Car Insurance Comparison – Home, Life, Business & Travel Insurance Quotes

BANKNOTES ABROAD

It has been hard to miss the commotion surrounding the RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) and illegal bribery payments to secure banknote printing contracts. In truth, it has done more than just embarrass Australia’s central bank. It is just another event to add to the lengthy list of fiascos the RBA has been embroiled in, and has also added more weight to the argument that its shady characters at the top should be independently investigated.

The latest legal turmoil has come about due to the actions of Securency – a company half-owned by the RBA and involved in the manufacture of plastic banknotes. Australia can lay claim to having the best physical currency in the world, and it is the same patented polymer material used to manufacture the Australian banknotes that Securency sells to other countries worldwide.

The plastic banknote export business has been extremely lucrative for the RBA. So far, 27 other nations have decided to adopt the polymer notes, which generate substantial ongoing income as the countries continually need more currency printed. Concerns have been raised that Securency agents were bribing senior government officials in some nations in an attempt to get them to switch from their current form of banknotes to Securency’s polymer versions.

THE EVIDENCE

The crime in question is payments made to foreign officials or government-controlled entities to gain a business advantage, which is highly illegal in Australia and otherwise known as bribery. There is practically a mountain of evidence which demonstrates many illegal payments being made. But the real question is whether the Australian Federal Police can prove that senior Securency management and RBA officials knew that the bribery was occurring. A brief look at the facts will at the very least raise questions as to how they could not have known, but high ranking officials seem to have a way of successfully denying any involvement in crime.

There are records of payments of millions of dollars to foreign businessmen, some of whom double as government officials. One of the agents to whom ‘commission’ payments were made was previously implicated in a corruption scandal. Other agents have close ties with government or central bank officials who have been accused of being corrupt, and another has a criminal conviction for fraud.

In response to the corruption allegations, the managing director and company secretary of Securency have been stood down by the board, which includes the RBA’s assistant governor Robert Rankin as chairman, and two other RBA appointees. British firm Innovia Films owns the other half of Securency and also has executives on the board. The scandal has not been limited to Australia, with Britain’s Serious Fraud Office investigating Innovia Films global sales director.

TAX HAVEN PAYMENTS

Unavoidable evidence proving the RBA had involvement in illegal activities involves some of the ‘commission’ payments being sent to offshore tax-haven accounts. Millions of dollars were wired to destinations such as the Seychelles, Bahamas and Switzerland. All of these countries are well known to the ATO (Australian Tax Office) for their banking secrecy laws.

This is a direct contradiction of the standards set by RBA officials, with RBA deputy governor Ric Battellino confirming that their policy “explicitly rules out payments to tax havens”. Why millions of dollars were being sent to recognised tax havens and how the RBA officials could not know this was occurring are just a couple of questions the Australian Federal Police are sure to ask in their forthcoming investigations.

The high levels of commission payments to agents should also raise questions about whether RBA officials knew payments are being used to bribe senior officials. The industry standard for banknote commissions is between 2% to 6%, while Securency pays out hefty sums between 10% and 20% to its agents for winning banknote printing deals. This of course puts plenty of money in their pockets to be used for bribery.

VIETNAMESE BANKNOTES

One of the more shady offshore transactions involved Vietnamese official Anh Ngoc Luong and his company CFTD. Mr. Luong was crucial in brokering a deal between Securency and the Vietnamese government to switch from paper based notes to Securency’s polymer versions. ‘Commissions’ exceeding $12 million were paid to Luong and CFTD, with part of the money being wired to secretive offshore bank accounts in Switzerland.

There is much confusion as to Mr Luong and CFTDs exact role in Vietnam. Some sectors of the Australian government believed him to be a government official, in addition to being under the impression that CFTD was an arm of the public security ministry. The actual connection between CFTD and the Ministry of Public Security may only be a working relationship, but the government connections are well known, including CFTD partners doubling as Vietnamese diplomats.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

So far, Securency and the RBA have outright refused to give any explanation as to why the payments to Mr. Luong and CFTD were so high and sent to Swiss bank accounts. Questions about Securency’s involvement with CFTD were raised back in 2007, but Securency executives advised that the relationship with CFTD was mainly to do with airport pickups, arranging meetings and translation of documents. The magnitude of the payments would suggest that this is an outright lie.

