Wednesday, August 04, 2004
“Find the opportunities early and often, but not necessarily continuously”
Is some career advice (PDF) Melbourne lawyer Trevor Lloyd gave out last year. Happily – for it is not always the case – the late 40s-ish Lloyd indeed follows his own counsel, when it comes to finding and/or making career opportunities. He has recently found himself as the only person in Victoria qualified and able to undertake a lucrative, $495k consultancy contract with the state government. (A department spokeswoman actually said the contract was awarded without going to tender because Lloyd was one of “the few” people in Victoria with the ability to fulfil the department's requirements – without elaborating on this non-sequitur. Not that the DOI spokeswoman’s lack of elaboration was that surprising, given her* limited command of the English language: "DOI has engaged senior council [sic] to strengthen commercial and legal advice on a number of contracts and tenders . . .")
Why do I care about Lloyd’s good luck, then? Largely, it’s for similar reasons to those of CPSU spokesman Julian Kennelly (same URL) – spending money on consultants of Lloyd’s ilk/calibre (take your pick) necessarily reduces government spending on permanent, or even casual (= GenX) public service staff. “And this affects me because . . .”, as they say in the “Big Brother” diary room – well, it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
Job creation schemes for the unemployed are more or less flat-earth-loony style stuff in these economically rational days. Fair enough, possibly – that is, given a level playing field, and all that. But what of job derogation schemes, where the money that could pay for ten or so GenX jobs is instead siphoned solely into the pockets of boomer twat Trevor Lloyd?
And I use “twat” here advisedly. Lloyd’s CV, up until 2001, is pretty well documented here. He’s gone in rapid succession from being managing partner of a second-tier law firm, to puisne partner of a second-tier law firm (after his old firm merged), to Group General Counsel and Company Secretary for AXA Australia (PDF), and most recently, to being plain old “consultant” of 452 Barkers Road, Hawthorn East. In other words, much more than his being the only person for the job, the $495k-offer was the only job for the person.
* I'm assuming that the said DOI spokeswoman put her statement in writing – otherwise, the
howler can be properly atttributed to Age journo Richard Baker.
Update 5 August 2004
Lloyd has even more links with Labor than were disclosed in yesterday’s story. Who would have thunk it? The DOI spokeswoman/spokeswomen also keep up their fine form in non-sequiturs:
"Political colour had nothing to do with it". Heeee . . . Excuse me while I change my wet pants. No one even seems to be alleging that "political colour" is at the heart of the Lloyd rort; i.e. that joining-the-dots of Lloyd's "Labor connection A" with "Labor connection B" is going to be the tipping-point. If the facts involved a winning “Labor” tender, a losing “Liberal” tender, etc, then it may have been, but as things stand, it is simply a straight case of corruption by a senior public servant, John Rogan – and the practise of, and cover-up for, corruption has always been bi-partisan, as far as I can tell.
Is some career advice (PDF) Melbourne lawyer Trevor Lloyd gave out last year. Happily – for it is not always the case – the late 40s-ish Lloyd indeed follows his own counsel, when it comes to finding and/or making career opportunities. He has recently found himself as the only person in Victoria qualified and able to undertake a lucrative, $495k consultancy contract with the state government. (A department spokeswoman actually said the contract was awarded without going to tender because Lloyd was one of “the few” people in Victoria with the ability to fulfil the department's requirements – without elaborating on this non-sequitur. Not that the DOI spokeswoman’s lack of elaboration was that surprising, given her* limited command of the English language: "DOI has engaged senior council [sic] to strengthen commercial and legal advice on a number of contracts and tenders . . .")
Why do I care about Lloyd’s good luck, then? Largely, it’s for similar reasons to those of CPSU spokesman Julian Kennelly (same URL) – spending money on consultants of Lloyd’s ilk/calibre (take your pick) necessarily reduces government spending on permanent, or even casual (= GenX) public service staff. “And this affects me because . . .”, as they say in the “Big Brother” diary room – well, it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
Job creation schemes for the unemployed are more or less flat-earth-loony style stuff in these economically rational days. Fair enough, possibly – that is, given a level playing field, and all that. But what of job derogation schemes, where the money that could pay for ten or so GenX jobs is instead siphoned solely into the pockets of boomer twat Trevor Lloyd?
And I use “twat” here advisedly. Lloyd’s CV, up until 2001, is pretty well documented here. He’s gone in rapid succession from being managing partner of a second-tier law firm, to puisne partner of a second-tier law firm (after his old firm merged), to Group General Counsel and Company Secretary for AXA Australia (PDF), and most recently, to being plain old “consultant” of 452 Barkers Road, Hawthorn East. In other words, much more than his being the only person for the job, the $495k-offer was the only job for the person.
* I'm assuming that the said DOI spokeswoman put her statement in writing – otherwise, the
howler can be properly atttributed to Age journo Richard Baker.
Update 5 August 2004
Lloyd has even more links with Labor than were disclosed in yesterday’s story. Who would have thunk it? The DOI spokeswoman/spokeswomen also keep up their fine form in non-sequiturs:
"Political colour had nothing to do with it". Heeee . . . Excuse me while I change my wet pants. No one even seems to be alleging that "political colour" is at the heart of the Lloyd rort; i.e. that joining-the-dots of Lloyd's "Labor connection A" with "Labor connection B" is going to be the tipping-point. If the facts involved a winning “Labor” tender, a losing “Liberal” tender, etc, then it may have been, but as things stand, it is simply a straight case of corruption by a senior public servant, John Rogan – and the practise of, and cover-up for, corruption has always been bi-partisan, as far as I can tell.
