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

I seek leave to move:

That this House censure the Deputy Prime Minister for concealing from the Parliament his knowledge of the Wheat Export Authority’s failure to provide documents relating to breaches by AWB Limited of the United Nations Oil for Food Program to the Volcker inquiry and his failure to protect the interest of hardworking Australian wheat farmers.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately that this House censure the Deputy Prime Minister for concealing from the Parliament his knowledge of the Wheat Export Authority’s failure to provide documents relating to breaches by AWB Limited of the United Nations Oil for Food Program to the Volcker inquiry and his failure to protect the interest of hardworking Australian wheat farmers.

This is a disgrace. This is the worst case of corruption perpetrated by a federal government in my lifetime at least—$300 million dollars to Saddam Hussein. And this is the third time the government have refused a censure motion on this. Of all the issues that have come before this parliament in which you would think that this parliament would have some interest in holding the government accountable, this is undoubtedly the worst—and yet again they refuse a motion of censure on it.

I am going to spend a couple of minutes on process here, because the story of this government over the course of the last two weeks has been one of the suppression of inquiry in the parliament—suppression of inquiry in the Senate and suppression of inquiry in the House. They have refused to answer questions in this place. The Deputy Prime Minister has come to each question time pathetically unprepared even though he is the minister most directly responsible for all of this. The treatment of this parliament by this government has been an absolute disgrace. Question time is full of abuse for the opposition but no answers to serious questions. This parliament cannot conduct itself in this way on serious matters. If these matters are not dealt with by the Leader of the House, who connives at it, and the others who are responsible then this parliament will be turned into a joke and a laughing stock.

Those are the process issues. Let us get to the substance of the performance, of why a censure motion ought to be moved with regard to this man. Yesterday he was asked a question on whether or not the Wheat Export Authority had handed its documentation across to the Volcker committee. Remember, Mr Speaker, that the whole defence of that side of the House for their behaviour and for the fact that there is an improperly designed set of propositions being put before Mr Cole for him to find on has been that the Volcker commission has had an opportunity to consider all elements of government handling of this case. That is the substance of their argument for, to a degree, truncating the Cole inquiry.

We have asked whether the Wheat Export Authority documentation has been passed across. The head of the Wheat Export Authority has said that, no, its materials were not passed across to the Volcker committee. The pathetic excuse of the minister at the table, while not directly denying that nothing had been passed across to the Volcker committee, was that the Wheat Export Authority gave some consideration to this matter whilst the Volcker committee was sitting—as though that is an excuse. Apparently, the government only passes across documentation on a one-time-only basis. But, again, it was evaded in this place.

We asked explicit questions today too about what happened to that defence document. The Deputy Prime Minister got up, with a smirk all over his phiz, and told us, we presume, that he had that matter passed across to the Cole commission at the time it sat. We have heard something quite different from that. We have heard that they got hold of a copy of that defence document when the opposition chose to raise it in this place and not a minute before. We also understand that something like that happened too to the Treasury document in relation to this issue; they got it after it was revealed in the paper. That is strongly suggestive of what we believe in this place—that the government’s protestations that they are cooperating fully with these inquiries have very substantial caveats attached to them.

That is a serious matter. In this chamber we ought to be able to ask questions and get honest answers—and we cannot, because of the Deputy Prime Minister’s weakness and his weak performance day after day in this place, when he walks in here totally unprepared for questions that obviously will be asked of him. Only in this chamber now can this government be held accountable on this, the worst of Australia’s scandals—only in this chamber. The Cole commission of inquiry, though independent—in terms of what the commissioner is capable of finding—has a set of references that treat AWB and private officials in one way and public servants and ministers in another. They are not treated equally before the Cole commission, whatever may be the presentation of their study by this minister and this government to people elsewhere when defending the record of this government. So only in this chamber can this government be held accountable.

Day after day in this chamber, this government frustrates the holding of itself to accountability. The person at the heart of it is the incompetent, bungling Deputy Prime Minister, who should depart that job; he should leave. To think that he is the man now to fix up the problem in Iraq, remembering the last time he took that sort of job over. As we revealed here today, the consequence of the last time Mr Vaile appeared before the Iraqis or took control personally of negotiation with the Iraqis, when we were in trouble, was that Saddam Hussein got more money out of the wheat crop than did the Australian farmers. That was the last occasion on which he took up cudgels on behalf of the wheat farmers of Australia most directly, as we demonstrated today with the contract that we tabled. So this fellow has form; he has a record.

But understand this: it is a deeply held view amongst many wheat farmers in this country that the marketing of wheat should be conducted from a single desk. There is some level of disputation about it. It is a matter being considered by all political parties as to whether or not that is the appropriate way to continue. One of the defences of persisting with a single desk is that we ought to be able to use it to trade in order to break open those other markets that are closed to Australians or where our competitors are trading unfairly because of their subsidised position. It is the most important bargaining chip that Australia has.

This Deputy Prime Minister—as a result of his incompetence, along with that of his Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—has seriously traduced that bargaining chip. We are a source of mockery and scorn in international trade in wheat, as a result of the way in which they have operated—mockery and scorn. Now, whenever an Australian trade official raises a defence of the single desk, it will be said, ‘Well, a single desk applies to you fellows until you get into trouble, doesn’t it.’ Whenever the single desk is discussed—and it will be mentioned by those responsible for conducting negotiations or debate with us—fingers will be pointed at us and it will be said, ‘While we acted with restraint, you for six years walked in there and fed an enemy of world peace.’ That is what will be said in the course of such negotiations. You cannot escape that. They may want to escape that, but that is where they have led us.

Let me say one thing particularly to the wheat farmers of this country: the Howard government has let you down and John Howard should meet with all of you and all of your organisations—not just with the AWB—and beg forgiveness. This announcement today will be about John Howard’s political interests and not about the interests of our wheat farmers.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come back to the motion.

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

We ought to have a censure motion so that we can point out in the course of it that John Howard is scrambling for a quick fix today to protect his hide and his government, not his farmers. Mr Howard is finally doing something, but he ignored 14 alarm bells.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their titles.

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

The Prime Minister could have saved our wheat farmers from all this pain with just a bit of diligence on his part. After having one bad poll, he has finally decided to meet with the AWB. He is trying to paint himself as a saviour, but that is just a part of his pure arrogance. Australians and, above all, Australian wheat farmers know that the government is responsible for this problem—its sloppiness and its laziness. The sloth that has dominated the way in which this government has administered its affairs since it has been in office has created now a major problem in relation to the reputation of this country and in relation to the farm incomes of wheat farmers in this country. You should be on your knees, Deputy Prime Minister, begging their forgiveness. If you will not go on your knees to the wheat farmers, how about going on your knees to all your fellow Australians, whom you have let down so badly? You should resign. (Time expired)

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

Could I remind all honourable members that their remarks should be addressed through the chair. Is the motion to suspend standing orders seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

Just on the issue of the suspension, there is no case for a suspension of standing orders and that is what this debate is about. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to hang his case on a few points on the way through that have been addressed in both the Cole inquiry and the Volcker inquiry and in questions in this place. The first allegation that the Leader of the Opposition raises in saying that there should be a suspension of standing orders is that this is the worst case of corruption perpetrated by the government. Blaming the government for the perpetration of this is a ludicrous and outrageous allegation against the government.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! I remind members who have been warned that those warnings still stand.

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

This is an outrageous allegation against the government. At no stage did the government have any knowledge about whether kickbacks were being paid to the former Iraqi regime. I was never provided with any evidence supporting the allegation that AWB was paying kickbacks. DFAT did not approve AWB contracts under the oil for food program. That was the responsibility of the United Nations. DFAT did not approve the use of the trucking company Alia, and the government have cooperated fully with Volcker and with the Cole inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition says—and the opposition keep running this line—that there were 14 or 15 warnings on this. There were two major circumstances where allegations or concerns were raised, and they were addressed—one in 2000 and one in 2003. We have made that abundantly clear. That was made abundantly clear to the Volcker inquiry, and the Volcker inquiry recognised that.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you remind the Deputy Prime Minister he is supposed to be justifying why the standing orders of the House should not be suspended. If he wants to put his case in defence, he should take the censure motion.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister is in order, and I call the Deputy Prime Minister.