The web of deception extends even further when you consider the results from a 2007 internal investigation into similar allegations. RBA assistant governor and Securency chairman Robert Rankin has disclosed that the internal investigation conducted two years ago came to nothing. The amount of evidence of dodgy dealings that would have to be overlooked to not find any evidence of corruption or bribery is astounding, which may indicate that the Securency board members were fully aware of bribery payments to corrupt overseas officials.

DODGY BOARD MEMBERS

The RBA being home to dodgy characters and shady businessmen is not something new, and they have a long history of board members with significant legal issues. Former director Brian Quinn famously did time for fraud back in the 90s, while Rob Gerard was well known for his 14 year legal battle with the ATO. Mr. Gerard was accused of making false and misleading statements, as well as claiming millions of dollars in fraudulent deductions through the use of offshore entities. He eventually coughed up an Australian record $150 million to the ATO.

Solomon Lew, Frank Lowy, Dick Warburton, Donald McGauchie and Janet Holmes A Court all spent considerable time in the news headlines. Hugh Morgan was kicked off the board for making bigoted remarks about aboriginals, while former director Alan ‘knuckles’ Jackson was more famous for punching the managing director of Austrim Nylex at a Christmas party.

Just like the old saying “If you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas”, if you fill the RBA board with dodgy characters, you will end up with corrupt activities. With a mountain of clear evidence detailing their involvement in illegal activities, we can only hope that the Australian Federal Police investigations not only clean up the RBA and its activities, but also find enough evidence to prevent the men up the top weaselling their way out of any potential charges.

Continued from Super ain’t so super – Part 1

ABISMAL PERFORMANCE

One of the main reasons why almost nobody will ever make enough money from super to fund their retirement is the abysmal performance of super funds. SuperRatings is a company which keeps track of the performance of the largest super funds in Australia, and produces a statistical analysis of their returns ranging from one month to ten year performance. The super funds are also divided into eleven categories or indexes, which are: High growth, Growth, Balanced, Conservative balanced, Capital stable, Secure, Australian shares, International shares, Property, Diversified fixed interest and Cash.

We all know that super indexes have been hit hard over the last few years, so we really need to look at the ten year records to get a balanced view on super performance. To those people that may claim the ten year performance is skewed by the global financial crisis driven share market collapse, we should also point out that the ten years have also been skewed in the opposite direction by a spectacular 5½ year boom, meaning that overall it is a fair representation of results.

Australian shares were the leading performing category over the last ten years, averaging 9.67% per annum. Conservative balanced and Growth were the next best of the eleven indexes, both averaging a 6.04% return. At the bottom end of the scale, International shares was the only index to return a negative result, with -3.54%. The Property index was the next worse, and rose by 4.27% on average in the last ten years. Assuming an equal weighting for each index, the overall average of the eleven SuperRatings indexes was a tad below 5% per annum.

When the average inflation rate of 3.15% is included in the calculations, this represents an overall average superannuation fund performance of just 1.85% each year. Abysmal, pathetic and ridiculous are a few words that come to mind. To think that Australians are being forced to invest 9% of their income into an investment that returns just 1.85% each year certainly raises a few eyebrows concerning the current superannuation system.

UNLIMITED PROBLEMS

The problems with the Australian superannuation system aren’t limited to low returns. There are a myriad of other issues which are detrimental to its overall benefit, as well as additional factors which compound the low return issue. One of these is the severe restrictions on available investment classes, which forces people to continue investing in mediocre options.

The Australian system forces investors to primarily invest in the Australian share market. This props up share prices to unrealistic levels and at the same time allows the elite members of society to earn big profits from the share market. Property is the other main alternative, for which the forced investment is a contributing factor behind the present property bubble waiting to burst.

Going hand in hand with the share and property super options are the fund managers lining their pockets from excessive fees. So not only are they poor investments to begin with, but the fund managers will make sure that they take a healthy share of your profits too. Although there are self-managed super funds, these also face restrictions on investment classes, although not as severe. But the outrageous fees will deter all but the wealthy from being able to use them.

The government is also guilty of further greed in regards to superannuation taxation. They are like a two-headed monster, with one head encouraging people it’s for their own good to invest in super for retirement, while the other head scavenges every dollar it can by taxing money being put in, taxing while it’s in there, and then taxing when it is taken out. They also claim it is your money, but won’t let you withdraw it or use it when you want.

All of the issues plaguing Australian superannuation give weight to the scam argument -which is that superannuation is nothing more than a scheme to make fund managers, share traders and politicians rich. Whether it is a scam or not can be argued for years, but one thing is for certain – it is impossible for superannuation to fund the retirements of the Australian public. The maths tells the story that super ain’t so super after all.

