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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s 31 October 2005 statement to parliament:

... having received in the case of Australia full responses and cooperation and full documentation, if there were anything lacking in the behaviour of Australia in relation to her obligations the Volcker inquiry would have so reported.

I also refer to the fact that the WEA provided no documents to the Volcker inquiry. Given that the Wheat Export Authority was the government authority responsible for monitoring AWB export contracts and that its documents were of direct relevance to the Volcker inquiry, why did the Prime Minister totally mislead parliament on 31 October when he said that he had provided full documentation to Volcker?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not mislead the House. Let me repeat that the information that I gave in that answer was a very fair and accurate reflection of the way in which the government had responded to Volcker. Let me further inform the House that the Chief Executive Officer of WEA has advised his minister—and I have in turn been advised—that he and senior members of his staff met with the UN senior investigator, Bernard O’Donnell, and his assistant, Mr Trevor Sutton, at WEA offices in Canberra on 25 February 2005. WEA informed O’Donnell of the role of WEA and of the confidentiality constraints of the Wheat Marketing Act as well as those between WEA and AWB International. WEA advised that, in order to provide material to the Volcker inquiry, WEA would require the consent of AWB International. The authority suggested that the detailed material being requested by Volcker would most likely be held by AWBI. O’Donnell acknowledged the WEA’s position and informed the authority that he would shortly meet AWBI people in Melbourne.

It is perfectly plain from that that we have followed a transparent process. Once again, this attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to misrepresent the behaviour of the government, to slur decent public servants and to slur decent ministers is being exposed for what it is. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition—who prances around this country feigning outrage—that, alone among the governments of this world, the government I lead has established a transparent inquiry with the powers of a royal commission, and they will get to the bottom of it. I look forward to debating the conclusion of that inquiry with the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of steps the United Kingdom has taken in response to the Volcker report.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question and his interest. As I think the House is beginning to know now, the final Volcker report was issued in October 2005, very recently. Like Australia, the United Kingdom government fully cooperated, to the best of my understanding, with the Volcker commission, but in the final report there were 14 British companies named as having been involved with illicit payments, including two from the giant pharmaceutical group Glaxo, which I think honourable members would be familiar with.

By the way, the report also named a number of UK personalities as having received barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein, including the member of the House of Commons for Bethnal Green and Bow, Mr George Galloway. Honourable members will remember that this once Labour member of parliament was a very strong supporter of Saddam Hussein.

Following the publication of the Volcker report—and there is absolutely no evidence that the British government had any involvement in or complicity with the payment of kickbacks by the 14 British companies—the British government stated, on 22 November last year, that it would bring the report to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office and they would review Volcker to determine whether further investigations were warranted. But what the British government did not do—and made perfectly clear it would not do—was set up a separate independent inquiry or a royal commission.

In saying that, I make no criticism of the British government, despite the fact that there were 14 British companies involved. What is interesting is that there are not allegations in Britain that the British government should have known all about those 14 companies being involved in making illicit payments to entities in Saddam Hussein’s regime.

It simply follows that in this country the government has set up an independent commission of inquiry with all the powers of a royal commission, and that independent commission of inquiry is able to review all of the evidence and to make findings. We look forward to hearing what the Cole commission has to say on or around 31 March when it is scheduled to complete its work.

But I make the point that, of the 65 other countries which had over 2,000 companies that Volcker found had been involved in kickbacks—14 in the UK, four in Canada, 15 in Sweden, over 50 in Germany, two in New Zealand, 21 in Denmark and over 50 in Switzerland—none has set up an inquiry that is commensurate with the Cole inquiry. None of them has set up a transparent and open process in the way we have. And I know, from the response our diplomats are getting around the world, that what the Australian government has done in response to this has been well received and well regarded.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows my previous question, in particular the character of the answer he gave. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement to parliament this week:

We established this inquiry because Volcker had made an adverse finding about AWB Ltd and other companies; he did not make an adverse finding about the Australian government. If he had, then the terms of reference—

for the Cole inquiry—

would have gone further than they have.

How can this claim have any credibility, now that we know that the Volcker inquiry did not receive full documentation from the Australian government, as your last answer amply demonstrated? Isn’t the Prime Minister’s entire Volcker defence constructed on the basis of a lie?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the question is no. The chain of events is very simple. Volcker carried out an investigation. He had the full cooperation of this government. Whether he had the full cooperation of other governments, or the full cooperation of AWB Ltd, is a matter for those respective parties to answer.

It is worth reminding the House that even Volcker said in his finding that there was no direct evidence that AWB Ltd knew of the kickbacks, rather that they should have known. There was no finding against the government—none at all. And not a skerrick of evidence has been produced by the Leader of the Opposition to justify the falsehood that he continues to assert in this parliament.

I invite the Leader of the Opposition to produce some evidence as distinct from just rhetorical assertions. They have spent a couple of weeks slurring the reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister. They have spent a couple of weeks slurring the reputations of senior public servants in the government. All the while, we have an inquiry going on in a manner transparent beyond, I believe, any other government’s investigation in the aftermath of the Volcker inquiry.

Australia alone has established an inquiry with the powers of a royal commission. No other government has been willing to do that. And as a result of that inquiry the blame will fall where it may. We have established an inquiry under the chairmanship of an outstanding Australian lawyer. He says clearly that he has ample powers to make findings of fact ‘in relation to the behaviour of the Commonwealth’. He does not say ‘the public servants’. He does not say ‘the WEA’. He says generically ‘the Commonwealth’. That includes everybody who is part of the Commonwealth. If he needs additional terms of reference, he will ask for them; and undoubtedly that request will be met.

In the light of all of that, this is an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to mislead the Australian people, to assert falsely that there were 10, 12, 13—what will it be at the weekend: 20?—warnings given to the Australian government. In reality those assertions are falsehoods. I reject them on my own behalf and I reject them on behalf of my government.