Dear Professor,

You have failed to give due weight to the importance of ministerial responsibility in your article.

The performance of Ministers Vaile and Downer in relation to this matter - over a number of years - was grossly negligent. It beggars belief that these people of at least average intelligence would not respond to the tone of urgency and warning in the communications they received from their departments. If they were too busy doing other things to read these communications then they are plainly unfit for office, or do not have effective control of their offices.

Indeed, I find the thrust of your piece - that no one cares so we should pack it in now - deeply and surprisingly cynical for a professor of law. Morality is the oxygen that breathes life and legitimacy into legal rules. I appreciate that ministerial responsibility is a political concept more than a legal one, but the reliance by these men (Downer in particular) on that distinction is deeply offensive to any person who cares about good government.

What the author fails to state is that Australia went to war with Iraq.

John Howard stated that he was sure they had weapons of mass destruction because he knew that the UN oil-for-food program had failed. He stated that some countries had illegally passed money onto Sadam Hussein. Yep for sure he knew because it was the Australian Wheat Board who was the biggest offender.

So off to war we went, while our PM knew that Australian bribes had been paying for the Iraqi war machine.

This really is a scandal about wheat-for-weapons.

John Howard is culpable, and far from closing the book on this scandal he should be pursued out of office in shame.

With respect, the terms of reference go beyond the mere involvement of AWB in the payment of kickbacks. They actually refer to all Australian companies involved in kickbacks.

It seems the companies themselves are keen to get the Ministers involved (perhaps to deflect possible liability away from themselves). In this sense, perhaps the good Professor's comments may make sense ...

"Moreover, no one even in Australia, apart from some sections of the media, much cares about the scandal. A recent survey shows that while 70 per cent of people think the Government knew about the kickbacks, 55 per cent of voters say this hasn’t changed their opinion of the government. During this period the Howard Government’s ratings have increased one point, while the Labor party has fallen by two points."

Thus proving once again how stupid, gullible and incompetent the Australia voting public is. What an indictment on democracy!

Scary that this chap is teaching law! Mandatory sentencing for blacks stealing sporting goods and grog, White Execs give millions to a evil dictator who supports terror groups shouldn't be investigated whow.

Yes I think the publicity hungry professor has missed the point -

does any one else get the feeling he is in some sort of competition with James Mc Conville on who can get the most stuff into print? -

He is essentially correct about public interest and the waste of money - the hearing should have been held in Melbourne at least - and Cole should focus only on witnesses of relevance; what ever the Minsters say is not material to the case nor can he make any findings on what they say - their appearance just makes for about 23 seconds of good TV and an AWFUL lot of verbiage on PM and Lateline.

But central to the issue, and I am some what discomforted by aligning myself with that little field mice, Mr K Rudd the terms of reference of this enquiry should have extended to the governments role - but these guys are are past masters at plausible deniability -the distortion of democracy exercised by this crowd is breath taking - at least totalitarians were up front about being bastards