MOST DON‘T HAVE ENOUGH

The media have been running their latest scare tactic campaign and warning the public that their current levels of superannuation contributions will not be enough to fund a comfortable retirement. While there is a lot of truth to their claims, they fail to touch the more sensitive topic of whether the Australian superannuation system is a scam.

If you look at the parties quoted in the news reports, it is easy to recognize that the scare campaign has been instigated by members of the superannuation industry. The objective is clearly to get more people to make voluntary contributions into their super funds, and convince the public to get behind their push for compulsory employer contributions to be raised from 9% to 12%. More super under management equates to more fees and more money in their pockets. Businesses serving the super management companies have also got in on the act and given their opinions in interviews with the media.

They have certainly succeeded in painting a dire picture for the future of Australian retirees. Unfortunately, they have failed to detail just how bad the problem will actually be, which gives weight to the argument that the current superannuation system is just not working. It is plagued by problems such as fund mangers charging exorbitant fees, restrictions on investment classes, inability to withdraw when you see fit, and excessive taxation issues.

PICKING APART THEIR STATISTICS

Industry groups are throwing up big numbers to enhance their case for more money to be put into super, such as recent reports detailing that Australia is facing a $450 billion super shortage, or $80,000 per person. But examining the actual figures more closely reveals that these shortfalls are just a drop in the ocean compared to how bad it really is.

A recent news article quoted a survey by ASFA (Association of Super Funds Australia) and Westpac, which stated that a comfortable retirement requires $40,000 per annum for a single person or $50,000 per annum for a couple. This was followed by claims that these levels of income require a lump sum of $400,000 to $500,000 by retirement. There are two major problems with these assumptions. Firstly, they have either assumed the people the die early or put the money in a very high returning investment. Secondly, they have failed to take into account the effect inflation will have on the end value.

Wealth management firm Yellow Brick Road has some equally dubious claims. They show that a 30 year old with no savings and a salary of $80,000 will only have $381,000 by retirement if they rely solely on their employers super contributions, and run out of money by the time they reach 77. They then go on to say that salary sacrificing an additional 3% of their income each year will build up a retirement fund of $540,000 and last beyond the life expectancy age of 82 years.

It is interesting to note that they used a 3% increase in their example, which magically adds up to the 12% figure the superannuation industry is pushing the government to raise employer contributions to. Although the example used salary sacrificing, the main point was to convince both the public and government that 12% is now the minimum requirement and that immediate action should be taken to raise the figure. The example reeks of further 3% manipulation, by containing an unrealistic salary for a 30 year old. The models always seem to be based on a death date as well. Can’t they work out that sometimes people live above the average life expectancy age?

BAD ASSUMPTIONS

Basing superannuation retirement models on the fact that someone will die at a certain age is a grave mistake. A certain proportion of the population will always live longer than the average, so what happens when they run out of money to live on? The other problem is that they are expected to spend all of their life savings in retirement and leave nothing to pass on to their family.

Getting back to the AFSA and Westpac survey, we need to emphasise that the figures quoted were the recommended amounts to achieve a comfortable retirement. But they also released a bottom line figure of $19,686, which they have described as the absolute floor to achieving only a modest standard of living – In other words, living just above the poverty line. Similar to the Yellow Brick Road statistics, they have also made calculations based on a thirty year old person with no savings receiving the basic employer paid superannuation entitlements and working for the next 37 years.

They have estimated that a worker on the median average annual income of $45,000 will end up with $23,482 to spend each year in retirement, and those on the average of $60,000 per annum will be slightly better off with $25,623. AFSA has been pushing the line that the government expects people to survive on $25,000 a year in retirement, and have demonstrated that the Australian public expects to need more to live on from their survey, which showed that more than 60% of respondents believe they will need greater than $40,000 per annum as retirement income.

Once again, all of these models fail to take into account the effect of inflation on the buying power of money. Using the models 37 year timeframes and combining this with the average annual Australian inflation rate over the last 10 years, which has been 3.15%, we can easily demonstrate that the superannuation system is grossly inadequate. A $25,000 annual income in 37 years time will be worth the same as $7,649 today. Even at $40,000 there is still a problem, with that amount only being worth $12,239 a year.

