on 28-04-2014 07:50 PM
Australia’s biggest banking institutions have provided financial support to companies involved in illegal logging, forced evictions and child labour, according to a new report from Oxfam Australia.
A new report released on Monday says ANZ, Westpac, National Australia Bank and the Commonwealth Bank have invested in a range of countries across the Asia Pacific that had been involved in land grabs that left locals homeless.
“From PNG and Cambodia to Indonesia and Brazil, our banks have backed companies accused of forcing people from their land,” said Oxfam Australia’s chief executive, Dr Helen Szoke.
“This involvement has also resulted in billions of dollars of exposure for everyday Australians who have their money in accounts with these banks, or who own bank shares directly or through their superannuation funds.”
According to the report, ANZ Bank provided financial support for a sugar plantation involving child labour and forced evictions, and Westpac is supporting a timber company logging rainforest in Papua New Guinea.
NAB funds a palm oil company, Wilmar, which has been linked to land grabs in Indonesia and Malaysia, and the Commonwealth Bank has invested in an agricultural business which operates a Brazilian sugar mill that is accused of evicting indigenous communities from their land.
“The banks need to say which companies they’re investing in, and where those companies have pushed people off the land, to work with those companies to change their practices and provide compensation to communities,” Szoke said.
Are the big 4 banks ready to provide support for the refugees flocking to our shores after their investment practices have thrown them off their land?
on 28-04-2014 07:51 PM
on 28-04-2014 07:56 PM
It's disgusting and corrupt, Deb.
I don't keep my savings in any of the big 4.
on 28-04-2014 08:00 PM
business as usual. these guys verge on untouchable. at best we'll see a large fine they can afford to pay easily.
on 28-04-2014 08:28 PM
" business as usual. these guys verge on untouchable. at best we'll see a large fine they can afford to pay easily."
Fine? for what exactly LL?
An OECD report, The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Operations in Rwanda, which stated that its team "came across examples of Agencies telling, if not falsehoods, then certainly half-truths" and noted "a remarkable lack of attempts by agencies to seek the views of beneficiaries on the assistance being provided".[43] In this climate, Oxfam has faced a number of criticisms, some specific to the organization itself, others relating to problems said to be endemic to NGO aid agencies.
Oxfam Great Britain was strongly criticised by other NGOs for becoming too close to Tony Blair's New Labour government in the UK.
In October 2011, complaints by a member of the public regarding Oxfam's campaign for a financial transaction tax resulted in Oxfam seeking an injunction to ban a pensioner, Barry Nowlan, from one of its shops.
the magazine New Internationalist described Oxfam as a "Big International Non-Government Organisation (BINGO)", having a corporate-style, undemocratic internal structure, and addressing the symptoms rather than the causes of international poverty
That is the Oxfam which we are supposed to respect?.
Not I.
nɥºɾ
on 28-04-2014 09:28 PM
on 28-04-2014 09:33 PM
@monman12 wrote:" business as usual. these guys verge on untouchable. at best we'll see a large fine they can afford to pay easily."
Fine? for what exactly LL?
An OECD report, The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Operations in Rwanda, which stated that its team "came across examples of Agencies telling, if not falsehoods, then certainly half-truths" and noted "a remarkable lack of attempts by agencies to seek the views of beneficiaries on the assistance being provided".[43] In this climate, Oxfam has faced a number of criticisms, some specific to the organization itself, others relating to problems said to be endemic to NGO aid agencies.
Oxfam Great Britain was strongly criticised by other NGOs for becoming too close to Tony Blair's New Labour government in the UK.
In October 2011, complaints by a member of the public regarding Oxfam's campaign for a financial transaction tax resulted in Oxfam seeking an injunction to ban a pensioner, Barry Nowlan, from one of its shops.
the magazine New Internationalist described Oxfam as a "Big International Non-Government Organisation (BINGO)", having a corporate-style, undemocratic internal structure, and addressing the symptoms rather than the causes of international poverty
That is the Oxfam which we are supposed to respect?.
Not I.
nɥºɾ
Fine. So Oxfam are no better than the multinationals and the financiers. We kind of knew that.
Doesn't mean we should countenance our banks financing the exploitation, land grabbing and displacement of populations both human and animal for the sake of their profit!
on 29-04-2014 03:27 AM
Don't mind me asking Icy....but if you don't keep your $'s in any of the big 4 I guess you keep your millions under your mattress, or in a biscuit tin buried in the veggie patch....or you just keep your money in one of the smaller banks?......size of the institution would not matter. I can't imagine any banking institution refusing to finance a project where there is a lot of money to be made.
on 29-04-2014 06:54 AM
Yes you're probably right, paints. That's why I keep my money in the freezer in a large block of ice. lol.
on 29-04-2014 07:20 AM
Frozen assets Icy..........................................................................Richo.