The Forum > Article Comments > AWB Inquiry - the truth, the whole truth ... > Comments
AWB Inquiry - the truth, the whole truth ... : Comments
By Tony Kevin, published 17/2/2006In setting up the AWB Inquiry Howard threw the Australian wheat trade to the mercies of Commissioner Cole, the Prime Minister of Iraq, and our American and Canadian competitors.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Page 13
- 14
- 15
-
- All
Posted by odsoc, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 12:30:21 AM
| |
Yes Yabby we all remember when the West Aussies wanted to secede... How can we forget those moments of madness. Old Lang and his mates. We also remember Joh for PM too... another moment of madness.
Now do you remember the Aussie Govt saying they knew nothing about the alleged kickbacks... Could they be fibbing? http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=85011 Is it legal to pay an AWM chairman out of Australia's Foreign Aid Budget? Aren't foreign aid budgets for foreign aid? For more info see : http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/flugge-received-680000-from-foreign-aid-funds/2006/02/16/1140064205122.html We can only wait now to see who else puts their hand up for knowing what is being revealed at the Cole enquiry. Who authorised the alleged payments from these "foreign aid" accounts and did the PM, any Ministers or any of his staff know? Is this inpropriety? Why do people have such a low regard for politicians? I just can't fathom it out. Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 12:35:50 AM
| |
Odsoc, but you miss the whole moral argument here! How moral is it for EU and US Govts to try and send Aussie wheat farmers broke and win market share, by using their treasuries to do it? Don't you think that those who are affected by such immoral behaviour have a right to fight for justice?
Do you think we should just turn the other cheeck and quietly slither away and die? Read your evolutionary psychology. Turning the other cheeck is a dismal failure. Tit for tat is far more effective. The next question is who was actually bribed here? Iraq was given back money that was Iraq's in the first place. When I still owned my export company, we were scrupulously honest. That won us alot of business. But if competitors tried to use dirty tricks, we gave it back twice as hard and they didn't do it again. Fortunatetly the Aussie wheat industry is hanging on and its starting to dawn on the EU and US that their subsidies are leading them nowhere, so they might rethink things in the future. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 8:48:24 AM
| |
Yabby,
Whilst I can sympathise with your position and agree that any country that subsidises produce or pays kickbacks are undermining Australian farmers... but you can't have it both ways. As I have said we are the small fish in the big pond. WE are the ones that have been caught out. Following your thinking you should be really dirty on Howard for creating the Cole enquiry and yet Howard reluctantly did the right thing. If his Govt was informed about the alleged kickbacks and Downer has now admiited he would have read the memos http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=85011 then I'm afraid they have let down the farmers worse than anyone. ODSOC is correct in his outling of the true morality that should take place here. Two wrongs don't make a right! By the Govt Departments only slowly releasing information in the Cole enquiry they are only dragging the inevitable out. This is a tactic that might work if it was an internal Aussie matter (although to me it is still wrong) but the Yanks, EU & Canadians are still waiting and watching. John Howard needs to go on the attack and insist that the countries the other 2200 companies belong to be investigated by a similar enquiry as Cole's. He won't do that because he has aligned himself too closely to Georgy Boy. Poor Johnny has got himself into an unwinnable situation... But he only suffers political fallout... The farmers are the ones who will bare the brunt of his failure to act when his Govt was first warned of the alleged kickbacks. We are entering a new era for Aussie trade and Howard should get off the back foot and go on the attack. Is his reputation in his mind more important than our Wheat farmers and the Aussie economy? Lastly how can a Govt allegedly pay Mr Flugge out of the Overseas Aid Fund? If the Govt can do this what other "slush funds" are they using and for what? This is serious stuff - http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/flugge-received-680000-from-foreign-aid-funds/2006/02/16/1140064205122.html Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 12:06:07 PM
| |
Well I figure most people now accept that doing the kickback shuffle is the worst scenario for the future of the wheat trade but some other articles I have found should be read. Farmers had better beware!
What did Mr Vaile know? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18319074%255E2702,00.html Michelle Gratton wrote this article regarding the single desk process for selling wheat. Could this be true? Is the single desk system under threat? http://www.theage.com.au/news/michelle-grattan/tough-business-at-hand/2006/02/18/1140151850845.html Can this happen in Australia? http://afr.com/articles/2006/03/02/1141191780929.html I wonder what else will come out of the woodwork? Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:17:39 PM
| |
What was that Mr Downer? Was that a "CC" to your cabinet members?
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:19:14 PM
|
It seems pointless arguing ethics and morals with someone who cannot see the difference between breaking an immoral law (the Mandela case) and those who break the law to morally corrupt others (the AWB case). But one last try.
Above, you made the point that trade is about relationships. Relationships can be based on corruption, but such relationships are not reliable. Since the times of the fourteenth century Florentine merchants, it has been assumed that commercial relationships are best based on trust - and trust that an offered bribe will be accepted is corruption, not trust.
It is not about a political agenda, it is about ethical dealing as a basis for international commerce, whether with the first, second, or third world. And if you truly don't recognise the difference, then I am very glad not to be doing business with you.
odsoc