Bruce Baird (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

You may comment all you want to, but that is the harsh reality. That is Saddam Hussein’s track record—one million people killed in the war with Iran, the constant threat of missiles going into Israel and at least 300,000 people losing their lives in Iraq alone as a result of that dictatorship. I have been to Iraq recently and seen the very large Ba’ath headquarters and how that place was administered, with Saddam Hussein and his very large palaces, while the rest of the population in many cases lived in semi-poverty. You would have allowed this to continue.

Now you come in and talk about this program. Those on this side of the chamber did not know about it. Clearly, in terms of the Cole inquiry, evidence of concern is coming through. However, it is self-evident that this government established the inquiry to come to the truth in this matter, to discover the facts, to look at the evidence provided and to find out what went wrong—who was responsible; how far did it go; were people in government involved as well; which officers within AWB were involved; and why weren’t there checks carried out?

But the opposition are not concerned about those things. They do not want to wait for the outcome of the inquiry with its recommendations of how things should be changed and its findings of who was responsible and whether charges should be laid. All we have in this House is an attempt to find a linkage with the government—and clearly that has not been demonstrated. They have had all the time of a censure motion to establish such a linkage and have failed to produce what they consider to be the key aspect.

The cooperation that has been provided to the inquiry to allow it to come to its own conclusion has been first rate. The Prime Minister, as recently as this morning, said:

Now, as to the conduct of the AWB people, findings in relation to the AWB, that is a matter for the commission of inquiry. AWB is entitled to its full day in court and we should not try and preempt what the commission will find.

So far as the government is concerned, it remains the case that we will continue to cooperate fully with the inquiry. Information sought will be provided. If I were asked to attend or any my ministerial colleagues, we would do so. Any officials of the government who are asked to attend will do so and my only request of everybody is that they tell the truth.

This was from the Prime Minister this morning. Clearly he was saying that, no matter the request and no matter who in government the request is made of, we are prepared to submit to the questioning. We are happy to provide whatever letters have been involved, any requests through DFAT for information they might have or any other government department and any letters in the offices of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. He was saying clearly that these things are available to everybody.

The government have set up a full-ranging inquiry by an independent commissioner. We supported the Volcker inquiry, and now we are supporting the Cole inquiry. The opposition want to pre-empt this inquiry and simply come out with their quite spurious allegations of how the money was used and what it was used for. It is unfortunate that this led to the current situation. It is a serious matter, and the government take it seriously; that is why the inquiry was held. It was not as though we attempted simply to sweep matters under the carpet and deny that any inappropriate behaviour happened. You do that if you do not call an inquiry. This government called the inquiry and allowed officers to fully participate in the program. The government have indicated that all members of the government and members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are able to be called to that inquiry. We have also indicated our willingness to widen the inquiry, wherever it may lead.

We seem to overlook the fact that the responsibility for the oil for food program comes under section 661 of the UN sanctions committee. It was their responsibility to look at the way the oil for food program was administered and to look for inadequacies, loopholes and corruption. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons the committee was set up—and we have the whole track record. For a long period of time it has been this government that has denounced the corruption that exists in Iraq. It was one of the reasons that this side of the House supported the coalition of the willing, whereas the other side of the House did not feel the need to remove Saddam Hussein and his corruption.

As I have said, one of the reasons this UN inquiry committee was set up was to administer the program and to look at possible areas of corruption and decide whether countries should be contacted to find out whether there were irregularities in the way the program was being administered. What happened? The UN raised one issue but never seemed to pursue it further and never seemed to raise it officially with the government, and it simply slid by. So the body responsible for allowing this program to continue as it did was simply the UN. The opposition say that it is all our responsibility, that they would have done it differently and that we should have known what was happening—but how? When did you ask the questions? Tell us where those questions were asked. Which committee were they raised in—which Senate inquiry? Where were the questions to the ministers? Where were the questions to the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for the AWB? You were involved in contact with the UN—every year, people from your side of the House have discussions with the UN or are assigned to the Australian embassy there. Why wasn’t this raised if it was so obvious to you that this should have been administered in a different way? The answer, of course, is that you had no idea it was going on.

See this speech in context