David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the parliament of Australia was visited with the full skills and repertoire of the Inspector Clouseau of the Howard government, to borrow a phrase which was used in today’s newspaper. I thought it was overegging the pudding a bit when I saw it this morning, but it was completely confirmed in the performance by the minister in question time today. The function of the parliament is to hold the executive accountable. How do we do that? We ask the executive questions.

Government Member:

Government member interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Twinkletoes. You just go back and slide into your hole. That was the Minister for Foreign Affairs I was referring to. The function of the parliament is to hold the executive accountable. Today we asked a series of most specific questions. They go to an entirely untold chapter in this saga of the $300 million wheat for weapons scandal. They go to key events of the year 1999. These are critical events, because it is when this scandal begins—and you know that, Minister Downer. You know it very well.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will direct his statements through the chair.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know it because the Volcker inquiry has been running for a couple of years now, from the beginning of 2004. You have had teams of bureaucrats throughout DFAT raking through the files, finding everything it is possible to find, and still today we have ministers at the dispatch box thinking it is a fair and reasonable thing to evade the question. These are critical questions. The events of 1999 date from when this scandal began.

We also asked the Minister for Trade questions concerning the Tigris matter. I would have thought that a Deputy Prime Minister of Australia would come into this parliament somewhat better briefed than this one was today. Twice he was asked, first by me, then by the Leader of the Opposition, a very simple and basic question: did you, your office or your department provide any assistance to the AWB, BHP or Tigris to recover moneys from Saddam Hussein’s regime? It is a very simple and direct question of the type that is often asked here. This minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, could not answer that straight. He evaded, and if he thinks that the people watching question time today missed the point that he evaded it completely he is sadly mistaken.

This saga in the scandal—that is, what happened in the events of 1999—is critical. Had the Howard government, had the Minister for Foreign Affairs and had the trade minister been doing the job that they are paid to do, then the subsequent five-year-long, $300 million scandal would not have happened. It could have been nipped in the bud right back then. So far in the parliament in the last 24 hours we have looked at the powers and responsibilities which had this government’s name attached to them, entrenched by UN Security Council resolution 661, requiring national governments—nobody else—to ensure that none of their corporations or individuals were going to provide funding or illicit goods to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

In this place yesterday we ran through the seven sets of warnings this government has been presented with over the last several years about what the AWB was up to in Iraq. There were the UN’s warnings in early 2000, Canadian warnings prior to that, more UN warnings in March 2000, following up again with a report by the US Government Accountability Office in April 2002, before the Iraq war. Then after the Iraq war we saw warnings from the coalition provisional authority in June 2003, seven senators writing publicly to the United States administration in October 2003 and, to cap it all off, the CIA’s own report in 2004 about what had happened with the rorts on the oil for food program. These were all warnings which these ministers chose deliberately to ignore.

We have also dealt in this parliament so far with what happened to the money afterwards. I know, Minister Vaile, you find that a difficult question to answer, because if I were in your position I would be humiliated by that question. Because of your own failure to discharge your responsibilities, who knows where the $300 million ended up? We know for a fact from the CIA that some of it went off to fund weapons. The unanswered question is what happened in the bank in Amman, in Jordan. That is where Alia’s money was coughed into and that is where the money was coughed out to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It is a pretty basic question.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Danby interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports is in a difficult position just there.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very basic question for us to put to the government: have you investigated what happened to the money? You are all outraged by this question. Well you might be. You have often stood up here in this place and paraded yourselves as the world’s best friends of Israel. When it comes to this act of monumental national security policy incompetence, allowing $300 million to go through to Saddam’s slush fund, knowing at the time that Saddam was funding suicide bombers, it frankly leaves people in this country speechless as to how you can stand in this parliament and attempt to hold your head up high.

When it comes to this most recent matter for debate, however, it is important that the parliament focus on these new developments. What happened in the critical events of 1999? I would draw the attention of honourable members to this fact: the AWB was privatised as of 1 July 1999. This entire debate has been conducted in terms which suggest that a problem only arose with the AWB once it had been off there in the private sector. You are wrong. Evidence has already been presented to the Cole inquiry in Sydney that, when the AWB was still fully owned by the Howard government, there was email traffic between AWB staff about how the first set of kickbacks could be arranged. This is while it was wholly owned by the mob opposite, the Howard government. If you disbelieve me on this, I will read you one short extract from one email. This dates from 24 June 1999, referring to an earlier visit to Iraq. Here you have an AWB representative, in a part of the email headed ‘Contract terms and conditions’, writing as follows:

IGB—

that is, the Iraqi Grains Board—

have requested that the offers are submitted CIF—

with insurance and freight—

free in truck, Iraq. The cost of this will be USD12 per tonne which the supplier adds to their offer.

Interesting—

Hence this part is not an issue.

