alliance.

Maybe the minister who Patrick spoke to also thinks there's no lessons for Australia from the Brexit decision, or the weekend's Orange byelection in New South Wales.

Despite what the minister believes, or chooses to believe, the implications of the Trump phenomenon for Australia and indeed for all democracies, are massive.

Obviously there are many differences between the US and Australia, but the American presidential election revealed, in stark terms, the sort of economic and cultural fault lines in both countries.

Donald Trump becoming president is what happens when people are given a choice that is different from the choice they're normally offered at elections.

Before the election it was said that Trump was the only Republican candidate who could lose to Clinton.  Now, following the result, there's an argument that actually the opposite is true — Trump was the only Republican who could have won.

Public service perks don't pass the pub test

Enterprise bargaining is a two-way street.  Public sector unions cannot continue to argue that well-paid public servants deserve additional entitlements without considering the trade-offs that could be made.  Public servants already enjoy generous conditions and entitlements that would not pass the pub test.

The Commonwealth public services' enterprise bargaining agreements notionally expired in 2014.  To date, 65 agreements have been finalised — despite union opposition to every single agreement — but many of the larger departments' agreements remain unresolved.

Whether in the private sector or the public sector, bargaining takes negotiation from both the employer and the employees.  The Turnbull government's workplace bargaining policy provides the flexibility for this to occur on the employer side.  It puts a cap on remuneration increases at 2 per cent a year, with scope to increase salary beyond this point through the packaging of other benefits or productivity increases.  The government's policy is currently subject to an inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment Committee, chaired by a Labor senator.

The idea that public servants are underpaid is completely unsubstantiated.  Over the past decade, federal public servants' pay has risen by 50.7 per cent, far more than the increase in CPI of 31.8 per cent.  According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in May 2016, public sector full-time adult average yearly earnings were $87,942.40, compared with the private sector average yearly earnings of $80,204.80.

If public sector unions want to continue with their campaign for pay increases beyond 2 per cent then they need to come to the bargaining table.  I have conducted research into the top 10 Australian Public Service enterprise agreements by agency size — covering 72.4 per cent of public servants — which identified three broad areas where trade-offs could be made.

The first area is the generous allowances that have the effect of increasing salaries by thousands of dollars each year.  For example, a Wellbeing Site Representative at the Australian Taxation Office comes with an allowance of $613 a year.  The Department of Health agreement provides staff with subsidised eyewear, at $165 for each prescription.  The Department of Agriculture agreement allows staff to claim $300 a year for health and fitness activities like gym memberships — whether or not they actually go to the gym is a different matter.  These examples are the tip of the iceberg.

The second area is the generous leave provisions that go well beyond the standard entitlements in the private sector.  The Department of Social Services Agreement has up to four days' paid leave a year to conduct volunteer work with a community organisation.  The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade allows paid leave where employees are participating at an international sporting event.  Several agencies provide one day of paid leave a year for employees to move house.  Most private sector employees would be expected to take annual or unpaid leave for these activities.  The Department of Defence has what's called DECA day.  As I explained when I appeared before the Senate committee last week, "it's not part of your annual leave, it's not part of your sick leave, and it's not part of your personal leave.  You just take a day off when you feel like it."

The third area is the exclusive perks that are given to public sector unions.  The agreements provide unionists with access to workplace facilities, infrastructure, technology and resources — and paid time.  For example, union delegates have the right to paid time to represent the interests of members to the employer and in industrial tribunals, and also get paid leave to attend union training and events.  It is unacceptable that taxpayers are subsidising unions' industrial and political activities.

The current inquiry into the government's workplace bargaining policy is, of course, simply part of a wider political campaign.  Public sector unions are increasingly using the enterprise bargaining system to advance their own political agendas, rather than representing the best interests of their members.  There is a weight of evidence to show that potential trade-offs could be made to boost pay for public servants.  The government's policy is flexible;  whether the public sector unions' policy will become flexible remains to be seen.

18C repeal the only solution on freedom of speech

Here's a simple idea all lawmakers should adopt:  when a law is fundamentally broken, it should be repealed.  Not replaced.  Repealed.

So it is with section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.  Removing the words "offend" and "insult" from a provision that has been used as a weapon against newspaper cartoonists and university students is an incredibly modest proposal.

Any attempts to water down this inarguably sensible legislative change — by, for instance, replacing these words with a synonym of the removed words — should be recognised for what they are:  an effort by those who have contempt for freedom of speech to kill off an amendment that seeks to restore this fundamental human right in Australia.

You don't horse-trade on freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is an inalienable human right.  It's vital for democracy.  Speech is the method by which our conscience manifests;  an attack on freedom of speech is an attack on freedom of thought.

These are the principles that we need to constantly remind ourselves of in the context of the current debate in Australia around freedom of speech.

The modest reform bill currently before the Senate proposing change to section 18C is co-­sponsored by 20 senators.

Part of the reason why the bill has garnered so much support among members of the upper house is that it presents such a sensible response to a clear policy failure.

The legal saga involving several QUT students — which took more than three years to be resolved at significant financial, professional, and emotional cost to the students and their families — and now the complaint against cartoonist and member of the fourth estate Bill Leak have sounded the alarm on a provision that has been a ticking time bomb since the law was first passed by federal parliament in 1995.

Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has disgraced herself in recent months, particularly in her oversight of the handling of these recent complaints brought under section 18C.  Her intervention in the ensuing policy debate may yet be her biggest mistake.

Triggs has admitted that the status quo is unacceptable.  Rather than adopting the elegant potential resolution on the table, she has proposed the replacement of the words "offend" and "insult" with the word "vilify".

The Triggs proposal makes a mockery of the genuine attempt to reform section 18C.  The word ­"vilify" is used in several state hate speech laws around the country, and it has been used as the basis for several cases that restrict freedom of speech in the same way that ­section 18C has.

Given this experience at the state level it's clear that Triggs is ­either ignorant of the existing ­jurisprudence, or she is deliber­ately attempting to derail the reform process.

Fixing section 18C is as simple as repealing the provision, or parts of it.

There are countless laws that deal with threats, incitement and violence.  All 18C adds to the body of law is a way to silence political opponents.

I'm writing this piece in the US, where a cultural reverence for free speech, underpinned by explicit constitutional protection, is ingrained in the American psyche.  Free speech is not a partisan issue in the US.

Perhaps the most poignant recent illustration of this political consensus came in 2014 during an incident involving Donald Sterling, then owner of the NBA's LA Clippers.

In August of that year, ­record­ings of telephone conversations Sterling had had with his former girlfriend were released to the public.

Some of the comments made by Sterling in the course of those conversations were unambiguously bigoted, including telling his ex-girlfriend, "don't bring black people to my games".

Following NBA-imposed penalties on Sterling, US President Barack Obama, the nation's first black head of state, was subsequently asked by a journalist about the incident and he declined to call for state intervention:  "When ignorant folks want to ­advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything;  you just let them talk.  And that's what happened here".

Sadly, on this front Australia differs remarkably from our Anglo­spheric cousin across the Pacific.  It is incredibly rare to find even small pockets of support for freedom of speech among members of Australia's political Left.

The language employed by the Australian political Left on free speech gives the game away.  ­Rather than engaging honestly in a debate about the reasonable ­limits of free speech, many on the Left accuse those who wish to ­expand the scope of debate ­unrestricted by state sanction of racism and hatefulness.

Attempts to expand free speech should be applauded.  Getting on with the repeal, not merely the substitution, of the worst parts of section 18C is a level-headed step forward.

Donald Trump will lead the US in the right direction. We should take note

Donald Trump's historic victory represents a huge opportunity for middle America.  It is a rejection of liberal internationalism, political correctness and the progressive politics of urban elites in favour of traditional American values — love of country, family and, for many, faith.  Like Brexit, it heralds a return to the pre-eminence of the nation state, of national sovereignty and democracy.

Many working-class Americans, who had traditionally put their faith in the Democratic Party to deliver for them, voted Republican for the first time.  In contrast, the Democrats, filled with the false confidence of urban progressives, condescended to call the working-class voter base uneducated and deplorable.

As is customary in presidential elections, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called to congratulate US President-elect Donald Trump, remarking that he's a deal maker and pragmatist.

So, what did Americans vote for?  How will Donald Trump "Make America Great Again"?

Trump's first priority will be to boost the US economy and create jobs.  He aims to reshape US tax policy, dramatically cutting income and company taxes, deregulating the economy and cutting government spending.  Trump's aim is to boost US GDP growth to 4 per cent and create 25 million new jobs.  In a nod to his daughter Ivanka's efforts to support working women, Trump also wants to see greater female labour force participation and will offer tax deductions for child-care expenses for working parents.  Obamacare will go, and with it an unaffordable and inflexible system.  Trump will replace it with something more workable.

