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

With syntax crashing, Professor Bagaric asks, ‘So why, despite the saturation media coverage given to the AWB inquiry, has the story has (sic) gained so little traction in the Australia (sic) [media]?’ Obviously, he did not hear the Editor-in-chief of the Herald-Sun on the ABC yesterday telling us that his paper has only just started to run the story as a leading item since the Ministers appeared before the inquiry.

I know Professors of Law see themselves as omniscient, but I am staggered that Bagaric feels competent to pronounce the outcomes of the inquiry before the Prime Minister has given evidence and been cross-examined. Bagaric and Howard seem to have much in common: they both seem happy to turn a blind eye to political incompetence and negligence because they are practical men of the world. ‘In the third world bribery is standard business practice.’ Really? But we're not to worry: ‘It’s not as bad as it sounds. In the West we call it networking.’ Oh well, that’s all right then! ‘[T]he whole AWB saga really is just stock-in-trade global business practice. The public knows this. That’s why we don’t care.’ So long as our team wins this weekend, Professor. Nudge nudge, wink wink?

Professor, is there no relationship between ‘is’ and ‘ought’? Are statements of (claimed) fact about the political economy to be given higher status than statements about what ought to be the case? Is there to be no argument with Milton Friedman’s dictum, “The social responsibility of business is to maximise profits.”? Is it OK for Australians break the law with the tacit collusion of the Government because the only bottom line is the bottom line?

Yet in the end, the Professor flips in his argument; he says it all comes down to compulsory training in ethics for our business leaders. They wouldn’t be interested in ethics if it weren’t compulsory? I presume that the good Professor is introducing his law trainees to these concepts, because lawyers have a bottom line too. I wonder if compulsory ethics training should also be a pre-requisite for Professors of Law?

A great article Professor. Don't be put off by the Howard Haters who are blinded by their frustration that John Howard has been in power for so long. And what a classic by "hadz",-- "Thus proving once again how stupid, gullible and incompetent the Australia voting public is. What an indictment on democracy!" This is the view of the left wing intelligensia, only their type should be able to vote. And of course they are offended that you, a Professor and academic should not fully support their anger

What with the current debate on who knew what about the dodgy wheat deals,I guess it boils down to two possibilitys.
1. The Libs are lying about what they did know ,if thats the case they should go.

2. They actually didnt know what was going on , in that case they are incompetent and should go

Oh, don't worry sniggid, I agree with the article in principle. The whole thing is a waste of tax-payers' money and will accomplish very little.

My comments on the Australian voting public however are based on years of people ignoring the government's lies, cover-ups, and general shenanigans and justifying it by saying things like: "Beazley is too fat, I won't be voting for him". Yes, this is the most cited reason I was given when I did an impromptu survey on why people wouldn't be voting for Labor in the 2001 election.

It's for this reason (and others similar) that I no longer have any confidence in the democratic system (not just in Australia, look at the US for another brilliant example on who the public sees as fit to elect), and am happy to be considered leftist if that means I don't have to share the blame for sending Australian troops to a foreign war based on a lie where the other side was fighting with money from the Australian Wheat Board the payment of which the Australian Government new full well of (allegedly, pending the outcome of this giant waste of tax payer money), and are now trying to deny.

They say Teachers teach because they can't do. Perhaps this is doubly true for professors. It makes you wonder if "networking" is required to become a professor, or even a head of school at Deakin.

From even before Cole, the executives of AWB were bound to be guilty. Fine. Everyone knew that. But in this country they are still allowed to defend themselves in any court of arbitration. Right Mirko? Even if this defence means calling upon senior members of the Executive, they have the right to defend allegations against them.

I find it remarkable in the extreme, that all of the warnings (17 that we know about) were somehow missed, but Vaile managed to sell his shares just 2 days before this became public. What a fluke!!

All pigs fuelled and ready for take off.

If Mirko thinks that Australians don't care, he's wrong. We've just come to expect illegal behaviour from big business and government. But what can you do...