I am not sure about that—

The problem which still needs to be resolved is the payment mechanism, as all Iraq accounts are frozen. IGB have stated that we will be required to pay the maritime agents, and one possible way would be to pay this to an Iraq bank in Amman. IGB will provide details of the banks we can pay this through.

That has already been provided by way of evidence to the Cole inquiry. The critical thing, though, for the attention of the parliament and the nation is this: that transaction occurred within the AWB while the Howard government still owned the AWB. It relates to a visit to Iraq by AWB representatives while you mob still owned them.

I put this to you: around this country for the last decade or so we have seen multiple royal commissions and commissions of inquiry into allegations—some substantiated, others not—of malfeasance by various corporations owned by state governments around Australia such as the Labor governments of Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia. They included the State Bank inquiry and so on. If this matter was unearthed in relation to any state Labor government concerning a corporation owned by that state Labor government, you would be howling them out of office. This scam, this rort, which became a $300 million cross-subsidisation exercise for the Saddam Hussein military machine, began when you owned the AWB. It was yours. I do not hear any statements of denial from those opposite. The evidence is clear-cut. No wonder you hang your heads in shame when you know that, this time, there is no excuse. You actually ran the show; it was 100 per cent in your possession.

The clock rolls on to the events later in 1999. It is important to piece these critical events together. There is a mission to Iraq in June 1999 by AWB officials when AWB is still owned by the government. In July 1999 there seems to be another mission, and that is when the first corrupt contracts are signed or agreed. There is a further AWB mission to Iraq in about October or November. The payments actually start flowing in October or November 1999 and, interestingly, it is one month later in December 1999 that this mob get the warning from the government of Canada. It only took a month, and do you know why? I suspect the Iraqis, having got the AWB on board, went off to the Canadians and said, ‘Look, the Australians are on board with this, Bob’s your uncle!’—sorry, Saddam’s your uncle—‘and you can be in on the joke as well.’

Except the government of Canada did something different. They actually went to the United Nations and asked, ‘Is this okay?’ That was the right thing to do; something you mob have never done. They were told unequivocally that this was a problem. Furthermore, the United Nations then raised it with this government. They did it in January and March of 2000, and, in a continuing exercise of negligence in the discharge of your national security responsibilities, you dismissed those concerns—it is as clear as day that that is what happened.

There is one key event, however, in the early stage of this unfolding saga which we must focus on, because this minister refused to focus on it in question time today. After the AWB came back from Iraq in about July of 1999, we have evidence from the Cole commission of inquiry that they then went to Canberra. They went to Canberra for discussions with whom? With this minister’s department: DFAT. And by this stage it was this minister’s department, because by then he had become the trade minister. We know from evidence presented to the Cole commission of inquiry that this was not just an ordinary visit. In fact, if I look at some of the evidence which has been presented at the inquiry, there are multiple references to this event occurring and its significance. For example, there is a clear reference in the testimony of Mr Rogers, who was then the CEO of the AWB, that AWB representatives went to DFAT to talk to them about what had gone on in their recent visit to Iraq. Furthermore, there was a reference in the inquiry evidence that, in fact, this was necessary so that ‘people with DFAT in Canberra could be consulted before we, the AWB, proceeded’—that is, with these new contract arrangements.

There was evidence presented to the inquiry that there were folk going to Canberra from the AWB to dialogue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ‘ensure that things were correct’. Furthermore, Mr Rogers said: ‘I think, if my memory serves me correctly, if there was a change to any contracts we were obligated to pass that through Canberra.’

I draw the attention of all members to the fact that this was at the very beginning of this saga. This meeting between the AWB and the department for which this minister is responsible occurred in the second half of 1999 and before the first corrupt payments were made. They did not start flowing until November of that year. This was the core opportunity for this minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was very keen that we directed all questions to the Minister for Trade in question time today. This minister and his partner, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had at that stage a clear-cut opportunity to ensure that this scandal went no further.

However, in question time today I asked this minister on at least three occasions to give us some details about the meeting. When did it occur? Who was there from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Who was there from the AWB? What was discussed about these new contract arrangements? These are critical questions when it comes to this point: at the end of the day, how do we establish whether you in any faint respect discharged your national security obligations, given to you by resolution 661 of the Security Council? Had you done your job, five years later we would not be having this debate; it would be a debate being had in some other country where corruption is something which happens on an almost daily or weekly basis. The reason it is so stunning here though, Minister, is that the magnitude of it simply takes our breath away. Because the government failed to act at this critical juncture, $300 million flowed and we then had five years over which the kickbacks simply went from one level to the next—from $12 a metric tonne to $25 a metric tonne to $44.50 a metric tonne, and then they added an after-sales service fee.

Minister, if you respond to this MPI today, use the opportunity to explain in clear-cut terms every detail, not the select version, of what transpired in that critical meeting in the second half of 1999 between the AWB and your agency. Therein lies the core exchange where this entire sorry saga of $300 million going to buy guns, bombs and bullets for Saddam Hussein’s regime could have been stopped. You, Minister, failed to stop it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith continues to use the word ‘you’, which it is desirable not to use in a debate such as this.

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to this MPI, I would like to make a couple of points right at the outset with regard to the allegations that are being raised by the Australian Labor Party over this issue: firstly, the allegation that the government did absolutely nothing insofar as the so-called warning bells are concerned; and, secondly, that Australian money has gone to fund weapons and suicide bombers. There is no evidence at all that Australian money has gone to fund suicide bombers, and we absolutely refute the allegation. With regard to the allegation about what the government did and did not do, there has been no evidence produced that government officials knew about or were complicit in the payment of kickbacks to Saddam’s regime. The government has established the Cole inquiry. I know that the Labor Party has dismissed the fact that we have established a commission of inquiry with wide-ranging powers. It was clearly and publicly stated last Friday by Commissioner Cole himself that it was adequate for him to investigate the entire matter. He asked for an expansion of the terms of reference to look at the Tigris issue, and that is going to be forthcoming. Of the 66 countries which had companies providing products through the oil for food program, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated today, only Australia—and the Australian government—is having a full, open and public inquiry into the actions of the Australian companies that were involved in the oil for food program.

I will now go to some of the issues that have consistently been raised by the member for Griffith in this MPI, in his public comments and in his questions during question time. Firstly, the allegations of 2000 were without any substantiation—no evidence was provided in that regard—and the responses given were to the satisfaction of the UN. We continue to go back to the point—not accepted by the Labor Party—that these contractual arrangements were overseen and dispensed with by the UN under the provisions of the 661 sanctions committee, that they controlled the escrow account and that they approved the contract. We could not issue export permits until they were approved—and that approval indicated that those contracts cleared the sanctions issues.

Further allegations were raised in 2003 by a commercial competitor, US Wheat Associates, and those allegations were made public. On both occasions, AWB, which at that time had an outstanding reputation as a corporate operator both in Australia and internationally—and nobody can dispute the fact of AWB’s reputation at the time—strenuously denied those claims. That information was gained and dealt with. Again, the UN Security Council sanctions committee continued to approve the contracts put before them for the sale of wheat to Iraq. So on those two occasions, if there had been enough evidence of wrongdoing, the UN would not have approved those contracts and they would not have paid the money out of the escrow account.

While I am on this subject, there are a lot of urban myths floating around on this issue which I want to take this opportunity to debunk. The public comment on the UN oil for food program in the aftermath of the Volcker report and the Cole inquiry has often been inaccurate and misleading. There has been a concerted effort to attack the government on the basis of so-called facts—and they are not facts. There is a range of false and often-repeated assertions about the government’s role in and knowledge about problems in the oil for food program which have assumed the status of articles of faith. They are basically urban myths. The first urban myth is that the terms of reference are too narrow to investigate the government’s role in the oil for food program. The government took the proper and appropriate step of establishing the Cole commission of inquiry to examine the activities of three Australian companies about which concerns were expressed in the report by the UN’s independent inquiry on the oil for food program. The terms of reference for the inquiry were entirely appropriate given the nature of the UN inquiry report’s findings.

As Commissioner Cole and his counsel have highlighted, DFAT’s role in the oil for food program is being examined by the inquiry. DFAT staff have been interviewed and relevant documents have been examined by the inquiry. Full cooperation is being provided to the inquiry. On 3 February, Commissioner Cole said in a statement that the inquiry will address and make findings on the role of DFAT, including DFAT’s knowledge about contracts, what AWB told DFAT about wheat contracts and what DFAT knew about Alia. Commissioner Cole also said that if there was any breach of law by the Commonwealth or any officer of the Commonwealth, he would recommend widening the terms of reference. He has made a public and independent statement about his ability to investigate fully this whole issue. So much, then, for the claim that the terms of reference are too narrow. Commissioner Cole last week asked for an expansion of the terms of reference with regard to one aspect of the operations of AWB. He said quite clearly—and I state it again—that, if there was any breach of law by the Commonwealth or any officer of the Commonwealth, he would recommend widening the terms of reference. I think that point has not been reached yet. So there is a full investigation taking place.

The next myth being peddled, particularly by the Labor Party, is that the government was aware that AWB was paying kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime. At no stage during the oil for food program did the Australian government have evidence to suggest that the AWB or other Australian companies paid kickbacks. Of concern are the repeated efforts by some to infer that DFAT officials were implicit in sanctions rorting. This is an outrageous allegation. A case in point was the inquiry’s examination of advice provided to the AWB on methods to repay damages arising from wheat contamination in 2002. DFAT provided advice to AWB, which the inquiry’s counsel found was appropriate and proper. This advice was faithfully reflected in an internal AWB email. However, one commentator chose to infer that there must have been some deeper conspiracy, apparently saying he wanted to see additional information on the issue before he would exonerate the DFAT staff involved. This case is also interesting in that it shows clearly that the inquiry is examining the role of DFAT and the actions of DFAT staff, whose advice was found to be appropriate and proper.

