The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > National watchdog is needed > Comments

National watchdog is needed : Comments

By Bruce Hawker, published 3/2/2006

Bruce Hawker argues there is a need for government officials to face the Cole Inquiry over the AWB oil-for-food scandal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Good Point Bruiser,

Try to put that one together though. A watchdog? who is noble enough to head it since very few in this country who would be qualified are untainted, non affiliated and non bias.

Then, we would have to keep the screws on them. Another corporate gravy train for the most part and as time goes by the core always rots.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 3 February 2006 9:54:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce: Who ever was in power would appoint a trusty toady who would be directed as to how far they can go in any investigation.
The present mob has loaded various boards and one only has to read a certain columnist's reports on howard to know that this does pay.
These appointees have no decency and no shame or honesty it seems and it would be the same for the "fearless, impartial, no-nonsense?" investigator appointed.
Note also the law courts, It seems that liberals appoint perhaps compliant liberals and labour compliant labour judges. And they do vote as liberal and labour it seems - so much for impartial courts.
This will always be while we have the low standard of grubby, greedy politicians here in Oz. numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 3 February 2006 10:26:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This story comes across as just another 'opposition' rant against against the government.

In Qld as in NSW, both Labor run states, Bettie and 'Premya Iemma' and their minions have been there long enough to cover their tracks, but wait, are the cracks appearing , in QLD the polls dont look good for ' I.m Sorry Bettie' and Iemma's handling of the "riot' leaves a lot to be looked into.

Strewth. The whole thing is a sorry mess. Politicians are a sorry bunch. The worst of all, we (well, some people) still believe them.
And I'm really sorry about that!
Posted by Coyote, Friday, 3 February 2006 11:13:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes of course there should be a watchdog, but it will never happen whilst Howard is in power (which could be a long time yet), and whilst Australians don't give a toss about integrity in government (which could be an even longer time yet).
Posted by AMSADL, Friday, 3 February 2006 1:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce, yes we need a big watchdog with the powers of a Royal Commission in perpetuity, otherwise like the Cole inquiry, it will not be able to make adverse findings in relation to public servants and their masters. Nor will it be able to second them to give evidence. The Cole inquiry will not only be test for the survival of the AWB, it will also test the integrity and accountability of the Howard government.

Will they side step this one as deftly as they have others?

But I also notice Rudd and Beazley have not called for a watchdog. Lest it bite them if they win government in 2020?

“Corruption is nature's way of restoring our faith in democracy.”
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 3 February 2006 2:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An individual Australian is allowed to only take out of Australia $10,000 ( to my knowledge). Who, what or where, is keeping records of the flow of cash in such immense amounts leaving the country?.
Please no one say the "which" bank has a branch in the Cayman Islands.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 3 February 2006 4:08:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Howard goverment has refined the use of lies and miss information to stay in power.
However the day will come when the ALP will govern and much work will be neeeded to restore this countrys good name in world trade.
While waiting for a new goverment [it may take longer than we think] it has to be asked why do some not care about the lies?
Posted by Belly, Friday, 3 February 2006 6:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
"why do some not care about the lies?" I may have an answer for you, the Australian electorate is a basicly conservative one. Some would rather watch the simpsons, than the news, so would not even be aware of the lies. We in this place whatever our views are interested in the events of the day, many sadly are not.

Life is so busy these days for most families, there is no time to think, by the time the children have been collected from school, been taken for the mad dash home to change for sport, music lessons etc, a meal cooked it is 7:30pm, and both parent and child are ready for bed. The events of the day run a long second place to sleep, as it must all be done again tomorrow.

That said, I believe government officials, and indeed government itself should be accountable, whatever flavour it happens to be, and would think many good people still exist who could chair a commission. Tony Fitzgerald Q.C. who chaired the Queensland Police Corruption Commission 15 years ago, did a brilliant job.

For the Howard Government, the AWB scandal will be a test, as it has the potential to be explosive at the next election, instead of the situations that have gone before, such as children overboard, discovered after the election was run and won, interesting times ahead...
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:41:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the Commonwealth Ombudsman Website they give you a link to the Ombudsman Act 1976, on the State Ombudsman website its 1974.

I wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission asking them to review a decision that the State Ombudsman had made to not provide me with the reasons for his decisions not to investigate serious allegations against the Department of Education that I brought up in a review request and for which I had an alarming amount of evidence to support and in relation to which I alleged a cover up.

The Response from the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission referred me to the Ombudsman Act (no date was specified) Section 31(B) 2 and it was set out that this section stated:

Under Section 31B(2) of the Ombudsman Act, the Committee is prohibited from:

1. Investigating a matter relating to particular conduct:
2. reconsidering a decision to investigate, not to investigate or to discontinue investigation of a particular complaint; or
3. reconsidering the findings, recommendations, determinations or other decisions of the Ombudsman, or of any other person, in relation to a particular investigation or complaint.

When I rang the Office and enquired as to what “particular conduct” referred to as it was not defined in the Act I was advised that it was the conduct that I was referring to which is moral misconduct, corruption and a conspiracy to cover up.

Then, in a further response to me, the Office of the Ombudsman referred to the Ombudsman’s Act 1976. Now the Ombudsman’s Act 1976 does not seem to have a Section 31B(2) that I can see. Section 31B(2) appears only to be part of the Ombudsman’s Act 1974. So I can’t help but wonder. Can they just use whatever Act suits their needs at the time?

All political parties are the same and all Investigatory bodies work together and use the same laws and processes. People in positions of power are protected by Law from being investigated for moral misconduct.

Nobody should be above the Law.
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 4 February 2006 9:11:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is but one solution, when it comes to polling day, don't vote for a party, that way we may actually get real people involved, rather than brain dead lawyers, programmed robotic beaurucrats and academics. After all, the current political parties are equals, in corruption, lies and deceit.

An independent has more to lose by lying to the voters, than one from a political party that buys it votes with fear, lies and corporate media stand over tactics, then does the opposite.

If we don't get rid of these despots, our entire system will melt down and we'll suffer anarchism, allowing others the opportunity to over run us. I am sure that there are those just waiting until our country drops its bundle, even the US would jump at the chance to have more control over us than it has now.

Just like changing climate, no one has the guts to say no. Like little lemming's, you all just go and vote for the same morons over and over, talk about the blind leading the stupid., or is it the stupid leading the blind. No reflection meant to those visually impaired.

A watchdog, just another politically appointed idiotic entity, getting heaps of money to cover up and gloss over the criminal activities of political parties
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 4 February 2006 9:56:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While we on about "honest?" government. In the liberal leader [the australian] this morning the alleged bribery by our wheat sellers had pride of place and ONCE AGAIN out came howard and his cronies with the same tired mantra "We no nossing!" Of course, and we ALL believe you honest? john!
But there's another story about the howard government GIVING! $2.4 million to one of the liberal parties largest donors - gunns of Gunnmania err that should be Tasmania. That's $2.4 million of our tax dollars, money that could have gone to hospitals, schools or whatever.
But one thing with the honest decent liberal government they do reward their backers with our money. Of course labour look after their undemocratic union mates again, of course, with OUR money. numbat
Posted by numbat, Saturday, 4 February 2006 12:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just how are things going from bad to worse for John Howard?
The Cole Inquiry is not touching a fly in the sky because the Labor Opposition need a better leader than Kim Beazley.
John Howard will get through it easily because the Beazley engine needs more firepower.
Posted by GlenWriter, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's be honest here.To do business in Asia or The Middle East,corruption is the order of the day if you want to trade.

It is broadly accepted in business that money is paid under the table to secure deals when dealing with Asian and Middle Eastern countries.So it is alright for private enterprise to pay the ransom for doing business,but not the Aust Wheat Board,upon which the lively hood of hundreds of farmers rely,not to mention the millions in foreign tax dollars our Govt so desperately needs.

We are being a little too precious here,we either acknowledge and ban all forms of corruption or stop being so selective about who we target as the sole perpetrators.

My guess is that the instructions from the Aust Govt were to "Do whatever it takes to keep the contract" and they simply didn't want to know the details.Labor would probably have done the same.

Had the contract been lost they would have been berated for incompetence.The US is falsely taking the high moral ground since they want the contract also.

