AWB revisited

Well, it's interesting that the class action of AWB shareholders has finally got to court [see my post from Sept 29 2006], and what is the first revelation?

According to The Australian on Thursday 11th February, AWB has admitted for the first time it knew it was paying 'transport fees' that would end up with Saddam Hussein's regime.... according to court documents released yesterday, AWB says it knew the payments being made to the Jordanian trucking company, Alia, were then being forwarded to an Iraqi company, the Iraqi State Company for Water Transport.

In a further stunning revelation [according to The Australian 12th Feb] "AWB executives were untroubled by the idea they were funnelling money to Saddam Hussein's regime, and the company showed a "lack of internal reflection and soul-searching" about its business dealings with the Iraqi government"

On the second day of his opening address, on behalf of a shareholder class action against AWB, John Sheahan SC told the Federal Court in Sydney yesterday it was remarkable how executives from the Australian company would "blandly" discuss deliberately disguising payments to Jordanian trucking company Alia as business transactions.

Not only does this clearly imply deceptive conduct and unconscionable behaviour on behalf of the AWB, but it also implies complete incompetence or deception on a massive scale by the then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, who of course denied any knowledge of this at the time. What an appalling legacy for both him and the Howard Government!

A

ETS a tax?

Well, a day into the new Liberal leadership and the predictable scare campaign starts: "the ETS is nothing more than new a tax!"
Well of course it's a tax, you dipshits - it's a tax on big polluters who otherwise wouldn't be forced to pay for the costs they impose on the environment [and others] in the search of profit!

The environment is a 'public good' - ie one which is freely available to all and which is not charged to users. But big polluters impose a big cost on the the environment [& us all] so an ETS - or a carbon tax, for that matter - work to impose a cost on them, so that they will no longer be able to make as much money by causing damage to the environment - ie they will have to bear some cost for the damage they cause, causing them to pollute less!

So Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce, to the extent that it will force them to consider the cost of polluting in their business decisions, yes it is a tax, and that is not a bad thing!

A

Of backflips, and conservative perversion

The Liberal Party's repudiation of their previous agreement to pass the Federal Government's ETS scheme is [apart from being treacherous in terms of breaking a negotiated settlement] both perverse and cycnical.

Perverse, because this deal - while possibly too generous to big polluters - was probably the best scheme that big business could ever hope for, and cynical because, to satisfy a core conservative constituency [ie the Liberal heartland] in the short term, they are dealing a blow to Australia's and the Liberal's long-term interests.

And the irony is that the Labour Govt's ETS is not that much different from John Howard's ETS policy at the 2007 election. As George Megalogenis writes in today's Australian, "no mainstream political party has ever obstructed the government on an issue that it itself had promised at the ballot box... no party has ever tried to double-cross the electorate in this way before".

The Liberal backflip is a perverse reaction, to keep conservatives and grumpy old men happy. They don't deserve to win an election for a long time, and certainly not under Tony Abbott.

Police goings-on in Queensland

Every now and then, I read an opinion which reflects my own, and which I couldn't write any better myself. This is a comment by Tony Koch, from The Australian newspaper from [today] Thursday 19th November, reproduced in full:

Anyone who doubts that two- speed justice exists in Queensland need only consider the much delayed Crime and Misconduct Commission investigation into the death in custody of Palm Island man Mulrunji Doomadgee.

On October 30, 2006, former Beattie government minister Merri Rose met her former press secretary in the Brisbane City mall and asked him to deliver a threat to premier Peter Beattie that certain allegedly embarrassing information would be made public if she was not given a plum job.

The message was relayed, the Crime and Misconduct Commission chairman, Bob Needham, was informed the same day and an investigation began. On November 9, 2006, Rose was charged with extortion -- to which she pleaded guilty and was jailed.

So it took the CMC -- the state's anti-corruption watchdog organisation -- 10 days to receive the complaint, complete the investigation and lay charges.

Compare that response with the case of Doomadgee, who was arrested on Palm Island on November 19, 2004, for disorderly conduct. He had sworn at a police liaison officer in a back street. Less than an hour later, he was dead in a cell, having sustained horrific injuries including four broken ribs and with his liver cleaved in two.

The appallingly inadequate investigation by police into the death in custody spoke volumes about the Queensland Police Service's lack of professionalism. It was so demonstrably woeful that the CMC undertook an inquiry into the investigation. But five years have elapsed since the death of the Aboriginal man and that inquiry has not been finalised.

The revelation that the parliamentary officer with the statutory responsibility to oversee CMC investigations and refer any official complaints he receives to that committee is to leave his position and act for the Queensland Police Service at the second inquest into Mulrunji's death is another incredible event in this sad saga.

Alan MacSporran SC yesterday said he had not received any formal complaint about the time taken for the CMC investigation so had not seen any need to take any action.

They are weasel words as there has been trenchant criticism in all media, but particularly The Australian, for more than two years about the delays.

The failure to gain closure on Doomadgee's death is attributable to the complete absence of political leadership -- particularly that of former police minister (and former Aboriginal affairs minister) Judy Spence, who had ministerial responsibility for most of the period since the death.

She applauded the quick justice meted out to the Palm Islanders who rioted a week after Doomadgee's death and burned police buildings. But she went missing when it came to standing up for Aboriginal people when it was clear to all that police had acted inappropriately time and again.

The long-awaited CMC investigation has open to it only two possible findings with regard to the police investigation into the violent death in custody of Doomadgee.

They are that the police were involved in a shameless cover-up, or that these senior officers were grossly inefficient.

Your call, Mr Needham" [Tony Koch]

I couldn't have written it better myself!

A

Drinking water - in SA just wash it down the plughole!

Just following up my previous post ... I got a shock this weekend, when a friend advised me that water usage is basically free in Adelaide, so there is absolutely no dis-incentive for people to use as much water as they want.

Apparently there is a $300-$400 annual connection [or 'service'] fee for most users, but the cost of the actual water you use is only a token monthly amount on top of that - for most people not much more than a further $12-$15 per month - even for very heavy users!

This is the complete opposite of 'user pays' and means there is very little reason not to waste water in South Australia - Australia's driest state - and absolutely no reason for Adelaidians not to waste thousands of litres of drinking water in a domestic swimming pool.

There are two reasons why people who use drinking water to fill their swimming pools should have to pay more for the privilege:
1.The sad reality of resource allocation is that the only way people value something [in this case, water] is if it has a price.
2. Under the current system, non-users are effectively subsidising the [usually wealthy] pool owners.

I believe there are both efficiency and 'social justice' reasons why swimming pool owners should pay more.

So what am I advocating? A sliding scale of charging for water, where in effect, moderate water users get charged moderately, but that the per litre price increases dramatically as your usage increases, and that hopefully the level where the dis-proportionately higher charges cuts in should be around about the usage level of most pool owners.

"But that means we'll end up paying a lot more for filling our pool!" I hear those pool owners complain! "Yes, precisely" is my answer. If you insist on wasting pristine drinking water by the thousands of litres, why not expect to pay more? There is no question in my mind that you should.

How did we get the ludicrous situation where water users in Australia's driest state pay virtually nothing for the water they use? In the absence of rigorous research, there are two fairly obvious reasons:

Firstly, water pricing policies are a hold-over from the 'good old days', when the supply of fresh drinking water was almost limitless. Pricing would therefore reflect the cost of what was once a highly abundant resource [ie the marginal cost of an extra litre of water was pretty much $0]. Now we live in a completely different [scarce water] environment.

Secondly, there may also have been some social equality argument to the model we have inherited: everyone should have equal access to what was seen as a 'common right'. This would apply to most utilities - power, water etc.

No longer - with respect to water usage, 'user pays', and on a sliding upward scale, is the only solution to our current climate, and the sooner this is implemented in South Australia, the better.

NSW State Govt - shameful governance

Plastic bags are a special pollution problem - as well as being unsightly and causing litter, they also take a long time to break down; and they have the added ability to ensnare sea-going animals [fish, turtles & seabirds].

According to A 2006 study by the Department of Environment and Climate Change, plastic bags pose one of the most disturbing threats to wildlife, especially considering the number of bags released in the environment and the ease with which they find their way into the oceans.
Nearly four billion plastic bags are used in Australia every year and over 3.7 billion will be dumped in landfill sites. However this is not the end of the journey for many plastic bags as 47% of items blown from landfill sites are plastic, predominantly plastic bags. These bags can be carried hundreds of miles before settling. Added to these landfill escapees are the 50 million plastic bags littered in Australia every year.