It is a shame that this site is dominated by left wing people who treat anyone who does not agree with them as if he or she was a fool. If a reader was to come to the view that on the basis of the weight and nature of the contributions to this site the next election will result in a huge swing to the Labor Party he or she is in for a huge disappointment. As Greg Sheridan has opinioned in The Australian today, the Howard Government is unlikely to lose even one vote as a result of this matter.

The truth is that Australians generally are not interested in this matter. They are the voters and they will most likely stick with the current government when the time comes to vote next year.

So, bleat as much as you like on this site, but you will have to come up with something different if you have some hope that you can bring down the Howard Government. Perhaps a start will be to display some respect to people who have a different view of the world to you.

Sniggid: I think your claim that the left dominates the pages is a bit over the top - but I guess yours and mine are only opinions after all.

If the posts on religion for example are any measure of left and right - and those posts out weigh the next nearest topic (environment) based on post numbers by a factor of 3:1 - the right dominates.

And again I am befuddled about accusations of the "left" not showing others respect on this site - Quite a grand generalisation; how is this respect demonstrated I would like to know - like not referring to their contributions as "bleating" perhaps? - I would not know

You are right Austrlains dont care too much about the AWB fiasco - and that fact speaks volumes.

It's rather a paradox dont you think that a demonstrably conservative community like ours likes nothing better than a bit of a Law and Order campaign turns a deaf ear to sound of wheat funded missiles screeching over the head of our brave boys and girls in the trenches - now there's an act of criminality if ever I heard one.

Sniggid, when you say, "It is a shame that this site is dominated by left wing people who treat anyone who does not agree with them as if he or she was a fool" and then conclude that these bleaters should "display some respect to people who have a different view of the world to you", you
(a) simply demonstrate that the left wingers are telling the truth in your case and
(b) provide a classic example of right wing hypocrisy.

Well said FrankGol. The pendulum will eventually swing back as it always does. I just hope that when it does the left can be a little more gracious than the right tend to be at the moment.

Surely the Prime Minister will enforce some degree of responsibility on his Federal Cabinet, or is he as much to blame in the whole sordid AWB scandal?
It seems this Government has operated on the "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink" principle. Discussions between the Federal Government and the AWB directors may even have included the lines: "If you don't tell us, we'll never know," or even "Know whatahmean, say no more, say no more."
The most likely scenario is that the AWB was told to ensure that wheat sales to Iraq went ahead, regardless. Technically not criminal, but taking into consideration the loss of lives in Iraq on all sides, absolutely scandalous.

The point is that there is a culture in DFAT and in the Australian Government that allowed an Australian national company, under its very noses, to pay large sums of money to the Saddam regime in breach of UN Resolution 661 and in breach of the Australian customs regulations. If you had a firm government policy on a position, then this would never have happened. If the Australian Government policy is no cash to Saddam, then the policy is no cash to Saddam! Why wasn't this policy known by DFAT? If it was known, why wasn't it implemented? What I am saying is that if Australia had a clear policy on this issue (which it clearly didn't), then the money would never have been paid. Why was the policy position of selling wheat stronger than the policy of stopping Saddam getting hard cash to buy weapons? It just shows that the Howard Government was never serious when it put the case of going to war against that regime. If it WAS serious, it would have enforced the sanctions.

Some posters suggest that voters are dumb because they don't care that they have been lied to. They don't care, because they EXPECT politicians to lie. The Cole inquiry merely reinforces the prejudices they already hold. We need ministerial accountability and "nobody told me" should not be an adequate defence. Until that time, the public can't expect better.

If Mark Vaile gets away with this one Carmen Lawrence should move back to the front bench. Even she would have a better memory.

Seriously though, why is there no record keeping, minutes of meetings? I have never worked for the government but in engineering projects there is extensive record keeping and all parties have their behinds covered in writing. It is not that hard. If anything good comes out this commision let's at least put some tracability and accountability in governmental decision making.

Why do people refer to AWB as the Australian Wheat Board? It ceased being that when it was privatised on July 1st 1999.

It is a sad reflection on the labour party that they can't make more milage out of the Cole commision.