The US gets very underhanded in business dealings.Note how this free trade agreement is not benefiting us.Our exports to them have hardly changed,while the reverse is true from their perspective.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 4 February 2006 2:03:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clash of mentalities: no bribe – no business.

Voters elect those who can do something for them- is it clear?

“Job market in Australia” – this is an AUSTRALIAN forum- is de facto a playground for mates and some very lucky might get some temporary part-time post on merits of a biological origin and IF good REFERENCES, anyway. A classic question of a Melbourne University professor-a professional in an international development: If all applying for a job have the same credentials, what is a factor to select one? Honestly enough.

"International reviving activities" – do not ask do not tell. If five cents of each dollar reach needy, the UN and a DEVELOPED - DONORS’ - world will be overwhelmingly happy.

So, WHY wheat contracts should go to Australia rather than to the USA? Why Sydney Olympics – not Londonderry or somewhere? Why politicians must know particulars if playing STRATEGY was their major task and upon-all-history-run-excuse-all-over-the-world-for?

Might it r e a l i s t i c a l l y be a task of APPOINTED R O Y A L commission to disclose a c a r n a l knowledge of an appointer, if any, or a necessary good wish of the still believing in a g a m e?
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 4 February 2006 11:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay

Unfortunately, I concur with your analysis of events. Under the counter transactions will continue to be the M.O. until Asia & the middle East adopt western style democracy - if ever. And I admit to painting western democracy a higher gloss than it deserves.

Of course the USA is making a meal out of this - I think their 'high mighty' moral position on the AWB scandal irks me more than Howards now rhetorical "I wasn't informed" well, almost.

Will the Cole inquiry achieve responsible and honest government? Well, I'll not hold my breath for the aerodynamic swine to pass by my window anytime soon. I may be so bold to state "never, ever".
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:22:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Flashback:

• On February 21 2003 The Prime Minister, John Howard, accused 500,000 Australians who took part in peace rallies of giving "comfort to Saddam Hussein".

Well I for one think (in retrospect) in was better than giving Saddam $300 million.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 5 February 2006 3:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Had the contract been lost they would have been berated for incompetence.The US is falsely taking the high moral ground since they want the contract also."

Exactly Arjay! The US uses every trick in the book to do deals for US wheatgrowers. Subsidies galore, political pressure, you name it.
AWB has to sell wheat, no subsidies here, so they have to perform.

Selling in the third world, if you apply our standards, you'll battle to sell anything. I don't think Rudd understands that, so all his comments will be making American wheat farmers very happy, at the expense of ours
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 February 2006 4:09:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

To Arjay and Yabby, you have both hit the nail on the head, specially concerning buggered up agreements, and dirtied down friendships. Of course, as usual, the people who are going to suffer are the wheat cockies, who some say deserve all the sh-t thrown at them, because they should never have trusted a conservative party to look after them, as proven by the way they let the old Country Party be absorbed by the now Big Biz money- minded Libs.

But onto what we’re on about, not so much the AWB stuff-up but our dear American Iraqi attack buddies, coming in on the grouter and stealing our Iraqi grain market.

As producers and dealers in cheap subsidised grain, the bloody Yanks, as we’ve called them more than once, now deserve everything we can throw at them including pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides disgracing their own WTO by breaking the group’s premier law rule, namely industrial protection, in this case, subsidisation of the world’s largest wheat industry, America has pretty well ruined Latin American agriculture with the dumping of its cheap subsidised wheat. Now we have the So and So’s stealing our Iraqi market, no doubt getting on the better side of the Iraqi people by landing a much cheaper protected product than we can afford to arrange.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 6 February 2006 3:21:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part Two

While on the job, a little bit more on Honest John. Some say that if efficiently revealed to the public, the following political truism could have surely caused our Prime Minister an impeachment. It is about the bi-Lateral Trade agreement with America having loosened our import laws so much that a shipment of suspected foot and mouth infected Brazilian carcase meat was landed in NSW and disposed of on a town rubbish dump. On a worried stockbreeder contacting SBS Dateline which had arranged the Revelation per George Negus, the only answer from an SBS spokesperson was that the news had needed to be hushed up.

