LINKS CORPORATE MEDICINE WEB SITE Disclaimer The many extracts on these pages are from copyright material. They are owned by the reference given or its owner. They are reproduced here for educational purposes and to stimulate public debate about the provision of health and aged care. I consider this to be "fair use" in the common interest. They should not be reproduced for commercial purposes. The material is selective and I have not included denials and explanations. I am not claiming that all of the allegations are true. The intention is to show the general thrust of corporate practices as well as the nature and extent of any allegations made. Links to Site Maps Central Initial USA Australian International Corporate Practices (to print) Path to this page Home Australia Austr Hosp Companies Mayne access page Other pages Entry to Privatisation Privatisation Background Australian states Gen. Pract. Corporatisation General Practice/Pathology:- Sonic&Co . . Foundation Lifecare . . . Endeavour Primary . . Revesco&related Hospital Companies Affinity Health Alpha Healthcare Austr. Hosp. Care Benchmark Healthscope Hosps of Austr (HOA) Insurer hospitals James Hardie & HCC McGoldrick's comps Markalinga & AME Mayne Health & HCoA Moran Healthcare Nova Health Ramsay Hlth Care US grps HCA & AMI Small Hosp groups Mayne Pages Mayne access page 1886-1994 - - - refs Collusion - - - refs 1995-2000 - - - refs Clippings 1998 Conflicts&Scan scam                         refs Privatisations 2000-2001 - - - refs Smedley - - refs Health Story 2002-2003 Purchasers Affinity Hlth & Citigroup 2004-2005 Break up Mayne Diagnostics Restrict Mayne Content Mayne's behaviour leading up to the 1994 prosecution for collusive practices in trucking, its guilty plea, its fine, and its aggressive response. Australian section      The Collusion and Price Fixing Scandal Mayne Nickless

This page examines Mayne Nickless conduct as a corporate citizen outside health care. It takes a good hard look at the way in which the company thinks and behaves and asks whether these are the people we want looking after our Mums and Dads as they develop the illnesses inherent in aging? Are they the people we want to care for us should we be unfortunate enough to develop a serious illness? Can we trust them to look after us or will they look after their shareholders instead?

The company has denied and continues to deny most of the allegations made about it. In this instance the company provides health care and vulnerable citizens may be at risk if the company places its interests ahead of their welfare. In the interests of Australian citizens I have assumed that there is substance to most of the allegations. This is congruent with comments made by the judiciary, the Trade Practices Commission and the press.

Contents

I. Behaviour before the Scandal

II The Collusion and Price Fixing Scandal

III. Continuing Unsavoury Conduct

IV. References and Extracts

I. Behaviour before the Scandal

In the Tradestock case, the TPC alleged that nine freight forwarders - - - - had made a collective decision to boycott transport brokers. Justice Franki of the Federal Court found that the TPC had proved that all but two of the companies were parties to such an arrangement, but that the arrangement was not in breach of the law. A SENSE OF DÉJÀ VU, Australian Financial Review 03/08/1993

Conduct can be relative:- Corporations typically claim that they have done nothing wrong, meaning illegal and their reputation and credibility is therefore unsullied. It is important to distinguish between legal and acceptable conduct. Some minor infraction unknowingly entered into may be illegal, whereas some socially unacceptable conduct may be legal. Similarly conduct which may be acceptable when selling used cars or encyclopaedias may be abhorrent when attending to the needs of the vulnerable aged. This is particularly important when examining Mayne's track record. We are talking about the suitability of the company to care for sick and vulnerable people.

Mayne was involved in a number of contentious issues long before the 1994 price fixing scandal. These reflect its culture.

Insurance:- In these early years there was a court action in regard to the clauses in insurance contracts. In the limited information I have about this is a reference to "in relation to inducement in non/disclosure and misrepresentation".

Tax:- Mayne was also in conflict with the tax office in regard to tax claims for fines that it claimed were part of the cost of the business and so tax deductible. The nature of the fines is not clear but they might have been minor fines for things like speeding.

