">My Big World Of Crap

The evidence being presented at the Cole inquiry into the AWB’s payments to the old Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq gets messier and messier by the day. AWB chief executive, Andrew Lindberg, has been obfuscating in the evidence he has had dragged out of him by the inquiry’s questioning.

In summary, a United Nations inquiry into the oil-for-food program found that the AWB (formerly the government owned Australian Wheat Board) had paid $300m in illicit payments to the Iraq government at the time. While there was no direct evidence AWB had knowingly given kickbacks, it found the company’s staff should have realised where the money was going.

Evidence presented at the inquiry so far suggests this was indeed the case, with various emails between employees, eg one that said ‘a very large suitcase’ might be needed. Mr Lindberg seems to have developed the same ailment that afflicted Lachlan Murdoch recently (in the Onetel hearing, he seemed unable to remember anything) and Alan Bond some years ago (at his trial, he seemed to have just about forgotten everything including his own name), and repeatedly answered “I don’t know” and “I don’t recall”. When shown documents that were prepared for him by members of his staff, he said he had not seen them, did not understand them, or could not recall having read them. (Wish I could pull in $800k a year without having to know what was going on in my business). He also claimed to know little about AWB’s dealings with Iraq, despite having visited there just before the 2003 war to negotiate new contracts.

From what I’ve read about the evidence at the inquiry, AWB was in the corrupt dealings up to its ears. I believe that at the end of the inquiry, Lindberg and a few of his executives are going to get the bullet, quite likely the AWB board as well. The question is how much further culpability and responsibility will go?

There seems to be evidence that the AWB met with and/or briefed Foreign Affairs minister Alexander Downer and PM Howard. Its hard to believe that these meetings and briefings did not at least touch on what the AWB was doing - of course, there’ll be no real evidence that the inquiry will be able to lay its hands on, so it’ll be deniable by the government. There is evidence that AWB consulted with DFAT over the deals. Labor Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, claims that both Downer and Howard knew about the matter, having both received warnings from the UN in 2000. It appears they chose to ignore it, or at least do nothing about it. It beggars belief that not one of them, or an advisor, wouldn’t have wanted to be all over this in detail.

My speculation is this. AWB was desperate to gain and retain access to the Iraq market - the sales made under the oil-for-food program were worth about $3b. Iraqi officials demanded back door payments. AWB officials at the coalface decided that it was in their commercial interests to agree to these. Executives didn’t want to know too much - just get the deal done, and make our numbers. Information provided to the board was deliberately vague, and provided them with a degree of comfort. Same with information provided to ministers and their departments. All of course was done in verbal briefings. Everyone concerned decided to turn a blind eye to it, hoping it would go away, and that if it didn’t they could deny their knowledge or involvement, and they could blame it on someone else (Ministers — Department — AWB — individuals responsible for deal … who no doubt will have since left the company and be unable to recall specifics, and possibly out of reach of any disciplinary action or civil or criminal sanctions).