Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Defence Housing to sponsor the Raiders

By johnboy 17 July 2012 28

sponsors

The Raiders have the interesting news that despite having China’s Huawei as a major sponsor the Defence Housing Authority is coming on as a sleeve sponsor.

The two-year deal starting with the 2013 season will see DHA displayed on the Raiders NRL jersey sleeves and below the number on the reverse of the jersey.

DHA General Manager, Sales, Marketing and Portfolio Management, Tony Winterbottom, said the arrangement will help raise awareness of DHA’s property sales programs.

“DHA would like to expand our audience to reach more Australian families—sponsorship of a high profile sporting team is one way for us to do this,” said Tony.

[Photo Courtesy Canberra Raiders]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to
Defence Housing to sponsor the Raiders
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
nyssa1976 10:55 am 19 Jul 12

Pork Hunt said :

SnapperJack said :

Deref said :

WTF is a taxpayer-funded organisation doing giving money to a business?

What I’d like to know is why DHA is still owned by the government and why nobody is talking about privatisation. Is the defence lobby too strong?

Dude, you can’t privatise a service to servicemen (I used to be one) just like you can’t privatise the catering arrangements …(oh wait). It would be yet ANOTHER backward step to servicemen and their families conditions. To me this is not about investment properties for landlords or the Raiders, it’s about a good deal for our soldiers, sailors and airmen (yay)…

Pork, here’s a real ‘backwards’ step for family conditions…..DHA are happy to evict the spouse and children within 28 days of the member stating their marriage is over – spitefulness aside. They don’t support the family or the children. They are all about the defence member – direct quote.

Furthermore, if the defence member refuses to sign the removal sheet, the family have to pay full costs on the removal + organise a bond etc on their own (within 28 days) whilst the member can still live in the tax payer funded house without their children at 10% of the cost that their newly separated spouse must pay in rent.

Oh and might I add sensitivity training is required for those dealing with the distraught families who are called, without warning, and told ‘you have to leave in 28 days and that’s it.’

Ian 10:49 pm 18 Jul 12

Strange partnership? The Raiders don’t know much about defence.

JC 10:30 pm 18 Jul 12

dungfungus said :

According to the DHA website, their only sponsorship activities are funding for a community relations sponsorship program. During 2007-08, DHA gave its support to numerous community initiatives including Defence Families Australia, DCO Family Days, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Legacy and Construction industry awards.
How does a professional elite sporting team owned by a club with income from gaming and alcohol sales fit into “community relations sposorship”?

There is sponsorship for community things like you suggest and then there is sponsorship for advertising. Clearly the faiders are the latter.

dungfungus 6:54 pm 18 Jul 12

LSWCHP said :

JC said :

Canburnian said :

Hmm the same Huawei that was banned form bidding for NBN contracts.

Yep this is the same company. The same company that also provides

Vodafone with 3G mobile phone switching technology
Optus with 4G mobile phone switching technology
Telstra with hardware that it onsells.
Has Alexander Downer and Steve Bracks on their Australia board.

Basically the company already has links into the telco’s and personally I don’t see them as being any worse than say Alcatel who has connections to the French Government (and who are also pretty big on intelligence) or a whole heap of US companies who also have close connections to the US government etc.

Most multinational corporations collect intelligence, both commercial and government related. Huawei just appears to be in the news a lot for this reason. Either they do a lot more of it, or they’re not very good at it, thus getting caught a lot more. Google will provide plenty of examples from around the world, some of it quite egregious.

In Australia, if the Government doesn’t trust you they may decide not to buy your stuff. In China, if the government doesn’t like you, they may well lock you up, never to be heard from again. At the moment I’m quite happy to see critical infrastructure provided by suppliers from countries with a little more transparency in their governments operating model.

I don’t think there is much useful intelligence to be picked up at a Raider’s coaching session.

LSWCHP 6:39 pm 18 Jul 12

JC said :

Canburnian said :

Hmm the same Huawei that was banned form bidding for NBN contracts.

Yep this is the same company. The same company that also provides

Vodafone with 3G mobile phone switching technology
Optus with 4G mobile phone switching technology
Telstra with hardware that it onsells.
Has Alexander Downer and Steve Bracks on their Australia board.

Basically the company already has links into the telco’s and personally I don’t see them as being any worse than say Alcatel who has connections to the French Government (and who are also pretty big on intelligence) or a whole heap of US companies who also have close connections to the US government etc.

Most multinational corporations collect intelligence, both commercial and government related. Huawei just appears to be in the news a lot for this reason. Either they do a lot more of it, or they’re not very good at it, thus getting caught a lot more. Google will provide plenty of examples from around the world, some of it quite egregious.

In Australia, if the Government doesn’t trust you they may decide not to buy your stuff. In China, if the government doesn’t like you, they may well lock you up, never to be heard from again. At the moment I’m quite happy to see critical infrastructure provided by suppliers from countries with a little more transparency in their governments operating model.

dungfungus 6:34 pm 18 Jul 12

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

Silentforce said :

Call me Gomer or what.

The Defence Housing Authority is a Federal Government authority. Jobs for DHA are advertised in APS Jobs and employees are engaged under APS conditions. By association, they are presumably linked to the Department of Defence who is one of the big losers in the Federal Budget.

Where do DHA get the funding to support a football team? Are staff reductions there paying for this?

In all fairness the DHA are a statutory authority that basically operates by getting ‘ordinary’ people to buy houses and lease them to the authority. To do that they need to advertise.

Rubbish

Which part is rubbish? The fact they are a statutory authority or the bit about advertising. If the statutory authority then bzzt sorry that is exactly what they are. They provide a service to Defence but are run at arms length from Defence. If the bit about advertising, then sorry to say the way they operate now days they need to get people to invest in the properties they manage and advertising is the way to do it. What could be debatable is whether sponsoring the Faiders is the way to do it.

According to the DHA website, their only sponsorship activities are funding for a community relations sponsorship program. During 2007-08, DHA gave its support to numerous community initiatives including Defence Families Australia, DCO Family Days, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Legacy and Construction industry awards.
How does a professional elite sporting team owned by a club with income from gaming and alcohol sales fit into “community relations sposorship”?

Pork Hunt 6:09 pm 18 Jul 12

SnapperJack said :

Deref said :

WTF is a taxpayer-funded organisation doing giving money to a business?

What I’d like to know is why DHA is still owned by the government and why nobody is talking about privatisation. Is the defence lobby too strong?

Dude, you can’t privatise a service to servicemen (I used to be one) just like you can’t privatise the catering arrangements …(oh wait). It would be yet ANOTHER backward step to servicemen and their families conditions. To me this is not about investment properties for landlords or the Raiders, it’s about a good deal for our soldiers, sailors and airmen (yay)…

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site