Collusion:- The price fixing scandal 1990-94 was not the first time the transport companies, including Mayne Nickless had been accused of collusive and anti-competitive practices. The largest and most costly case ever undertaken by the TPC was the "tradestock case". Nine freight forwarders mostly owned by TNT, Mayne Nickless and Brambles were alleged to have made a collective decision to boycott transport brokers. The TPC were clearly unimpressed by this and felt it was unacceptable in our society and anti-competitive. Citizens may well have agreed.

An acrimonious 7 years investigation commenced in the 1970's. It culminated in 14 months of formal hearing and 16,000 pages of transcripts. The companies contested every step. In 1985 the judge found that 7 of the 9 companies were parties to the arrangement but that the arrangement was not in breach of the law. An embarrassed TPC was left with massive legal costs. Next time they would be more careful.

Software Piracy:- Alerted by a whistle blower Business Software Association of Australia (BSAA) sued Mayne for computer piracy in 1990 in regard to copying software from Word Perfect and Lotus. Normally the BSAA wrote to companies informing them of the law of copyright but the BSAA indicated that in this instance "the material before us suggested a degree of flagrancy which led our clients to believe that a court order was appropriate". They were granted a court order giving them access to the offices of several of Mayne Nickless's subsidiaries. Mayne agreed to desist. A hefty damages bill was anticipated because of the claimed widespread computer fraud but I do not know the amount finally paid.

Significance:- These fragmentary reports taken in the light of subsequent revelations must suggest a company that indulged in marginally acceptable behaviour and conveniently looked the other way when its profits were at stake. It was picky when others wanted money from it. It saw nothing wrong in this. This pattern of behaviour seems to be reflected in its guilty plea in 1994 and in subsequent conduct in 1995/6.

Not Ostentatious:- Mayne Nickless does not seem to have indulged in the massive displays of wealth that characterised corporations in the USA, particularly health care. One report indicates that those "unfamiliar with the Mayne Nickless ``culture" are surprised by the lack of glitz at the company's unfashionable address" in London.

For his part, Allan Fels was determined not to fail. The TPC had suffered an ignominious defeat in 1985 at the hands of TNT, Mayne Nickless, Brambles and others in what was known as the Tradestock case. THE FELING OF TNT, Australian Financial Review 11 Aug. 1994

II The Collusion and Price Fixing Scandal

"Keep the peace, keep the prices up. If this is not done we'll be slaughtered. TNT would cut us to ribbons and it would be financial disaster." Alleged statement by Bytheway MD of Mayne Nickless referring to the arrangement during a heated exchange ::: " The Arrangement" The Australian 7 Dec. 1994

The board of Mayne Nickless yesterday hit out at the Trade Practices Commission saying there was no truth in TPC claims that Mayne's managing director, Mr Bill Bytheway, had played a central role in a freight industry price-fixing cartel. MAYNE HITS BACK OVER TPC PRICE-FIX CHARGE Sydney Morning Herald 20 Dec.1994

A FEDERAL Court judge has underlined the role played by senior executives in the "serious, deliberate and systematic" breaches of law at the core of Australia's biggest price-fixing action, the $14.2 million express freight case. Judge Slams Role Of Senior Executives, Australian Financial Review 1 Feb.1995

The simple truth is that Mayne Nickless knew - as it has formally admitted in court - it was guilty. Its attempt to pretend otherwise outside court reflects a certain unacceptable aspect of commercial culture. It is as much a reflection of arrogance as its refusal to apologise to the customers it dudded over the years. So, too, is its threat to sue Professor Fels for defamation for one of his statements to the media explaining the case. Overall, the company's actions suggest it would do it all the same again, if it thought it could get away with it. THE CARTEL BREAKER Sydney Morning Herald 12 Sept.1994

``I must admit it's very sad. I liked Bill a lot. He's a very genuine, honest, hardworking guy.'' Mayne Nickless Chief Quits, The Age 17 June 1995

Duration

At least 10 express-freight companies have gone out of business or been taken over by TNT or Mayne Nickless since 1974. Freight Move Is TPC's Biggest, The Age 2 Nov. 1992

Mayne Nickless built its vast empire during the late 1970's and 1980's. It grew particularly rapidly during the late 1980's and early 1990's.

In 1990 the TCP started accumulating evidence which showed that for 20 years Mayne indulged in a variety of collusive price fixing practices with its competitors TNT, and Ansett. These practices were made corporate policy in a series of behind closed doors meetings where up to 30 people were present. The cartel was arranged and financial transactions related to it were conducted at a national level. Several of those present at these meetings later gave statements to the TPC.

At Mayne Nickless, there was an added piquancy in that a considerable part of the evidence compiled by the TPC related to a period when Webber himself was managing director. Was Webber the most appropriate person to respond to the allegations, one institution questioned, when he was at least accountable? THE MAYNE EVENT, THE AUSTRALIAN, Edition 0FRI 14 JUL 1995

Many competitors were damaged and customers disadvantaged but for 20 years no one spoke out and government regulators did not pick up the practices. Although Bytheway, the manager appointed in 1991 after the exposures got all the blame these practices had been ongoing. Bytheway was the protégé of Ian Webber who had been MD for the preceding 10 years. Bytheway's involvement was while he was Webber's henchman. Even had he wanted to do something different in 1991 his hands were tied as Webber remained chairman. Weber was not charged by the TPC.

The culture

At an alleged third meeting in 1988, the companies' representatives allegedly agreed there was no point in competing with one another so as to drive prices down, thereby benefiting customers. It was allegedly agreed each was in a better position when it was able to increase rates without interference from each other and ensure stability in the market. TPC ACTION AGAINST TRANSPORT MAJORS, Australian Financial Review 11/02/1992

As long ago as 1983 managers from corporations acquired by Mayne Nickless came for training. It was made clear to them that they were expected to conform to these business practices. From 1985 through to 1990 at least 5 meetings of senior management from the parties were held to address problems in the arrangement. US companies such as Tenet/NME similarly inducted staff into severely antisocial practices in behind closed door training programs.

Success built on collusion

The 150-page statement of claim, filed in the Federal Court, details accounts of dozens of alleged meetings held between senior executives of the three groups of their subordinates, and subsidiaries within the groups between April 1987 and last year. TPC WITNESSES A WHO'S WHO OF TOP EXECUTIVES, Sydney Morning Herald 11/03/1992

Mayne Nickless' managing director allegedly told employees that the company's success depended on the arrangements made and without them there would be a "financial disaster". The company was very successful. Its large profits enabled it to build its empire by acquiring businesses around the world.

The company's fortunes slowed during the investigation and when the courts imposed injunctions that effectively put an end to these practices its fortunes started a steady slide that persisted until 2000. It sold off large sections of its transport and security operations that were no longer profitable and diverted its efforts to health where an aging population suggested there would be easy pickings.

Exposing the Arrangement

After years of fighting a David-versus-Goliath-style war with his competitors on the roads, Mr Poche took his complaints about the industry to the umpire, the Trade Practices Commission and its then chairman, Professor Bob Baxt ------------------------- "I'm the first person who stuck his head up. Companies have gone broke. Independent operators have gone out of business and still not appealed to the umpire, or called the police - and that is what the TPC is in this area." --------------------------- About 20 express businesses would be swallowed up by the big players in the ensuing years. Many other names would disappear. TNT, MAYNE NICKLESS ON TRIAL, Australian Financial Review 8 March 1993

GREG Poche once a TNT manager first had experience of the cartel when he was a manager of another business in the 1960's. At that time such practices while frowned upon were not illegal. In the 1970's he set up his own transport businesses, Discount Freight.

Poche claims that the cartel's collusive practices included agreeing to underbid other smaller targeted companies forcing them to sell to one of the big groups or go under. At least 10 freight companies have gone out of business or been taken over. Market control was all important and the cartel succeeded in controlling 90% of the Australian market. Poche rejected several offers to buy his company. By the 1990's the only independent national competitor left in the industry was Discount Freight.

Poche collected information over the years and finally took it to the TPC in 1990. After the companies pleaded guilty in 1994 he commenced a $100 million claim for damages.

The unfolding saga:- Press reports reveal that the investigation started in 1990 and was first reported in the press in November 1991. The collusive practices had not been detected by government surveillance, despite the concerns about the company's practices following the tradestock case. It was sparked by complaints from the only independent national competitor left in the industry, the Sydney-based Discount Freight

Legal action was commenced against Mayne Nickless, TNT and its partly owned subsidiary Ansett Transport Industries in November 1992. These groups together owned 17 of Australia's largest freight businesses - the who's who! The companies and 19 senior executives were charged in a 150 page statement of claim.

The company's chairman, Mr Ian Webber, responded by lashing out at the Trade Practices Commission, saying the company would vigorously contest all allegations made against it. They challenged the TPC at every step. This is how the sort of people I have called successful sociopaths respond when their understanding of the way they see the world is challenged.

The executives submitted that the purpose of the document discovery was to make the individuals concerned "buckle under the pressure of the proceedings and offer to give evidence against the corporations in exchange for immunity". Justice Burchett said there was no such evidence. EXECUTIVES' STAY MOTION FAILS, Sydney Morning Herald 03/10/1994

This same indignation is reflected in an attempt by 10 of the executives charged to win a permanent stay of proceedings. Their claims were dismissed as "fanciful" in March 1994. The TPC's case was described in the press as "heavily contested".

By July 1994 it is likely that TNT and Ansett were persuaded by their lawyers that they did not have a case. They withdrew their defence, while claiming that they had only done so because it had become too expensive to continue. A $6.5 million fine was negotiated with TNT making an admission in court but still strongly proclaiming its innocence.

Mayne fought on but finally capitulated and agreed to a $7.7 million fine in December 1994. Both the company and its executives continued to deny their guilt and claim that they did not have the opportunity to test the evidence in court. The lie to this is given by the judge's description of the evidence.

What was alleged, supported by voluminous evidence, and is now admitted, is that at five primary meetings attended by representatives of the three companies, which took place between 1987 and 1990, a series of agreements were reached - - - Judge Burchett judgement 31 Jan 1995.

``It has cost consumers and business dearly,'' Professor Fels said. ``Almost everyone using air and road express freight services during the period of collusion has been adversely affected.'' Mayne To Pay $7m For Role In Cartel, The Age 7 Dec. 1994

The conduct occurred at a time when the maximum penalty was $250,000 per offence and before it was amended to extend the penalties to up to $10 million for each offence. In addition the judge reduced the fine because the company had saved millions of dollars in legal costs by pleading guilty. Today the penalties would be much greater.

The press gained access to the 13 volumes of evidence including the testimony of 150 witnesses. What was revealed is "electrifying".

What was revealed

Witness statements - - - - were electrifying Australian Financial Review 7 Dec. 1998

"There will be no exceptions to this agreement whatever, for any reason, even if it is for reasons of poor service. Let me tell you on behalf of TNT, there will be no reasons why accounts will change hands" Alleged statement made by General Manager of TNT to a meeting in 1980's. THE INSIDE STORY: HOW THE FREIGHT MARKET WAS RIGGED, Australian Financial Review 08/12/1994

Professor Fels said: "- - - - The behaviour in this case represents the worst ever before the court under the (act); the most serious economic detriment, the most sustained and systematic price-fixing case that's ever been before the courts in Australia. TRANSPORT GIANTS: $5M WIN FOR TPC, Australian Financial Review 08/11/1994

The charges listed provide only a stark outline of what happened. The charges were backed by the statements of over 100 witnesses and numerous examples showing how customers were exploited.

Announcing the action the TPC said yesterday it was alleging the companies agreed to maintain a number of illegal trade practices, including: * "Agreeing not to compete against each other on prices and rates. * "Agreeing that where one of the companies in the cartel had an existing customer, other companies in the cartel would not submit competing quotes to the customer. Should they submit a quote, the companies allegedly agreed to quote at a rate known to be higher than that already charged. * "Helping any company in the cartel which wanted to increase its prices to a customer by refusing to submit a competing quote to that customer, or else submitting a higher quote. * "In the event that one company obtained a contract from a customer previously with another company, then taking steps to induce the customer to return to the original company, by increasing prices or rates or by other means. * "In the event the customer did not return, the new company would compensate the original company." Australian Financial Review 11/02/1992

The material also revealed how Mayne inducted staff from new acquisitions into the corporate culture. In addition senior executives from the companies met on many occasions (at least 5 between 1985 and 1990) to discuss the arrangement and to iron out problems and make reparations if anyone had breached the agreement and taken someone else's customer. Witnesses described how senior staff responded when they were challenged about the arrangement.

The company's response

MAYNE Nickless Ltd chairman, Mr Ian Webber, lashed out at the Trade Practices Commission yesterday, saying the company would vigorously contest all allegations made against it. MAYNE CHIEF HITS TPC ALLEGATIONS, Australian Financial Review 11/03/1992

He (Fels) is similarly blunt about the TNT-Ansett claim that they abandoned their defence against price-fixing charges only because of concern about potential costs. ``A case is only costly if you lose it,'' he observes. ``Typically, the TPC's costs are only about one-tenth those of the other side. That's the way Mr Plod works.'' TPC Takes Centre Stage With Big Victories, The Age 2 Aug. 1994

The company had previously given the TPC a bloody nose by being aggressive and exploiting the legal opportunities. Once again it aggressively denied the allegations and attacked the TPC. It challenged the TPC's right to access corporate documents and accused them of improper conduct - a claim, which the judge described as "fanciful".

Arrangements so fundamentally affecting the operations of the companies could not have been reached, and maintained for such a lengthy period, without the involvement of senior management. JUDGE BURCHETT 31 Jan 1995

``A serious, deliberate and systematic course of conduct contrary to the requirements of the act must generally be met by really severe penalties,'' he said. ``Especially must that be so where the senior management of a large company is involved. Court Hits Out At Freight Price Fixing, The Age 1 Feb. 1995

In 1991 a meeting of top executives was held in Melbourne. They were shown a video portraying two executives fixing prices and were told by Bytheway that Mayne Nickless would not tolerate such behaviour and that offenders left themselves open to fines and even a jail sentence.

As one attendee recently recalled: "No one was in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation. Until then I believed the so-called arrangement had been condoned by senior management. Now the message clearly was, `You're on your own, Jack'. Refering to the 1991 meeting -- THE MAYNE EVENT THE AUSTRALIAN 14 JUL 1995

Like its co-conspirators Mayne continued to deny the TPC's allegations even after accepting the charges in court and agreeing to the $7.7 million fine. They aggressively attacked Professor Alan Fels and threatened him with libel when he said publicly that "We have never seen such a case of blatant defiance of the law and such a massive ripping-off of companies"

 Sociopathy revealed

The TPC alleged in a 202-page statement of claim that the cartel was referred to by several names including ``the orderly marketing arrangement'', ``the peace'', ``the accord'', ``the Honda'', and the ``detente''. Mayne To Pay $7m For Role In Cartel, The Age 12/07/1994

In other words, in court at least, Mayne Nickless admitted the breaches it was accused of and accepted the penalty. ------------------------------ Why then, out of court, has Mayne Nickless been behaving as if it has been denied an opportunity to defend itself? "Unfortunately," the company said on Tuesday, "we will now be unable to test in court the veracity of the TPC's witness statements." That attempt to minimise the effect of the total of 165 witness statements in the TPC case against Mayne Nickless is disingenuous. THE CARTEL BREAKER, Sydney Morning Herald 12/09/1994

In these web pages I have spoken about "one eyed", "closed minded" and even "successful sociopaths" when referring to the personality of many of the founders of the US health and aged care corporations. I have also given examples of a similar cultural phenomenon where a company adopts dysfunctional and anti-social frames of understanding, which can be considered as a successful sociopathic culture. The two of course often coexist and reinforce on another. Mayne Nickless seems to be an excellent example of a successful sociopathic culture. The judge's comments indicate that, like the police in NSW this sociopathy extended to the highest levels.

It is a mistake to believe that the anger and accusations made in response to the TPC's actions were deliberately deceptive and contrived. While Mayne execitives knew that they had done something illegal they nevertheless felt that they were right and that they were being victimised.

The witness recalled that when he protested further Bytheway "appeared to lose his patience and said words to the following effect: "I think we have covered this long enough and we are not going to discuss this any more." The Arrangement, The Australian 7 Dec. 1994

This compartmentalisation (separating facts and ideas and never confronting the contradictions logically) is characteristic of sociopathy as is the development of words, rationalisations and justifications which make the actions legitimate to the people involved. They avoid situations and people where their conduct might be challenged. They attack the messenger. When challenged these people respond by avoiding the challenge. When they are brought back to it they respond with aggression and anger. They are extremely self confident and have no doubts. They are usually likeable and sometimes charismatic.

Mr Bill Bytheway, is alleged to have said words to this effect: "Orderly marketing is a built-in feature of how we do business in Australia. We have to keep our margins up. The Australian market-place is too small to cut each other's throats. If we get into a price war with TNT, the only winner is the customer." THE CARTEL BREAKER, Sydney Morning Herald 12/09/1994

Mayne Nickless is an excellent example of a sociopathic culture. In the case of Mayne Nickless the closed minded/sociopathic behaviour probably originated in the 1960's when this was still legal - but not acceptable in the community. They saw this as legitimate and it proved to be very profitable. They built their empire and without these arrangements Bytheway admitted they would have been in big trouble.

Bytheway (allegedly) said "Don't use that expression. Never use the word cartel under any circumstances. It's an arrangement" The Arrangement, The Australian 7 Dec. 1994

There were therefore strong pressures to maintain the practices. It was consequently a small step to their discounting and disregarding the law when it was changed to make these practices illegal. A whole language was developed to justify and rationalise what they were doing. They never used the words "price fixing" and urged employees not to talk of a "cartel". Instead the deal was described using words such as "Orderly Marketing Arrangement". "The Accord", "The Honda", "Détente", and "The Peace". Employees were urged to maintain secrecy.

When challenged executives became angry and used their seniority to express their views so strongly that they would not be challenged.

The Trade Practices Commission is expected to sting building products giants Boral, CSR and Pioneer International with a record $21 million fine for price-fixing in the pre-mix concrete market. TPC Sets $21m Fine In Concrete, Sydney Morning Herald 10/17/1995

It is likely that although Mayne executives knew that what they were doing was illegal they did not think that they were doing anything seriously wrong. Such collusive arrangements were common between large corporations (e.g. cement companies). They were readily justified as the way we do business in Australia or "in this industry". It is unlikely that major changes were made in these practices until the end of 1992 or even 1993. Success in the market is so often its own justification and these people were genuinely indignant that they had been singled out.

Similar perceptions about fraudulent billing practices existed in specialty hospitals in the USA in the late 1980's, and extended into the 1990's in US laboratories, in aged care and in general hospitals. This is simply the way things were done in the "real world" of business. They had defined their own "real world". Tenet/NME and Colmbia/HCA were simply the extreme representatives of widespread practices. Mayne Nickless was probably no different.

III. Continuing Unsavoury Conduct

One of the features of sociopathy is that the people involved do not acknowledge their culpability and there is a high risk that they will reoffend. They feel that they have been hard done by and while they may be more careful they do not reform their belief systems unless this is profitable for them. Dysfunctional practices may not be localised to one section. They are likely to recur wherever the persons operate. Mayne illustrates this well.

Mayne's deceptive conduct did not end with the price fixing scandal. Within weeks of the $7.7 million transport settlement the TPC went after the company's security services alleging price fixing and collusive bidding for security contracts in Queensland.

The TCP also claimed that the company undertook to provide security services that it knew it could not provide. Between 1986 and 1993 Mayne's security patrol operation, Metropolitan Security Services, had failed to provide promised or contracted patrol services. Many premises were not visited at all. Mayne was forced to compensate its customers and an injunction was imposed restraining MSS from making false or misleading representations.

The ACCC chairman, Professor Allan Fels, said in a statement that the commission's concerns in the latest case were heightened by the fact that MSS was dealing with vulnerable people who might be dependent on the efficiency and reliability of the emergency service. ACCC Wins Case Against M Nickless, Australian Financial Review 02/26/1996

In February 1996 the ACCC (the TPC's successor) won another case against MSS Alarm Services, a Mayne subsidiary in Queensland. Once again it was a whistle blower who gave evidence. This case was even more disturbing as it revealed a willingness to take advantage of the frail elderly and even to put their lives at risk.

The company misrepresented the reliability of a personal alarm and monitoring service it provided to elderly and infirm people in Queensland and northern NSW. It indicated that the alarm system was monitored around the clock. In fact the system did not operate effectively on all occasions. The data base which indicated the contacts for distressed callers was not up to date and the company had fallen behind on the regular maintenance of the alarms. The TPC ordered it to provide a compensation package for all users of the devices, including 6 months free service.

Honesty to its customers has never been a feature of Mayne's conduct. In 1996 the ACCC put a number of altimeters in parcels sent by the company's Ipec Air Express. The altimeters "revealed heights no greater than those on the Hume Highway". In September 1996 the Federal Court again imposed injunctions to stop Mayne from misrepresenting its services and making it pay the ACCC's expenses. This was however another collusive practice in the industry and its competitor TNT suffered a similar fate in October 1996

The Australian Medical Association engaged in discussions with the Mayne Nickless and the West Australian Health Department some time in 2000 in an attempt to facilitate the employment of more doctors at the newly contracted out Joondalup public hospital where there had previously been difficulties in securing staff. When the AMA realised that they had breached competition policy they took legal advice then notified the ACCC as well as the government parties. They withdrew from the agreement. The ACCC charged both the AMA and Mayne Nickless. Mayne Nickless denied the charges and set out to defend themselves.

The new allegations - which were first aired after the Christmas break and were repeated on national television on Monday night - have had little impact on Mayne's share price. Mayne Nickless Will Wait For TPC Claim, Australian Financial Review 01/04/1995

Before moving on ask yourself whether this company is a suitable group to provide Samaritan services to the sick and frail on behalf of our community. Can we trust them not to take advantage of the vulnerability of individuals whose competency is compromised by illness? Can we trust them not to exploit a system whose complexity renders it vulnerable to exploitation by the unscrupulous? Can we trust the market community to properly penalise antisocial conduct when it increases profits - or will convictions and fines be no more than one of the costs of doing business successfully?

The idea of corporate crime is one that is simply unappealing to business elites," she (Laureen Snider a professor of sociology) says. "Ever since it was first invented by Edwin Sutherland, the concept of white collar crime, and specifically corporate crime, has been actively resisted. Corporations have certainly argued, if they have had to face up to the idea at all, that corporate executives are not criminals. We have reserved the concept of 'criminal' for people we think are different from ourselves." THE ACADEMIC SIBERIA OF CORPORATE CRIMINOLOGY, ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas October 1998

IV. References and Extracts

It is impossible to give a real feeling for Mayne Nickless conduct in a review like this. To get further depth please look at the references to this section. Scan the headings and glance at some of the extracts I have included. I have supplied a list of relevant articles. I have included representative extracts from some of the articles.

Click Here to go to the reference material for this page.

contents

Web Page History This page created November 2001 by Michael Wynne Last Modified March 2002 Format changed Nov 2005