Perception of corruption

The long running wheat cheat scandal in Australia is slowly taking its toll, according to opinion polls. Initially, the kickbacks by monopoly wheat exporter, AWB, were largely seen as just the price of doing business.
Given that corruption is largely a matter of the way actions are perceived, it was increasingly probable that despite laws being in place to curb international corruption, these acts were seen as acceptable.
Even the fact that the company, and it now seems with tacit government approval, paid over $300 million into Saddam’s war preparation, it was still seen as just doing business. That was a war in which young Australians were sent to fight.
However, polling over the past few months shows a growing realisation that the actions of the wheat exporter and the government are in fact questionable.

Australians where asked, over a three month period; In your opinion, did AWB Ltd. (formerly the Australian Wheat Board) act ethically in their negotiations to sell wheat to the Iraqi government, or not?
Bearing in mind the enormous media coverage of information coming out of the country’s judicial commission (the Cole Inquiry) into the scandal, the changes are still incremental and appear to give the company a surprising ‘benefit of doubt’.
The second question was framed as: Recently there has been discussion about whether or how much the federal government knew of AWB Ltd. paying bribes to the Iraqi government in their negotiations to sell wheat. From what you know or have heard, do you think the federal government acted ethically on this issue, or not?
There are several factors to be considered when looking at these figures.
First of all, there have been no actually charges filed against anyone involved in this scandal. That will not happen until after the Cole Inquiry delivers its final report.
Second; the inquiry is limited in its scope to investigating Australian companies involved in the scandal, and not the government. Although government ministers and the Prime Minister have given evidence, they were not treated with the same rigour as the company officials.
That the figures are beginning to reflect a discontent with the whole affair, they still reflect an uneasy level of acceptance of unethical behaviour.
Still, we can fairly predict now that the next survey will reflect a quite a different sentiment, and for an only vaguely connected set of events.
The bungling, by military and government officials, of Australia’s first casualty of the Iraq adventure will somehow become overlayed with the oil for food scandal.
In the messy way communities tend to think and react, those responsible for the wheat cheat scandal might yet face the music, because off collateral damage rather tan the central act.