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

The points I am responding to are the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition giving reason why there should be a suspension. That is what I am responding to. At every point in this process the government has acted responsibly. From the start of this process, when allegations were raised without substantiation and without evidence, they were responded to.

The Leader of the Opposition said that, as the minister responsible, I have come in here unprepared. I am the minister responsible for trade and for providing Australian exporters with market access across the world. That is what I do, and that is what I have been doing for Australian wheat exporters—ensuring there is market access availability across the world. That is the best thing we can do to support Australian wheat growers.

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that, as a representative of our party coming from country Australia, I spend a lot of time with Australian wheat growers, talking to them about the issues that they are confronted with on a daily basis. One issue that concerns them greatly at the moment is that the political campaign being run by the Australian Labor Party is damaging their reputation across the world. They have stated that publicly—that it has been damaged across the world.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, you reminded him of his obligation to speak to the suspension motion. That must apply to the Deputy Prime Minister. The matters he is speaking on now are nowhere near the procedural question as to whether the House should move—

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

The Leader of the Opposition gave a fairly wide-ranging speech. I call the Deputy Prime Minister and remind him that the motion before the chair is the suspension of standing orders.

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

Mr Speaker, you make a very good point, because I made a note of the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition in moving this motion and I am going to respond to them. The Leader of the Opposition was given an opportunity to make his points, and I am going to respond to them. He claims that the government have truncated the Cole commission of inquiry. Has anybody bothered to ask what the Labor Party would have done in a similar circumstance? I can guarantee that the Labor Party would never have had a commission of inquiry into this issue. They would never have moved as quickly as we moved in giving to the Cole commission of inquiry the powers that the Cole commission has. The Labor Party would never have established the Cole commission of inquiry. The government have not truncated that. The government have given the Cole commission of inquiry extensive powers under the brief that has been given to it. We have indicated that if it wants to extend its terms of reference it only has to ask. The commissioner has asked for an extension of the terms of reference in a particular area. That has been granted. In his statement—and I will read this into the Hansardthe commissioner said:

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 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.

He then said:

That position has not been reached.

So the commissioner has made it abundantly clear that he is not hamstrung or restricted in dealing with the issue we have asked him to address in the wide-ranging terms of reference that he has been given. So the Leader of the Opposition’s claim that the Cole commission of inquiry has been truncated by the government is absolute rubbish. He went on then to claim that the government are only supplying documents to the Cole commission after they are being raised by the Australian Labor Party. That is a ludicrous proposition. They were provided at the earliest opportunity after the Cole commission of inquiry was established.

We have continued to say all the way through this process that we are cooperating fully with Cole. We want Cole to get to the bottom of all the facts in this whole issue in terms of the operations of the oil for food contracts that the Australian companies involved in the program were engaged in, and that was the AWB and two other companies. Obviously, the focus of the inquiry so far has been on the evidence that has been sought with regard to the activities of AWB, but it has been part heard. The Labor Party are hanging people out to dry. They are acting like a kangaroo court of judge, jury and executioner when the inquiry is still under way. The legally established inquiry is still under way and is still taking evidence. There are many witnesses, we understand, who have not appeared before the Cole commission of inquiry to give their evidence, yet the Labor Party are already prepared to bring down a verdict. That is not the Australian way. This has been established. I suggest that, in the circumstances, the Labor Party would never have established a commission of inquiry. We did; we should let it run its course, find what it is going to find and bring down its conclusions in the way it should.

In responding to the motion by the Leader of the Opposition, I say that he keeps reiterating the point, and the member for Griffith keeps reiterating the point, that there were 14 or 15 occasions of where the government should have done this and the government should have done that.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Kerr interjecting

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

Order! The member for Denison is warned!