So can I say again that, out of the 66-odd countries who had companies operating within the oil for food program, we in Australia have established the most transparent and publicly open inquiry, to get to the bottom of the facts of the operations of three companies within the oil for food program. That has been acknowledged in the United States. There was a question in the House yesterday about Senator Coleman. Senator Coleman has publicly acknowledged and welcomed the move by the Australian government to establish this inquiry so that the facts can be uncovered and brought into public awareness.

The next myth that is being peddled around relates to the involvement of DFAT—or DFAT allegedly approving AWB contracts. DFAT did not approve AWB contracts. That was the role of the UN. The United Nations was running the oil for food program. If you read the transcripts, the evidence and the conclusions of the Volcker inquiry, Volcker highlighted exactly the same point. Volcker also highlighted the point that the UN engaged Customs officials to check the veracity of those contracts and to check the price and the value of what was being traded. So the UN’s 661 sanctions committee and the UN Office of the Iraq Program were responsible for contract approvals. Again I say this fact was highlighted by the Volcker report, the report that preceded what we are doing in Australia as far as the Cole inquiry is concerned. The Office of the Iraq Program was established to manage the oil for food program contract approval process. DFAT or the Australian government could not approve a contract for AWB to send products into Iraq. It had to go through the UN. It was being paid for out of the escrow account established under that section 661 committee. That is where the payment came from. That is where the arrangements were made. That is where the approval went through. The UN therefore ran the oil for food program and employed Customs experts, as I indicated a second ago, to examine and approve the contracts. It was not DFAT but the UN that approved the contracts—it was not DFAT.

The next urban myth that is being peddled around, with just enough information being left to trail the bait, if you like, is that DFAT approved AWB’s use of Alia. DFAT did not approve AWB’s use of Alia, despite any claims to the contrary. AWB’s use of Alia was not in AWB contracts, as Volcker and Cole have highlighted already. AWB never advised the UN it was making payments to Alia for inland transport. It is also important to note that the AWB had apparently been using Alia for around a year prior to its 30 October 2000 letter to DFAT in which AWB made a general inquiry about using Jordanian trucking companies. This letter did not mention Alia. DFAT has no record of ever being asked by AWB to conduct due diligence of Alia or to approve its use of Alia. The department made this very clear in the statement it issued yesterday—and, obviously, in what has been submitted to the Cole inquiry. We are aware that there will be further evidence given in this regard to the Cole inquiry. It is very important to note that because I know that there are other views being expressed on this—and also there are allegations and insinuations being left out there on this matter by the Australian Labor Party.

The next urban myth is that DFAT staff travelled with AWB to Iraq in August 2002—again totally untrue. Despite repeated claims in the media, DFAT has no record of any DFAT staff ever travelling with AWB to Iraq, from the start of the oil for food program in December of 1996 until the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It is a good opportunity to get some of those details on the record. Some of them have already been put on the public record as part of the evidence that has been delivered to the Cole commission of inquiry. They are the facts with regard to the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of discharging their responsibilities.

In the time remaining can I just reiterate some of the history here. Australian wheat growers—and I said this in the House yesterday—are of prime concern and interest to the government. Wheat is one of our major export industries.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Rudd interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith!

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interestingly, the Minister for Agriculture and Food from Western Australia—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Rudd interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith!

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

takes the same view.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Rudd interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is warned!

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He believes it is too early to reach any conclusions about wheat exporter AWB and its role in the Iraqi oil for food scandal. Mr Chance says it is best to wait until the inquiry has concluded before making a judgment—and it is. That is why the Labor Party demanded an inquiry. That is why you wanted an inquiry. That is why the government acted so quickly at the end of last year to establish an inquiry—so that there was an independent and transparent process being run to find out the facts and the details of what has happened as far as Australian domestic law is concerned in terms of the oil for food contract.

We all recall the debate that took place in late 2002 and early 2003 with regard to the coalition of the willing moving into Iraq. The Australian Labor Party opposed that move every inch of the way. We all know that if the Australian Labor Party had had their way Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, perpetrating the atrocities that he did during the 25 years of the operation of his murderous regime in Iraq. The Australian Labor Party wanted to keep him there. We should let the Cole commission of inquiry finish its work. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know who wrote that speech for the Minister for Trade, but whoever it was did him no service, because he did not answer the key questions. It was quite clear that at any time he went to facts he was reading somebody else’s words and each time he adlibbed he fluffed it, as he did in question time continuously—and I will come back to that in a moment.

However, in all these matters, for publicly elected officials the key question comes back to that which was posed in the Nixon impeachment hearings of 1974: what did you know and when did you know it? We now find out that the minister’s argument is that he never knew anything. That is not what I would call a great advocacy of ministerial responsibility and success because, as has been detailed on many occasions—and I will go back to some of them—on very many occasions the minister should and, by any credible explanation, must have known.

I do not want to refer too much to that rather pathetic set of contributions that were written for the minister, which he just read into the Hansard, but I do want to refer to two points. Firstly, he repeated the point that the Prime Minister made: that the Cole inquiry’s powers are sufficiently broad because the commissioner has made it clear that, if there is any breach of law by a Commonwealth official, he will either seek broader terms of reference or act upon it. But we all know that most, if not all, of the major findings that have been made, for example, leading to royal commissions causing the resignation of ministers, have not referred to breach of laws; they have referred to impropriety—to people failing to discharge their responsibility and not acting properly. These are serious allegations and the evidence raised so far suggests that they do apply—and I do not make those allegations against the officials at DFAT. I have worked with that department and it is a fine department. If there are serious problems in a department that go to questions of impropriety on this scale, with this level of public awareness, the responsibility lies with ministers.

The second point I want to make is that the minister continues to say, ‘This must all be okay because the UN accepted our assurances.’ One of the strengths and weaknesses of the UN system is that the UN does not have the capacity to go behind the word of member countries. If a member country says, ‘No, there’s nothing to look at here,’ until the Volcker inquiry was set up, the UN had no capacity independently to assess that. The minister says, ‘We must be okay because the UN said so.’ The UN said so because Australia advised it so. This is one of those circular arguments that says, ‘We must be okay because we said we are and we got someone to verify it independently who had no capacity to verify it independently.’

Today we saw again from the Minister for Trade, for the second day in a row, an incredible, unbelievable attempt to defend the indefensible and the deliberate avoidance of serious questions in question time. For example, yesterday we asked who gave instructions to the ambassador for his visit to US Senator Coleman. There was no answer. Today we had questions about contracts and meetings, which were met with either refusal to answer, avoidance or ignorance.

We are confronted here with a scandal of the highest order and a failure of proper administration, which endanger Australia’s reputation and interests. Like many other people in this place, I have spent a lot of time trying to work internationally to enhance Australia’s standing, its reputation and its interests. I do not take lightly the fact that incompetence, maladministration and culpable negligence have undermined some of that good work.

Let us have a look at what we know. Firstly, we know in this matter that $300 million was funnelled to Saddam Hussein’s regime by the Australian Wheat Board in a process that began when the Australian Wheat Board was wholly owned by the Australian government. Secondly, we know that the Australian government was concerned about abuse of the oil for food program to fund weapons purchases—because two or three years ago the Prime Minister said so. We know that the Canadians were concerned that the Australian Wheat Board was paying this money and they raised it in a manner that came to the attention of the Australian government in 1999, more than five years ago. We know that the United Nations was concerned and that it raised it with the Australian government. We know that the New York Times reported concerns in March 2001 and we know that the Weekly Times reported concerns in Australia in August 2002.

If nobody else was looking at this, what was ONA, the Office of National Assessments, doing? We know from the ‘children overboard’ affair that ONA scans newspapers and provides reports to the Prime Minister. I would have thought it should do more than that. But, if that is all it does, it should have known in March 2001 that the New York Times was reporting concerns and in August 2002 that the Weekly Times was reporting concerns and drawn it to the attention of the Prime Minister—and I find it very hard to believe that it did not.

In the ‘children overboard’ affair, the Prime Minister was prepared to release ONA advice, in an unprecedented manner—a manner I thought perhaps he should not have done—to support his political interests. Therefore, I would like to know and see what ONA reported to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Trade and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs about this matter.

I would also be very interested to know—the Australian Financial Review referred to it this morning—what the Australian security services were doing for 5½ years not to find out that an Australian company was funnelling money to Saddam Hussein—the biggest security concern of international security agencies, which work cooperatively. The security agencies of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand work together and it is incredible that none of them knew that an Australian government agency had commenced and an Australian privatised company had continued to funnel this money to Saddam Hussein—the biggest fear of those agencies. We are told that none of them knew and, even if they knew, none of them told the government.

If it is true that ministers did not know, it must have been extremely difficult for them to arrange not to know. They must have gone to great lengths to arrange not to know, because it was public knowledge. It was raised with Australia by the Canadian government, it was raised with Australia by the United Nations, it was reported in international newspapers, it was reported in Australian newspapers and yet nobody knew. How could they not know? They must have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure that they did not know. There is precedent for Australian government ministers going to extraordinary lengths not to know, but this is more damaging than just some internal political game at the expense of the Labor Party. This is serious stuff causing serious damage to Australia’s national interest.

