When you say the report “clears the Howard Government”, you’re kind of falling for a bit of spin. If you take a look at the terms of reference of the inquiry (which is the document that establishes the inquiry and specifies what enquiries it is empowered to make – see the Inquiry website), you’ll notice that they did not authorize Cole to inquire into the actions of the government: the only targets were AWB and a couple of other companies.

The report, does not, in fact, “clear” the government at all. What it says is that the inquiry found no evidence that the Government knew about what was going on.

Of course it didn’t! That’s because it did not inquire into the government’s actions, and that’s because it wasn’t authorised to do so.

The inquiry was set up from the very start with two purposes: to respond to public demands by offering up some convenient scalps, and to insulate the government from any fall-out.

(You should also be aware that Terence Cole has been known for many years as a person with close links to the current government, so he was never likely to rock the boat by asking awkward questions or publicly demanding that the terms of reference be amended).

It became abundantly clear during the course of the inquiry that, at the very least, the government willfully ignored some very obvious clues about what was going on. But it’s far more likely that they had a pretty good idea all along. Given that you’re prepared to condemn the UN for that level of culpability, consistency, if nothing else, demands a more skeptical view of the Howard Government.