Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The reason we have to have a censure motion on this today is that there is much new information tabled here. The Prime Minister had to say today that the opposition had introduced no facts in this place. In question time after question time, we have introduced documents. We have used documents which have become public. We have used reports from witnesses at the various points of time when warning signals were sent to this government about what was going on with the oil for food program. We have used occasional testimony from individuals who have been involved. We have used materials from the Cole royal commission which, while focused on AWB, have nevertheless had ramifications for this government.

There is only one place in Australia where this government is being held accountable, which is why we have to have this censure motion. There is only one place in Australia, and that is here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Yet, apart from day one, not one censure motion has been permitted. You have the Prime Minister there, with one of those leering grins on his face, telling us all how much he enjoys being questioned on this matter. He enjoys it not one whit because he is totally culpable in this and he knows it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs here at the table is totally culpable as well, and we will get on to the minister here and why the censure motion should be moved in a minute.

The simple fact of the matter is that every element of the case against this government has been proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable person out there. The public of Australia does not believe you, Minister. The public of Australia has made a very clear-cut statement about whether they thought this government knew everything. The public of Australia has wisely and overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that it did know, and it was reasonable for them to do so.

There is another reason this censure motion ought to be moved today, and that is this admission for the first time today by the foreign minister that he was aware of the content of these cables back in the year 2000, early when these cables were produced. I would suggest to people that they take advantage of what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said when he said we should read the whole cable. They ought to read the whole cable. For that to arrive on the desk of a foreign minister in most places, if a foreign minister was not shiftless, lazy and turning a blind eye, would have set alarm bells ringing that would not have been satisfied with a couple of phone calls between the members of his office or the members of his department and the AWB. This is not a minor thing.

You have to remember what the corruption of the oil for food program meant at the time, why there was such a tight, tough administration of it and why it was supported so very reluctantly by the United States and the United Kingdom. They and many other countries around the place were trying to disarm Saddam Hussein of what they believed at the time was his development of weapons of mass destruction. They were trying to prevent Saddam Hussein developing a military capability whereby he could threaten his neighbours. They were frightened that, if Saddam Hussein was able to trade unfettered in the area of oil, he would use the resources that were obtained by him to rebuild his military, massively oppress his people and use weapons of mass destruction on his own population or on his neighbours.

We all know now that there were many false assumptions about that. But there were not any false assumptions that he was supporting terrorists in Israel and in the areas controlled by the Palestinians. We know that for a fact. We know at least he had a research program associated with weapons of mass destruction, though not deployable weapons, which was what he was accused of at the time. He certainly had a research program and we know he was rebuilding his military and rebuilding his air defences and testing those air defences on the US and UK planes that were flying over the no-fly zones at the time. There was all of that—which is why this was the ultimate, sensitive program. This was not some piece of detritus out there that would occasionally attract the attention of a foreign minister. This was front and centre involved in our relationship with the United States, in our relationship with the United Nations and in our supervision of effective international governance of a person with whom we had previously been to war on behalf of Kuwait and on behalf of the United Nations. This is not a matter of small moment.

Today the foreign minister told us this: ‘I saw the cable which suggested that another outfit performing exactly the same sorts of tasks and seeking the same opportunities as the Australian Wheat Board had been informed of the price of what it was that they had to do. The price of what it was that they had to do was to provide a de facto subsidy that could be realised in US dollars to Saddam Hussein—to an account in Jordan owned by one of the sons of Saddam Hussein. Amurderous pair those late sons of Saddam Hussein—a murderous and wretched pair if ever there were one, and known to be wretched at the time.

What the Australian government did when they received this cable was go into closeting mode as quickly as possible—covering and closeting, covering up. They went straight into cover-up mode: ‘Let us ask a few questions of AWB. Are you chaps doing anything untoward? You chaps had better start supplying a copy of this contract in a way that will convince the United Nations that there’s nothing untoward here, because you chaps are in a spot of trouble.’ This was not an investigation; it was a tip-off. What you ran was not an investigation, Minister; you ran a tip-off on the AWB. That is what you did—you told them to regularise their affairs so they could get it through the United Nations. That is what you told them to do, and that is what these cables very, very clearly show. You had the warning; you then provided not an investigation but a tip-off.

It is an appalling chapter in the history of this government. I think it is so totally appropriate that, in this week of the 10th anniversary of the Howard government, we have this to symbolise their laziness, their sleaziness, their conniving, their total wretchedness which has represented this government and is why they ought to be censured. (Time expired)

See this speech in context