As Tone Abbott goes all out, even for him, in the government’s frenzied bid to create AWB media distractions, it’s been revealed today that, back in March 2000, Australia’s trade commissioner in Washington, Alistair Nicholas, cabled the Austrade managing director to tell him they should consider alerting the trade minister Mark Vaile to problems swirling around AWB’s contracts with Iraq. His cable was forwarded to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Nicholas followed up in a meeting with Trevor Flugge (hasn’t Cole got any contempt charges to deal with this guy?) and two other AWB execs in Washington and told them the UN had concerns about suspected irregularities in the contracts. The ABC reports the Lying Rodent’s response as: “DFAT investigated the matter and AWB categorically denied the allegations”. There now seems little room to doubt that there are only the two possibilities left for the government: either it must own up to extraordinary incompetence or be found complicit in bribing Saddam.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Navigation
Recent comments
- Which party does Morris Iemma think he's leading? 59
grace pettigrew, 2 tanners, Darryl Rosin, Kim, Ben Raue, SJ [...] - Emissions trading and rent seeking: round two 18
Peterc, Adrien, mitchell porter, wilful, David, wilful [...] - Guest post by Ben Eltham: Useless pack of Bankers 4
Grammar Nazi, John Quiggin, Kim, Bingo Bango Boingo - On the futility of arguing about Hayek, or what's in a name? 2
John Quiggin, Katz - Too early to tell 4
Phil, Mark, Bingo Bango Boingo, Mark - Privatising democracy 1
Robert Merkel - Feminism good for families 42
Helen, skepticlawyer, Adrien, Adrien, Kim, skepticlawyer [...] - The big issues 18
Nick, Wayne Thompson, Frank Calabrese, Anna Winter, Russell, Frank Calabrese [...] - Advance Australia Fair? 17
Nick, Ag, Postglobalism, Mark, Kim, Adrien [...] - Forget political narratives, here's a media narrative 43
Alastair, Kim, patrickg, pablo, Adrien, adrian [...] - Water tanks, round 247 51
Brian, joe2, joe2, laura, Mindy, Robert Merkel [...] - Another for the word nerds 17
NicM, Graeme, Adrien, tigtog, laura, Liam [...]
Recent posts
- Guest post by Ben Eltham: Useless pack of Bankers
- Privatising democracy
- On the futility of arguing about Hayek, or what’s in a name?
- Too early to tell
- Which party does Morris Iemma think he’s leading?
- Forget political narratives, here’s a media narrative
- Advance Australia Fair?
- Another for the word nerds
- Senate Economics Committee reports on Medicare Levy Surcharge Bills
- Emissions trading and rent seeking: round two
Howard
Indeed, and made more dangerous by the fact that Saddam had a bit more money from the AWB to splash around the Baathists who have made up the core of the insurgency ever since.
Now if Gareth Evans earned a reputation as Biggles, or for the liberal Tasmanian government at the time a Terrorflieger with his Fokker-F111 over the Franklin, then an even more egregious reputation is surely being made by someone who likely (when Cole makes his report) could be consigned to the FluggenFokkenHaus for the wilfully deaf.
Colour me hopelessly naive, but how Flugge and any others can get away with this without being in contempot of court is just beyond me. It beggars belief: of course he’s lying through his teeth and so is Howard. The only difference is we expect it of Howard!
Not a court Phil so contempt in these circumstances is not appropriate. If it was a court, a defendant for example under cross examination can lie his or her head off and that’s never contempt even if all the other evidence refuted all the lies in the mind of the Judge.
If the Commission witnesses are “sworn” and later found to have lied, I think they could be charged with perjury, but I’m not sure, as it’s not an area I’m familiar with.
In a criminal trial OTOH the defendant does not even have to risk self incrimination by agreeing to give testimony and then be subjected to cross examination.
What’s important is that the Commissioner will weigh up all the evidence, and if he decides Flugge was lying, he will probably say so in his report. The favourite phrase from some Royal Commission, the name of which I’ve forgotten was “…an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Remember the Commissioner can recommend that criminal charges be laid if it is deemed appropriate.
Oh you cynical, cynical lefties… as Dolly points out, that vigorous DFAT enquiries were made, and AWB denied the charges. End of story.
Clearly, the word of the suspect should be good enough for anyone.
Miss DFAT had a Dolly
Who was thick thick thick,
Someone called for Doctor Cole
To come quick, quick, quick;
Doctor Cole came with his bag and his hat,
And he knocked at the door
Of Ratty-tat-tat.
He looked at the Dolly
And he shook his head,
And he said Saddam’s folly,
Always f****d up his head
He wrote out a paper
For the dill, dill, dill,”
You’re a lying motherf****er
For AWB swill swill swill!
Thanks Peter both for the first response (I look forward to the Commissioner’s report, hope springs etc etc) and the wonderful ditty. I have more than a nodding acquaintance with DFAT so I am watching how it comes out of this with considerable interest.
“…an orchestrated litany of liesâ€? comes from the royal commission into an airline crash (in NZ, I think). And didn’t this Cole dude have a whole stack of contempt powers available for his inquisition into the CFMEU?
“Vigorous inquiries” by DFAT = interrogation with a feather.
Why don’t we save a fortune on policing in Australia by adopting DFAT’s investigation methods?
Police: “Excuse me, Mr Milat, did you have something to do with some backpackers bodies we found in Belanglo Forest?”
Milat: “No, wasn’t me”
Police: “Oh OK, sorry for bothering you. Case closed.”
“Remember the Commissioner can recommend that criminal charges be laid if it is deemed appropriate.”
Only against employees of the three named companies or their associates if I remember the TOR correctly.
Ministers walk free.
I notice the new spin line now: Oh but it’s Iraq. Doing business is so tough. The Oil-for-Food program was a scam (duh George). Suddenly we are victims of circumstances and individual responsibility goes out the window.
Well hit me with a feather, if so many other companies managed not to sully their hands or chose to even forgo business to maintain their integrity.
And honestly, how many carcasses on a plate does the Opposition need?
I’m not sure CS, re the CFMEU. In general contempt of court or of a Commission can take many forms. Telling the Commissioner for example to sod off could be one contempt.
A witness in a criminal trial who refuses to answer questions can be cited. The general principle is that one has a fundamental right not to incriminate oneself, similiar to the American 5th amendment.
Royal Commissions are semi judicial in nature and probably similiar to Tribunals for contempt powers—that’s the best analogy I can draw. Again, it’s not an area I am very familiar with.
I was wrong.
[link]
However in the case of self incrimination, such information may not necessarily be admissable in a criminal case, against the self incriminator, following the Royal Commissioner. The oft repeated “I don’t recall” is the obvious way to avoid contempt. Perjury would be more difficult to establish in the absence of direct proof contrary to the “I don’t recall” merchants.
blimp
Thanks Peter. I also vaguely recall the royal commission into exxon blowing up its Victorian plant on the eve of the ‘98 election. One of the exxon execs, as I vaguely recall, did a “I don’t recall” all the way to prison for contempt, which was a lighter deal than the crimes he would have exposed himself to if he had recalled. I guess it’s a commissioner’s judgement call.
Naive questions x 4
a. Was our involvement in Iraq more to do with protecting a major wheat market than fighting terrorism or stopping the spread of very nasty weapons?
b. If the AWB had been an ordinary private corporation and not a “socialist” single-desk operator, would there have never been any rumpus at all?
c. Will the screwing of Australia over the AWB become the last straw that breaks down the long-standing U.S.-Australia alliance?
d. Why do rude people call D.F.A.T. the Fatheads?
a) None of the options
b) Yes.
c) No.
d) Pass.
Have to agree with your alternatives, cs.
Can’t see how those cables don’t sheet home governmental responsibility and incompetence. And how can it be said that the government didn’t “know” of the allegations in the relevant sense for parliamentary responsiblity?
Anyone hear Downer this morning on AM? Should be on the AM site later in the day.
Incredibly, he was arguing that the cables didn’t constitute “evidence” of any lying or other irregularity.
Dandy was admittedly getting a little het up at this time in the interview. But trying to argue that the “cables” did not even constitute “evidence” can only be idiotic, desperate or indicating a total disregard for honest argument.
Here is the money quote off the ABC News website.
“We had no evidence, we had no evidence that they were lying to us and now the Cole commission, that we set up, hopefully will get to the truth.”
Dolly read the reports in question, but still wasnt ‘informed’. Do you have to mime it out for him till he starts clapping?
[link]
DFAT is told Canada couldn’t sell its wheat because it would ‘pay’ the Iraqi trucking firm owned by Saddam’s son.
They ask the AWB. Have you paid these payments?
nooooo.
sounds like Monty Python to me.
I bet the Police would like to say they couldn’t investigate without any evidence!
OMG, a half-decent Beazer quote!
“It is an appalling chapter in the history of this Government,” Mr Beazley said.
“I think it’s so totally appropriate that … this week of the 10th anniversary of the Howard Government, we have this to symbolise their laziness, their sleaziness, their conniving, their total wretchedness…”
Couldnt agree more. The true significance of the Howard era - and probably their only lasting achievement 10 years from now - is the death of political accountability.
And the debasement of public debate.
I half-suspect the next Howardian line of defence to be some version of:
“To be honest Kerry, you and I know, and the Australian people know, that there are politicians on both sides of the fence who are lazy, sleazy, conniving and wretched, and this idea that’s being put about in some circles that my government is somehow any less than any other government in this regard doesn’t take us very far.”
The NZ Royal Commission in question investigated the Erebus Disaster when an Air NZ DC-10 crashed whilst on a sight-seeing flight in the Antarctic.
S’weird how Ed Hillary would have been on the flight except for a conflicting engagement. This echoes any number of similar stories about people who perished. A very good family friend was on that flight because her neighbour gave her a ticket that she couldn’t use because of an unexpected committment. She thought she was lucky at the time.
The Canadians, direct market competitors complained, apparently rightly so.
DFAT asked AWB about the claims and then sent the UN, who was responsible for administering the Oil-for-Food program, the contracts to check.
The UN said there was nothing wrong with the contracts.
So, despite the UN, who was responsible for administering the Oil-for-Food program, saying the contracts were OK, and the AWB saying they were OK, the Australian Government, who was not directly responsible for the Oil-For-Food Program or making the contracts, was supposed to take the word of the direct competitor and threat to Australian Wheat Farmers markets.
Yeah, right.
I believe what AWB did was ethically wrong but that needs to be taken in context of how business was done in the Oil-For-Fraud program and in the Middle East, but I just can’t get hyped about how shocking the Federal Government is - they called the inquiry for Christ sake.
This has about as much traction as Kids overboard and all those other piddling little issues that the Opposition bangs on about that don’t really matter in the big picture.
Really, Razor? Wonder why the Libs are falling behind in the polls again, then?
Mark, you are absolutely right - given one set of polling numbers showing a hypothetical election loss about eighteen months out from an election during a Royal Commission that was never going to paint the Government in a good light the Coalition may as well pack it in, stop attending parliament or running the Government, call the GG and just hand over to Kimbo. Don’t even bother to have an election!! The people have spoken and we know how accurate the polsters are!!!!
Mark, time for you to change hands. Your family name isn’t Latham, is it?
Might come back to bite me on the bum but I can’t see Kimbo winning a contest against either Howard, Costello or Abbott and I am prepared to put money on it.
The UN said there was nothing wrong with the contracts.
I think we need to see the UN replies, before we take Dolly’s word.
Well, there’s only one poll that counts, Razor, as they say, but I doubt Howard is pleased that 2006 has so far been dominated by RU486 and AWB and National Party implosions.
You blokes are priceless! With the opposition and the ABC running a totally anti Coalition line they have managed to swing the public’s opinion towards the view that the “Government knew”. Enjoy it while you can!
My view is that the evidence (as opposed to the inferences) leaves the Coalition squeaky clean - and that in 6 months people will remember some corrupt corporate executives and UN officials.
Let’s see who’s right.
ps Congratulations to John Howard on 10 magnificant years!
So, PeterTB, the government is a bunch of squeaky clean dumbass incompetents, then?
of course they are incompetent that is their proud excuse.
you can’t blame us we are simply incompetent.
We asked the AWB and they said they didn’t pay bribes.
What else could you expect them to do?
Investigate such claims?
Squeaky clean. ehehehee…. that’s gold. I love it.
Back in reality, events are moving quickly: Yesterday, Downer admitted he knew in 2000. He’s a liar, he should resign.
Today, Vaile, who said in parliament last month ‘The allegations raised came to my attention as a result of the Volker inquiry’ now admits that ‘the general issue … was certainly known to the Government at the time because DFAT were dealing with it,”
Where I come from, thats called ‘lying’. He should resign.
I wouldnt expect the moral relativists of the Right to understand this, but it once was the case that the penalty for misleading parliament was resignation from cabinet.
Look, everyone in the country knows intuitively that the Howardians played a treacherous double game, appeasing the US by going to war with Iraq, while appeasing the wheat lobby by turning a blind eye to AWB bankrolling Iraq. The government wouldn’t recognise any principles, bar staying in office and screwing workers, even if they popped out of their wheaties, did handstands and chucked browneyes. It’s the usual Howardian game of catch me if you can, except on this occasion the incompetence alibi is bidding for a place in the guiness world book of records.
Dont worry cs, its now quite clear that at the very least, the overpowering stench of the AWB scandal has spoiled the 10 year party.
Much less media fawning than Id expected. I guess it just seems in poor taste, now that its clear that all the table-thumping ‘moral’ outrage over Saddam was so much empty cant. As if that wasnt already obvious from the victimisation of his enemies seeking refuge.
It’ll just be a quiet affair now, with the coalition standing round over drinkies and a barbie - maybe a few fights between Heff and a pissed Nat - eyeing each other up and thinking “you know, we really do suck. But hey, we’re winning. Cheers.”
Confirmation of the flaming obvious today: The PM himself knew about the Saddam kickback claims, was informed directly, 6 years ago.
He’s a liar, and this time he’s been caught out.
[link]
10 years of porkies, and disturbing moral relativism.
PS Listen to this lamearsed line from his staffers “A spokesman for Mr Howard says a search of office records has not shown that the document was brought to his attention and he has no recollection of it.” BAHAHHA!
A search “has not shown” it was brought to his attention! WTF does that mean? What a complete farce!
I reckon schoolkids should try it out.
Farce? We need better words. Howard completely dominates an executive, served by a partisan public service, and the executive completely dominates both houses of parliament, and has now appointed a majority of conservatives to the high court, all of which is ’scrutinised’ by a partisan (commercial) or intimidated (public) media.
He can lie his head off with impunity, saving some giant lies to either befuddle or frighten 5-10 per cent of voters into giving him a majority every three years or so. There is no balance, there are no checks.
Farce? I can think of a few better words.
True cs.
Its just that some days, the tragic death of political accountability in Australia does return as farce. Who’s writing the stuff? I wanna know, cos its gold!
“A search has not shown that sending us critical national security information will result in anyone reading it”.
Howard flogs all my best lines.
Times are tough for Rattius. He’s actually relying on the ultra- lamearse “you cant prove I read my most important mail” line:
[link]
“There’s been a check made in my office and it doesn’t indicate that cable - and I get hundreds, indeed thousands, of cables a week - was ever brought to my attention and that’s my recollection,” Mr Howard said.
Alright then, John, a “check” by the most hopelessly comopromised bunch of bureacrats that ever lived in Canberra is good enough for me. Oh, and your word on your recolllection, of course. Fair enough. It only remains to issue the following public announcenment:
“Attention, fellow Australians - there’s a huge, dangerous vacuum in Canberra where the state used to be. Critical national security info is not, I repeat, not passed on to elected representatives and responsible authrotiies. The social contract is hereby terminated. Revert to a state of nature; find solace in voluntary associations. God bless, and good luck”.
In related news, Turnbull tonight tried that oldie-but-goodie:
“What concerns me as an Australian, and as an Australian that cares about our farmers and a wheat industry, is the damage that this pathetic political game is doing to the wheat industry,”.
That’s right Malcolm, it wasn’t mismanagement and dishonesty that has damaged the Australian wheat industry, it was the guys who tried to tell people that there is mismanagement and dishonesty.
Oh, and is anyone else thinking tha Labor is laming up the whole attack on this. Why did they waste the week clapping on about Vaile’s trip to Iraq when they could have framed all of this as an example of poor intelligence?
Did they think they needed a new spin on this to keep it in the news cycle. The dumb thing is, I think the thing keeping all of this in the news cycle the most is The Oz’s (I hate to say it) excellent coverage.