Wednesday 21 January 2015

Hundreds of donors hidden by Newman’s donations laws –

Hundreds of donors hidden by Newman’s donations laws –

Hundreds of donors hidden by Newman’s donations laws




|

Jan 22, 2015 12:41PM







Campbell Newman’s gutting of political donation disclosure laws means many hundreds of LNP donors can remain secret.








The Queensland election has suddenly focused attention on
that state’s political donation disclosure (or more correctly,
non-disclosure) laws.



Amid controversy over Queensland Labor’s fundraising
practices and access to ministers being sold to raise funds, in 2009
then-premier Anna Bligh elevated Queensland’s political donation
restrictions and reporting requirements to best practice. In 2014,
Premier Campbell Newman mostly neutered Bligh’s reforms.



ABC’s 7.30 last night and particularly The Australian’s Michael McKenna
today focused on how Newman’s 2014 changes to donation laws have
enabled donors to give large amounts — up to $12,400 — in secret, as
well as exploiting the gap between what is legally a donation and what
is a fee for a good or service.



In effect, what Newman did was to “Howardise” the Queensland
laws, mimicking the Howard government’s massive 2005 increase in the
reporting threshold for federal donations from $1000 to an indexed level
that, federally, is now $12,800. Efforts by Labor’s John Faulkner to
reverse the federal changes were blocked by the Coalition and Steve
Fielding, and later by his own colleagues. Instead of being reversed,
the Howard changes metastasised into Queensland.



The difference as a result of Newman’s gutting of the Bligh
laws is remarkable. Compare the disclosure reports for the Liberal
National Party for 2012-13 and 2013-14. For a start, there’s only one
for the latter year, compared to two for the former, because reporting
is now annually, not every six months. The two 2012-13 reports (here and here)
show the LNP declaring revenue of just under $17.8 million for the full
year and include a total of 61 pages, many of them closely printed,
detailing hundreds of sources of funding. Much of this funding involved
has nothing to do with donations or even pseudo-donations like
subscriptions to “business forums” or purchases of dinner table spots
for access to ministers — it includes candidate nomination fees, tax
refunds, funding from the Queensland Electoral Commission and
allocations from one section of the party to another. But it provides a
comprehensive description of where nearly all LNP funding, apart from
contributions below $1000, has come from.



The 2013-14 report,
however, has just six pages of detail for the LNP’s declared $18.64
million in revenue, covering declared donations and other reportable
payments totalling $7.5 million. What’s missing is many hundreds of
donors and businesses that have given the LNP between $1000 and $12,400
in 2013-14 — in just the six months from January 1, 2013 to June 30,
2013, the LNP’s return shows over 900 donors contributing amounts within
that range — excluding non-donation funding. No one within that range
was reported in 2013-14 by the LNP; they can now contribute in secret to
Newman’s government.



This is the multimillion-dollar credibility gap at the heart
of Newman’s political donations laws. The gap is significantly less for
Labor: like federal Labor, the Queensland Labor Party reports all
contributions above $1000 regardless of legal requirements, so its
returns still provide copious detail about sources of (mostly union)
funding. But Labor does so on a voluntary basis, and it could cease to
do so at any time. For the LNP, Newman’s laws have hidden from public
view the vast majority of donors, many of whom are seeking to influence
the Newman government to achieve policy outcomes that suit their
commercial interests.



As the pre-Bligh Queensland laws demonstrated, such lack of
transparency is ripe for exploitation by party mates seeking to obtain
access and influence. If Newman’s changes aren’t undone, history tells
us it will invariably lead to scandal and corruption. And as we’ll see
in coming days, the problem is every bit as acute at the federal level.


Mermaid Ray implodes at Nobby Beach over Cableway

Mermaid Ray implodes at Nobby Beach over Cableway



2,834 47



Ray Stevens aggressively
waves his hands in front of David Donovan's face, but refuses to say a
word, thinking he is not being caught on video


Embattled LNP Assistant Minister Ray Stevens gets aggro while being questioned by IA editor David Donovan outside a pre-polling booth on the Gold Coast today.



It would be almost funny if it wasn’t so disgraceful — the conduct of LNP Assistant Minister Ray Stevens outside the Mermaid Beach pre-polling booth on the Gold Coast this morning (21/1/15).