If you have visited the US in recent times, you will appreciate the urgent need for investment in its ageing infrastructure.  Many highways, railroads and bridges are in a state of disrepair.  Trump has promised big infrastructure investment.  How he pays for infrastructure projects will be a considerable challenge as tax revenues are likely to fall in the short term with his tax reform package.  Trump's solution will be to attract private sector investment in infrastructure through a system of tax credits.

Trump's election is a big rejection of the international environmental movement and its fatwa against carbon.  In the US where the basic wage is $7.25 an hour, the closure of coal mines and regulatory hurdles to shale gas are blamed for blowing out the cost of electricity for ordinary Americans.  Trump has tapped into this angst and has vowed to dramatically change US energy and climate policies, including overhauling the Environmental Protection Agency and scrapping Obama's Clean Power Plan.  Trump wants America to be energy self-sufficient and will encourage the development of US shale gas reserves as a source of low-emission, cheap energy.  South Australia should take heed.

Like Australia, America's success story is the story of migration.  Trump recognises this and is supportive of legal, regulated migration.  But, like Australia, average Americans want strong and safe borders and want people to play by the rules.  Trump has tapped into this by promising to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.  Expect him to ensure the letter of US immigration law is enforced, with the deportation of illegal migrants and a crackdown on employment of illegal migrants.

Finally, on foreign policy, a Trump administration will mark the end of internationalism and US adventurism.  Trump has little interest in intervening in the affairs of foreign countries.  However, he will take a hardline approach to defeating radical Islam which he views as a threat to American values and way of life as Communism was during the Cold War.

US allies have expressed concern that the Trump administration may not take existing relationships such as NATO and ANZUS as seriously as his predecessors.  He may reset some relationships and is likely to favour countries like Australia and Britain, who share American values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberties and personal responsibility.  But he's not going to accept free riding off US military power, so expect him to demand European and Asian alliance partners start taking more responsibility for their own security and paying their way.

From Australia's perspective, we must monitor steps by Trump to implement a protectionist agenda.  This was a feature of both his and Clinton's campaign.  Starting a trade war with China and putting up tariffs on Chinese imports will just result in economic harm to everyday Americans who would have to pay more for everyday consumables.  The reason US manufacturing jobs have disappeared is more down to technology and automation than offshoring.  Reducing the tax and regulatory burden on businesses as well as decreasing energy prices will help USA Inc much more than erecting trade barriers.

Further, it is imperative that Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and her team remind the putative Trump administration in the next few weeks that abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership would boost Chinese prestige in the Asian region at the expense of the US.  It would also be an enormous missed opportunity to expand US growth and jobs.  And that's not in anyone's interest.

Brexit means Brexit — and democracy, too

The stench of elite hatred for democracy is sifting through the streets of London.

The courts have ruled against the Government's ability to implement the clear democratic will of the people.  Meanwhile, Remainers disparage those who voted for Brexit as uneducated and uninformed, tricked by a campaign of deceit, and voting against their supposed best interest.  They show an absolute inability to accept that maybe, just maybe, the majority is not on their side.

Of course, this is nothing new.  The idea that the masses are incapable of governing themselves, and must be led by the enlightened few, is one of the oldest diseases.  Plato rejected Athenian democracy, preferring the idealised rule of "philosopher kings" (i.e. himself).  Similar arguments about people being "creatures of impulse and emotion" who lack reason were used against women's suffrage.

Democracy had no lower ebb in the twentieth century than May 1940.  Britain's last major ally on the continent, France, had fallen.  The chances of a successful evacuation of Dunkirk appeared weak.  Nazism, in collaboration with Russian communism, was now dominating the continent.  Meanwhile, much of Asia was falling to Imperial Japan.  America seemed uninterested in helping.

It was left to Britain to defend western civilisation against the onslaught of some of the most extraordinary hatred.  However, even at this time, there were many elites in Britain who, uninterested in democracy, were sympathetic to compromise.  Despite the victory for democracy, it seems the anti-democratic strain of thought remains strong.  It comes out in full flight when a decision is made contrary to their worldview.

Brexit is one part of it.  However, we are more generally seeing a loss of faith in democratic systems.  Surveys across western democracies have found young people are less supportive of democracy than their parents.  Meanwhile, Donald Trump has consistently refused to say whether he would accept an election result against him.

The problem has become self-perpetuating.  The people, sick of a feeling that elites are not listening to them, are increasingly choosing previously fringe parties and politicians on all sides of the spectrum.  This leads the establishment to decry the impact of populism and seek to minimise democratic will — by, for example, attempting to block Brexit.

As former Australian prime minister John Howard reminded a British audience this week — "populism" has always been with us.  It is the role of politicians is to lead, to persuade the people.  They must then respect their collective wisdom.  No, not every person is right.  Nor will everyone make the right decisions for the correct reasons.  But they capability of humanity to choose its own leadership is fundamental to our humanity.

Democracy reflects the fundamental principle that "all people have exactly the same right to participate in the construction of a political community".  It is a fundamental element of our liberty and equal moral worth.  This is not to say that there should not be constraints on democracy — constitutions, rights and norms of accountability and responsibility.  However, ultimately these institutions must be created with a sense of popular support or otherwise they will crumble at the first sign of strain.

Brexit is very difficult for the many whose entire world view it challenges.  However, this is not a reason to make apocalyptic predictions of a new European dark age, nor is it a reason to block the people's will.  Remainers should focus on making a success of Brexit — representing the 48 percent who voted "In" by encouraging cooperation and mutual agreements in their priority areas.

The decision by the courts to block the triggering of Article 50, as well as other attempts to stop or delay Brexit in Parliament, will only do more damage to our democratic foundations.  It expands the "elites versus the people" dichotomy that is endangering the rising of extremists.  If the appeal fails, the British parliament must swiftly respect the people's will and allow the Government to trigger Article 50.  The future of democracy depends on it.

Dreamworld AGM fiasco is the sort of reason people hate corporate Australia

What Ardent Leisure did last week says a lot about Australia's corporate culture.  Two days before its scheduled annual general meeting four people were killed in an accident at Dreamworld, a Gold Coast theme park owned by the company.  The annual general meeting went ahead and shareholders voted to award the chief executive a bonus.

Instead of focusing all of management's attention on helping the victims' families, assisting traumatised staff and co-operating with the authorities, company executives were talking about how much they should pay themselves.

Put simply, it's things like this that make people hate big business.  That's why the public cheer when corporate bosses on $10 million annual salaries are hauled before politicians to be interrogated at parliamentary inquiries.  And that's why when big business gives an opinion, fewer and fewer people listen.

Fairly or not the behaviour of Ardent Leisure tars all of corporate Australia.  What happened last week is just one of the reasons why community confidence in business is declining.  If there is such a such a thing as a "social licence to operate", Ardent Leisure has come perilously close to losing it.

According to a survey by the public relations firm Edelman, less than half of Australians trust business.  Only 33 per cent of Australians regard business chief executives as credible.  It's remarkable to consider that Australians are more likely to trust a government official than a business leader.

Actions speak volumes

Last year Ardent published an exhaustive "Sustainability Report".  In addition to its safety performance the report dealt with issues such as the company's carbon dioxide emissions and the wage differential between its male and female employees.  The company also reported on its "commitment to support and respect the protection and enhancement of internationally proclaimed civil rights".  But actions speak louder than words.

The reason the Ardent chairman gave for not postponing the annual general meeting is revealing.  He said lawyers advised him that according to the corporations law the date of the meeting couldn't be changed.

Whether or not under ASIC's rules the company could have delayed its annual general meeting is beside the point.  The fact is that on legal advice the meeting went ahead.  The law, and the lawyers' interpretation of it, trumped a sense of decency.

It's easy to blame the company for its apparent callousness.  And certainly a different chairman and different chief executive might have conducted the meeting differently or even disregarded their legal advice and not held the meeting.  The penalty for failure to hold an annual general meeting includes a fine and the possibility of imprisonment.

In much of corporate Australia compliance, governance and risk management have become ends in themselves.  The purpose of Ardent Leisure as a business, is the same as it is for any other company — to return a profit to its owners.  And in the course of returning a profit a company must obey the law.  But what's happened in this country, as indeed is happening around the world, is there are so many rules to comply with, and so many "sustainability reports" to produce that those things not written down and not explicitly prescribed by the government and regulators tend to be ignored or downplayed.

The idea that corporate culture can somehow be regulated by the government, as has been suggested by the chairman of ASIC is ridiculous.  Not only is it impossible to regulate "culture", any effort to attempt to do so is dangerous.  A company's corporate culture can be just as big an asset as its plant and equipment — and the government attempting to control a company's corporate culture is in principle not very different from the government taking over a company's physical assets.

In many companies where once the corporate culture might have been to do "the right thing", it has been replaced by a culture that requires the rules to be followed at all costs and without question.  And efforts by government to regulate corporate culture will only have the opposite of the intended effect.  Directors will leave responsibility for their company's corporate culture to the government, rather than take responsibility for it themselves.

The end result will be we'll get more episodes such as Ardent Leisure's annual general meeting, not less.