Once a plastic bag enters the water it drifts with the currents and its capacity to kill is fully realised. Plastic bags, with their pale colouration and gently undulating form, fool turtles and seals into mistaking them for jellyfish and making the fatal error of eating them. Once plastic bags are swallowed they cannot be digested and cause a slow and painful death.

A scientific committee found [in 2004] that many threatened species in NSW have ingested marine debris or become entangled. This list includes, but is not limited to, three species of marine turtle, Wandering Albatross, Southern Giant Petrels, Australian Fur-seals, Humpback Whales, Sperm Whales and the Little Penguin population in Manly.

But South Australia has managed to banish free plastic bags from supermarkets, why not NSW? So compelling is the case, that we can only assume it is ineptitude on the part of the NSW Labor State Government, or more likely, political weakness.

In supermarkets in SA you have to pay 15c for a high quality plastic bag if you haven't brought your own bag. This has two benefits - firstly it's not the sort of light plastic that blows around and easily gets blown into the sea, and secondly the [albeit small] charge is an incentive to shoppers to bring their own bags. Supermarkets in NSW have shopping bags for sale, but many shoppers don't remember to bring them back for the next shop, so they often end up sitting in the car, and the shopper goes back to the default position of using the freely provided plastic bags again. How to ensure that the shopper remembers?

Simple - a small financial penalty to dis-incentivise them from forgetting ie charge for them!

A seemingly perfect solution - a financial incentive to bring your own bag, or a charge to have a supermarket-provided one. It seems such a simple solution - why can't the NSW State Government legislate likewise? Either they are in the pockets of powerful vested interests, or they are too stupid. Shame on them.

Crocodile tears

Will there be any tears shed at the enforced separation of Telstra?

Classical economic theory argues that a monopoly will deliver poorer service at a higher price than a company facing true competition, and guess what: in most peoples' eyes, this is exactly what the Howard Government delivered in the privatised monopoly telecommunications monster that is Telstra. Poor product offerings at uncompetitive prices, unimaginable arrogance and appalling service, only exacerbated because Telstra was in the unique position of monopoly supplier and dominant retail competitor.

And now that the Labor Government is finally paying Telstra back - for its years of appallingly poor corporate behaviour - I cannot imagine there are too many Australian's [apart from a bleating Opposition] who will shed any tears at all.

A

A "Peoples' Bank" - why not?

In last week's Australian Financial Review, there was an article where the creation of a state-funded bank, or a "peoples' bank" was proposed, to help counter-act the anti-competitive [semi-cartel] framework of the current big-four banks in Australia.

This idea was floated by a group of economists who argued that 'the global financial crisis has exposed flaws in the financial regualtory infrastructure and in the competitiveness of the financial system here'. Well 'hear, hear' I say, as this is a concept, similar to NZ's Kiwi Bank, is a concept I have floated for a number of months.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has apparently ruled it out, without any clear reason, other than to state that ' the financial system has performed very well during the gloabal financial crisis compart to all other comparable economies'... Perhaps, but at what cost?

Basically the 'big four' banks in Australia have a cosy cartel, with very limited competitive pressure imposed on them. When the Reserve Bank lowered interest rates a couple of months ago, they didn't feel compelled to pass on those cuts to their home-loan customers, and one bank even increased their mortgage rates slightly!

I cannot see any compelling reason why you would not seriously look at establishing a state-owned and state run bank in Australia. This does not stem from any 'socialist' principles, but rather because it seems that the Reserve Bank [& therefore the Government] has very little leverage over the Big four's cosy cartel - what better way to force them to keep rates low than a competitor who will offer mortgages at fair value, and pass any cuts in funding costs, directly on to their customers!

As an ancilliary benefit, it might help with the unemployment figures. Wayne, you need to lift your game a little here!

-A

Following on from my earlier post [see post 26th May], what should the Labour Govt do?

They are correct to target middle-class welfare, but they haven’t been prepared to ‘bite-the-bullet’ as they should have. They had a mandate from a populace who recognised that the recession was not of their making, and therefore the perfect opportunity to impose tougher conditions on various sectors of the economy.

For one thing, they would have elicited understanding from most people if they had rescinded their promised middle-class and especially upper income, tax cuts. These tax cuts were originally only proposed because they had to try and keep pace with a hugely spending Howard government, desperate to spend themselves back into peoples’ favour [thence into power for a fourth term]. Surely, with the new economic environment, people would understand if they were rescinded?

