Saturday, 3 May 2014

Abbott government faces another conflict of interest scandal

Date: May 1, 2014

7 reading now

Jonathan Swan

National political reporter

EXCLUSIVE

Questions: Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion is working to ensure compliance with the code of conduct. Photo: Nigel Scullion's website

The Abbott government faces another conflict of interest
scandal after it was discovered that an adviser to the Indigenous
Affairs Minister, Nigel Scullion, held a majority financial stake in a
business that operated within the minister's portfolio.

Only months after the conflict of interest controversy that
forced the resignation of Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash's chief
of staff, Alastair Furnival, Senator Scullion faces a similar problem in
his office.

Under the government's strict rules, ministerial advisers
– who have influence over government policies – must not be involved in
businesses that could profit from ministerial decisions.

Senator Nigel Scullion. Photo: Philip Gostelow

The minister's adviser, William "Smiley" Johnstone, is the
majority shareholder of Indigenous Development Corporation (IDC), a
property development business that is on two of the government's
"standing offer" lists of favoured suppliers. Both lists relate to
Senator Scullion's portfolio responsibilities.

Mr Johnstone is also the founder and leading executive of
Indigenous Corporate Partners (ICP), which helps clients lobby and
negotiate with government.

When Senator Scullion was alerted to these conflicts of
interest, a spokesman replied: "All staff are required to comply with
the Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff.

Conflicting interest: William "Smiley" Johnstone Photo: Getty Images

"The minister will work with the staff member to ensure compliance with the code."

The government's ministerial standards require staff to
"divest themselves, or relinquish control, of interests in any private
company or business … involved in the area of their ministers' portfolio
responsibilities".

Mr Johnstone did not respond to questions asking whether
Australian Investments and Securities Commission (ASIC) records that
showed he owned 70 per cent of IDC meant he was in breach of the
standards.

Illustration: Matt Golding.

He also did not respond to questions about possible breaches
of other ministerial standards that require staffers to disclose and
take reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest, and to "have no
involvement in outside employment or in the daily work of any business".

While working as an adviser to the minister, Mr Johnstone
also promotes himself as the founder and leading executive of ICP, a
company that describes itself as "independent of government".

The company, which promises to "act in the best interests of
its clients" by helping them lobby and procure funding from government,
does not publicly disclose that its founder works for the minister.

"Indigenous Corporate Partners can assist your organisation
to identify grants and funding available through both government and
private enterprise," the company's website says.

ICP boasts of its "extensive experience in advocating for
Aboriginal organisations in both small and large-scale negotiations with
government". The company does not reveal its client list, but says its
clients include "health organisations, prescribed bodies corporate,
local Aboriginal land councils and private corporations".

Since joining Senator Scullion's office in late 2013, Mr
Johnstone retained his majority stake in IDC, described on the ICP
website as "a self-funded property development company that assists
Aboriginal land owners and communities".

It could not be established how much money – if any – IDC has made from work for the government.

Mr Johnstone holds his stake in IDC behind a company called Kimaka, ASIC records confirm.

He is a well-known figure in indigenous affairs. He was the
inaugural chairman of the Australian Rugby League Indigenous Council, a
former director of the Indigenous Business Council of Australia and
former deputy chief executive of the Indigenous Land Corporation.

The conflict in Senator Scullion's office comes less than
three months after a similar scandal damaged the office of Senator Nash.

She was censured by the Senate – the most serious action
available to the upper house – after she employed Mr Furnival, a
lobbyist for the junk food and alcohol industries, as her chief of
staff.

As Senator Nash's chief of staff, Mr Furnival met health
representatives on his own and took actions – including ordering the
removal of a government healthy food rating website and stripping
funding from the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia – that
appeared to favour his company's clients at the expense of public
health.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott resisted calls to demote Senator Nash.

with Fergus Hunter

Thursday, 1 May 2014

Heavy lifting....for some

Heavy lifting….for some

By Kaye Lee on May 2, 2014 • ( 0 )

“The
rich regard wealth as a personal attribute. So do the poor. Everyone is
tacitly convinced of it. Only logic makes some difficulties by
asserting that the possession of money may perhaps confer certain
qualities, but can never itself be a human quality. Closer inspection
gives this the lie. Every human nose instantly and unfailingly smells
the delicate breath of independence that goes with the habit of
commanding, the habit of everywhere choosing the best for oneself, the
whiff of slight misanthropy and the unceasing consciousness of
responsibility that goes with power, the scent of a large and secure
income.”

