Klaas,
I think everyone involved has to accept their share of the responsibility for the AWB fiasco including the AWB executives, the Iraqi officials, the UN, Australian officials and the Government: it sheets home to all according to their respective responsibilities.

However, I do think that Australia and many other nations are victim to a false representation of conservatism. The kind presented by WRE when they accuse everyone who disaggrees with them of leftism or Howard bashing. Under this representation of conservatism, the person doing the representing says something along the lines of:

"This is how things were. Things were better then. Things should be the same now."

I say this is false because a truer representation of conservatism says something along the lines of:

"Honesty and integrity are important. They have been important in the past. Even though things have changed, they are still important. We have to find ways to make them work for us now."

But 'neo-conservatism' labels such a view as "liberal", or "progressive", or "elitist" and disparages it as leftist, or sentimental, or impractical. It is noteworthy that they don't use "radical" because it is they who are "radical". However, honest conservatives are often fooled by the rhetoric. They miss that the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater: in this case 'honesty and integrity'. The result is semantically empty rhetoric: meaningless propaganda.

odsoc

"It could have looked for other markets or store the harvest. Australians must determine in what sort of "real world" they want to trade."

Klaas, the real world is that other markets are corrupted by US and
EU subsidies. Its a dirty world out there, usually made dirty by
Govts, as mentioned above. At the end of the day, its the farmers
wheat. AWB were told to find the best paying markets by the farmers.
Iraq added about 8-15$ a tonne to the pool value.

Now if people want to preach ethics and morality, lets see some change from the world's first world Govts. 2000 companies were involved with breaking sanctions, so clearly it was common as chips.
Its just that Australia is busy investigating the whole thing more then others have done.

I just think that alot of posters here have their own political agenda, or are ignoring the difference between politics and realpolitik, so I will give my interpretation of the way I read things, you are free to tell me where I am wrong :)

After Clinton finished his term, sadly the Americans elected George,
who is not the brightest button on the planet. Johnny had to make do with what was available, in the end we need to get on with America, we have little choice.

Afghanistan had a moral reason behind it, so we supported it. Iraq was largely a Neocon +Cheney plan. The West is hooked on Arab oil after all. Australia went along with it, we needed that free trade agreement with America, so we sent a few troups to Iraq, mind you,
as few as possible. Johnny and George snuggled up together in so called mutual harmony, we got the trade agreement...

The farmers really don't care who is fighting with whom, thats politics, not wheat growing. They need to survive to pay bills.
Australian farmers are as efficient as it gets, but they can't compete with the US treasury or the European treasury. AWB played the game as best as it could, to obtain maximum value for farmers,
that is their role in a highly corrupted market. Aussie taxpayers
are not interested in subsidies, so farmers have to play with what
is available to survive in a corrupt world market.

Labour thinks this is the big chance. They have lost 4 elections, so perhaps some dirt will sink the Libs, so they are peddling as hard as they can on this one. If elections can't get rid of Johnny, perhaps this one just might....

Yabby
Given that the responsibility of the AWB is to get the best price for Australian wheat farmers without any constraints, you have an argument. However, on all corporations in Australia, there are legal constraints. Some of these legal constraints have to do with what is acceptable business practice.

Would you advocate that we free corporations from these constraints? If so, which constraints can we dispense with? Why these constraints and not all constraints?

What you are, in effect, arguing is that it is OK to break the law in pursuit of profit. Maybe the AWB is special and should be given a dispensation to break the law because it is such a corrupt market. Maybe they should be able to take the families of foreign officials hostages in order to secure contracts - arguably, that would be more effective, and probably cheaper, than bribes, therefore more profitable.

It is not a matter of preaching ethics, it is a matter of whether corporations have to abide by the law, and whether the government is responsible for the administration of the regulations it imposes.

odsoc

Could it be that Little Johnny & the boys in the Govt are developing selective amnesias? Is it true they now look like they have been caught with their pants down? It's time we got these guys & all their staff & public servants before the Cole commission under oath and questioned them severely on what they knew. The Sgt Schultz approach of "I know nothing! Nothing! is starting to wear thin.

When Mr Cole made his plea yesterday for people to come forward he neglected to mention the penalties for those who know something and don't... Does anyone know what they are?

Suddenly after all this time we find a memo sent to many Govt departments including the office of the PM warning that the Iraqi's were seeking kickbacks and everyone knew about it http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18230689-2,00.html

Is the PM in denial or now just hanging on for his political career?

Looky, Looky .... which clever country has stepped in to fill the hole left by this AWB fiasco? No troups, no all the way with USA policy but one heck of a wheat contract.

http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,18234867-31037,00.html

PK and I told you so.

Little Johnny is certainly no President Truman.... Does the buck stop at everyone elses desk but yours PM?

On the single desk sales process ... please keep it so that the farmers are kept in a strong positon in relation to the rest of the world... but don't allow yourselves to be tricked into believing that is the issue...

The single desk doesn't have to pay kickbacks.

US Alliance becoming counterproductive?

I note from reading several contributions here that many still believe that Australia has no option but to along with the US and support that country in such foolish ventures as the war in Iraq. The subservience is not just inherent in the behaviour of the PM but also that of many major party politicians. However, this really is past-oriented, WWII and Cold War thinking. The original motivation for the Alliance has no validity anymore whatever. Has it occurred to discussants that the close cooperation with the US is actually becoming a distinct problem for Australia? The US is not only quite unpopular in the world but it is also grossly overstretched financially and in a military sense. The need for oil is a principal motivator to interfere in situations where it shouldn't be. The US needs help from us but not the help we have been giving it. A more neutral foreign policy would this country well in my view.

Klaas Woldring