Examinator, I have passed no judgement as to what is right and
wrong, but simply pointed out the realities of trade in many
places.

When I was exporting highly perishable products to SE Asia,
importers budgeted for a customs payoff fee, for if they
did not pay, the produce would sit on the border on some
technicality and rot.

So all I'm doing is pointing out what happens in many countries.
What is law or not law in these countries hardly matters, for
its enforcement of laws that is the question, not what the
law says.

One of my accountant's customers was on business in Kalimantan.
He had a car accident. He had not broken any road rules, but
the judge decided that if he had not been in Kalimantan, the
accident would not have happened, so he was found guilty and fined.
That is the sort of law of the jungle that you are dealing with,
its simply not like here, get used to it.

So my point was this. Not with all things but certainly with some,
you might as well take your bat and ball and go home and forget
exporting, if you ignore how business is done is some of these
places.

Protest all you like, because the courts in the third world
won't back you, for they too, commonly can be bought.

TBC and exammy
Yes it is certainly morally bankrupt. Free trade has always been a furphy for many reasons.

It may be a bit premature to make judgements on the government side, given we don't know who knew and what they knew. The auditor's report failed to raise some fairly obvious anomalies including monies paid OS to known tax havens.

Why were no alarm bells ringing?

While the media is not perfect, it is thanks to them that some of these events ever see the light of day, but the AFP investigation will hopefully highlight the extent of the problem.

If AWB sets any precedence, nothing much will happen to those involved nor will there be any disincentives for these corrupt activities. The Cole Inquiry did not shed much light and those involved within government generally get promoted such as those who know the truth about children overboard.

Pelican

I think you might be too generous with the government.

After all, it was the Howard government that happily allowed the AWB to work, and the Rudd government that decided not top reopen the ever-so-slightly-dodgy Cole enquiry and let Downer, Howard, 'Mr Sheen', and all the others compeletely off the hook, just in case the ALP were hounded into 'justice' as a result of a corrupt practice during their time in government.

It was the Rudd government that let Howard's goons off the hook with the maritime strike nonsense too, never mind all those public servants still working for Rudd who clearly fibbed for Howard in the children-overboard.

Incoming governments never seem to follow up on what so many can see is a lurk from the outgoing one.

So both sides are 'in it' together.

Neither will we see anyone 'pay' for the insulation scams, apart from we taxpayers of course.

I doubt Garret actually intended to create a scam, and allow millions to be effectively stolen, but he did manage to organise that outcome, and he is now care free, and so are all the public servants, and the dodgy contractors.

Organised crime comes in many shades, all too often from government.

Probably being too generous TBC. The cynic in me believes the government knew just as they did in AWB. I also believe Garrett did his best to warn about insulation rorts early on but was shut down, as the inquiry revealed to ensure jobs first, safety second as part of the greater nation building plan.

It is possible to do business without bribes if there is a global agreement to stamp out the practice including within it a penalty regime. This is idealistic of course, but in practice it could only work if there was universal agreement.

I notice a new opinion piece on OLO about overpayment of aid consultancies. This is what happens when commercialisation becomes the key in some spheres of society, when social wellbeing should take priority. Aid has become another political football in trade and other negotiations. A US consultancy in Iraq was found to have repainted Iraqi owned equipment at the airports as their own and then charged the American people with the costs of equipment using dodgy paperwork.

Corruption appears to be systemic and I am not sure how effective an oversight body given the range and size of the work it would entail, but it is worth a try.

Yabby and others,
I understood your point clearly from the outset. The mere fact that you view it as 'a tricky....” followed now by your statement of your actions confirm your stance.

My points were. The Australian laws applied therefore Securency was subject to them.
Given it's sovereign links it should have been strenuously clean.
Neither of these are negotiable by to the usual business 'convenience' morality.
Without strict adherence to laws and morality we are no more that that which we ape... callous exploitationists and deserve the international approbation and legal consequences.

You and I have a fundamentally disagree on acceptable business ethics.

I don't believe that business (least of all this one) should enter a market with a business model if it means being part of a corrupting influence of a Countries Sovereign Institutions (CSI). When it is unequivocal that, as a *direct* result of such actions, the most vulnerable people in the client country lose out.

Participating in this corruption and then trying to wantonly *excuse*it, is the moral equivalent of being a member of a lynch mob and saying I only carried the burning torch and yelled, everybody else burnt the black family.

It appears that either there was an Intent to corrupt CSI's and breach of law appears or multi party incompetences are clear. In the process of *prudent* setting up a business one must first assess the Strengths Weaknesses and Other Threats of that model\market. If being a participant in the corruption of SCI and breaking our laws is the only way, then to me, this is an unacceptable condition not optional obstruction.

I morally disagree with you in the manner of business today, not Capitalism per se.
To Wit. Business does NOT have an inalienable right to exist to the exclusion of everything else particularly the law. Business is a servant of the statutory franchised public (humans).

Part 1

Yabby and others Part 2

If I was a farmer selling veg and the only way I could make money was to corrupt SCI, I'd look for a different business model/market or simply invest in another industry not advertise my willingness to break the law.

I am also cognisant that multinationals and some individuals subscribe to the previously mentioned morally expediences and I would suggest *that* is one of the root causes of our par less state today.

I am sure you'll now interpret this in your usual political ideological extremes hence the "and others".