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

It is interesting to follow the member for Denison, the Minister for Health and Ageing and the member for Griffith. The member for Denison made the comment that this is an important issue. That is agreed. It is agreed that it is important we do not sweep this under the carpet. It would be an appropriate comment that nothing was being done if the government had not set up the Cole commission, with very significant powers being given to the commission. A large number of companies around the world were named in the Volcker inquiry—some 2,000 companies from 66 countries—and only two countries have set up inquiries. Australia is the only country that has set up an open inquiry. All the huff and puff and bluster that goes on about this inquiry and what the government may or may not be doing is pure rhetoric. If there was basis or substance in what Labor are saying, then you could listen to them, but what they are trying to achieve is very much a hollow argument.

The AWB issue has become for the Labor Party a magnificent obsession. We have had question after question in this House on it and, of course, we now know that some of the heavies in the Labor Party are saying, ‘Enough of the AWB, it’s not cutting through; change your focus.’ Today and yesterday we had nominal questions on IR reform and then we were back to the AWB. For example, ‘The Labor Party has let you down,’ said Barrie Cassidy on the Insiders program, and Greg Combet said:

I haven’t been very impressed with what’s been going on, I have to admit. And what I want to see in coming weeks and months all the way up to the election is everyone in the federal parliamentary Labor Party concentrating on the key priority—the interests of working people and working families in this country.

He said that Labor have been so beguiled by going down the legal route with regard to the AWB inquiry that they have lost their focus of looking after the average working man and woman in Australia. One of the reasons that we on this side of the House—the coalition—are in government is that we have looked after their interests. Labor more and more look after the chattering classes, but it is this government that is looking after the real interests of average working men and women.

In my electorate I have had one email—no letters, no phone calls—about the AWB inquiry. Why is that? Is it because they think it is not important? They are not ringing because they know there is an inquiry going on. They know that these issues are being brought forward; they know the issues are being addressed. If there were no inquiry, I am sure we would be hearing quite a lot about it. But in fact it is a very open inquiry and almost every day there is some new piece of evidence that the media manages to find that the member for Griffith and those opposite get very excited about.

We have this open inquiry. While talking to some Labor Party people in my area, they said, ‘They are wasting their time on the AWB because the inquiry is going on; it is not cutting through.’ That is why the Leader of the Opposition has to have Karim ring him up and ask these bogus questions. He knows that nobody out there is really interested in the claims that he is making. Labor’s claims are quite clear: the terms of reference of the inquiry should be widened so that any minister can be questioned about their role or their failure to take action on the allegations that have been brought up in the Volcker inquiry and the oil for food program.

Certainly it is appropriate that we look at the terms of reference, but let us particularly look at the statement made by the commissioner on 3 February. He had heard the criticisms that the terms of reference were very narrowly defined and that they restricted what the inquiry could look at and what it could not look at. It is very clear if you look at point 7 of his statement. He said:

7. It necessarily follows that the knowledge of the Commonwealth of any relevant facts is a matter to be addressed by this Inquiry, and is within the existing terms of reference in the Letters Patent.

So on a generic basis the Commonwealth is totally included in the areas of inquiry that the commissioner is looking at. That was in paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 says:

8. That means that this Inquiry will address and make findings regarding, at least, the following:

a.

the role of DFAT in the process of obtaining United Nations’ approval of AWB wheat contracts within the United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme;

b.

the knowledge of DFAT in relation to such contracts;

c.

what AWB told the Commonwealth—

and that means Commonwealth ministers—

and in particular DFAT, relating to the Iraqi wheat contracts; and

d.     whether the Commonwealth—

which means Commonwealth ministers and DFAT—

was informed of any knowledge AWB may be found to have had, regarding payments made by AWB to Alia.

Then, most significantly, because this goes to the core of what is being addressed here today in this MPI, it says in paragraph 14:

14. Accordingly, if, during the course of my inquiry, it appears to me that there might have been a breach of any Commonwealth, State or Territory law by the Commonwealth or any officer of the Commonwealth—

which clearly means any minister who sits in this front row or in the Senate—

related to the subject matter of the terms of reference, I will approach the Attorney-General seeking a widening of the terms of reference to permit me to make such a finding.

I do not know why this creates such a storm among the members opposite. I know that basically they are trying to find air time to talk about what has been found and the various issues that have been raised within the open inquiry set up by the government for all to come along to and clearly for the media to listen to. That is open. It can be changed. Any minister’s behaviour can be investigated by the Cole inquiry. That is set out in paragraph 14 of his statement, released in February. Nothing could be clearer. However, he says:

15. That position has not been reached.

It is not as if he is saying: ‘We haven’t reached it and we’re not going to. I didn’t see anything.’ He said:

The position may change as inquiries continue and evidence is called. There is thus no basis upon which, at this time, it would be appropriate for me to suggest to the Attorney-General that the terms of reference be widened to enable me to make findings regarding whether the Commonwealth, or its officers, might have breached Commonwealth, State or Territory law.

So the power is there to change the guidelines. They say they have not reached that position yet, but the position may change. If they do, they will approach the Attorney-General.

They already approached the Attorney-General earlier this year to change the terms of the inquiry, and the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, broadened the inquiry. He said, ‘The terms of reference variations make it very clear that he’—that is, Commissioner Cole—‘can inquire into internal investigations of the company concerning activities not specifically related to the Volcker report.’ That was in the press release of 17 March 2006, when Commissioner Cole came to the government, asked for a widening of the inquiry and clearly got it. Nothing would make all the alarm bells ring.

If the commissioner clearly found evidence—and it is available to everybody, every day, to trawl through the Cole inquiry’s evidence as it is being given, as I have noticed the member for Griffith has done in his bid for the leadership, and certainly there is a need for some leader over there—he could come forward with the evidence and say, ‘It is now time that the guidelines were widened.’ This is not the case. It is simply a blow-up to bring out the facts that they feel are important rather than being based on the legal requirement. The position can be changed. The guidelines can be changed. That position has not been reached but, if it is needed, the commissioner has made it very clear that this can happen.

We all regard this inquiry as important. That is why the government established it, that is why it is an open inquiry and that is why the commissioner has said that he is prepared to change the guidelines as required. What we have opposite is none other than a leadership stunt by the member for Griffith. (Time expired)

See this speech in context