Assuming that today’s rate of $25,000 per year is a fair amount to survive on; when we take inflation into account we will need to receive $61,256 per year in 37 years time to achieve the same dollar buying power. Can anyone spell IMPOSSIBLE? It really makes you wonder why the government is making it increasingly difficult to put earnings into super, by cutting maximum contribution rates and increasing taxes.

Continued at Super ain’t so super – Part 2

Continued from Should Australia make internet access a right? – Part 1

THE INNOCENT GET PUNISHED

Some of the more stupid outcomes from the ‘three strike’ laws arise from the punishment of innocent parties. An all too likely incident will be when a child downloads illegal content and the whole family ends up being banned from the internet. Owners of wi-fi cafes and restaurants could see their business ruined by customers coming in for illegal downloads.

It is common sense that if an illegal downloader faces a permanent internet ban from using their own connection, they will just use somebody else’s connection instead. With a great number of homes and businesses now using wi-fi modems, we will see an increase in hacking of connections. The standard wi-fi connection is quite easy to compromise, and no matter what level of security a user applies, there will always be a way for a hacker to get in. Once again, innocent people will be banned for crimes they did not commit.

Further innocent people are likely to be punished because of the methods used to trace the perpetrators of the crime. The method of IP collection used is uncertain and leads to a number of false positives. Worse still, the accused party is then made to prove their innocence, rather than the traditional innocent until proven guilty. How can the lay person with basic computer knowledge be expected to prove they didn’t commit a crime? Any time a government passes a law requiring their citizens prove themselves innocent of crimes, they can surely be called tyrannical.

The public will also be hit with a financial penalty for the ‘three strike’ law. In France, the government will require a further 6.5 million Euros from the pockets of the public to implement the laws, while the ISPs are expected to face expenses of around 100 million Euros. The ISPs will naturally pass the cost onto their customers and this will result in substantial price hikes, leading to many people being unable to afford internet access.

AUSTRALIA HASN’T ESCAPED

The secret treaty to force ISPs to ban people accused of illegal file-sharing also has our own Australian government involved. We already have the slowest and most expensive internet of all the developed nations in the world, and if we adopt the ‘three strikes’ laws, the added cost passed on by ISPs would devastate our economy.

Much of whether Australia adopts these ridiculous laws hinges upon the present court case involving iiNet and the AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft). It was originally filed over a year ago and is backed by seven leading film companies and their affiliates and licensees. The companies involved are Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, and the Seven Network.

The row started when iiNet refused to disconnect customers accused of illegally downloading files. iiNet has rightly pointed out that they have thus far only received allegations of crimes, not any evidence of people found guilt by the courts. If the AFACT gets their way, they could accuse anyone of a crime and force iiNet to punish them, without ever being found guilty or even having a right to defend themselves in court.

iiNet were also bemused as to why they have been picked on, when rivals such as Telstra and Optus have not been taken to court. This formed part of their argument against being forced to act as the privacy policeman and executioner, noting that they would need substantial and costly IT systems to investigate every alleged infringement, which would place them at a tremendous disadvantage compared to other ISPs.

MORE DEVIOUS BEHAVIOUR

Many people have found the Seven Network’s involvement in the legal action quite ironic, since only months before it was filed they were facing their own accusations of promoting piracy on their Today Tonight program. Foxtel was just one of the companies to direct this criticism after Today Tonight aired two segments showing viewers how they could view free television shows and movies over the internet. They even helped their viewers gain access to the sites where illegal content could be viewed by listing them on the Today Tonight website.

But the leaked deals of the confidential Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have been more damning for AFACT and their partners. They detail how copyright groups such as AFACT are behind a global push for the power to force ISPs to do their dirty work and disconnect customers, or be held liable for their customer’s actions. This of course means that they do not have to provide any proof of crimes and their allegations will be automatically accepted as facts.

It appears the Australian government is also backing the AFACT legal action, and plan to use it as a way to usher in their mandatory website filtering plans. The government was also represented in Korea recently to discuss the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) with other major nations. The ACTA will effectively remove a country’s ability to determine its own copyright laws, and further places the Australian economy and livelihood of our people under the American recording and film industries influence.

If AFACT is successful in its legal action against iiNet, it would undoubtedly spell trouble for the Australian public. The measures enforced against iiNet will result in all ISPs having to toe the AFACT line and upgrade their systems to be able to identify illegal file-sharing and punish the perpetrators. The ramifications will include skyrocketing internet costs for the general public and many innocent parties being punished for crimes they did not commit. There is no doubt AFACT equals bad news for Australia.