Please open this link to read my comment on this issue.
http://www.livexports.com/cowgun.html

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.

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.

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.