I had just interviewed fellow Mermaid Beach candidates Alex Caraco
(PUP) and Gary Pead (ALP) when I approached ‘Mermaid’ Ray to talk to him
about the controversial project in which he stands to gain millions
after a “fortuitous” Newman Government law change.




Of course, readers of IA would know that there are serious
questions to be answered by Stevens about this project, especially about
Stevens serious alleged conflict of interest and possible deceptive
conduct regarding the Integrity Commission. Readers would also know I
have been endeavouring to speak to him about this matter for months, but
he has been avoiding me — just like he has been avoiding all other
journalists.




He was sitting in a comfortable chair under a marquee outside the
booth and after introducing myself and holding out my hand ‒ which he
refused to take ‒ I asked Stevens if he would talk to me about the
project.




He declined and directed me to his office. I told him, truthfully,
that I had been trying through his office for a long time and had no
success. He dismissed this out of hand.




As politely as I could, I then began to ask him some of the pertinent questions, starting with



“Mr Stevens, why won’t you release the Integrity Commissioner’s advice.”




Upon hearing this, Stevens leapt to his feet and chased after a young
bearded man walking past, apparently to hand him a how to vote card. I
followed Stevens continuing to ask him questions:




“Mr Stevens, do you have something to hide?



“Shouldn’t the voters of Mermaid beach know about your involvement, Mr Stevens?”




It was then, after walking back inside his tent, while I stood
outside, that Mermaid Ray really lost the plot — but without saying a
word. I can only surmise that he didn’t realise the exchange was being
filmed, since I was only holding my miniature digital audio recorder
towards him.




You can see why he thought he could behave disgracefully, because by
saying nothing there was little of substance from the audio.




Here is the audio (I apologise for its poor quality) of the exchange:





Stevens then quickly darted to stand just inside the marquee, with me just outside.



He held his hands out wide, as inviting me to do something. Come inside? Have a go? Who knows.



I continued asking questions:



“How much money do you expect to make from the cablecar development?”




He leaned over towards me and, still silent, started waving his arms up and down as I repeated the question a few times.



“You’re not saying anything, Mr Stevens,” I said, suddenly reminded of another famous meltdown.



He started doing a dance and gyrating around — this is a Minister of the Crown, we’re talking about, let me remind you.



“You’re not saying anything Mr Stevens,” I said again and he started making little duck beaks with his hands inches from my face.



As I asked belligerent Mermaid Ray:



“Is this the way you treat your electors, Mr Stevens?”




he made slapping motions in the air close to my face, then turned and walked away.



“Why are you avoiding the media over the cableway,” I asked him and he came back and made shooing motions near me.



The whole incident was over in a couple of minutes, but any residual
respect I may have had for this local MP had evaporated long before I
walked away.




Stevens may have thought his aggressive, juvenile behaviour would
never be seen, however sadly for him, the entire exchange was being
videotaped on phone by a booth volunteer. This young gentleman was
allegedly confronted by Stevens soon after, with the MP allegedly trying
to intimidate into not releasing the video.




Luckily for us ‒ and the voters of Mermaid Beach ‒ the volunteer was made of sterner stuff.



Here is the video of the volunteer, which has been overdubbed with my audio:





Irrespective of the probity of Stevens’ actions over the Skyride,
about which he obviously refuses to talk, it is clear that he is not a
fit candidate for any public office whatsoever. In fact, wouldn’t let
him walk my dog, who is far more courteous and polite than Ray Stevens.




Ray Stevens should be disendorsed by the LNP.



This probably won’t happen, however I urge you to share this story
amongst everyone in Mermaid Beach. This man ‒ and I use that term
reluctantly ‒ deserves to be punished on January 31 by the voters of
Mermaid, because he clearly holds them in utter contempt.




If you are voting in Queensland this month, put the LNP last — as
shown by today’s events, that’s where they appear to have put you.




You can follow David Donovan on Twitter @davrosz.

Rude Mermaid Ray Stevens MP implodes over Cableway questions



Published on 20 Jan 2015
After
IA editor David Donovan interviewed Mermaid Beach candidates Alex
Caraco (PUP) and Gary Pead (ALP) outside a pre-polling booth about the
proposed controversial Gold Coast 'Skyride' Cableway, sitting LNP MP
'Mermaid' Ray Stevens explodes and implodes when being asked about his
involvement and potential conflicts of interest.

