Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was not aware that the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was being tabled precisely at this time, but let me say that the report on the International Fund for Agricultural Development Amendment Bill, which was considered by the relevant subcommittee, was not a unanimous report. In fact, there is some substantial dissent in which I and a number of my colleagues have joined, and that dissent really goes to the nub of this legislation that the House will be asked to consider: has the way in which this organisation has been conducted been effectively reformed in such a way as to justify this new decision by the government to rejoin the body and to make substantial financial contributions to it?

It became clear that some issues had at least been raised, but it seems quite clear to me on the evidence that came before the committee that those issues have not been fully and adequately addressed. For that reason the dissent makes it clear that members of the opposition are not prepared to support legislation that will enable Australia to rejoin IFAD at this time and to commence making significant financial contributions to it. Our view might have been different if the reform process had been completed adequately, but when you find that the international diplomats that are party to a body of this type are ensuring that they and their circumstances are well looked after and that they are able to live in substantial premises in Europe on a very significantly subsidised basis, you do ask where our moneys might be going, particularly when they are our aid moneys that we see as being so very important.

There has been some attempt, but I think it has been marginal at best, to also commit some of the IFAD budget to programs within South-East Asia and the Pacific region, which we regard as being important. There have been some attempts to look at where they might be able to work in the Pacific but I do not think they are what I would regard as substantial commitments at this time and certainly they are not sufficiently substantial to warrant the size of the contribution that we are being asked to make. Those who are interested in the matter might find my remarks more fully spelt out in my more considered comments in the dissenting report, but I thought it was important to indicate that while this report has been proffered, having been sought by the House, and the recommendation is that we should approve the bill, that was certainly not unanimously supported and there was substantial dissent by members of the opposition.

See this speech in context