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.