The other is a simple one, but one that is only for a courageous government: raise petrol taxes! It is an option that would not only raise revenues but would encourage conservation, in one fell swoop. However, unfortunately I don't think the Rudd Government would have the courage for this one, just as the Howard Govt didn't.

-A

The profligate Liberal Government

Haven't had time to put this up in a timely fashion [ie as the events surrounding the Labor Govt budget were unfolding in the past week] but have to say, the carping and complaining by the Liberals about the extent of the debt that is envisaged in this budget is almost sickening.

Yes, of course we'd prefer not to be in debt, or at least not to the extent that we will be. However, there are two factors that need to be taken into account: firstly, that as is economic orthodoxy, in a recession, it is the obligation of the government of the day to raise demand by increasing spending, to try and keep the economy from falling too far.

The second, and most telling point for the Liberal argument however, is that when in power they squandered the opportunity to build up a huge surplus, courtesy of unprecendented revenues, which they paid out in pork [instead of using it wisely] to try and buy their way into power for a fifth term. As George Megalogenis writes in the Australian [May 16th] the last Liberal budget [before the election] was 'shot at the time of the election, because too much of the revenue windfall from the resources boom had been handed back as tax cuts and increased spending'.

According to Megalogenis, the Coalition had already built in structural deficits, in the face of pretty much the greatest boom the Australian economy had ever known. Nor, for that matter, did they spend their huge surpluses on developing infrastructure.

That is, the Liberals enjoyed unprecedented tax revenues brought about by the mining boom, but instead of wisely spending it on developing Australia's productive capacity or even 'saving for a rainy day' they blew most of it in middle-class welfare and pork-belly projects to their favoured constituencies. And finally, before the election, they tried to bribe the electorate by offering some further $30bn or so in tax cuts, which the Labour opposition was pretty much forced to match.

So for Malcolm Turnbull [or any Liberal politician] to decry the current amount of debt that the current government has been forced to budget for, is not only cynical in the extreme, but patently dishonest.

A

Stimulating the economy - in the right places?

Now a bit of a crack at the federal Labor Government - I can understand them wanting to stimulate the economy - in tough times that makes sense [you can even argue that is the obligation of government - see articles below], but I question the way it is being done.

1) firstly, there's a A$10bn handout to old people and low income earners - nice idea, but there is an argument that a lot of that money will be spent on paying off credit cards, not giving the economy an immediate boost, which is the plan - I guess the jury's out on this one.

2) Then there's the payment of roughly $6bn to subsidise the inefficient car industry - presumably in the name of saving jobs. I would have liked to see a little more analysis of where that $6 bn could be better invested [especially in terms of the number of jobs generated vs the $ amount per job]. And secondly, are there not better uses for the money - especially when independent industry experts estimate that much of the $6bn will be sent offshore to the US parent companies, which are in dire straits themselves?

For example, the health sector is crying out for increased funding - the various medical associations estimate that they need $3bn urgently - why not invest part or all of that $6bn in health? Has anyone estimated the benefit to employment, not to mention the benefit to the community, of spending that money on the health system, instead of an ailing, inefficient car industry?

3) Lastly, there were news reports in the papers this morning that the Government is planning to help car dealerships next - generally not seen as the most socially responsible contributors to society - you've got to be joking! I have a small publishing business, and am too small to take on employees - why not help me out? With $500k I promise to take on at least two employees, seriously!

Sadly, I am already beginning to have my doubts about this government.

-A

Interview critique [addendum to previous budget post]

The only other point to add to the [admittedly rather lengthy] post below, was the disappointing performance of Quentin Dempster, the interviewer on ABC's Stateline.

While Roozendaal was trotting out his inanely stupid PR line 'a tough budget for tough times', Dempster singularly failed to correct him on the crux of the whole argument - namely that when there are tough times, it is a government's job to post a stimulatory budget - ie they are supposed to act in a counter-cyclical manner, to correct the market failing ie in a recession, they should increase, not reduce spending - this is economics 101, and unfortunately Dempster didn't have the interviewing where-with-all to pick Roozendaal up on it.

Very disappointing all round!

-A

NSW state mini-budget - Nov 08

I want to publish this for two reasons: firstly to demonstrate that I'm not politically biased, and secondly because I have just witnessed the most mind-numbingly stupid performance by a Minister of the Crown [even if a State Govt minister] that I have ever witnessed.

The reference point for this, is that the [Labor] State Government of NSW has just issued a mini-budget, but it was the interview with Eric Roozendaal, the NSW Treasurer on ABC TV ['Stateline' Friday November 14th] that prompted this post.

By way of context [& because it was written so well] I'm going to cut-and-paste from the Sydney Morning Herald from November 13, 2008:

"THE fundamental flaw in this week's state mini-budget is that it will dampen spending at precisely the time the Federal Government is increasing it. Yesterday, Ken Henry, Secretary to the Federal Treasury, said the NSW budget was so harsh it may slow the national economy and require Canberra to spend even more than the $10.4 billion already announced to kick-start the economy. The incompetent mini-budget is one of the most potentially damaging attacks on the public good we have ever seen from an Australian government. It seems almost unfair to single out one aspect for special criticism, but we are drawn to transport because of the quantum of idiocy, and even malice, involved.
The introduction this week of congestion charges for the Harbour Bridge and the Harbour Tunnel, which will mainly affect voters in safe Liberal seats, is both unfair and (because the extra charge is too low to influence many people's behaviour) ineffective. But it should not blind us to the fact that congestion charging is in principle a good idea for Sydney, as it has proved to be for London, which has experienced a fall in congestion, and an increase in average vehicle speeds, while the money collected has been put into expanding public transport. We need more of it, not less, but it has to be applied intelligently.
In June, the Herald reported on congestion charge modelling from Sydney University's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Its director, David Hensher, calculated that a charge averaging 10 cents a kilometre would decrease Sydney's congestion by 8 per cent during peak periods. The price paid by drivers could be varied according to the level of congestion on the road, the time of day and the environmental impact of the vehicle used. In theory, such a system would encourage people to move to public transport - although, given the city's many missing railways, that would remain a theoretical proposition for many Sydneysiders for some time.
The then roads minister, Eric Roozendaal, described the institute's proposal as "armchair advice from academics in ivory towers". This week we saw what he regards as superior public policy.
Given the sheer incompetence of the mini-budget, many people will be wondering if anything can be done to cut short the State Government's term. Those asking this question might well include the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who will go to the polls by late 2010 with the country's largest state still run by this lame-dog crew, perhaps still in a recession deepened by their failings.
Under the four-year fixed term introduced in 1995, Nathan Rees or an ALP replacement will be premier until elections on March 26, 2011, unless the Labor caucus in the Legislative Assembly splits and some members vote with the Opposition in a no-confidence vote. But, barring an unsuspected burst of altruism above self- and state party-interest, why would they?
Some have placed blame for our predicament on the four-year fixed term, which blocks the capacity for premiers to call a snap election to capitalise on good news or get in ahead of bad. But the previous system, with a non-fixed three-year term, would have made no difference (assuming Mr Rees postponed an election for as long as possible), apart from reducing our misery by one year. The real problem is the absence of workable recall mechanisms, such as exist in the constitutions of 18 American states. In California, the required 12 per cent of voters signed a petition in 2003 for a recall of the Democrat state governor, Gray Davis, over disarray in state finances and electricity blackouts. Gray was duly voted out and replaced by the Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. It would not be too hard to get to 12 per cent of our voters - about 473,000 - to sign a recall petition right now. Alas, no Terminator looms for this dysfunctional government.
If, after this week, Mr Rudd is still brave enough to try to bail out NSW with new infrastructure spending, he should insist on federal administrators riding shotgun on how the funds are used.
As the state's governance acquires the air of a Monty Python film, we must not despair. We need to remind ourselves of this: many of Sydney's problems do have solutions, even if they remain ungrasped by the practitioners of Roozenomics."

Couldn't have said it better myself - which is obviously why I quoted their piece... I guess the only point is that in the interview, instead of coming up with any sensible justification for what was such a seemingly stupid piece of policy in the Stateline interview, this dip-shit Roozendaal confirmed all the worst assumptions. Worse still, he kept quoting phrases of spin such as 'this is a tough budget for tough times' - and ended the interview with a self-satisfied smirk, as if he had passed the TV interview 'spin test'. But the reality is that it is the voters of NSW will have to live with the consequences of the amazingly inept pronouncements from this inanely stupid individual.

This Labor State Government is just so appallingly bad, it's unbelievable!