Most people seem to be happy for politicians to lie when the lie is what they want to hear. The problem is, if politicians lie when it suits you, they will lie when it doesn't suit you too.

The point about accurate record keeping is a good one. Anyone in a position of high responsibility who does not keep accurate records on all important matters deserves to be summarily dismissed and lose all entitlements. This should apply to senior management, company directors, politicians and ministers.

Yes,the PM has appeared.But was he treated differently to the other Ministers.Was the questioning by Agius in depth enough to get to what he knew or a please explain.One wonders why the AWB defence was not allowed to cross examinine(surely, as Cole put it,"the questions by Agius covered all,"should or would not satisfy any defence team.)
Concerned people want to get to the "bottom of the matter."

I assume, Professor Bagaric, that your article was written tongue in cheek. If that’s true, it is a pity. There have been stimulating debates in this forum; but you do not encourage them by playing devil’s advocate. And 350 words is too short to deal with the positions you adopt.

Milton Friedman makes a moral assertion, that business ought not to be concerned about issues of social responsibility other than those of making profits. The argument is that the consequence will be a better society than any that might be produced if businesses were concerned to promote social goods, for example by making donations to charity, or by deciding for consumers what they ought to want rather than letting them choose. A businessperson who understands this and adopts it has taken a step towards the moral mountain. Friedmanism is not an amoralist position, for all that he tends towards moral scepticism.

Some points from Business Ethics 101: (There are universities that require students doing business courses to study ethics. There are questions about their effectiveness however.) Businesses rely on a general acceptance of some moral positions in the societies in which they operate, and amongst their employees. (For example, you ought not to murder your competitors; you ought to keep your contracts; you ought not to steal nor destroy other persons’ property; you ought to be free to create and maintain a business; you ought to obey legitimate laws, and if you don’t and it hurts others, they ought to be able to obtain remedies.) Businesses cannot function unless most people involved accept these principles. Nor could the societies in which they exist continue without some general acceptance of them. (Except for the first, these are not fundamental principles. They have exceptions.)

Businesspeople may be controlled by ideologies that lead them to immoral actions. Such ideologies only work because they include moral positions. In general morality is essential for business.

Your assertion that no national interest is at stake in the AWB Inquiry supposes that we should not be concerned whether ministerial indolence has led to so many deaths. Disgraceful.

Rex, summary dismissal upon poor record keeping seems a bit harsh, usually regular audits keeps everyone in line.

What would Labor and Beazley et al have to appear on TV about if it were not for the Cole show?

Bugger all!

When it was revealed that kids were not thrown over board you heard no public outcry. why?

The Prof is right, its a dead parrot issue in a political dead parrot nation.

Australians tend to pay attention to politics during elections campains.
However surely farmers must be concerned regarding A.W.B. actions with wheat sales & Prime Minister Howard.& ministers .
Hogan heros fans would be familar with the saying i know nothing.
Comments by some people stating left wing bias does not hold water.
Accountability to the people of Australia should be the key.
Wake up Australians demand your federal government sack these forgetfull ministers.Surely ministers diaries would note some details.
Politics have reached a new low due to this wheat mal practice.

"Rex, summary dismissal upon poor record keeping seems a bit harsh, usually regular audits keeps everyone in line.

Posted by gusi, Saturday, 15 April 2006 2:00:00 AM"

I'm in VERY small business, gusi. But I have to keep accurate records for taxation purposes. These records are made available to my accountant, who presents a legally required summary to the Taxation Dept annually. And we're all the same in that respect, aren't we?

I also keep a business diary and have done so for just about as long as I can remember. My diary is not all inclusive, but anything remotely as important as being advised about possible serious illegalities would get an entry which, although possibly cryptic, would be sufficient to bring the details to my mind and indicate where the written records could be found.

But under those circumstances, which I regard as normal, I couldn't pretend that [1] I had never been told. And/or [2] I couldn't remember.

Australia is represented, at very senior level, by people who are at the very least incompetent and, perhaps more likely, grossly dishonest. And it's to Australia's shame if they get away with it.