The activities of the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) were in the news almost every day during the first part of 2006. The scandal relates to the period after 1996 when the United Nations set up the oil-for-food program. Since the program was introduced, the AWB continued to sell wheat to Iraq. In early 2006 AWB was accused of paying kickbacks totalling $280 million to Saddam Hussein's regime using a Jordanian trucking company, Alia to disguise the payments. This would be violation of oil-for-food program. Cole inquiry was set up to establish the truth of this claim. While the details are complicated and there is controversy about who knew what when, for the purposes of this assignment accept that it is true that the AWB did pay the kickbacks, that AWB senior management knew that this was what happened and in paying the kickbacks they violated the law. Also for the purpose of this assignment, focus only on the actions of AWB and ignore the role that government ministers may have played in the scandal.

You are at a dinner party and you overhear the following the comment about the scandal:

James: I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Everyone knows in the part of the world kickbacks are just part of everyday business. Think of it this way: The Iraqi people received the wheat they desperately needed, The AWB got a good price for the wheat even though they had to pay for the kickback and the farmers who produced the wheat received a good price for it. Where is the problem?

TASK:

1. Critically discuss the major ethical issues raised by the AWB scandal. You are required to make references to the unit materials and need to do scholar research to support your discussion.

2. How would you response James if you were a Utilitarian?

3. How would you response James if you were Kantian?

4. Sarah is there and joins the discussion saying "I cannot believe you said that!!!". She clearly disagrees with James. Construct the strongest possible argument to demonstrate this view is untenable.