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

I rise today to participate in this MPI debate on the oil for food program, which is becoming increasingly like Days of our Lives. It is constantly going into repeats, with the same old facts rehashed and the same old figures and the same old personalities coming out. What is missing in this whole exercise is the smoking gun. The opposition smear, make allegations and try to reduce the reputation of ministers in this House over this issue. The Leader of the Opposition has boldly said that the case has been proved, but on this side of the House we are still waiting because clearly the case has not been proved at all. The opposition would like to see clear evidence which shows that the ministers knew all about these allegations and did nothing or, alternatively, that they knew all about them and decided for various reasons not to become involved.

The fact is that, despite all of the allegations by the opposition, despite all of their efforts—there has been a failed censure motion, this is the second MPI that I have participated in and they have concentrated on this issue in every question time in the House over the past four weeks—and despite all their huff and puff and bravado, not one scintilla of evidence has shown that the hands of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade or any of the people mentioned as being involved in this series of allegations are culpable in this exercise.

All members on this side of the House would agree that this was a scandal. It was highly inappropriate that it took place. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, the opposition make these claims. But during all those question times in the House and with all the evidence that they had, the opposition did not raise one question about this matter in the House, in committee meetings of any kind or in estimates debates. So sure are they in running a continuous program on this issue—Days of our Lives—for all to see and repeating the allegations that the allegations will find traction. The fact is that those allegations have not been proven. It has not been found that the ministers or the Prime Minister were involved in this case, and that is where the opposition founder on this whole exercise.

What was the appropriate action for the government to take in this matter? Was it simply to say: ‘Let’s just appoint one of our mates. He’ll do a quick fix, declare there was nothing wrong here and it will all be over and done with. Will we refer it to the Australian Crime Commission to see whether there is a case to answer, and then we can get on with the task? Will we refer it to a parliamentary committee, have a quick review or what?’ The government appointed a full inquiry into this issue. The Cole inquiry has full and absolute powers. It has the powers of a royal commission. No other form of inquiry has this high level of skill to investigate whatever it needs to and to talk to any person about any matter at any time.

The opposition say that the government are just trying to shirk their responsibility and are trying to brush the whole thing aside, but the reverse is the case. The reverse is that you have a high-profile, high-scale inquiry, where every document requested by Mr Cole has been provided and where every witness who has been asked to appear before Mr Cole has also been provided. Just last week it was reported in the news:

Commissioner Terence Cole has invited any MP, journalist or public servant to assist inquiries into “the actual or constructive knowledge of the Commonwealth”.

In other words, that ministers and their staff, senior public servants, including those in the Prime Minister’s office, knew what was going on with respect to all these allegations. Mr Cole has invited all these people with their conspiracy theories—and the opposition is included in this—to come forward. Every piece of evidence that they can provide has been requested by Commissioner Cole: ‘Come forward; show us what you have.’ The reality is, as we all know, that they will not be able to provide that. We have talked about the cables that came to the department. There is no doubt that these cables are important. But it also has to be placed in the context of when they were sent and how they were sent. It is not like a normal diplomatic exchange on Australia’s reputation et cetera. We were in a very competitive international market situation.

Who brought these allegations forward first of all? It was the Canadian and American wheat growers who, of course, for some time had wanted to knock off the Australian wheat supplies. It is a competitive, tough international marketplace and they will use any means that they can. They hear the rumour—in they go. It is in that context that these cables came into the various offices saying that these allegations had been made. Of course people would say, ‘This is only our competitors having a stir,’ and so it is brought forward. The opposition would say this is an issue about which we could all be sure that everyone knew and accepted as fact. But the fact is it was a market situation and one of our competitors was making an allegation and nothing more than that.

Commissioner Cole has the power and the level of knowledge within every area of government to investigate all of it. Any correspondence, letters, emails and phone calls that came through to the government are there. He has the power to look into it. Of course, some of the revelations that have come forward have been disturbing. But the government is trying in a totally honest and open way by saying: ‘Let’s put it all out on the table and what falls falls. Let’s see who was involved. Let’s see which officers may have been involved in this case and did nothing. Let’s look at the actions of the AWB and which executives of that organisation were involved. Why was this not picked up before?’ Of course, we have to ask the question at the same time: why did the UN inquiry not pick it up?

Remember that it was not as though there was no inquiry and suddenly the matter came to light. The United Nations, which is the peak world body, set up a committee whose sole purpose at that time was to look at this oil for food program. They had the allegations from the Canadians; they had the allegations from the Americans. It was their task. They were trusted with the full investigation of this inquiry.

Did the Australians simply come in and say that this was total nonsense and that they would not participate in this program? Not at all. It was a full inquiry and it concluded—in retrospect, it was not an appropriate conclusion—that the allegations were unfounded. All the huff and puff from the opposition would seem to ignore the fact that it was a UN inquiry—it was not a coalition party inquiry—that said the allegations were unfounded. So you could hardly blame the ministers involved if they were told, ‘The UN inquiry found that there was no basis to these allegations,’ and they then did not turn everything upside down and ask, ‘What is the real situation?’ because the inquiry had happened and those were its findings.

As we moved on to the Volcker inquiry, set up by the UN to look at the matter in more detail, this government then cooperated to the fullest extent with Volcker. There was no hiding of documents; there were no quiet words in his ear about any of it. Everything was provided. The government took a totally open approach to the Volcker inquiry, where everything became public. The role of Alia in transporting the AWB wheat was known. Once that came to light, the Prime Minister decided on a full-blown inquiry with royal commission powers to investigate this matter.

The opposition want to make quick conclusions and make allegations. I notice the member for Wills is in the chamber, and he has been making allegations about the member for Gwydir—that he was selling his shares and so on. I have discussed this with the member for Gwydir. That allegation was absolutely totally outrageous and well you know it. There is not a more honest man in this House than John Anderson, the member for Gwydir. To go around and simply slur people’s—

See this speech in context