• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News item on wheat scandal

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    News item on wheat scandal

    EMPLOYEES of wheat exporter AWB could face imprisonment for up to 10 years if a court finds they knowingly paid kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's former regime in the UN oil-for-food program.

    A little-used federal law passed in 1999 making bribery of foreign officials a criminal offence is likely to be a focus of the new inquiry set up to probe whether AWB has broken any Australian laws, according to Transparency International, a global organisation that targets corruption.

    The inquiry, to be headed by former NSW judge Terence Cole, was set up by the Federal Government after a UN investigation found AWB paid $290 million to a Jordanian company between 1999 and 2003 that was illegally funnelled to the Iraqi dictator's government.

    The Cole inquiry has been given the powers of a royal commission, including the power to demand witnesses appear and to give them immunity.

    Melbourne-based AWB has maintained it did not believe the payments were for anything other than inland transport of grain.

    A spokesman for Transparency International Australia said the legislation likely to be relied on — the Criminal Code Amendment Act (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) 1999 — was enacted as part of a global effort to try to stamp out international corruption and ensure contracts are won fairly.

    The maximum individual penalties are imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of up to $66,000 or both.

    Corporations can also be liable where their employees, agents or officers commit offences while acting within their employment. The maximum penalty is $330,000.

    Defences to the charge of bribery include that it was lawful in the country in which it occurred.

    AWB is clearly aware of the act, drawing attention to it in its internal code of conduct.

    In the section on agency, facilitation and related payments — an issue that arises in a number of its markets — it says such payments may be made only if they are within the law in Australia and in the country concerned.

    But it says they must have the prior approval of the appropriate executive leadership group and be reported to the managing director within a month. It noted the exclusion in the Commonwealth Criminal Code for minor payments to secure routine government action, using the example of the granting of a visa or a permit.

    Transparency International Australia said it was concerned about the potential consequences of AWB's actions, noting the "inland transportation charges" represented a 10 per cent surcharge on the value of Australia's wheat sales.

    It said Australia was ranked in global indexes as one of the world's least corrupt countries and No. 1 for its low propensity to pay foreign bribes.

    "The AWB scandal has the potential to cause significant damage to this hard-won reputation," it said.

    #2
    meeleefarmer,

    Boardroom/staff ethics is an epidemic and it is systemic. At least you have some Authorities that are willing to stand up for you.

    How can farmers stop the flow of our money? Especially to Governments?

    Can the CWB Board/Staff resist donating to the ruling Liberal Party of Canada again?

    In the past, the CWB took money out of Farmers' Pooling Accounts to donate to Liberal fundraisers.

    Originally, The CWB's Board of Directors had a clause in their April 2001 version of their Code of Ethics (under the section Political Activites) and posted it on their web page as follows:

    "In order to ensure its independence and objectivity, the CWB will not use corporate funds, goods or services as a contribution to political parties, candidates, or campaigns".

    This prevented the CWB Board of Directors from dipping into farmers' pooling accounts.

    BUT

    In May 2001, the CWB quietly revised the April version and renamed the section Political Activities with a link to Political Donations Policy.

    AND
    they removed the 'prevention' clause and substituted it with the following clause:

    "The Board and individual directors will comply with the Political Donations Policy adopted by the Board."

    The CWB's $2.3Million Communications Department did not notify farmers of the change, nor was the change posted on the web.

    The only reason the Board of Directors got caught is that they were filmed on television, attending a Liberal Fundraiser with the Prime Minister in Winnipeg. Essentially, the same Board of D is in place today .

    The CWB fought back in the Press and tried to defend their actions but they lost so much face, they went out on the hustings with a soothing message that political donations wouldn't happen again.

    Well, there is an election coming up. I'd be interested to know if the political donation rules will quietly change once again.

    Liberal coffers are empty and the CWB still has has access to pooling accounts and the CWB is still immune to Access for Information.

    It's time for every farmer to call the CWB's Farmer Relations representative, Deana Allen, and demand instant notification of any changes to political Donations in the Code of Conduct that occurs, just so your funds don't start flowing out of the pools.
    This is just ONE thing we found out about. What's next?

    Just look at the AWB.

    Parsley

    Comment

    • Reply to this Thread
    • Return to Topic List
    Working...