Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Telling us what we already know

By Mirko Bagaric - posted Thursday, 13 April 2006


The Cole Inquiry investigating AWB’s sham dealings with Saddam’s regime is itself in danger of turning into a scandal. The inquiry’s terms of reference are confined to ascertaining whether AWB or its officers broke the law by paying $290 million in kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein Regime.

Anyone listening to evidence given during the first week of the inquiry (some three months ago) by then AWB chief Andrew Lindberg could have little doubt that AWB knew that it was paying unlawful kickbacks to off load its wheat to Iraq. This is what the inquiry will report - the evidence has all been one-sided. Yet, taxpayers are going to pay millions more dollars to lawyers who are lapping it up in what is turning into the mother-of-all lawyer picnics, as the lawyers continue to question increasingly irrelevant witnesses.

The circus reaches new heights of irrelevance with the Prime Minister now scheduled to hit the witness stand, hot on the back of appearances by the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Deputy Minister Mark Vaile. As expected, Mr Downer and Mr Vale denied knowledge of the kickbacks. The Prime Minister will of course do the same.

Advertisement

While some commentators will continue to allege that the government was remiss in not acting on warnings of the scandal that had been provided to departmental staff members, none of this has any relevance to whether AWB acted unlawfully - it is not as if ministerial knowledge is a defence to bribery or related offences.

Thus it is time to wrap up the inquiry and for the obvious findings to be handed down: AWB paid unlawful kickbacks to Saddam’s regime. The lawyers have had enough fun - time to pack up the picnic chairs.

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.

So why, despite the saturation media coverage given to the AWB inquiry, has the story gained so little traction in Australia?

The AWB saga has got a lot of good ingredients, namely big business, an evil dictator and the stench of corruption. So what’s missing? The problem is that nothing is missing. There is no intrigue factor.

Of course entering into a billion dollar deal with a tyrannical third world regime was going to have its glitches. Most brutal dictators didn’t top the class in Business Ethics 101 and are prone to drive a hard bargain, even if means breaking the occasional United Nations mandate. It is no surprise to anyone that a government that invades its neighbour and summarily murders thousands of its own citizens might be prone to some “sharp” business practices.

Advertisement

And as for AWB agreeing to pay the alleged kickbacks to Saddam’s regime, no surprise there either. AWB was just following the golden rule in business, so eloquently stated by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman: “The social responsibility of business is to maximise profits.”

While this statement was made nearly 40 years ago, we all know that corporate behaviour has not moved beyond that mantra. The bottom line in business is still the profit line. Business has not taken a single step up the moral mountain. It can be no other way.

One of the irrefutable rules of logic and human behaviour is that you only get out of something what you put in. Until corporate middle and heavyweights are required to undertake ethics training they will continue to unremittingly pursue the bottom profit line at the expense of nearly every ideal. Many of them know about little else.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

26 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mirko Bagaric, BA LLB(Hons) LLM PhD (Monash), is a Croatian born Australian based author and lawyer who writes on law and moral and political philosophy. He is the author of 20 books and over 100 refereed scholarly articles. He is not connected with any political party or other interest group. He is the author of Australian Human Rights Law (forthcoming). Mirko is the author of Being Happy and Dealing with Moral Dilemmas.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mirko Bagaric

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mirko Bagaric
Article Tools
Comment 26 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy