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 > AWB Inquiry - the truth, the whole truth ... > Comments

AWB Inquiry - the truth, the whole truth ... : Comments

By Tony Kevin, published 17/2/2006

In 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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. 15
  14. All
Bushbred
As an ex-Tassie lad, it is interesting to read your stuff. Firstly because a lot of cockies in Tassie were labor voters for a long time. For them, labor gave them a better deal vis-a-vis the corporations - not to mention defacto subsidies. But also, it represented battlers, which they identified with.

Labor stopped representing the battlers, an Agricultural consultant led the libs and social issues about the way things were suddenly got some more prominence. Pretty quickly, conservatism overtook their worldview, truckies convinced farmers the greenies were bad for the land, and the Tassie Devils started dying - not unconnected events according to some.

Which brings me to common sense. Common sense, unfortunately has never been very common - there is an old and famous quote to this effect by Descartes - "Common sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it." Just ask Ironbar. Unfortunately, it is actually in short supply, but we each remain convinced we have ample of it - which is the sting in Descartes' tail.

Trade, ultimately, relies on trust. Not a good thing to corrupt. But then, I read your posts and gain hope.

odsoc
Posted by odsoc, Sunday, 26 February 2006 7:50:27 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,

The system is doomed now that the genie is out of the bottle regarding kickbacks unless we change our methods.

Here's why

1. Australia can never compete as a small country against countries like the USA and Canada if we all do the kickback shuffle. We don't have the population size to win the highest kickback wins competition.

2. Australian farmers can't afford to discount wheat to counteract any benefits either paid to farmers or kick backed to countries by countries like the USA.

3. We do not have the purchasing power to use our market as a carrot to dangle in trade negotiations. We are small fry.

4. Kickbacks/subsidies paid by other countries will undermine any of our efficiencies in the growing, harvesting and selling of wheat.

So as a country we are better to go the non-kickback route otherwise we lose. You can't complain as a wheat farmer if we take your suggested path with continuing kickbacks and lose anyway.

Furthermore why should all Aussie taxpayers be forced to cover tax deductions for kickbacks? That would be another subsidy and we would all lose at that too.

You are right there were around 2000 breaches but the AWB is allegedly the biggest. We are now out in the open like a sitting duck and as Mr Rudd has said the Aussie Govt. was warned at least 16 times but it seems chose to ignore the warnings. The buck stops there.

Your argument regarding "Wait till Labor improve their candidates" is also flawed. In my opinion no Govt should be voted in for a 3rd term as it offers too much opportunity for corruption and the stacking of boards and committees.

I'm sorry that you will be affected by the AWB crisis but the system you espouse undermines open and honest Govt.

Please tell me - When does the ownership of your wheat pass to the AWB? Does the Romalpa clause apply to wheat supplied to the AWB? This clause states that ownership of the goods does not pass until the supplier(farmer) is paid in full.
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 26 February 2006 8:04:02 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
Osdoc, I thought that the point you raised might be self evident, but let me
explain. Taking hostages is not common practise lol, but paying commissions is.
Now Govts make laws, but do not always implement them to the letter.
Prostitution is banned in WA, but Fifi's massage parlour etc advertise in every
paper. Sometimes realpolitik has to apply in implementation of laws. In fact if
you want to stifle an economy, just send your burearocrats out to worry about
every letter, businesses will just go elsewhere.

The question then arises, if commissions are paid, how much scrutiny should both
business and govt pay, to see if its a normal commission or a kickback? Thats a
line in the sand, open to opinion. If the commission is added to the sales
prices, it doesent affect the seller,which is where Opinionated is confused.

Trade with the third world is a totally different ballgame. Look at the claims
of sick sheep, iron in wheat, diseased wheat etc, they were all rubbish, just
part of the system there. But trade with the thrid world we must, wheat markets
are limited.

Trade is often not just about quality and price. Its about relationships,
friendships, longstanding agreements etc.

Opinionated, the system is not doomed lol. It was working fine, the mistake was
the Cole commission. Commissions, fees, are a business expense, so should be
deducatable from tax. The selling price is increased by that amount, after all.
Yup AWB was the biggest, as wheat was the biggest import, valued billions. In %
terms it was reasonable. I have no idea when ownership passes. It goes in the
pool, they pay us when they sell it.

Bushbred, I am north of you, near Narrogin.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 February 2006 9:30:56 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
Why did I mention the Romalpa clause?

The Romalpa clause states that the legal possession of the goods does not pass until the supplier of the goods is paid in full. It is a standard clause that can assist businesses when a dispute over ownership arises.

If the farmer's contracts with the AWB contain this clause they may be in a somewhat stronger position than if it doesn't.

John Howard stated "the AWB owns the wheat" and this was reported as his original justification for sending the AWB chairman along with the Deputy PM to Iraq. The AWM Chairman is no longer going. As people now know Iraq has stated "it will not deal with the AWB". If the PM is correct and the AWB "do" own the wheat without the Romalpa clause then the farmers may be in a sticky legal position.

Remember it was John Howard who suggested the "AWB owned the wheat" and the Iraqi Govt who said "they will not deal with the AWB". John Howard is from the legal profession so should have realised the importance of the statement he made on ownership.

I hope none of this comes about but if the AWB needs the wheat to survive and the farmers need the wheat to be sold for them to survive, a transfer of the wheat from the AWB to another entity might just be a bigger problem than people realise.

"Forewarned is forearmed"

Gee Yabby, so now it is the Cole commissions fault that the truth of alleged kickbacks is outing. I wasn't suggesting the single desk system is dead... it will survive, it is the kickback system that is dead. If I were you I would be checking when ownership is transferred to the AWB. I went to the AWB website but the links regarding their terms didn't work for me.
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 26 February 2006 10:43:14 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
Opinionated, the real problem and noise is coming from people obsessed with bringing down the Govt, as they have failed using the election process, so now they are grasping at this particular straw.

The real losers will be the farmers, as they will lose some markets as their marketers will be negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs. So that wheat will have to be sold at a lower price then would have been possible.

The real winners will be the Americans, who desparately want market share in Iraq, would like to destroy our single desk and will now be able to do deals around the place and pay commissions, which our boys won't be able to do.

So your caring about the wheat industry is IMHO rather shallow,
your obsession with getting rid of Howard, a bit too obsessive.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 27 February 2006 2:25:30 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
AWB Crisis:
After reading some of the Posts, it appears there's a marked division on the justification for schadenfreude, deception and corruption chronicled by the AWB. Fully supported by DFAT, circa 1996, and continuing to this day by National Party chief Mark Vale & Co, as they negotiate to salvage Iraqi wheat sales.

The virulent apologist have made it clear because everybody is tainted in the excreta of shoddy governance - we forsake morals, ethics, integrity, reputation, and transparancy by colluding, in fact taking a leading role in Aust Biggest Corporate Fraud, as highlighted by the Cole Inquiry.

DFAT have in 3 years and $600M, failed diplomatically and otherwise to secure AWB's position in Iraq's wheat market, despite spending $500M ( Australian Newspaper )inviting over 100 of their Consular and Wheat Officials to Canberra ( 5 star-carte-blanche )presumably to sight-see, appraise the National Icon ??

Next, we magnanimously extended a Credit facility $350M to guarantee AWB's share of the lucrative market ( default clause ) Fed's then cancel a $5M debt owing, to 'imprimatur' - seal the shonky deal ?

Such largesse defies the imagination of every decent Ozzie, specially the suffering Pensioners, single parents, unmarried Mums, Indegenous families - some who barely survive on 'meals-on-wheels', St Vinney's, numerous charities to eke out a 'only just, sustainable living' ??

Ever since the 'spruiker from Bennelong' tightened the Security threshold with draconian legislature, we see more undercover Govt Agencies acting as 'watch dogs' to spy on citizens. Pity these highly paid bureaucrats overlooked the present scandal ? Begs the question 'who's watching the watch dogs ' ??

With the Institute of Criminology presiding over International camparisons of levels of corruption among Public Officials and Politicians, Aust rated 8 whereas Iceland and NZ top the list.

Transparancy International (Aust) dedicated to monitoring Govt accountability in 2001 established the OECD Convention.Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business and Criminal liability - imposing a $330,000 fine for offenders. To date no Company or individual have been charged under sect 70.2 of Commonwealth Criminal Code ?

Aust Integrity Systems -

continued ..
Posted by dalma, Monday, 27 February 2006 4:36:35 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. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. 15
  14. All

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