The pre Rugby Sevens atmosphere means little in the way of work is being done here today. Most conversation revolves around tales of previous nights' drinking, plans for future drinking and how to scam tickets to the said event. It all leaves plenty of time for my $0.02 worth. Here's another on an example of women in business.

Australia's biggest bank, NAB, is in trouble. Their foreign exchange trading operation suffered A$360 million in losses due to fraud. So far the four traders have been sacked, the CEO and board Chairman (and other senior executives) have left and the regulator, APRA, has imposed draconian supervision on the bank until it gets its house in order. There remains only one person still facing pressure to resign: the head of the board's audit committee. This is the committee that monitors the bank's risk management. Clearly they failed in this task. The APRA report is damning of this committee:

This week's report by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority claimed the committee failed to understand fully the dimensions of the currency crisis or alert top management.

It added: "Our concern is (the committee) became too focused on ensuring process was in place, without understanding or inquiring into the substantive issues underlying what was being put before it by management or adequately probing inconsistencies or warnings."

I applaud the move for greater female representation in senior levels of companies. No doubt the woman in question is an extremely smart and able woman, able to hold her own in the boardroom of the biggest bank in the country. However if a man was in her position there would be similar pressure brought to bear for a resignation. So statements that say "Supporters claim she is being made a scapegoat and her status as one of the nation's most senior executives could draw widespread support, particularly from other female executives," I find confusing. Why should other females support her because she is female? If she has been found wanting in her job she should do what any normal person (of either sex) would do and resign. If she thinks she has grounds for retaining her position, then law courts are the place for that. Using one's sex to protect one's position demeans the position and the person. She has failed to fulfil the duties in her position as chair of the audit committee. Her sex has nothing to do with it.

Male or female, the chair has to go.