Tuesday 20 January 2015

Queensland election: Newman government under scrutiny over coal donation

Queensland election: Newman government under scrutiny over coal donation



Queensland election: Newman government under scrutiny over coal donation






Exclusive: New details emerge of donation from New
Hope Coal director to minister who oversaw air pollution clearance for
coalmine expansion











coal train



Uncovered coal trains passing the Cleveland train station in Brisbane’s inner south. Photograph: The Greens/AAP




The Queensland premier, Campbell Newman,
has been forced to fend off attacks on the integrity of his government
as new details emerged linking one of his ministers to a business figure
involved in a controversial coalmine expansion.



Newman hit the election campaign trail on Tuesday with Ian Walker,
who Guardian Australia can reveal took a donation from a board director
of New Hope Coal before his election in 2012.



Walker, as the minister for science, information technology,
innovation and the arts, subsequently oversaw the department which
cleared levels of air pollution from uncovered coal trains in Brisbane
before the expansion of New Hope’s Acland mine.



Advertisement
Walker was also acting minister for state development when he called
for public input on New Hope’s environmental impact statement for
Acland last year.



The state Labor leader, Annastacia Palaszczuk, has claimed that the Liberal National party government had opened the door to corruption and on Tuesday radio host Alan Jones renewed his attack on Newman over Acland.


Donor records show that New Hope director Bill Grant gave a $2,000 personal cheque to Walker’s campaign fund in October 2011.


The donation would have been secret under the LNP’s widely-criticised
move to raise the threshold for declaring contributions from $1,000 to
$12,400 last year.



The pollution study by Walker’s department was released to companies including New Hope a week before it was made public in 2013.


Walker, who appeared with Newman at a press conference on the Gold
Coast announcing a new $60m tourism fund, left while refusing a request
for interview from Guardian Australia.



In a statement later, Walker declined to explain the nature of his
relationship with Grant but said all donations were “fully disclosed in
accordance with the law”.



Walker said his office had no role in the pollution study, for which coal companies had paid $250,000.


Advertisement
Asked
if those payments had created a conflict of interest, Walker said the
decision to engage “the state’s top independent scientists shows a
proactive role in ensuring clean air for Queenslanders”.



Palaszczuk at the Labor campaign launch suggested the LNP had paved
the way for a return to the graft of “brown paper bag” politics in Queensland.



Newman said in response that there were “appropriate authorities that
can deal with such things”. He accused Labor of running “a campaign
about negativity and personality politics”.



“Why? They have no plan for Queensland, they don’t have the ticker to
sort out the financial problems we inherited,” he said. “They certainly
don’t know how to create jobs so they engage in this sort of thing.”



Newman repeatedly refused to say whether he had met Jones at his home
before last election and promised to block the mine expansion.



A spokesman for Newman declined to comment on Walker and his relationship with Grant.


Jones has travelled to Queensland to run daily “election special”
programs on 4BC radio, denouncing Newman as a “bully boy” and his
government as the worst in Australia.



The decision to allow Acland to mine another 3m tonnes of coal a year was announced on the Friday before Christmas.


New Hope and its parent company, Washington H Soul Pattinson, donated
more than $700,000 to the LNP at a state and federal level between 2011
and 2013.



Asked if New Hope’s donations influenced the government’s approval, Newman said: “I will not be commenting on Alan Jones.”


Asked by Guardian Australia if LNP officials had indicated whether
the party’s donations had risen since it raised the secrecy threshold,
Newman replied that he had “no idea”.



“You’ll have to ask them. I’m not involved,” he said.


Jones has also attacked the government over the energy minister, Mark
McArdle, and the environment minister, Andrew Powell, accepting
entertainment from New Hope in its corporate box at a Wallabies rugby
game in Brisbane in 2013.



Activist group Clean Air Queensland said the Acland expansion would increase coal dust pollution in Brisbane.


Clean Air Queensland organiser Michael Kane said his tests showed
emissions of particulate PM10 from uncovered coal wagons in Brisbane
exceeded national safety levels tenfold, as often as 10 times a day.



Kane claimed the government study clearing the pollution levels by
averaging emissions over 24 hours was “absolutely the wrong
methodology”.



Walker said that methodology was “determined by departmental scientists exercising their independent professional integrity”.


QUT researcher Adrian Barnett said air pollution standards were “a
political limit and shouldn’t be used as a health tool since no level of
pollution is safe”.



New Hope’s chairman, Robert Millner, was called before the Independent Commission Against Corruption
(Icac) in NSW last year over a donations controversy involving another
Washington H Soul Pattinson subsidiary of which he was chairman,
Brickworks.



Icac is due to complete its report this month on whether Brickworks’
donations to the Liberal party in NSW broke laws banning political
contributions from developers.







Friday 16 January 2015

Shop Small! The duopoly of Woolworths and Coles is killing small business

Shop Small! The duopoly of Woolworths and Coles is killing small business



125 0



Image courtesy www.bbb.org


If the Americans are screaming blue murder because
Wal-Mart and its competitors have 23 per cent of their market, why do we
put up with Coles and Woolies hogging over 80 per cent of ours? Mel
McCartney urges us to Shop Small or face big price hikes. 




IT WASN'T THAT long ago that the aisles of the two major supermarkets
in Australia were full of products other than the Coles and Woolworths
(WWs) "private brands".




Now our choices are limited to their brands competing with few other brands for shelf space. WWs offers 'Select', 'Homebrand', 'Macro, 'Gold' and 'Free From', whilst Coles offers '$martbuy', 'Coles', 'Organic', 'Finest', 'Simply Less' and 'Green Choice'.



This is not new and they model their business models on Tesco
in the United Kingdom (U.K.), right down to their recent convenience
store trials in Victoria but we will get more into that shortly.




Not only do they control over 70 per cent of the supermarket share out of the $82.5 billion grocery sector, but they both have their fingers in many other pies.



WWs for example, is not only the largest operator of hotels and poker
machine venues in the country, but it's also the largest take-away
liquor retailer in Australia. WWs and Coles also make up half of the
Australian petrol retail market, combine this with their discount
shopper dockets for alcohol, petrol and food and their strangle hold is
clearly apparent.






Interestingly there are no links
to either company on labels of wine brands that are owned by either of
the two like they do with their "private brands". Some brands include Cradle Bay, Bay Estates, Oak Lane, Iron Hill and South Island. Out of every dollar that is spent in a retail store in Australia 88c is spent at WWs or Coles.




In comparison to the U.S. where 12c out of every dollar is spent at
their largest retailer which is Wal-Mart, and it commands around 30 per
cent of the market share.




In August 2006, Coles attempted to make inroads into the pharmacy market, where it wanted to establish a presence by purchasing Pharmacy Direct.
They ended up selling it in 2009 at a reported loss of $28 million or
more after a three year battle with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia
(PGA), which concluded with legislation preventing Coles and the like from operating pharmacies within supermarkets.






At the end of June 2014 however, WWs announced its intention of offering in-store "free health checks"
by hiring final year pharmacy students, graduating pharmacists and
nurses to conduct health checks such as blood pressure and cholesterol.




Six stores have been trialling the system in New South Wales (NSW)
and Queensland with the intent of expanding the scheme nationally, and
the idea being that if any customers have readings outside of the normal
range, they will be directed to a doctor or pharmacist for medical
advice. 




But the PGA is concerned about the move. The Guild's George Tambassis said it is an attempt by the supermarket to



"hoodwink consumers into believing they can get professional pharmacist advice and products from a supermarket.”




and



"It's a hypocritical and frankly a public disservice that a
supermarket giant which profits so heavily from retailing tobacco and
alcohol products – which are the biggest preventable causes of ill
health and death – is claiming to be interested in health care.”





The next five-year pharmacy agreement between the government and the industry is due this year in 2015.



The then NSW Labor government sold and privatised the NSW lotteries to the Tatts Group (Tatts)
in 2010. A condition of privatising it was a five-year moratorium that
prevented the big two from selling lotto tickets and Scratch-its
tickets. It also ends in 2015 on the March 31, not long after the NSW
state election.




With no review of the agency protection period being undertaken to
identify a future strategy, Tatts will have free rein from April 1 to
sell through any retailer it chooses.




NANA presented a petition to NSW Parliament. The petition read:



‘To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative
Assembly of New South Wales in Parliament assembled. The privatisation
of NSW Lotteries in 2010 was accompanied by a five year Agency
Protection Period during which all existing arrangements with agents
were to be maintained. The Agency Protection Period will expire on 1
April 2015 at which point the protections for existing lotteries agents
will cease. This is likely to have long-lasting and devastating
consequences not only for the existing agencies, but also for the
broader local small business community. We the undersigned call upon the
NSW Government to indefinitely extend the Agency Protection Period and
enshrine the protective measure to support the viability of key
community small businesses.’





The petition garnered many signatures was handed to the NSW
government upon popular demand this one was set up too, if you would
like to sign there is only a few hundred or so to go.






As mentioned in the first paragraph, convenience store trials
have begun in Victoria and Sydney and the initial branding for the
"Woolworths' corner store" push is "Woolworths Small Format". WWs is
reportedly snapping up land for smaller corner stores in the centres of
our capital cities, taking on 7-Eleven and other similar-style
operators.




7-Eleven has done very well selling Tatts products and no doubt the
multinationals want some of the action. Tatts wants to introduce a new
Franchise Agreement to Newsagents in NSW in July this year and it is
also demanding a corporate branded Tatts shop fit-out from all of the
1,500 agencies (including 300 small retailers selling lottery tickets),
using only Tatts approved shop fitters who have to buy Tatts acquired
components.




With a minimum cost of $22k and "with no contribution from Tatts", if you want to remain a lottery agent, things look very dire indeed.



Tatts also wants to increase "direct debit" access to newsagents accounts for payments from once a week to twice
a week. Cash flow is integral and with prize payments, card
transactions and the reimbursement of them to consider, what will this
achieve exactly? Is it a designated push against small business or a
lack of forward thinking?




NANA Chief Executive, Andrew Packham, says the flow-on effect could
be devastating for newspapers and that the new Lotteries Franchise
Agreements would be economically disastrous. He warned:




“From the April 1 next year, the government oversight of a huge
part of newsagents’ business will no longer be there and the operator
will be able to do whatever it wants.” “The newsagent system was created
to ensure low cost home delivery of newspapers. That entire system is
under threat.





Mr Packham also said that removing
income from lottery tickets would render 60-70 per cent of businesses
non viable. A mediation with
Tatts
and the Newsagent Association of NSW and ACT (NANA) in November last
year produced no results. The five year moratorium rule was meant to
include meetings every six months between Tatts, NANA and the NSW state
government, this did not occur.


 


What has eventuated is Tatts having talks with the major players
about lottery sales, following lottery tickets trials in Victoria at
eight Coles Express stores recently. Mr Packham said,




“we will undertake other measures”




and that



“We’re now relying on a political solution to a commercial problem.”








NANA are lobbying state members of parliament and forwarding their concerns to the small business commission.



Gerringong Newsagency co-owner Janet Ware who has been running her business for nearly 12 months told Kiama-Independent Lake Times:



 “We’re distressed by the state government’s lack of support for
our small business, especially when they are a government that says they
are for business……They’ve had five years to make some decisions on
this, and nothing has happened so far. I find it very distressing. The
tireless enthusiasm of newsagents has built Lotto up; we’ve built their
business up to where it is now. Lotto is gambling, and this will put it
into supermarkets and normalise it.”





The Australian Newsagents Federation
(ANF) has written to Bruce Billson, Minister for Small Business, and
Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for Communications, to outline how the
newsagency channel is well-placed to take on more of the Australia Post
services following reports in the Australian Financial Review
that Australia Post will require government assistance to urgently
restructure its letter service in the New Year in order to remain
viable. ANF CEO Alf Maccioni said:




"The ANF was shocked to see how Australia Post is looking for a
government hand out to help with their struggling retail outlets. We
have written to both Bruce Billson and Malcolm Turnbull reminding them
again that there is a network of retailers, larger than Australia Post
out in the Australian Retail landscape that already runs a large amount
of LPO and are willing to help take on more business. Let's look at
saving the government some money by using the largest independent retail
network in Australia."





In June 2013, Bob Katter introduced the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2013, it didn't get anywhere but had the support of Independent senators Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon.



The bill sought to reduce the market share of Coles and WWs from
their combined market share of around 80 per cent, to no more than 20
per cent each. Senator Katter said:




“The Americans are screaming blue murder because Wal-Mart and
their competitor have now reached about 23 per cent market share. Here
we have two supermarkets with a market share of over 80 per cent, so if
they decide to cut down the amount of money they are going to pay
farmers and jack up the price to the consumers, they can, because there
is no competition”





No competition perhaps with the two majors but you would think plenty
of employment, right? Well according to a Price Waterhouse Coopers report on the state of the Australian grocery industry shows that despite controlling most of the market share,




WWs, Coles and Aldi only employ 43 per cent of all grocery employees.
In contrast, independent retailers with a 20 per cent market share
employ 57 per cent of our nation’s grocery staff.




Clearly this can't go on for much longer. We haven't even touched on
the other brands that they own and fairly recent moves into the
financial markets. The Australia Post idea is good as was Senator
Katter's Bill above but who will have the mettle to tackle them?




Please "Shop Small" whenever you can, or we may end up with only two choices to do our entire shop at.



This article was originally published on http://melmacpolitics.com/ on January 12, 2015.



Mel blogs at http://melmacpolitics.com/ and you can follow her on Twitter at Lady Mel Mac @CartwheelPrint.

Wednesday 14 January 2015

The Glencore tax gaffe the media can’t tell you about –

The Glencore tax gaffe the media can’t tell you about –

The Glencore tax gaffe the media can’t tell you about


Glencore took a risk appointing the former head of BP as its
director of environment and safety. But a blunder committed while under
Chatham House rules suggests he remains as gaffe-prone as ever.









The world’s biggest coal miner, Glencore, took a calculated risk when it appointed director Tony Hayward as chairman last May.


Hayward was chief executive of BP during the largest
offshore oil spill in US history, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster,
and it is probably not exaggerating to say for a while he was a leading
candidate for most unpopular person in the world, right up there with
late dictator Kim Jong-il or Iranian fanatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



BP is still mired in lawsuits resulting from the spill,
which will run for years and many more billions in compensation. The
gaffe-prone Hayward upset Americans from spill victims to President
Obama when he complained, in the middle of the crisis, “I want my life
back”.



Hayward lost his job at BP in October 2010 and was made
Glencore’s director of environment and safety in 2011. He assumed the
chair on an interim basis after institutional investors revolted against
former chairman John Bond during the hard-fought merger with Xstrata.
Glencore’s shareholders were none too happy about Hayward’s permanent appointment but the board persevered, propelling something of a stellar comeback for Hayward.



You might remember that Swiss
giant Glencore is one of the multinational companies squarely in the
frame as a senate parliamentary inquiry gets underway into tax avoidance
through schemes to shift profits from higher tax jurisdictions to lower
tax jurisdictions using techniques like transfer pricing and thin
capitalisation.



This sensational story by
Fairfax Media’s Michael West last June, informed by a confidential
source and former multinational executive, suggested Glencore had paid
almost zero tax on its Australian coal business over the last three
years. Furious, Glencore countered that it had paid $400 million in
taxes in Australia over the same period — its accounts filed here are so
opaque, there is actually no way of knowing — and launched an attack on
West, accusing him of failing to understand that companies paid tax on
profits, not sales, although West himself had made precisely that point
in this earlier story.



It’s safe to say that tax is a hot-button issue for the miner — but Crikey
can reveal that Hayward gave at the very least a misleading answer when
asked about the issue just before Christmas at an Australian Institute
of Company Directors lunch in Melbourne. The lunch was strictly Chatham
House rules, meaning attendees could not source anything revealed, but Crikey didn’t attend the lunch and we’re therefore not bound by the rule.



According to Crikey’s informant, Hayward continued
the attack on West at the Melbourne lunch, but appears in the process to
have overstated the amount of tax Glencore paid by an order of
magnitude. Asked how much tax Glencore had paid in Australia, Hayward
responded:



We paid a billion dollars in
tax last year; we paid a billion dollars in Australia, we paid a billion
dollars pretty much every year for the past seven or eight years. It’s
very transparent, we don’t have complicated tax structures. We pay tax
on profits not revenue. There’s been a lot of very strange reporting in
the press here about taxes on revenues, that’s not what people pay taxes
on, we pay them on profits as everyone in this rooms knows.”

Hayward was then asked, “What percentage on your profit do you pay — what is a billion dollars as a percentage of your profits?”


He replied:


I honestly don’t remember what
the actual recorded profit is in Australia but no it wouldn’t be 20-30
per cent. We haven’t made a lot of money in Australia the last few years
because we don’t have a big copper business here. We have a big coal
business and the coal price has been very depressed.”

A Glencore spokesman would not comment on anything said at
the lunch, given the Chatham House rule, but repeated a claim the
company has made before, that it has paid $8 billion in taxes and royalties in Australia since 2007.



Did Hayward make the overstatement deliberately? Or did he
mistake royalties (payment for a resource) with taxes (a compulsory
unrequited transfer)? Either way, it is another Hayward gaffe, and
Glencore’s risky appointment is looking even less well calculated.


Saturday 3 January 2015

TPP secretly trading away rights

TPP secretly trading away rights

Trans-Pacific Partnership secretly trading away rights

The federal government should encourage open and honest debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Learn more


01.CHOICE calls for fair trade

ONLINE-TPP-campaign-petition-lead
Are
you concerned about increasing cost of medicines? Would you worry if
Australians could be jailed for illegally downloading an episode of Game of Thrones? Do you want to know if your muesli bar contains palm oil?


Then you really should care about the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), a trade agreement being negotiated in secret between Australia,
Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.
In this report you will find information on:


CHOICE is calling for the TPP text to be released before a final agreement is signed. 

Video: TPP
CHOICE
investigates the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the impact it will
have on your consumer rights and privacy. Why all the secrecy?

What CHOICE wants

The TPP negotiations are drawing to a close, and are likely to be
finalised by November. However, it is not too late to release the drafts
of the TPP so that they can be debated in civil society and so the TPP
can be made fairer for consumers.


CHOICE is currently campaigning against the secrecy surrounding the TPP. We have now lodged our petition,
signed by over 14,000 Australians, calling on the government to release
the contents of the TPP. We believe such an important and binding trade
agreement must be open for public scrutiny and oversight. The signed
petition has been presented to the government to send the message that
Australian consumers deserve to have a say on the TPP.


And our campaign doesn't stop there. To find out how you can get
further involved with our TPP campaign, check out our #ReleaseTheText campaigners information kit.


Why haven’t you heard more about it?

The TPP has been shrouded in secrecy, with negotiations happening
behind closed doors and non-disclosure agreements securing the
negotiators’ silence. And while CHOICE has met with several of those
involved in drafting the agreement and even attended meetings with
negotiators at a round of negotiations held in Malaysia in 2013 (we were
permitted to have our say, but could only guess at the contents of the
agreement in order to raise our objections), we still don’t know what
the final agreement will contain. Because of the secrecy, which began
under the previous Labor government and has continued last year's
election of the Coalition, any public knowledge about the TPP is based
on leaked drafts and statements made by those involved.


The kicker? Hundreds of “cleared advisors
- a group comprising industry lobbyists from the US - have had access
to the full drafts of the TPP, while public interest groups like CHOICE
have been kept in the dark.


WikiLeaks recently published a draft of the intellectual property chapter
of the agreement, which they say was distributed among the chief
negotiators of the TPP in May 2014. While several rounds of talks have
been held since the leaked chapter was authored, it appears that the
chapter is largely settled. This leaked draft indicates that consumer
rights could be significantly eroded if Australia signs and ratifies the
TPP.


When speaking of a previous Wikileaks leak of the chapter, Dr Matthew Rimmer,
Associate Professor at the ANU College of Law, said: “Australian
consumers have been betrayed. The intellectual property chapter of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership is a monster. The proposals in respect of
copyright law, trademark law, patent law, and data protection would hit
Australian consumers hard.


“The Trans-Pacific Partnership undermines Australian efforts to take
substantive policy action in respect of IT pricing. The agreement does
nothing to further efforts to reform copyright exceptions in Australia.
The agreement threatens consumer rights, privacy, and internet freedom.”


DFAT to media: you’re “ineligible” to attend TPP briefings

The Australian government seems like it isn’t too keen on TPP
negotiations hitting the headlines. In late October 2013, technology
journalist Josh Taylor of ZDNet told CHOICE he was barred from attending a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) briefing on the TPP negotiations, despite the fact that his RSVP had previously been confirmed.


According to the invitation,
the briefing was open to “members of the public, and business and civil
society stakeholders”; no mention was made of journalists being
excluded. But in revoking his invitation, Taylor says DFAT told him that
TPP briefings are “off the record”. In a backflip, DFAT later
reportedly told the journalist he could attend in a private capacity,
but couldn’t record or attribute any of the briefing material.

x

Sign up to our free
e-Newsletter

Receive FREE email updates of our latest tests, consumer news and CHOICE marketing promotions.


Your say - Choice voice

Make a Comment

Members – Sign in on the top right to contribute to comments

Read more: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/legal/Trans-pacific-Partnership-secretly-trading-away-rights.aspx#ixzz3Npvsg4tV