Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a tendency to see the activities of AWB in isolation. They were revealed as part of the Volcker inquiry. The inquiry was chaired by the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker. It sat from April 2004 to October 2005. When he reported he found—and the findings were shocking—that more than 2,000 companies had been involved in illicit payments. He found that 2,220 companies involved worldwide had paid kickbacks to Iraq in the form of inland transportation fees, after sales service fees or both. When the Volcker inquiry looked at the major food companies involved, to give you an idea of some of the other food companies that were involved, the five largest ones were the AWB, the Chayaporn Rice Co. Ltd. of Thailand; the Holding Co. for Food Industries of Egypt; the Vietnam Northern Food Corporation; and the Vietnam Dairy Products Joint Stock Co.

The Volcker inquiry made findings in relation to the escrow bank, the Banque Nationale de Paris. It made findings that there had been a lack of oversight from the United Nations secretariat, from member states of the United Nations Security Council and from United Nations contractors as well. He found that companies, other individuals and entities which paid the illicit kickbacks came from some 66 member states. So, while the Volcker inquiry did show a complete lack of oversight from a whole range of institutions, the Australian government has made the proper response by establishing the Cole inquiry.

The Cole inquiry is being presided over by Terrence Cole QC, an eminent lawyer—Justice Cole—and the inquiry is established under the Royal Commissions Act. The inquiry is able to determine whether any of the companies that were mentioned in the final Volcker report breached any federal, state or territory law. In the debate today we have heard all sorts of over-the-top claims. I lost count at over a dozen different claims of malfeasance and so on. The Cole inquiry is well placed to examine and determine what actually happened. Justice Cole has already asked for an extension of the terms of reference. He has said that he is quite prepared to ask for any further terms of reference if they are required. He is able to make findings of fact in terms of what DFAT knew. Ministers have said that they are prepared to go in front of the Cole inquiry. It is important that we do not prejudge the findings of the Cole inquiry. They will be available in late March. That is less than two months time.

Part of the problem here is that there is no real coherent Labor Party policy on Iraq. I have seen the Labor Party go through various contortions on Iraq. The oil for food program ran from 1996 to 2003 and the period in which kickbacks were paid ran from 1999 to 2003. What ended these kickbacks was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. When people look back on this period in the future they will remember that in March 2003 Saddam Hussein was removed from power. They will remember that later in 2003 he was actually captured by coalition forces in Iraq. During this period it was the Australian Labor Party that was opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from power. The Labor Party has previously championed the old ‘troops home by Christmas’, but that did not work so well. It has had various contortions. The member for Griffith—I have to hand it to him—can talk and talk and talk, but it is really hard to find any sort of coherent thread in the Labor Party’s policy on Iraq.

The specific claims that have been made in relation to the Wheat Export Authority are not new. They relate to the Chairman of the Wheat Export Authority, Mr Tim Besley, who appeared before a Senate estimates committee on 1 November 2005. At that time he said that they had done a check of the details of the contracts for the sale of wheat to Iraq and nothing untoward had emerged from that check. Yesterday he wrote to the Chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee to clarify part of that testimony. But the important thing here again is that all of the papers and all of the correspondence relating to the Wheat Export Authority have been provided to the Cole commission. Again, the Cole commission is well placed to make any findings. This is old news and the papers have gone to Cole.

There have been a lot of claims made in the last couple of weeks by the Leader of the Opposition, by the member for Griffith and, more recently, by the member for Corio about the AWB, about oil for food and about matters which have been correctly investigated by the Cole inquiry. But there has been nothing in the way of evidence to support these over-the-top claims. There now seems to be a second charge, which is to say: ‘You should have looked at this. You should’ve investigated this further.’

Having been in parliament now for almost 10 years I have seen that, when looking for an explanation as to why it has not been able to win elections during this period, the Labor Party’s preference has always been to go for the cover-up over more substantial deficiencies. We have heard a few of them. There is the old favourite: ‘children overboard’. That is why it lost the 2001 election. ‘Never, ever’—that is probably why it lost the 1998 election. We heard in the previous speech that this matter should have been revealed during the 2004 election. What this really demonstrates is that there is a serious disconnect between the issues that the Labor Party is interested in and the sorts of issues that mums and dads out in the electorate are actually interested in. The Labor Party seems to be this generation who were brought up on Watergate: the only way to bring down a government is that there must have been a cover-up; there is no other possible explanation. It loves a cover-up. I think the member for Hotham is one of the finest exponents of the ‘Who said what when and when did they say it, and you said this on this date but what about this?’ and so on. In the end, I find in my own electorate that I do not get a lot of mail on an issue like this.

We have, appropriately, established the Cole inquiry. We should not prejudge the Cole inquiry. The Cole inquiry is more than capable of getting to the bottom of what the AWB knew and what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade knew. As I said, ministers have said that they are happy to appear before the Cole inquiry. That should be adequate.

This government has managed the economy well. It has managed national security well. The Labor Party, on Iraq, has not covered itself with glory at all. The Labor Party opposed removing Saddam Hussein from power. The thing that stopped these kickbacks and breaches of the oil for food program was the removal of Saddam Hussein. That was something that this government supported; it was something that the Australian Labor Party opposed. (Time expired)

See this speech in context