The AWB scandal is overblown-not so pure but simple.

The author makes the point that the market should be a regulator in part-well with AWB the market is and was the regulator. The left has hijacked the morality of the AWB situation for its own ends. The facts remain that AWB's 'links' to the Iraqi regime were not unusual. For instance French companies exported more oil to Iraq than any others, were cited on numerous occasions by the Volker enquiry but are destined never to be questioned. Russian gas companies are in similar position. Kofi Annan's own son reputedly made millions of dollars through 'oil for food'.

I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right but the bottom line is that in some countries and under some regimes, cultural relativism and neccesity mean that the term 'bribery' is not recognised-nepotism, donations and and kick backs fill the void. Australian companies would not and could not compete in any other way.

Secondly the author contends that community morals or interaction should provide checks and balances for big business. Once again in the case of AWB I think the community will recognise that (a) It was either Australian wheat with 'kickbacks', American wheat with 'kickbacks', or more starving Iraqi children; and (b) the recriminations of a US Senator who just happens to be a champion of the US farm lobby are just a little two faced and hypocritical.

In an ideal world these sought of arguments wouldn't be necessary-I just don't see anything 'ideal' about our world

"Policy makers need to consider new ways of transferring power away from government to the community and policies"

One could easily say this about Labor party factionalism too.

Ouch!

Definitely agree that the whole thing was overblown.

A free market would not solve the problem,
a. A market like the wheat market might not be able to support 2 competitors and all we would be doing would just be doubling the expense incurred in selling wheat. Since this is a competitive market, where the US subsidises their wheat farmer substantially (and illegally) minimising cost using a monopoly in Australia might be the best solution
b. having multiple seller does not reduce the incentive to use bribe to obtain contracts, local council building approval (and NSW state government building approval) would be 2 cases where a free market does not equate an efficient and corruption free market

It is great fun to see the media wasting its time on an issue that does not engage the populace. Who cares? There has been no suggestion that any employee of AWB made one cent out of the wheat deals with Iraq. Similarly there are no charges that any other Australian benefited in any way.

For anyone to think that Hussein would buy wheat from anyone without a kickback is just living in fairyland. All the AWB did was pay money to the Jordanian trucking company and then add that amout to the invoices to Iraq.

If anyone think the issue matters, just look at the number of people in the public gallery in Federal Parliament.

You can expect that after all the huffing and puffing is over, John Howards rating will have increased.

Bribes and kickbacks is the order of the day in the ME.

The real issue that is being swept under the carpet is the major cover up from ALL involved.

How long were we (the public) supposed to stay in the dark?

Who will be the scapegoat this time?

If we knew about this sensitive issue with Iraq – one wonders if we had to send the troops or is this irrelevant?

How many other deals are we not to know about?

Howard continues to smile as if lying is as natural as shaving for him…

Sorry but I lost all respect for these so called elected leaders – all they care about is their longevity on the job, fixing the books and checking their retirement benefits.

Christian, a lot of us remember the Hawke-Keating locust years. The only thing Keating reformed was the T/A rules.

The AWB scandal is not the only scandal. Here in Australia, the ALP and the other mob are always conducting raids on the taxpayers' purse. Isn't that a scandal?

Did you know that the ALP bumped up the salary of a grade seven clerk from $53,000 per year to $565,000 and a five year contract just for withdrawing from an ALP pre-selection contest? This lucky clerk got to serve on a transport safey board even though he held no expertise. Is that the sort of bribery you're talking about?
Or are you talking about someone who converts a sleepy village into a capital city so he can claim $43,000 in T/A? Is that a scandal?

Christian, do you get around with a white cane?

Ah so many willing to blame past ALP actions to aviod present shame bought to us all.
No smokeing gun yet but fact is this event is far from the only event the Howard goverment has involved us in that shames them.
History will be kind to Hawk and Keiting, but may look back on such as this event and question are some any better than Saddam?, oh yes he murdered but we may have paid for the killing.
Lets forget other countrys shamefull involvment it ours that concerns me.
And stop defending shamefull acts by switching targets to those who played no part in this event .
My party/country right or wrong is wrong.

Why do people digress from the subject matter, when it badly reflects on their favourite son. The point is political morals today, not over a decade ago.
What ever type of business dealings are the norm in the Middle East, it appears this particular business deal was suspect, accordingly all the people involved must be made to account.

No Kipp.

I believe the point the author was making is that the market and the community should have provided checks and balances to AWB-which is exactly what happened. By implication the author was also contending that any government involvement should also be subject to the same checks and balances-which will happen.

The problem is that the left doesn't like the end result of those checks and balances- it would rather the government be brought down by AWB yet the market and community continue to support Howard. The bottom line is that any savvy and competent business person will tell
you that in places like Africa, the Middle East and Asia 'donations' or whatever you want to call them are a fundamental of doing business. The left can't scream cultural relativism and then ignore the aspects of it that aren't moral.

The great pity of this is that the ALP is destroying the competitive edge of Australian wheat growers in the international market by harping on about AWB- why doesn't the left start asking questions in Europe and the US about some of their companies?

The only positive is that Howard will come out of this on top again and the left will be left grasping at it's semantical, idealist but irrelevant arguments and accusations of 'deceit' yet again.

The author makes a valid point that monopoly control be they government or business, are not good for the betterment of society.

Mentioned is Telstra, add to that fuel,public transport and retail, the list goes on and the costs go up for the consumer.

The privatising of essential services, did not improve those services, it made them inefficient and more expensive, again to the cost of the consumer.

We have a monopoly government that passes contentious Bills without scrutiny.

I am not an ALP supporter, but I do expect them to fulfill their elected duty as an opposition party, in questioning the government on issues that may have a negative effect on society.

To the AWB enquiry, I feel this is an issue that must be questioned, irrespective of how business is done in the Middle East. The alleged offence occurred during a time of sanctions against a country we were told was a threat and whom we invaded.

Although it pains me, I have to agree with plerdsus and Barnaby Joyce. The majority of Australians don't give a damn about much other than where the next new gadget is coming from. That's the great flaw in the article's argument about transfering power to communities. Just like the school tuckshop, you'd end up with the same three people doing endless lamington drives while everyone else is out shopping. Howard's greatest strength is that he understands the apathy that keeps him there. It's certainly not his integrity.

Of course this is a very important issue and it threatens to engulf the way WE do business with the rest of the world if WE don't get to the bottom of it quickly.

If you think this is a storm in a teacup... then it is a bloody big teacup!

The Yanks and the Canadians have been waiting for something like this... Watch them move in on our poor farmers markets now WE appear not to be able to be trusted.

It doesn't matter if the Middle East operates this way ... WE are the ones who have been caught. Whose the little fish in the big pond? Us!

Once again it will be the little people who suffer the consequences of this mistake. Our poor struggling wheat farmers... my heart bleeds for them.

Why do people go all party oriented about an issue? It is the role of the opposition to debate this issue whatever colour shorts they wear. If the Liberals were in opposition they'd be bleating just as loudly as Labor and rightly so.

If you get offended because the opposition question things, you might want to question your understanding about democracy and democratic institutions.

If you have voted for one party all your life you may not truly understand what makes a democracy strong. It is the willingness of you to change your vote and vote against the party you would normally vote for based on issues that makes a robust democracy.

Where is the National Farmers Federation in this debate... the $300 million belongs to their members and they are the ones who could be most effected by the findings?

Single desk selling was an excellent marketing tool for Australian farmers prior to corporatisation. It is extremely difficult for farmers to compete against markets that are highly subsidised as markets undercut each other to drop the price farmers receive.

Single desk went wrong when AWB corporatised and I find it too much of a coincidence that the Federal government passed legislation in July 1999 which is the same month as AWB approved the deal to pay inland transport fees via Alia to Saddam Husseins regime.

Since corporatisation, farmers have been paying higher and higher costs to pay for the shareholder dividends.

This AWB scandal involved paying very high "transport costs" and then recouping this by charging a very high wheat price. AWB was supposedly revenue neutral in this deal. AWB paid the Iraq government and then got paid by the food for oil UN account.

Unfortunately, AWB and their staff did profit from farmers with this deal. With the remuneration bonus and outperformance incentive schemes based on incentives for higher costs and higher prices, farmers paid AWBL shareholders and staff very large sums of money for something that farmers did not benefit from. We also paid AWBL interest on the money that was held up for months at a time between payment of costs and payment for wheat.

Yes, AWB has abused their single desk privilege but it doesn't mean that we don't need some form of market control

A basic explanation of how AWB works (pools, remuneration bonus etc) can be found in the GGA submission to the Cole enquiry . http://203.94.171.34/offi/images/SUB.0001.0011.pdf. The remuneration bonus is on page 5. Basically, any price overinflated above the normal wheat price is considered a good performance and AWB have the capacity to charge farmers up to 20% of this even if farmers did not get the real benefit.
I do agree though, there are some very good staff in AWB but farmers should not have paid a bonus for a benefit we did not receive. We deserve honesty and transparency.

One major factor that has been forgotten in this charade are the farmers who rely on the export dollar for their produce as a head falls in the AWG Iraq contract with an Australia company.

The Priminister and his Deputy have held their hands up flat, to distance themselves.

Both Insisting that their roles were to make courtesy calls and confirm this courtesy through written communications also to congratulate organises of the deal.

Mark Vaille could not recall details and had to refer to his diary schedule five years ago to recall meeting he had with associates of this Australian contract with Iraq.

As the enquiry moves forward, links between government representative with regards to how much they knew about the kick backs that were paid to Suddam.

It has been suggested that a figure of 330 million had been given to Iraqi regime in the disguise of the "Food for oil" program organised through the United Nations.

The invoices created were for courier and trucking costs through a known Iraq owned trucking company.

It has been discovered that American congress wanted to investigate two years ago but was pacified by an Australian diplomat in America who liaised with congress officials.

Any accusations or suggestion by the American congress representatives was put down to competition between the countries with regards to this contract deal.

One can understand the Priminister comments to the Labour opposition in regards to the ongoing investigation into accusations.

Although the Priminister is a little late to ask for Opposition silence to try and shield the massive damage it has caused to this industry and to the bottom line, with damning questions to the Liberal leadership on this matter during parliament time.

And will Australian voters continue to turn a blind eye to people who are store blind and in need of having a reality check

Histographies (Quigley, Toynbee) support the author. Concentrations of power with wealth often mean the ways of doing things exist beyond their use by date, because the powerful wish to maintain their position and the status quo. Ultimately, this approach proves counter productive and the society or civilization becomes non-adaptative.

When one thinks about merchants and traders have long been regarded bottom of the barrel cheats from the Merchant of Venice to the Chinese Shang, from the snake oil saleman to the AWB. Related, traders, politicians and pioneers have brought out the worse side of society.

Like the US, Australia should enact laws holding its citizens and residents must act in accordance with domestic laws, even internationally.

I am constantly amazed by politicians and their use of "Mock Indignation & "Mock Anger" as a tactic on important issues like the AWB wheat saga.

The Cole Commission is the right place to hear the evidence at this stage... not a Senate estimates committee although it appears from today's evidence that there is still a lot of evidence to come out.

The Govt prevents public service staff testifying at the Senate hearing and the Labor Senators go ballistic and yet when they did a similar thing in 1989 (John Howard's justification of precedent) I believe the Liberals went ballistic at that time. At least this time I guess there is a formal enquiry in place.

It's amazing how politicians can change their opinion on process when they get power. Most have probably forgotten Core & non Core promises. Is the Govt using plausible deniability? - Were their staff or any other public servants ever told not to tell the Senior Management or the Ministers?

The Labor Party should keep probing and gaining as much extra evidence as they can ... it is their job as an opposition but can they lay off the mock indignation, it's been done to death. We voters can't tell when they are truly upset or when they are acting, as politicians use the ploy so often.

The single desk policy sells 75% of Aussie wheat. It is a good system that has given Australia an advantage over the rest of the world. There is no need to change it, but we probably will because of the AWB's alleged actions.

Now a costly delegation is being sent to undo the mess ... I wish them success especially because the wheat farmers don't deserve what is unfolding.

Will the wheat farmers have a claim against the Directors and Management of the AWB for a breach of fiduciary duty if this case is proven?

I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously argue the position that because the single desk AWB may have engaged in 'unethical' business practices (cute term eh?) that a market dominated by fully private companies would not.

This is simply ideology. Isn't just as logical that such companies would simply compete to see who could offer the largest 'incentives'?

At the same time I am always amazed that politicians and business leaders continue to make their problems worse by denying any wrongful practice. They would probably have done themselves much less damage by simply admitting that they did it and offering the excuse that 'it was the only way to ensure a successful outcome'. By hitting the denial and cover up buttons as a first response to such issues they do far more damage not just to their own credibility but to the industry they purport to serve as well.

Defender you can't hold those views.... our corporations are totally trustworthy ... and if we strengthen their honesty with total self regulation nothing can ever go wrong... Hey why not get them to design their own codes of conduct ....This stuff works it's a proven fact. Ask the CEO's.

Defender, I totally agree with your last post the bids for the kickbacks would simply increase.... competition works that way sometimes.

Scroll down this page and see the answers Tim Besley from the Wheat Export Authority gave to the senate enquiry. Regulatory bodies should all be this ruthless and tough.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1570930.htm

If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable!

Re: Howard Government's Complicity in AWB Brides Scandal (Wheat for Weapons)

Dear Readers,

A review of facts uncovered by the 'Cole Enquiry' about the role of Senior Government Ministers leads to two conclusions.

1.Senior Ministers were gross negligent and incompetent in their public duty and/or

2. Senior Ministers were actively involved in a political cover-up to conceal their role in kick-backs to Saddam's regime.

Facts Summary:

1. Not knowing what was going after so many warnings and cables over all those years is gross negligence and incompetence.

2. As instigators of the affair driven by policy, means they lied under oath, and they have been involved in a political cover-up (e.g. Nixon's Water-Gate 1974) to save their political hides. This scandal is an outcome of Howard's trades policy to grab a greater share of Iraqi wheat market by kickbacks etc.

Why should we accept that negligent and incompetent Ministers remain in office? Why should politicians have rules of employment that put them above people who elected them.

The comments expressed by Howard, Vaile and Downer at the Cole Enquiry - I don't recall etc under oath parallels the comments expressed by Senior QLD Government Ministers at the Fitzgerald Enquiry in 1987.

This enquiry is purely an exercise in political control to deliver a conspired outcome to exonerate Howard & Co of any wrong doing. Sergeant Schultz strategy by Howard mirrors an old saying Something is Rotten in Nottingham.

We now see a clear pattern of behaviour of lies and sheer lack of public accountability by Howard and Co. Howard is PM who was responsible for kids overboard. PM who told the public we had to go to war with Iraq because Saddam had WMD. PM who said "Trust Me" at the last election. Now same PM who presides over an incompetent Admin which allowed $300m of public money in kick backs.

The complicity of Howard & Co in corruption, dishonesty and a political cover-up is beyond acceptable standards fitting of high public office. We deserve a federal election now on trust, public accountability, responsibility and rules of employment.