There have been a lot of references to a letter of November 2000, where DFAT gave approval for arrangements with a trucking company, and to how, clearly, the AWB’s letter had not referred to Alia. That is right—read on its face, there is no problem. But we know that the United Nations had raised concerns about the role of Alia before that, generally. When that matter came to such an efficient department as DFAT, it is incredible that nobody associated the fact that the United Nations was raising generic concerns about the use of a particular trucking company to funnel funds to Iraq and that nobody asked whether that was the trucking company being used here—they did not want to know, therefore they did not ask.

We have always had the allegation until today that the AWB went into Iraq accompanied by DFAT. I heard the minister refute that today. I am very surprised that DFAT would allow them to go in without accompaniment. They would not have in the time I was minister. People who went into Iraq in that period were accompanied by DFAT officials, or at least by Austrade officials, so I would be very surprised if that is the case. I cannot prove that it is not so—the minister has asserted it is not so, but I am very surprised and it should be investigated.

What we are saying here is that we have a trade minister who has been culpably negligent—incompetent beyond belief. It has created a scandal and a farce that embarrasses Australia. It is incompetence at best. It is probably culpable negligence, and the government does not deserve to survive. This Minister for Trade does not deserve to survive. It is clear that being leader of The Nationals, he has spent too much time trying to solve the problems of his party and not enough time taking care of the problems of Australia. (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find the ALP’s approach to this issue both offensive and hypocritical.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what basis?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to explain that to you right now. Yesterday and today the Labor Party attempted in this House—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the member for Wills that he has been warned.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to link the coalition government, this administration, to Palestinian suicide bombers, in a disgraceful attempt to attack this government and link it to something that they know we would never have any truck with. Their actions are both hypocritical and offensive.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the Herald Sun of 7 February containing exact evidence that wheat money was used to fund Palestinian suicide bombers.

Leave not granted.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason the ALP’s actions are hypocritical is that the ALP’s record on Israel, in comparison with the government’s, does not bear close study. The government’s record on the support for Israel and its opposition to things like Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorism is peerless in the history of this Federation. People like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the member for Casey and I have spent a career supporting the right of Israel to exist and the right of Palestine to have its own separate state and live peacefully with Israel. For us to be linked to Palestinian suicide bombers by this opposition—by the member for Griffith—is utterly offensive. The ALP’s record on Israel, however, is at best ambiguous. In the last few years they have attempted to walk both sides of the street with respect to Israel. They have attempted to appeal both to the Palestinian—

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments being made by the parliamentary secretary bear no relationship to the terms in which this debate has been listed.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Throsby cared to read the matter of public importance she would find that it says:

The failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia.

It could not be more broad. I am commenting with respect to the national security of Australia, because the security of Israel, our support for Israel and our opposition to terrorism are all about the national security of Australia.

The ALP’s record on national security is at best ambiguous and at worst disgraceful. The member for Fowler in this place only last year referred to the actions of Israel as creating a ghetto-like walled compound around the West Bank and Gaza. She also referred to concentration camps in relation to the state of Israel, which is deeply offensive to the Jewish people, given the history of the Jewish people and the Shoah during the Second World War. She also has referred in previous debates in this House in a most offensive way to Israel—

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I again wish to pursue the issue of relevance. I think these comments might be relevant in a debate about the respective positions of both political parties vis-a-vis the Middle East situation. They certainly are not relevant—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I think I have the gist of the point of order. But I think if the member for Throsby reads the MPI she will see that it says ‘the failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia.’ So it is a fairly broad statement. The parliamentary secretary is in order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very broad statement. I point out to the member for Throsby that it was the member for Griffith who today and yesterday accused this government of aiding and abetting Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. I am responding to that because I am deeply offended as a person who in this House has stood up for the rights of Israel and has opposed terrorism for 13 years in a very public way. I took deep offence and chose not to take a point of order during question time because I knew I would have the chance to speak on this MPI later today.

The member for Fowler also in her speech last year referred to the state of Israel as being involved in ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people. The member for Sydney in this place has referred to Ariel Sharon—a man who, by removing settlements from Gaza and bringing peace to the West Bank area, has done more for peace in the Middle East than many other people in Israel in the last 10 years and who today lies ill in a coma—as a war criminal. The member for Sydney has referred to Israel as a rogue state. The member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, has given succour and support to the member for Fowler and the member for Sydney.

My point is that on this side of the House there has never been any ambiguity about our opposition to terrorism, our opposition to Palestinian suicide bombers and our support for the state of Israel. For the Labor Party to try in the last two days to link us to Palestinian suicide bombers is deeply offensive. They should hang their heads in shame for doing that and they should apologise to this side of the House.

The second reason I find this MPI utterly hypocritical is because of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party trying to clothe itself as the party which supports national security. It was only at the end of 2004 that the Labor Party—most members on the other side of the House today—supported Mark Latham to become the Prime Minister of Australia; a man that they knew, the member for Griffith must have known and the current Leader of the Opposition must have known did not support the United States alliance.

The most important touchstone of Australia’s national security is ANZUS, our alliance with the United States: the knowledge that the United States and Australia support each other in the event of ever facing a conflagration—which we hope will never happen—at some stage in the future. It has given us an alliance with the most important nation in the world today, the only behemoth in world political affairs. We are in the fortunate position of being closely allied to that country.

The Leader of the Opposition in the previous parliament did not support that alliance. The former Leader of the Opposition abused the President of the United States, George Bush. He called him a dangerous man. He said, in fact, that the alliance was the last manifestation of the White Australia Policy. He said the US alliance is a funnel that draws us into unnecessary wars, first Vietnam and then Iraq. In his diaries, he makes it perfectly clear that if he had become Prime Minister the US alliance would have been put seriously at risk. He makes it clear in his diaries, in terms of national security, that he did not regard the US alliance as being as important as this side of the House did. So for this MPI to suggest that this side of the House has put national security and our trade interests at risk is deeply offensive to me and is obviously hypocritical. The Labor Party stands condemned for it.

The member for Griffith and the Leader of the Opposition supported the member for Werriwa, as he was then, in the election to become Prime Minister. They knew that he did not support the US alliance. They might have backed themselves in the vain hope that, if he were elected, they might have been able to control him. But, as various cameramen and others have found in recent years, the former member for Werriwa is not easily controlled. As the Treasurer said yesterday about what the former member for Werriwa would have done to the economy, as he did to a camera, we can say that he would have done the same thing to the US alliance if he had been elected as Prime Minister.

This side of the House can never stand condemned for putting our national interests at risk. This side of the House has fought the war on terror, enthusiastically tried to defeat terror wherever it finds it around the world. This side of the House supports liberty. It supports freedom. It supports democracy. It is trying to make a difference in Iraq. That is why we went into the war in Iraq: to try and bring about a change in world affairs, to defeat terrorism, to create democracy, to give people in the Middle East an opportunity to see that democracy can work in their nations and to embrace it, because democracies tend not to go to war against each other.

The other side of the House, the Labor Party’s side of the House, did not support the war in Iraq. They made it very clear. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said he would withdraw the troops from Iraq before the job was done. So for the member for Griffith to stand up here and clothe himself in the hypocrisy of this MPI in an attempt to make the coalition side of the House the side that does not support national security is a farce and a mockery. The Australian public would know that to their very bones.

The Australian public know that on national security, on the economy, it is the coalition that will deliver good government. The public know that, when it comes to national security, the Labor Party is a risk. It was a risk in the sixties, it was a risk in the seventies and it would have been a risk again in the war on terror across the world. For the ALP to lecture this government on national security is akin to General Pinochet lecturing the Chilean people about freedom of speech. It is akin to Henry VIII lecturing the English people about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of families.

What we have really seen here in this debate and for the last two days is the member for Griffith’s audition for the Labor Party leadership, which is going slightly off the rails for him because he knows he is not going to get a scalp because there is nothing for us to be ashamed of. He wanted to replace Simon Crean. He talked about it, and he held various press conferences outside his home in Brisbane. He wanted to replace Mark Latham. He did his Hamlet act: ‘Will I? Won’t I? No, I’ll stand aside for Kim Beazley.’ We all know that he did not have any voters in the Labor Party caucus. The member for Throsby knows that he had no votes in the Labor Party caucus. But it was a brilliant show business line and it got him a lot of publicity. He is now out to get Kim Beazley. He is more Macbeth today than he was Hamlet back in those days. And this is all an audition for his desire, his ambition, to lead the Labor Party—nothing more. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before speaking to the general thrust of the matter of public importance, I want to note my interest in some of the comments that the member for Sturt made, particularly in relation to the reasons for entry into the war in Iraq. I think, using the logic that he expressed, one would have to ask why military forces from Australia are not currently in Zimbabwe. The atrocities that are happening in Zimbabwe at the moment—the deaths and the inhumanity—surely have to be regarded by this government as being of some significance. There are similar circumstances: a despot and a lack of food in that nation, but regrettably there is no oil. I think that says something in itself.

My major reason for rising today is not to try and pre-empt the Cole inquiry. I agree with a number of speakers who have said that the Cole inquiry should take its course and that, if there are some political adjudications to take place, they should take place then. But there are a number of issues that I think people are raising to try and create illusions in relation to the wheat industry. I do not think there has been a member of parliament who actually grows wheat or has been associated with the wheat industry at an agropolitical level who has spoken in this debate. There are a lot of people making decisions in relation to what they believe the wheat industry is saying.

