War on Terrorism mockery

Australian monopoly wheat exporter, AWB, has been shown by the Cole Inquiry to have seriously abused its privileged position.
This former government instrumentality, now a listed company, systematically abused the UN’s oil for food Programme and fed nearly $300 million to Saddam’s regime in kickbacks.
To do this AWB had, at the very least, the tacit support of senior politicians and public servants in Australia and abroad. It should be remembered that AWB was feeding funds to Iraq as the USA and it’s partner Australia were planning to war against Saddam.
The whole affair makes a mockery of government and corporate integrity. But worse, it makes a mockery of the ‘war on terrorism’, which is chocking our societies.
Now, the junior partner in the Australian government, the National Party which seeks to represent the rural sector, has a plan for AWB. Not only do they want to retain the monopoly export market for Australian wheat, they want AWB to retain their control of the market.
In an incredulous effort to make their plan palatable the Nationals propose the appointment of a “senior bureaucrat or government MP to be appointed to the board of AWB if the wheat exporter is allowed to keep its monopoly.”
With National’s leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, already under a cloud for his role in the AWB fiasco their sought after "moral conscience" on the board of AWB seems a joke.
From the Prime Minister down through the ranks of MPs and of relevant senior bureaucrats this affair has given little confidence in the ability to manage the ethical affairs of any institution.
Even if there was a trustworthy and acceptable "moral conscience" among the National’s target group, AWB is a private listed company. How do they propose a/ inserting this special director? and b/ what kind of clout do they expect this superman/woman to carry on a commercial board?
The whole proposal is a desperate nonsense. If the monopoly export desk is to be retained it must be managed through an independent government authority charged specifically with an ethics watchdog role. Even that will hardly ensure a satisfactory performance, but it at least takes the greed motive out of the equation for the appointed board.