— Excerpts from rich people’s code of living, The Man Without Qualities, Robert Musil

When Kerry Packer appeared before the Print Media Inquiry in 1991 he famously said

“Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in
this country doesn’t minimize their tax they want their heads read
because as a government I can tell you you’re not spending it that well
that we should be donating extra. I pay whatever tax I am required to
pay under the law, not a penny more, not a penny less”

His daughter Gretel got married earlier in the year and Kerry spent $3 million on her wedding. Apparently, that same year he paid no income tax.

In 2012, mining magnate Nathan Tinkler of Whitehaven Coal put his
plans for a $13 million beachfront pad in Newcastle on hold and moved
his family to Singapore. In an amazing coincidence, Gina Rinehart has
reportedly spent $S57 million ($A43.8 million) on two units, off the
plan, in the same Seven Palms Sentosa Cove condominium project. Eduardo
Saverin, who co-founded Facebook at age 21, also lives in Singapore.

It might be because Singapore is a nice place that so many
mega-wealthy people are flocking there – or it could have something to
do with the fact that capital gains are not taxed. Individuals are only
taxed on income earned directly in Singapore, and for the super wealthy,
there are no inheritance taxes. Personal tax rates in Singapore are
among the lowest in the world, with a cap of 20 per cent, compared to
the top tax rate of 45 per cent in Australia. It’s got the banking
secrecy laws, it’s becoming a financial centre, new casinos and now a
lot of the big banks are operating out of Singapore purely because it’s
becoming a very exclusive place to live

Gina Rinehart’s personal wealth is
more than two times greater than the gross domestic product (GDP) of
Cambodia, population 14.5 million. She has about 41 times more than the
GDP of East Timor, population 1.3 million. She has more than the GDPs of
Haiti and Bolivia put together (combined population 20 million).

She could buy up the economies of the world’s 10 poorest nations, and still have about $22 billion left over.

One in seven people — or 1 billion people around the world — do not have enough to eat. Rinehart could feed them all for a year.

In 2011, Rinehart made $1.5 billion more than was spent on the entire
NSW health system ($17.3 billion). She made 18 times more than was
allocated to the federal government’s climate change department. She
made 70 times what the federal government will spend to improve
education and training for young Aboriginal Australians.

In 2012 BRW Magazine said that Rinehart’s rise in wealth “is
unparalleled”. It said she might soon become the world’s richest person:
“A $100 billion fortune is not out of the question for Rinehart if the
resources boom continues unabated.”

Despite her huge fortune, Rinehart is convinced she pays too much
tax. Her tax lobby group ANDEV (Australians for Northern Development and
Economic Vision) campaigns to cut taxes on mining industry profits and
lower payroll and income tax.

In February 2013, the Coalition released its policy/discussion paper ’2030 Vision for Developing Northern Australia’. The catalyst for the policy was a 2010 open letter signed
by the executives of over 50 resources companies that called for the
establishment of a special economic zone with fewer regulations and
taxes to develop Australia’s north, and the capacity to import cheap
labour.

“Various industries in Australia already make use of
overseas countries’ labour without restriction – for example, sending
work overseas to India and the Philippines and elsewhere in Asia where
labour costs are lower. The group argues mining companies should be
allowed to hire short term workers from overseas for the construction
periods only, for say up to two years and nine months, thereby
increasing long term job prospects in Australia, rather than becoming
uncompetitive and these jobs heading overseas to countries like Guinea
and other countries in Africa.”

It was quickly followed by the establishment of ANDEV, a lobby group
chaired by Gina Rinehart to realise this vision. The Institute of Public
Affairs was soon recruited to give the project a veneer of free market
respectability.

ANDEV’s plan was not just a slight drop in taxes. It included vast
sums of taxpayer investment in infrastructure, accompanied by the
abolition or dramatic reduction of taxation levied. The Coalition policy
has wording pulled straight from the ANDEV site in a series of op-eds
and speeches. The 2012 National Party Conference keynote address, given
by one of Rinehart’s employees, was dedicated to promoting this vision,
going so far as to include ANDEV promotional material in all delegate’s
packs and exhorting the audience to meet with him to discuss ANDEV
privately.

The central thesis behind the ANDEV plan is that northern Australia
is ‘underdeveloped’, ‘underutilised’ and ‘underpopulated’. The
Coalition’s policy adopts these claims uncritically, spicing them up
with promises of taming Australia’s ‘last frontier’. ANDEV also bandies
around some odder reasons; the “multitudes of snakes” and “excessive
heat” that afflicts residents of the North apparently entitles them to
generous tax offsets. The latest Coalition incarnation of the policy
leaves it to a future white paper to review how to achieve a
preferential taxation regime without ending up in the High Court as it
is probably unconstitutional.

Going on the word of vested interests, especially when the result is
worth a huge influx of government subsidies, does not make for sound
economic policy. Herein lies the problem at the heart of the Vision for
Developing Northern Australia: it’s been driven from the office of a
vested interest into a Liberal party that can no longer distinguish
between crony capitalism and free markets. It undermines federalism by
subsiding infrastructure spending and tax cuts without imposing the
fiscal responsibility that a state faces in having to balance the books
on this equation.

In 2010, the mining industry spent over $22 million in six weeks on
its campaign against Kevin Rudd’s plan for a resource super profit tax.
This led to a slump in Rudd’s popularity contributing to the Gillard
takeover and the subsequent compromise deal on the MRRT costing the
nation billions in revenue.

In March this year, the ATO announced an amnesty
for off-shore tax evaders. Under the disclosure initiative, those who
come forward will “generally” only be assessed for the last four years,
even if they held the assets offshore for longer than that, and be
liable for a maximum shortfall penalty of just 10% of their debt rather
than 90%, the ATO said. Those coming forward also will escape
investigation by the tax authority, and will avoid criminal prosecution.

While these people are busy investing their money and lobbying the
government so they make no contribution to the country that has afforded
them such wealth, average Australians are being hit with a “sick” tax
and a deficit tax and told that we must work till 70, that pensions will
decline in real terms, and the minimum wage will be slashed. We will
continue to hand over billions in fossil fuel subsidies, spend billions
on infrastructure for the miners, and provide guarantees for banks while
we listen in amazement to the profit announcements. We will continue to
provide tax concession schemes like negative gearing, investing in
superannuation, and private health insurance rebates.

Gina Rinehart wrote and self-published a book called “Northern Australia and then some: Changes we need to make our country rich.” I will close with a quote from a review done by Cameron Whitehead at Crikey.

“What she has produced is a weirdly amateur book which is
everywhere inscribed with the signature of someone accustomed to
command but it is also — sometimes with a wildcard, unexpected
poignancy — the work of someone who is blind to how she is being
perceived. This is a book that reveals a woman for whom love, work and
money are indistinguishable, a woman who has so much, and yet so
little.”

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

ICAC, Watson and the Coalition slush funds

Ross Jones 29 April 2014, 6:30pm 35

Crime NSW Politics

138

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on reddit
Share on google_plusone_share
Share on linkedin
Share on digg
Share on email
More Sharing Services

The NSW ICAC has sent a shiver through the Federal
Liberal Party as Geoffrey Watson SC starts to hone in on its network of
slush funds, writes Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones.

New ICAC allegations

A SHIVER has just run through the Coalition.

It took a little over two hours for counsel assisting the NSW ICAC, Geoffrey Watson SC, to lay bare the modus operandi of the Liberal Party’s fundraising laundromats.

Experience says Watson does not make allegations he can’t substantiate with proof to spare.

Here’s a rundown.

On an almost minor, local level, fronts like Eightybyfive sent sham invoices for work not done to outfits who needed a favour:

If Watson is right (see above) the following NSW State MPs: Darren Webber, the member for Wyong; Chris Spence, the member for The Entrance; and Hartcher, the member for Terrigal, all obtained their seats corruptly.

Too late now to overturn the results, apparently, but the NSW Libs
will need to look out next round — or perhaps even in the by-elections
that may be brought about by some stints in Cessnock Correctional.

The now infamous Australian Water Holdings (AWH) gave them a few bob, as did the now floundering mining tycoon Nathan Tinkler. Watson said Tinkler hoped Hartcher could smooth the way for the construction of a coal loading terminal in Newcastle.

The $5,000 Marie Ficarra accepted from property developer Tony Merhi – the same five grand that saw her stand aside as a member of the Liberal Party – went straight to Eightbyfive.

(Incidentally, ICAC heard that the name Eightbyfive was randomly-generated and has, in itself, no meaning at all.)

Once ICAC moved beyond the allegations of small town graft, things start to become much more interesting.

Hartcher’s office, Watson related, also channelled $165,000 to an entity called the Free Enterprise Foundation.

The operation was set up as a discretionary trust in 1981 and, according to Watson:

Watson alleges the foundation’s main activity is to funnel funds from
anonymous dirty donors straight into the Liberal Party's coffers.

But where did all this black money go?

Between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2012, the NSW Liberal Party received
$693,000 (mostly in the lead up to the 2011 state election); $30,000 to
the SA Liberal Party, $11,000 to the Dame Pattie Menzies Liberal Foundation (which according to Watson, "found its way directly back into the coffers of the NSW Liberal Party"; and $388,000 to the Federal Liberal Party,

The $388,000 to the Federal Libs stands out.

Who put this money in and who benefitted from it?

Joe Hockey has his select little fundraising group, The North Sydney Forum, which at one time had AWH as a member. It later repaid money received from AWH.

We know it is only a hop step and jump, via Arthur Sinodinos, from AWH to the very heart of the Liberal Party.

Are the Federal Libs any different? With a bit of luck we will see.

Back in April 2011, Sandi Keane and Barry Everingham wrote a significant piece on IA
discussing secret donations to the Liberal Party through the Free
Enterprise Foundation, the Liberal Party investment entity, the Cormack Foundation, as well as the Greenfields Foundation, which the AEC investigated in 1998.

The AEC found the following concerning Greenfields:

Interestingly, this variable rental cover story seems to follow a similar pattern to another slush fund appearing in the media recently — that of Altum Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary
of the LNP in Queensland. Altum allegedly played a key role in funding
the election campaigns of several Sunshine Coast MPs, including Mal 'Ashbygate' Brough.

Apart from the Keane/Everingham piece, we recommend reading 28-04-2014 Operation Credo-Spicer transcript pp. 02620-02656 from 11.00am to 1.04pm (120.89 kB).

As ICAC starts to sniff around the edges of the Federal Liberal
Party, you can imagine the pressure that will be brought to bear on the
astounding and revelatory NSW Corruption Commission, which has performed
its work with immense diligence and skill, and with neither fear nor
favour.

We nominate Geoff Watson for Australian of the year, hands down.

The Coalition's Direct gateway to corruption

Bob Ellis 28 April 2014, 12:05am 33

Crime Environment Politics

523

The Coalition's Direct Action plan receiving a strongly endorsement by Dr Evil.

Today we saw more Liberal Party corruption exposed by the the NSW ICAC — meanwhile, the same party continues with its misguided plan to pay polluters. Bob Ellis says this is a wide gateway to corruption.

IT’S HARD TO THINK of a wider gateway to corruption than the paying-the-biggest-polluters legislation pitched to us by Greg Hunt.

A company has to cut back by, say, one per cent the carbon it puts in the air and someone has to measure this.

If he says: yes, too right, it’s down to 99 percent, that company
gets fifty million dollars. If he says: no, bad luck, it’s as bad as it
was, or worse, the company gets nothing, not even a fine.

It would be hard to find a job more suitable for Arthur Sinodinos, provider of clean sewage to Nick Di Girolamo in times past, or John Elliott, say, or Jodee Rich.

Who gets this job? And what is he paid? How do we know he’s not paid
extra, a half million, say, as ‘commission’ for drop-kicking fifty
million a big polluter’s way?

What is truly amazing is the penalty for a big polluter that pollutes even more — which is no penalty at all.

Killing the planet, it seems, is not even a misdemeanour now. If you
do it, you pay less than a parking fine — you pay nothing at all.

And next year, when the age of entitlement
is over and corporate welfare is ended once and for all, a big
polluting corporation gets $50 million for farting at the atmosphere one
per cent less often and pays not a cent to the virtuous judge who signs
the money over.

Coalition's emissions reduction fund poses more questions than answers

Not since Enron has there been a sillier set of numbers.

Everything that happens – new fighter bombers, offshore processing,
sewage pipes to new suburbs, the brave new world of ‘infrastructure’,
Australia being ‘open for business’ – is seen as a new open door to
corruption by this, the Looters’ Party.

They have no purpose other on earth than these dirty backroom dealings, the $20 million for Sinodinos, these $1/2 billion to Wilson Security for beating children on Manus.

It’s what the Liberals do.

And now they’re giving the big polluters billions for killing the planet one per cent slower.

And it takes your breath away — literally. They are truly, truly awful people.

And so it goes.

Tony Abbott reacts to corruption suggestion of Barry OFarrell by media

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

It's surely time for us to make a ruckus over the corporate greed creed

Date: July 14, 2013

Bruce Guthrie

Sunday Age columnist

View more articles from Bruce Guthrie

Follow Bruce on Twitter

We're all being taken for a ride by price gougers.

We are becoming a nation of Bundys.

As we enter election season, here's a tip for any politician
seeking office. Your platform should be this: ''I'll stop the gouging.''

You would get my vote and, I suspect, those of thousands of
other Australians who increasingly feel powerless as consumers. Hell, I
would probably campaign on your behalf.

The rapaciousness of both public and private enterprise has
reached new appalling levels as governments and companies bleed people
dry.

It all makes me yearn for the days of the Prices
Justification Tribunal, a Whitlam creation, which, during the 1970s and
beyond, scrutinised proposed price hikes and modified them if they
didn't add up.

Advertisement

We have long since left such matters pretty much to the
market and, boy, aren't we paying for it. We are getting fleeced as
never before.

The latest piece of profiteering has come from - surprise,
surprise - Melbourne Airport, which last week quietly lifted parking
rates by more than 30 per cent.

Three weeks ago I parked there for just over an hour on a
Saturday morning and had to fork out more than $20 for the privilege. I
have flown for less than that.

The latest price hike prompted the chief executive of the
Consumer Law Action Centre, Gerard Brody, to observe: ''There is a real
question whether these car park fees are price gouging.'' (Actually,
there is no doubt about it, Mr Brody - it is gouging.)

The airport effectively has the power to charge its own fees,
which, as he noted, is a questionable practice, considering it is
pretty much running a monopoly.

Said Brody: ''Economic theory tells us if there is a
monopoly, there should be some oversight or restriction on prices that
can be charged.''

Yet even when there is oversight, it doesn't seem to help all that much.

The previous week the Essential Services Commission announced that water bills would rise by up to $220 this financial year.

Once we would have stormed the offices of our local MPs if
this sort of increase had been publicly mooted, much less approved. Now
we accept it with a kind of sad resignation.

I am increasingly reminded of that opening scene in the hit TV series Married with Children, in which the put-upon dad, defeat etched on his face, dispensed dollars to all family members, dog included.

We are becoming a nation of Bundys.

The water increase could have been worse, though, according
to the commission's chairman, Dr Ron Ben-David, who said of the 20 per
cent-plus price rise: ''This represents a significant reduction from the
increases originally proposed by the businesses of between $269 and
$355.''

So the only good news is that the bad news could have been
worse. That says a lot about the lack of empathy those businesses have
for their customers. The imposts do not end there, though: private
health insurance goes up and up, so do the costs of running cars and, of
course, municipal rates outstrip the CPI again and again.

The latest round saw them rise an average 4.8 per cent across
Victoria, only slightly down on last year's 5 per cent. These and other
cost increases were ''sending people to the wall'', said Ratepayers
Victoria spokesman Peter Olney. Of course they are.

When bodies such as the Prices Justification Tribunal were
abandoned in favour of deregulation we were assured competition in the
marketplace would help keep prices down. Regulation would be necessary
only in monopoly situations.

So while there is price regulation on energy distributors in
Victoria because they have monopoly rights to supply certain regions,
there is no price regulation on energy retail markets because retailers
are supposedly competing for our business. That's supposed to keep
prices down. So why are our energy bills through the roof?

The same theory says credit cards and telcos do not need
regulation either. There wouldn't be a consumer in Australia who buys
that one. In fact, they're gold-medal gougers, forever inventing new
ways to extract our dollars. I suspect they have full-time teams working
on ways of making us pay for things we used to get free.

During the week I challenged a credit card operator to
explain why my most recent bill had line after line of something called a
''currency conversion fee''.

''That's what we charge you for having to convert American
dollars to Australian dollars when you travel overseas,'' she said
politely. ''But you're already making money on the exchange rate,'' I
said. ''And then you charge me extra for calculating it?''

''That's correct, sir.'' No doubt someone got a bonus for coming up with that one.

Where is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in all this? Isn't it time it threw its weight around?

At the very least it should be given market-study powers so
it can investigate and expose the inner workings of appallingly greedy
outfits.

In the meantime, who will stand up for consumers? The buck can't continue to stop with us. We have fewer and fewer of them left.

Bruce Guthrie is a former editor of The Age and The Sunday Age.

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Apple iTax: made in Ireland, designed in the US

Apple iTax: made in Ireland, designed in the US
click on the link above to read the full article

or its innovative products, is equally creative
in its tax structure. From 2009 to 2012, it successfully sheltered US$44
billion from being taxed anywhere in the world, including sales
generated…

Who me? Legislators in the US have made it possible for “national heroes” to implement tax avoidance schemes.
EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo

Apple, famous for its innovative products, is equally creative in its tax structure.
From 2009 to 2012, it successfully sheltered US$44 billion from being taxed anywhere in the world, including sales generated in Australia.
While there are probably some sound reasons for Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, to claim in a US congressional hearing in May 2013
that his company “complies fully with both the laws and spirit of the
laws”, many people may think it is immoral for such a successful company
to avoid taxation.
But the company shouldn’t be alone in the being blamed for the low tax it pays around the world.
Concerted government action, including specific provisions inserted
into US tax laws in 1997, have made it possible for multinationals with
complex structures to funnel profits between the gaps of tax
authorities.
And it is unlikely to be a coincidence that Irish tax law has been
crafted to allow companies incorporated in Ireland to take full
advantage of these gaps in the US.
Mapping the reach of Apple’s iTax scheme and the rules it uses to
hide profits is difficult, if not impossible, to discern from its
financial statements.
My research on this topic would have been impossible but for information revealed in the US Senate hearing in May last year.

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

Free Trade and the Environment | Global Exchange

Free Trade and the Environment | Global Exchange

click on the above link to read the full article

Free Trade and the Environment

by Deborah James

U.S.-based Harken Energy Company
wanted to exploit oil off the coast of Costa Rica, a country known for
its long history of democracy as well as its pristine natural parks and
natural resources. But the Costa Rican government denied the permit
because the oil exploration would negatively impact Costa Rica’s
environment. Harken attempted to sue the government for $57 billion –
more than the country’s entire GDP. The case was eventually settled in
local courts. But if CAFTA is approved, Harken would have the right to
sue the Costa Rican government for expropriation. Then the Costa Rican
people would be left with two options: let Harken drill for oil and
damage the environment, or pay them potential lost future profits.

For decades, governments have worked together through the United
Nations to develop agreements to protect the natural resources of our
shared planet. Unfortunately, so-called “free trade agreements” threaten
to erode many of the advances in global environmental protection,
endangering our planet and the natural resources necessary to support
life. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and certain
agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were written to
prioritize rights for corporations over protections for our shared
environment.

But rather than being repealed, corporate interests
are negotiating the expansion of these corporate rights. The
U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),
soon to go before Congress, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA), currently in negotiations, are modeled on NAFTA. In
addition, negotiations are proceeding within the WTO to expand many of
its policies.

These new agreements threaten global biodiversity,
would accelerate the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops,
increase natural resource exploitation, further degrade some of the most
critical environmental regions on the planet, and erode the public’s
ability to protect our planet for future generations.

No Protections for the Environment

Neither CAFTA nor the FTAA require member countries to adopt
internationally recognized standards for environmental protection. Nor
does either agreement ensure that member countries don’t lower or waive
their existing environmental laws in an effort to attract investment.
What’s more, rules in CAFTA and the FTAA would actually prohibit member
countries from enacting many new environmental regulations, allowing
those regulations to be challenged as “barriers to trade.” This strips
the public from a fundamental democratic right to pass laws that protect
our environment in favor of corporations’ “right” to profit from
environmental destruction.

Mega-Diverse Countries

Latin America is one of the most biologically and culturally diverse
regions on the planet. Four of the five Central American countries
included in CAFTA have tropical areas that have been identified as
“critical regions” for their biodiversity. Additionally, 7 of the
world’s 12 “megadiverse” countries, (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru,
Ecuador, Costa Rica and Colombia) are found in the Americas.
“Mega-diversity” countries represent the majority of the world’s
biodiversity and surviving Indigenous peoples, the true guardians of
biodiversity. Unfortunately, so-called “free trade” agreements directly
contradict important international legislation designed to protect the
rights of Indigenous peoples and biodiversity, like the Convention on
Biological Diversity as well as the International Labor Organization
Convention 169, which states that Indigenous groups must be consulted on
issues that affect their rights to land and livelihood.

Piracy of Global Biodiversity

In the last decade, the biodiversity of the Americas has been targeted
by “life science” corporations (the growing consolidation of
pharmaceutical, agrichemical and seed companies) in search of “green
gold.” These corporations are pillaging humankind’s patrimony of
traditional knowledge and biodiversity to create and patent drugs and
agricultural products to sell for profit. The quest to patent life
forms, especially medicinal plants and crops, threatens our food
security, access to healthcare, and the biological and cultural
diversity of the Americas.

Intellectual property rules in CAFTA
and the FTAA would require that member countries grant protections to
the patenting of life forms. This would facilitate a massive increase in
“bioprospecting” or the practice of corporations patenting Indigenous
communities’ knowledge of plants and then profiting from that knowledge –
while forcing Indigenous communities to pay for what they had
previously held in common.

The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers | International Labor Rights Forum

The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers | International Labor Rights Forum

Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses
of modern times, but it is increasingly difficult to hold them to
account. Economic globalisation and the rise of transnationals corporate
power have created a favourable climate for corporate human rights
abusers, which are governed principally by the codes of supply and
demand and show genuine loyalty only to their stockholders.

Several of the companies below are being sued under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, a law that allows citizens of any nationality to sue in US
federal courts for violations of international rights or treaties. When
corporations act like criminals, we have the right and the power to stop
them, holding leaders and multinational corporations alike to the
accords they have signed. Around the world--in Venezuela, Argentina,
India, and right here in the United States--citizens are stepping up to
create democracy and hold corporations accountable to international law.

Caterpillar

For years, the Caterpillar Company has provided Israel with the
bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. Despite worldwide
condemnation, Caterpillar has refused to end its corporate participation
house demolition by cutting off sales of specially modified D9 and D10
bulldozers to the Israeli military.

In a letter to Caterpillar CEO James Owens, The Office of the UN High
Commissioner on Human Rights said: "allowing the delivery of your ...
bulldozers to the Israeli army ... in the certain knowledge that they
are being used for such action, might involve complicity or acceptance
on the part of your company to actual and potential violations of human
rights..."

Peace activist Rachel Corrie was killed by a Caterpillar D-9,
military bulldozer in 2003. She was run over while attempting to block
the destruction a family's home in Gaza. Her family filed suit against
Caterpillar in March 2005 charging that Caterpillar knowingly sold
machines used to violate human rights. Since Corrie's death at least
three more Palestinians have been killed in their homes by Israeli
bulldozer demolitions.

Tax deal: How Apple shifts its billions out of Australia

Date: March 6, 2014 - 6:54AM

Neil Chenoweth

Last year, Apple sent an estimated $2 billion of income from its Australian sales to Ireland via Singapore. Photo: Andrew Quilty

How savvy multinationals cut their tax bills

US tech giant Apple has shifted an estimated $8.9 billion in untaxed profits from its Australian operations to a tax haven structure in Ireland in the last decade, an investigation by The Australian Financial Review has found.
Last year Apple reported pretax earnings in Australia of only $88.5 million after it sent an estimated $2 billion of income from its Australian sales to Ireland via Singapore, where Apple negotiated a secret tax deal in 2009.
The Financial Review has obtained 10 years worth of financial accounts for Apple Sales International, the secretive Irish company at the heart of Apple's international tax arrangements, which reveal the mark-up Apple charges for intellectual property on its products around the world.
"Newspapers have had lots of stories about tax avoidance by Microsoft and Google and Apple, but there are hardly any numbers," said University of Sydney senior lecturer of taxation law Antony Ting, who has published a review of Apple's tax arrangements.
"Now, for the first time, there are numbers for the profits that escaped from Australian tax."
The G20 meeting in Sydney last week gave US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Apple a deadline to reform their tax arrangements, warning that "by the Brisbane summit [in November], we will start to deliver effective, practical and sustainable measures" against international tax avoidance.
Apple Sales International has reported more than $US100 billion ($112 billion) of profits in the last five years. Its accounts show it has paid less than 50¢ in tax on every $1000 of income.
Read the full story at AFR.com