I am a grain grower myself, a former member of the Grains Council of Australia and the grains committee of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and one who does have wheat growers within his electorate. Wheat growers are not saying to me what a number of members of the opposition have been saying, particularly during question time today—that is, that they are happy to see access to these markets through any means at all. Wheat growers are not happy to see bribes being used to access markets. Wheat growers do not want this sort of behaviour to continue, because it is very obvious that, if we are in negotiations in relation to free trade, as our trade minister is, and we give an image that our grain growers are comfortable with access at any price, we put not only them in a position that they do not hold but also any future negotiations in relation to trade, the level playing field, those against subsidisation and those who want open access to marketplaces at risk.

The wheat growers who have spoken to me are most concerned about the conduct of the Australian Wheat Board—in fact they are shocked. They do not know whether the government did or did not know of certain circumstances that occurred. But the Prime Minister made the point a few days ago—and I would hope that all members of the government and anybody who knows anything about this take heed of what he said; I hope he himself takes heed of it—people should tell the truth in relation to this issue. Because if we do not and the information is hidden there will be an impact on our trading credibility, and the very wheat growers that everybody is trying to make a position for are the ones who will suffer.

The future of the wheat industry has been raised. There is conjecture within the coalition about the future of the Australian Wheat Board and the single desk arrangements. Wheat growers who have spoken to me, and I am sure to other country members of the parliament, are most concerned that this issue is being used within the government, outside the government and internationally as a reason to destroy the single desk export arrangements. I made it very plain that I support Mark Vaile in his stand to maintain the single desk arrangements for wheat exports from this nation. If people in the coalition are going to plead, ‘Let’s wait until the Cole inquiry is over before we make judgments on the outcome of the inquiry and on who did what in terms of the corruption process and who knew what,’ they must also hold back from using the Cole inquiry as the very excuse to destroy the single desk arrangements that currently exist.

If there are people within the Australian Wheat Board, and it seems there are, who have been involved in corrupt activity they should be rooted out and should face the full penalty of the law. If there are ministers of this government who may through that inquiry or other inquiries be found wanting in terms of what they told parliament and the truth of the matter, they should be made accountable for their actions as well. To all sides I make this plea: don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do not use old political rivalries as a platform to remove the single desk at this point in time.

The broader issue that we are dealing with here, and the assumption that some have used, is that we have a problem in terms of trade. Just putting aside the United Nations sanctions at the moment and this peculiar problem with Iraq, we have a problem with trade. We export 80 per cent of what we grow, so we need to export. Therefore, access to export markets is paramount. We know we are dealing in a corrupt world market. If you are going to deal in a corrupt world market there is almost an acceptance amongst some—Senator Joyce made some appalling statements the other day, implying that bribes are acceptable to gain access to the market. There are people who say, ‘If you don’t do that it’s a zero gain. You do not sell any of the product.’ I do not agree with that, and I am surprised that the National Farmers Federation has not condemned those very words. When a nation that has been at the forefront of trying to free up trade and has been antisubsidisation is silent—in the case of Senator Joyce, a member of the government, and others who are implying quietly that the wheat growers would accept such behaviour—it is implying that a bribe not a subsidy is okay. That in itself is corruption. We should not stand by and allow that sort of activity to happen.

Assuming that we do have problems with the surplus that we produce within agriculture, what are we going to do about that? I made some comments in relation to that this morning. We export 16 million tonnes of grain, on average, from this nation. If this government removed itself from dealing in two corrupt markets—everybody is saying that the wheat market is corrupt, and everybody has always said that the oil market is corrupt—and looked at the policy initiatives that it could put in place for renewable energy, for instance, and some of that grain could be transferred out of food production into energy production, which is right on the issue that this MPI is about, national security—energy is a very important part of national security. The Americans have woken up; President Bush has woken up to that and is moving down a different line, so maybe our own Prime Minister will follow the president on this issue.

For this parliament to say that, in terms of renewable energy targets, 0.83 of one per cent of our energy needs is going to be achieved by renewable energy—not a mandatory target but a voluntary target—over the 10 years from 2001 to 2010 and that that is an acceptable path to take is to me a demeaning statement for those involved not only in the energy industry but also in the farming industry. If this government mandated a 10 per cent use of ethanol in our cars, that would remove half the amount of grain that we currently export, some eight million tonnes. So rather than endorsing corrupt behaviour as part of the world market and something that we just have to accept, surely we have to start looking at other ways and means. If people do not want to pay anything for our food, let us look at producing our own energy, because we have to pay their price for energy. An ethanol level of 20 per cent, and there are other permutations and combinations, would remove the need to export grain at all or to enter those corrupt world markets. I make this plea: let us look at some of the alternatives for grain before we look at destroying the single desk arrangements.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired.