AUSTRALIA'S $4.5 billion foreign aid program is plagued by record levels of fraud, with millions of dollars being stolen by corrupt officials and overseas agencies, Daily Telegraph reports.
AusAID has 175 cases of fraud under investigation - stretching across 27 countries and totalling millions of dollars.
Documents released under Freedom of Information expose a criminal trail in some of the world's poorest countries, with widespread theft of money and forging of receipts.
They also show how food and other supplies are being diverted from dirt-poor communities and sold on the black market at inflated prices.
While AusAID insists it is improving fraud control, the documents also reveal police are often reluctant to intervene and charge local criminals - frustrating the agency's attempts to recover missing aid money.
In one extraordinary case, the Eritrean Government in 2006 seized food and other supplies from the UN's World Food Program, saddling Australian taxpayers with a probable loss of $1.25 million.
The revelations will do little to boost public confidence in a foreign aid program that is forecast to nearly double to $8 billion a year by 2015.
PNG emerged as corruption central with 71 cases of identified fraud - 40 per cent of the AusAID total - involving millions in missing funds.
Indonesia, which will receive $458 million in Australian assistance in 2010/11, recorded 31 fraud cases, followed by the Philippines at 20 and Solomon Islands with 19.
AusAID director-general Peter Baxter said fraud levels in foreign aid compared "very favourably" with domestic agencies like Centrelink.
"The level of fraud in our program from 2004/05 until December 2010 was 0.017 of 1 per cent of the $20 billion that had been appropriated to AusAID during that period," Mr Baxter said. And he denied fraud was on the increase, despite 16 cases being reported last November alone.
But FOI documents reveal how taxpayers' money is being squandered, with corrupt local officials and agencies profiting at the expense of the poor. Australia is one of the biggest aid donors in the world, focusing on the Asia-Pacific although the Government wants to expand its aid funding into Africa over the coming years.
The FOI documents reveal the difficulties of trying to manage a $4.5 billion budget while dealing with some of the most corrupt nations in the world. One investigation in Fiji, involving fraud of $37,670, has been closed with AusAID declining to report the matter to police "due to the highly sensitive political environment" in the Pacific island nation.
Other times, AusAID has struggled to establish fraud "because of the lack of a paper trail" while on other occasions businesses were paid money but then closed their offices.
An unknown amount of AusAID funds were caught up in a major scandal involving the African country of Mali with health workers allegedly embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The fraud involved "managing contractors" paid hundreds of millions to manage aid projects - including Cardno Limited, involved in 40-odd cases of fraud.
Asked bluntly whether fraud was out of control, Mr Buckley said "I wouldn’t say that".
Equally he conceded that "any lost dollars are not good".
"We are trying to deal with it," he said, of Cardno’s efforts to combat fraud.
"We reckon that we do a pretty good job."
He said Cardno – one of the biggest managing contractors to AusAID - have to report any suspected areas of fraud within 24 hours of hearing about it.
He said Cardno had "good processes" in place to detect fraud.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tribunal suspends Somare for 14 days
Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare has been suspnded for 14 days by the leadership tribunal. after being found guilty of 13 charges of misconduct.
A three-man leadership tribunal in Port Moresby handed down the decision this afternoon to a packed courtroom that for two weeks has heard the case regarding Sir Michael’s failure to lodge financial returns dating as far back as 20 years ago.
The tribunal chair Roger Gyles says the prime minister is suspended from office from and including April the 4 for 14 days.
S
A three-man leadership tribunal in Port Moresby handed down the decision this afternoon to a packed courtroom that for two weeks has heard the case regarding Sir Michael’s failure to lodge financial returns dating as far back as 20 years ago.