-A

Epitaph to a PM [II]

Actually, there may be a more fitting epitaph.... I didn't have time to write about this at the time [about a month ago], at the time of the celebrated saying of 'sorry' to the Australian Aboriginal people by the new PM Kevin Rudd, on behalf of the Australian people.

There were several past prime ministers present at the official function and John Howard was conspicuous by his absence. He will be remembered not only as a crook, but a curmudgeonly old crook.

-A

Epitaph to a PM [I]

No more fitting epitaph could be added to refute John Howard's claim to being a good economic manager [& an honest politician] than the figures released on Wednesday 19/3 showing the ministers of his government approved [outside of the normal bureaucratic process] $4.5bn of special 'pork barrel' funding in 2007 - the election year.

It is disgraceful that he allowed these payments by his ministers, outside of the checks and balances of normal government procedures [ie they were discretionary] and at such a sensitive time - both because of the looming inflationary pressures in the Australian economy, and because, by attempting to 'butter up' voters, they were so blatantly intended to increase the government's chances in the last election.

-A

a demeaningly dishonest little man...

John Howard - Australia's long-serving Prime Minister is gone [election 24/11].

He touted himself as a great man of Australian politics, but his main legacy was a series of lies... from things like the Tampa, where he never came clean that he new the poor refugees had actually not thrown their children overboard, to a lack of honesty over the AWB illegally giving the proceeds of its wheat sales to Saddam Hussein, through to his claim in the 2004 election to keep inflation at 'record lows' when he didn't in fact have the power to do that, to his final lie - the post-election implication that he was responsible for handing Australia over more prosperous than it was before, when in fact the minerals boom is probably the single biggest cause of Australia's current wealth...

In short, he was a dishonest little man - and for all his self-aggrandisement, a man that will not be missed!

The Howard Govt's worst yet

The death throws of a tired and dis-credited regime? That's something we won't know for 4 or 5 months.

However, the Dr Haneef case in Australia takes this administration's deceit and incompetence to new lows. A innocent man is prevented from leaving the country to see his wife and new-born child under the Government's new 'anti-terrorism' laws.

The Dept of Public Prosecutions lodges a case on the flimsiest of evidence and a magistrate orders the man's release, as it becomes apparent that the DPP case is based on flawed police evidence, Then the Minister of Immigration revokes the innocent man's visa supposedly on 'character' grounds, and he is re-incarcerated.

When the prosecutor, under the weight of media attention, acknowledges that key parts of the evidence were false it is clear that the case is consigned to history; the innocent man leaves Australia as soon as possible - the Minister of Immigration meanwhile, clings to the fiction that he had a valid reason for revoking the visa in the first place and says that the speed with which the man left the country 'heightens his suspicion' [presumably about the man's guilt]; but he releases no new information which would make us believe he ever had a valid reason in the first place.

Dr Haneef presumably left on two counts: one, he no longer has a current visa - and is theoretically not supposed to be in this country, and 2) he [not surprisingly] wishes to see his wife and the new-born child that he has not yet, and has been prevented from seeing.

So the only question that remains, is whether Mr Andrews [the Minister], in sticking to his position and not offering an immediate apology, is a complete idiot, a cretin, or both. The only unsurprising thing is the the Prime Minister, mr Howard, says he stands by his minister.

The AWB Cole inquiry

As I have mentioned in several preceding posts, it is clear that not only did the Australian Wheat Board pay bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime, but that senior figures in the Australian Government knew about this, or at the very least, turned a blind eye, so that they could argue that they didn't 'actually know'.

As the editor of The Age in Melbourne succinctly summarises it (Sat Oct 30):

'The inquiry has also revealed much about the way the Howard Government operates. Despite restrictive terms of reference shielding the Government, Cole has uncovered gross negligence and mismanagement of Australia's national interests at the highest levels. It is staggering that the Government did not act on the warnings it received about Saddam Hussein's corruption of the oil-for-food program and AWB's starring role in it. Instead of properly investigating the matter, it chose to do all it could to launch an extraordinary defence of AWB. '

The official findings of the Cole report will not be released until the end of November, and as the above paragraph alludes, its terms of reference exclude it from investigating whether there was implicit Government involvement (or even a potential cover-up).

However, there can be no doubt in the minds of many Australians that their Government is dishonest, and that at the very least, the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer should resign.

-A