If you think the Occupy movement has no relevance to Australia, read on

[Matilda]

In a case that could have far-reaching implications for Victoria's renters, NAB has taken the Sheriff to court after it failed to evict the tenants of two Ivanhoe East properties.

The mortgagor of the properties defaulted on repayments to NAB after letting them out without the bank's knowledge, prompting it to seek repossession orders.

NAB wants the Supreme Court to force the Sheriff to evict the tenants without it needing to comply with the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires renters be given 28 days' notice

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/nab-seeks-right-to-evict-renters-20111024-1mgdm.html#ixzz1bl6TyZD6


NAB is arguably Australia's biggest and most powerful bank, and if they have to wait a month to take vacant possession of a house, they won't go under.

This is an example of the 1% flexing its muscles - inhumane, cruel and heartless. Yet right-wingers have been busy telling us repeatedly over the past week that the Occupy movement in Australia has no justification, because we have it so good.

Not if you're dealing with the banks, you don't. Not even if the default is nothing to do with you - they'll see you on the street without blinking an eye, let alone shedding a (crocodile) tear.

NAB haven't won their case - yet. But if there were any ethics left in banking, they wouldn't even be trying it on.

[Matilda]

1. And the Qantas handout to Alan Joyce?

Guess who were the two biggest Qantas shareholders to vote for the obscene salary increase of Alan Joyce (not to mention increases of up to 40% for his senior executives) over the wishes of the majority of smaller investors?

HSBC and JP Morgan. The 1% looking out for their own, as usual.


But that may change:

"The chill wind of change is blowing through the boardrooms of our corporate heavyweights as panic starts to set in with the onset of this year's annual reporting season.

For the first time, shareholders - the people who actually own the company - will be able to exercise their right of protest over the obscene levels of pay handed out to those running their companies.

From this year on, if 25 per cent of shareholders vote against the salary packages of executives and directors two years running, the entire board will be spilled.

An unsettling prospect for corporate leaders even in prosperous times, the new rules have collided with a series of unexpected crises that have sharpened the focus on the widening gulf between those running our companies, those who invest in them and those who work for them."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/running-to-save-their-executive-bacon--alas-it-may-be-too-late-20111014-1loyo.html

[The Doctor.]

2. Never really paid much attention, but how is the corporate-public dynamic

down under?