The tribunal chair Roger Gyles says the prime minister is suspended from office from and including April the 4 for 14 days.
 |
| Crowd outside the court room. |
 |
| Smiles from Somare supporters |
S
 |
| Somare and his deputy Sam Abal leave the court room |
 |
| Subdued crowd leaves the court house |
 |
| Somare's daughter Betha leaves the court house |
 |
| National Alliance 'big boys' Simon Kaiwi and Steven Pokawin (obscured) talk to journalists outside court. |
Verdict on prime minister slated for 4pm
AFTER 4pm today, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare will know what
penalty has been imposed on him by the leadership tribunal which has
found him guilty of 13 of 25 charges of breaching the leadership code,
The National reports.
Whether he remains prime minister is one of the penalties being considered.
The charges related to lateness and incomplete annual financial
returns statements between 1994 and 1997.
Yesterday afternoon, the tribunal sent out a public notice saying it
would hand down its decision beginning at 4pm today.
On Tuesday, the prosecution had submitted to the tribunal to impose
the maximum penalty of dismissal.
However, the prime minister's defence team of Posman Kua Aisi Lawyers
principal Kerenga Kua and Justin Wohuinangu, led by overseas lawyer
Ian Molloy, argued that the charges did not warrant dismissal,
submitting that he should be fined K500 for each of the 13 charges.
Molloy argued that Sir Michael had attempted to lodge all his annual
returns in his busy schedule that also included changing offices from
Port Moresby to Wewak and on some of these occasions, not being a PM.
He argued that late lodgment or incomplete annual return forms Sir
Michael had lodged was not as severe as that committed by other MPs
over the years since PNG's independence, for which they had only being
penalised fines of between K500 and K1,000 per charge.
Molloy had argued that some of these leaders had totally failed to
lodge their annual returns or had been charged with non-accountability
of public funds and that their penalty were monetary fines.
penalty has been imposed on him by the leadership tribunal which has
found him guilty of 13 of 25 charges of breaching the leadership code,
The National reports.
Whether he remains prime minister is one of the penalties being considered.
The charges related to lateness and incomplete annual financial
returns statements between 1994 and 1997.
Yesterday afternoon, the tribunal sent out a public notice saying it
would hand down its decision beginning at 4pm today.
On Tuesday, the prosecution had submitted to the tribunal to impose
the maximum penalty of dismissal.
However, the prime minister's defence team of Posman Kua Aisi Lawyers
principal Kerenga Kua and Justin Wohuinangu, led by overseas lawyer
Ian Molloy, argued that the charges did not warrant dismissal,
submitting that he should be fined K500 for each of the 13 charges.
Molloy argued that Sir Michael had attempted to lodge all his annual
returns in his busy schedule that also included changing offices from
Port Moresby to Wewak and on some of these occasions, not being a PM.
He argued that late lodgment or incomplete annual return forms Sir
Michael had lodged was not as severe as that committed by other MPs
over the years since PNG's independence, for which they had only being
penalised fines of between K500 and K1,000 per charge.
Molloy had argued that some of these leaders had totally failed to
lodge their annual returns or had been charged with non-accountability
of public funds and that their penalty were monetary fines.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
A thought for Hula
We love and miss you so much...Malum and our children Malum Jr, Gedi, Moasing and Keith.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Prosecutor calls for Somare to be sacked
By ABC Papua New Guinea correspondent Liam Fox
Papua New Guinea's public prosecutor has called for the prime minister to be dismissed from office after he was found guilty of official misconduct.
A leadership tribunal yesterday found Sir Michael Somare guilty of 13 counts of filing late and incomplete financial returns to PNG's Ombudsman Commission.
In his sentencing submission, prosecutor Pondros Kaluwin said politicians found guilty of similar offences in the past had not been punished with dismissal.
But he said this case is more serious because Sir Michael is the prime minister and "the higher the office, the higher the responsibility".
Sir Michael's lawyer, Ian Molloy, argued against dismissal, saying there was no dishonesty involved and his client had "an extraordinary and unblemished public record".
The tribunal said it hoped to make a decision on the 74-year-old leader's penalty this week.
Papua New Guinea's public prosecutor has called for the prime minister to be dismissed from office after he was found guilty of official misconduct.
A leadership tribunal yesterday found Sir Michael Somare guilty of 13 counts of filing late and incomplete financial returns to PNG's Ombudsman Commission.
In his sentencing submission, prosecutor Pondros Kaluwin said politicians found guilty of similar offences in the past had not been punished with dismissal.
But he said this case is more serious because Sir Michael is the prime minister and "the higher the office, the higher the responsibility".
Sir Michael's lawyer, Ian Molloy, argued against dismissal, saying there was no dishonesty involved and his client had "an extraordinary and unblemished public record".
The tribunal said it hoped to make a decision on the 74-year-old leader's penalty this week.
Who is Hudson Ramatlap protecting?
By SAM BASIL
Bulolo MP
Bulolo MP
I refer to the comments by the first legislative counsel, Mr Hudson
Ramatlap, and note with great concern that a person who is supposed to
protect the independence of Parliament legislative process is now
making outlandish comments in support of the contemptuous behaviour of
the Prime Minister.
His statement is not only misleading, but calculated to undermine the
seriousness of this matter.
This is not just another political scoring issue here it is an issue
of national importance.
The first misleading statement is his reference that Belden Namah and
Dr PukaTemu whose names are also on the Gazettal Notice.
Their names are not there.
I can pass a copy to him if he so pleases.
I know he has a copy of the notice but deliberately wanted to mention
their names.
This is contemptuous in itself as he is trying to water down the
seriousness of this case and the implications it has on the judiciary.
Secondly, Mr.Ramatlap as a lawyer knows that an appointment does not
take effect until it is gazetted.
It is trite law that a purported performance of duty by a minister
without having his appointment gazetted is null and void.
It can also be noted on the gazettal notice that Mr Pruaitch's
gazettal does not mention him as Finance and Treasury Minister to show
that he is a finance minister suspended on full pay, or to confirm
that this is just a republishing of the original Gazettal dated 13th
September 2007 as claimed by Mr Ramatlap.
Instead it is a new portfolio (State Minister assisting PM) and that
portfolio takes effect upon gazettal.
This is also deliberately stated by Mr Ramatlap to further confuse the
public of the serious nature of the matter.
Mr Pruaitch and Mr Ramatlap are alleging that the decision of the
Supreme Court does not stop the Prime Minister from appointing a
Minister.
In other words, they are claiming that the Prime Minister had
unfettered powers to appoint a Minister, even in contempt of the
Supreme Court Order.
How sensible is that?
I have sought opinion on the Supreme Court decision and whilst the
decision does not state the details of being suspended on pay, which
is left to be an administrative matter, the decision in no uncertain
terms declares Mr Pruaitch automatically suspended as a leader.
Mr Pruaitch is not attending Parliament sitting or attending NEC
decisions which is the effect of him being suspended as a "leader".
It follows that Mr Pruaitch's justification of his new portfolio can
be said that he wants to be a minister without the name "leader"
because under the name leader, he is suspended.
Can the Judiciary see how important it is to protect its independence
or continue to subject itself from political interference?
I am concerned because we are setting double standards and weakening
the institutions that we look up to as our beacon of hope.
Where is the rule of law?
The Prime Minister is in clear contempt and should be cited for
contempt of court.
I reiterate that this is not the first time that the Prime Minister did this.
He is known for interfering and scandalising the judiciary.
We cannot allow that to happen.
I do not need to influence the judiciary as they are learned people
who know the legal implications of this issue.
What I am saying here is my concern as a national leader to protect
the independence of the judiciary.
Tribunal finds prime minister guilty of 13 counts
By JULIA DAIA BORE and JACOB POK
THE courtroom was packed to capacity when the decision was handed down at 1.30pm, The National reports.
Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare sat expressionless as the judgment was read by tribunal chairman Roger Gyles, in summary.
It took no more than five minutes as he summarised the tribunal’s main findings.
The tribunal also said they would be making recommendations, relating to this proceeding, to the head of state, the governor-general.
However, prior to making any recommendations to Government House, pursuant to section 27(5) of the Organic Law on leadership, it would “provide an opportunity for further submissions and/or evidence”.
These, it will hear today at 9.30am through submissions on penalty from both parties.
Sir Michael is the first prime minister to be tried by the leadership tribunal in relation to his annual returns from 1994 to 1997.
The not guilty and dismissed charges related to his returns between May 1997 and May 2004.
The latter years were regarded as “unnecessary” and not pressed by the prosecution because they were outside the 1994-97 period which the Ombudsman Commission had initially investigated and brought charges against in 2006.
Of the 13 guilty charges, eight were allegations relating to incomplete statements while five counts were related to delay in providing such statements to the ombudsman.
In the 44-page judgment, the judges explained that there were no other allegations of corrupt practices or breach of any substantive provisions of the Organic Law on leadership by Sir Michael except the allegations on delay and incomplete statements.
In respect of Sir Michael’s duty under section 4 of the Organic Law on leadership, to provide to the Ombudsman Commission timely and complete annual financial statements, the tribunal:
* Found him not guilty of all three of the effective allegations against him of misconduct in office by failure to provide such statements, namely allegations 2, 3 and 4, and had summarily dismissed two others, namely allegations 1 and 5, as unnecessary;
* Found him guilty of all five of the effective allegations against him of misconduct in office by delay in providing such statements to the Ombudsman Commission, namely allegations 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, and had summarily dismissed three others, namely allegations 6 and 13 as unnecessary and allegation 11 as it was not pressed by the public prosecutor; and
* Found him guilty of the eight effective allegations against him of misconduct in office by providing to the Ombudsman Commission incomplete statements, namely allegations, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24, and had summarily dismissed four others, namely allegations 14 and 25 as unnecessary and allegations 17 and 22 as they were not pressed by the public prosecutor.
 |
| Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare leaving the Waigani court premises with his deputy Sam Abal after yesterday's leadership tribunal found the prime minister guilty of 13 counts.-Nationalpic by EKAR KEAPU |
Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare sat expressionless as the judgment was read by tribunal chairman Roger Gyles, in summary.
It took no more than five minutes as he summarised the tribunal’s main findings.
The tribunal also said they would be making recommendations, relating to this proceeding, to the head of state, the governor-general.
However, prior to making any recommendations to Government House, pursuant to section 27(5) of the Organic Law on leadership, it would “provide an opportunity for further submissions and/or evidence”.
These, it will hear today at 9.30am through submissions on penalty from both parties.
Sir Michael is the first prime minister to be tried by the leadership tribunal in relation to his annual returns from 1994 to 1997.
The not guilty and dismissed charges related to his returns between May 1997 and May 2004.
The latter years were regarded as “unnecessary” and not pressed by the prosecution because they were outside the 1994-97 period which the Ombudsman Commission had initially investigated and brought charges against in 2006.
Of the 13 guilty charges, eight were allegations relating to incomplete statements while five counts were related to delay in providing such statements to the ombudsman.
In the 44-page judgment, the judges explained that there were no other allegations of corrupt practices or breach of any substantive provisions of the Organic Law on leadership by Sir Michael except the allegations on delay and incomplete statements.
In respect of Sir Michael’s duty under section 4 of the Organic Law on leadership, to provide to the Ombudsman Commission timely and complete annual financial statements, the tribunal:
* Found him not guilty of all three of the effective allegations against him of misconduct in office by failure to provide such statements, namely allegations 2, 3 and 4, and had summarily dismissed two others, namely allegations 1 and 5, as unnecessary;
* Found him guilty of all five of the effective allegations against him of misconduct in office by delay in providing such statements to the Ombudsman Commission, namely allegations 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, and had summarily dismissed three others, namely allegations 6 and 13 as unnecessary and allegation 11 as it was not pressed by the public prosecutor; and
* Found him guilty of the eight effective allegations against him of misconduct in office by providing to the Ombudsman Commission incomplete statements, namely allegations, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24, and had summarily dismissed four others, namely allegations 14 and 25 as unnecessary and allegations 17 and 22 as they were not pressed by the public prosecutor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)