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

When issues of concern were raised, they were responded to. We have continued to make the point that the government was not aware of and had no knowledge of any kickbacks being paid by AWB or any other Australian company. No evidence was provided of that. We went through the process and the Volcker inquiry was established. Not only did we cooperate with the Volcker inquiry but we continued to encourage AWB, who were protesting innocence at the time, to cooperate fully with the inquiry. All through the process of the oil for food program we continued to remind AWB of their responsibilities under the oil for food program and the sanctions resolution. As soon as Volcker had reported, we moved very quickly to establish the Cole commission of inquiry here in Australia, as was suggested by Volcker and by the United Nations, to test in Australia whether any domestic laws had been broken. We have given the Cole commission of inquiry wide-ranging powers—powers almost of a royal commission in terms of how they can conduct their inquiry. They are part-way through that. The Australian Labor Party should let the Cole commission of inquiry run its course, continue to gather evidence, interrogate the people it has called before it to give evidence, find its conclusions and then deliver those conclusions to the Australian people in terms of what it believes has actually happened as far as the oil for food program is concerned. (Time expired)

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

The Deputy Prime Minister talks in this parliament of a political campaign that damages the interests of Australia’s hardworking wheat farmers and our hardworking wheat exporters. Deputy Prime Minister, one thing has damaged the interests of Australia’s hardworking wheat farmers and wheat exporters, and that is you. You have failed to discharge your responsibilities, and the reason that this is a matter of urgency—

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

Order! The member for Griffith will refer to members by their title.

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

for this parliament is that it has to come to grips with why it is that the Deputy Prime Minister of this country has failed to discharge his responsibilities to the country and to the wheat industry in this country. Talk of this being the responsibility of an opposition raising legitimate questions in parliament is, I have to say, the most appalling attempt at political distraction strategy 101. The reason this is urgent is that we have a crisis today in Australia’s wheat industry, because National Party ministers in this parliament, in this government, have failed to do their job. This crisis exists, and the reason this motion is urgent is that warning after warning has been ignored by these ministers. The consequences have flowed through to Iraq and now business dealings between Australia and Iraq have been suspended. But, in particular, the reason this is urgent is that it goes to the core question of the undertakings provided to this parliament by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has said to this parliament that Australia’s full responses and cooperation and full documentation were provided to Volcker. The Deputy Prime Minister said to parliament as well that all the information they had was provided to the Volcker inquiry. Today in parliament, on five occasions, we asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could confirm to us that what he had told us had occurred was the truth—whether, Deputy Prime Minister, you had in fact provided full documentation for the Wheat Export Authority to the Volcker inquiry. Five times we asked this question and five times the Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer.

The reason this matter is of urgency for the parliament to consider is that the Wheat Export Authority is the supreme regulatory authority sitting across the AWB and has the capability and powers to inspect all AWB contracts. That is why the question we pose about whether WEA documentation went to the Volcker inquiry is so critical: Volcker could not have made a comprehensive conclusion about whether this government had acted properly unless he had full documentation. By this minister’s silence today, we know that they did not have that full documentation—that the WEA did not provide documentation to the Volcker inquiry. We know from answers already given in Senate estimates that full documentation was not provided by DFAT, because DFAT failed to provide access to its electronic files.

The case, therefore, that the government constructed in defence is unacceptable and collapses at this point, because the Prime Minister, in giving Commissioner Cole such narrow terms of reference, said that they are narrow and do not affect a government directly because the Volcker inquiry has given the Howard government a clean bill of health. We now know that the Howard government failed to provide Volcker with full documentation; therefore, on what basis could Mr Volcker have reached comprehensive conclusions about this government’s complicity in the management of the $300 million ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal? The Deputy Prime Minister’s role in this is extraordinary. The reason this issue is a matter of urgency for our parliament is that ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers are paid a large salary in order to do a job.

If you receive—one way or another, through officials or through foreign governments, over a five-year period when $300 million is flowing through to the enemy—15 warnings and choose not to act, then frankly you should not be drawing a salary. And the 15th warning was plain as day through warnings also given by representatives of the government of the United States through the United Nations.

Deputy Prime Minister, you now tell us today that, having created this crisis for Australian wheat exporters, you are now providing the solution to this crisis by heading off to Iraq. The only good news for Australian exports this week is the news that Mark Vaile is about to be exported out of this country to Iraq.

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

Order! The member for Griffith will refer to the Deputy Prime Minister by his title.

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

And the urgency under which this should be considered relating to the censure motion is this: this man has failed to respond to warnings one after the other. He has failed to provide full documentation to Volcker. He has failed to provide any answers to this parliament and, as a consequence, Deputy Prime Minister, if you had any decency, you would stand up and you would just hand in your resignation now. You stand censured. You should resign. (Time expired)

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

The time for the debate has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Beazley’s) be agreed to.