It seems that this Howard government has managed that many political escapes they might have broken a world record. But this one about landing suspect carcase meat into a country and not implicating either the sender, the arranger, nor the allower, must just about beat the band.

There has also been comments about our moronic Australian public, having got so used to our Federal Government getting away with things and working undercover, we think it is just the new Australian Way. Mayhap through our PM we have now adopted the American Way - or trying to?

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 6 February 2006 3:42:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The cracks are starting to appear.

• The Single Desk system cannot be put at risk, and we welcome the commitment from the Federal Government that it will not be used as a bargaining chip in these FTA negotiations. Andrew Lindberg = Speaking about the WTO Round and Australian Free Trade Negotiations in Post -Iraq 2003 June 5th, 2003
http://www.iibel.adelaide.edu.au/docs/FarmingCommunity.pdf


• End the single desk: exporters
By Asa Wahlquist – 06 Feb. 2006
GRAIN exporters will lobby the Howard Government to strip AWB of its export monopoly this week, arguing that too much power rests in the hands of one organisation.
The Australian Grain Exporters Association will propose the $3.5 billion wheat export trade be opened up, with a regulatory body set up to register bulk exporters. http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18050021%5E421,00.html

• The US FTA issue highlights policy failures in Australian agriculture “Australian farmers, therefore, are border price competitive - but not competitively efficient.” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2323By Ben Rees - posted Wednesday, 7 July 2004
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 6 February 2006 7:29:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Royal Commission! What for? Blind freddy knows , Howard ,Vaile and Downer are in this up to thier necks. Why dip into the public purse to prove it. Many Australians are happy to support the ongoing incarcaration of Mr David Hicks on far less evidence than already exists against the three wise monkey's.What would a Royal Commission prove? Money is thier god, decency and principles come a very poor second. The Ozzie population dont give a toss. Its madenning and sadenning in equal measure.
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 6 February 2006 11:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By all means push to have them face the Cole Inquiry.

But let us not have more Commissions permanent or otherwise. It is time to address the fundamentals of good governance - stakeholder engagement at all times, transparency, accountability, responsible behaviour by people in organisations and trust. We need to train all in organisations in tools based on our much-improved scientific understanding of the human mind to improve individual and organisational integrity. E-technology can be used in such tools to leave behind a permanent record.

Also we need to press for some real freedom of information in FOI laws and less restrictive libel laws.
Posted by Graham Douglas, Monday, 6 February 2006 5:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Money is thier god, decency and principles come a very poor second."

Umm hedgehog, in this case you miss the reality of the situation.
Aussie wheat farmers, having to compete against the power of the US Govt and all its subsidies and manipulative tactics, for a market.

Clearly your income and feeding your family does not depend on exporting to third world countries, with the US Govt as competition. How many companies have been caught up in the story?
How many of them are US based? Check for yourself.... AWB was
one of many.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 6 February 2006 9:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, your point being?
Posted by hedgehog, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 7:38:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My point is that with all these so called trade boycotts, its the little people who are the losers, whilst those with nothing personally to lose talk about principles.

Aussie farmers are still today owed money from Iraq for wheat delivered before sanctions were ever put in place. No compensation from the politicians who now preach highly and mightily about principles.

International trade, especially is the Middle East, is a dirty game.
To play it, you have to play by their standards, not by yours, or you won't sell anything. Thats the reality of it.

It was fairly obvious that the UN sanctions thinggy was a dismal failure. Trucks were openly shown on tv, carting oil over the border as fast as their wheels could carry them. IIRC there was even a pipeline going over the border. It was one huge leaky sieve.

To stand back with all that going on and take a high and mighty stand, makes no sense to me, if its little people losing income over it. Thats exactly whats happening now. Guess who is laughing right now. The US Govt of course, another million tonnes of wheat sold to Iraq according to today's financial review, Aussie farmers the losers.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 9:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Australian farmers were not paid how do they sustain supply to Iraq all these years?
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:50:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"To play it, you have to play by their standards, not by yours, or you won't sell anything. That’s the reality of it."

No, there's nothin wrong with giving 300 million dollars to a homicidal/dictatorial maniac to buy guns and bullets so he can order the shooting of innocent women and children - but then commit our young men and women "to fight against terrorism" in Iraq - all in the same year. As long as we bring home the bacon everything’s cool bananas!

It certainly appears we played it by their ‘standards’.

I'm overcome with joy and pride to be an Australian once again! When will these moments of euphoric national pride ever end??
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 4:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, i see. We lied and cheated to help the poor, so its alright. Nothing irks me more than the conservative line that they are helping the battlers.Yabby my initial post simply states that we dont need a Royal Commission to get to the bottom of this National disgrace.Your post seems to agree, but then descends into some lame justification for the lies and skullduggery.
Posted by hedgehog, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 5:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael, ok I'll try and explain in a few words. Iraq is a long term Aus market for wheat. Money still outstanding from wheat deliveries from late 80s wheatpools, was never paid due to the sanctions. IIRC, since then some US companies and Kuwait companies have been paid for old debts, not Aussie farmers.

After the gulf war, Iraq paid for fresh wheat in various means, including 200 million$ worth of gold bars, which were flown to Perth to the Perth mint. When food for oil came about, Iraq bought another 2.3 billion $ worth of wheat from Aussie farmers, via the UN programme, paid by its oil sales.

The money from the 1980s, is still today owing to farmers. Politicians never bothered to compensate the farmers, despite it being their political decision which stopped Iraq from paying.
Efic (Insurance) did pay some, farmers have worn the rest as a loss.
Why just farmers? Why not taxpayers?

Rainer and hedgehog - the US has had a boycott on Cuba for 40 years now, do you think it made a difference to Castro? Of course not, its the poor people who do without. Yet the USSR fell without a single bullet or boycott, think about it...

IIRC it was Albright who said it acceptable for 500k Iraqi kids to die because of sanctions. Saddam did fine during sanctions, it was the poor who suffered.

Australia went to war in Iraq, based on flawed American intelligence. The West is going to have to rethink its strategy of getting rid of dictators. No need to kill tens of thousands, to get rid of just a few individuals.

IMHO its the AWBs job to sell wheat, end of story. The politicians can squabble all they like about whatever they like. In the end, wheat feeds people, so it matters. The farmers who grow it, need to be paid too. I'll take notice of politicians, where they accept financial responsibility for their political decisions. As farmers are still owed money for wheat supplied in the late 80s, that is clearly not the case in Australia
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:09:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoa, Yabby. What are you saying? Farmers are owed money from the 80's, therefore it is ok for our Gov. to lie to us about thier clear involvement in the bribes paid to the 'Butcher of Baghdad'. I think you miss the point. It is not wether you agree with the bribes, or dont agree with them.
The core point is, we dont need a public enquiry to confirm the obvious. Howard et al, were in it up to thier ears.
Posted by hedgehog, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 9:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please open this link to read my comment on this issue.
http://www.livexports.com/cowgun.html
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 2:42:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful for your noticing of my message, I am stipulated to highlight some misunderstanding of your position questioning taxpayers liability towards debt to farmers if any: in market economies, state does not bear loss of or/and substitute any responsibility for private enterprises.

Iraqi oil was sold, money for it was paid, wheat had been exported on a regular basis – so following up your info could rightfully ask LOCAL export-responsible where a cash is?

And in Iraq Australia pursues own targets not less than the UK and other the willing among which food export was already mentioned by you.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 9 February 2006 10:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Micheal, legally you are correct, but slaverly was legal once, so was Hitler, so what is legal can often be immoral, IMHO.

If politicians talk about morality, what about the morality of compensating farmers for the loss. IIRC the prime minister of the time said this would happen. It didn't.

In legal terms, AWB is also correct. Wheat was sold, which included a delivery fee for inside Iraq. That fee was paid to a transport company. Those were the terms of the agreement, accepted by the UN.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:16:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hitler was as much legal as Hamas of the PA but it does not mean that history must not teach even Chamberland’s descendants…

Involved in so-called “international development”, “relief” and surely in a world trade need no comment on how really business is being done.

The question is out of any question, when a company-money recipient did NOT carry wheat physically but was a bogus only.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 19 February 2006 3:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy