Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National 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 the United Nations’ role in the oil for food program and what steps it took in response to the Volcker report?

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

Mr Speaker, first I would like to join you in saying how pleased I am that Phil Gramm is here. It is good to see a former distinguished senator in this place. I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. As I said in answer to the previous question that I was asked, the Volcker report was issued at the end of last year. It made clear that the oil for food program was administered by the United Nations. On page 28 of volume II in a section entitled ‘Management of the Oil-for-Food Program’ Volcker said:

The contract was forwarded through the company’s home country mission to the ...  Contracts Processing and Monitoring Division, where it was subject to review for the details of pricing and value ...

... the contract was then subject to the 661 Committee’s—

that is, of the UN—

review and approval ...

Upon approval of a goods contracts, the goods could be transported into Iraq.

Volcker makes conclusions about the central failings of the United Nations in administering the oil for food program. He says that Benon Sevan, who was the Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Program, ‘failed to maintain and support the officers’ responsibilities’. He also said that members of the Security Council and of the 661 Committee ‘must shoulder their share of the blame in providing uneven and wavering direction in the implementation of the program’. In a press release Mr Volcker said:

The central conclusion of the Volcker Committee was the failures in UN oversight in management.

He also said:

The need for stronger executive leadership, thoroughgoing administrative reform and more reliable controls and auditing with the UN is understood.

I do not think there is much debate—the Secretary-General of the UN would agree with this—that the UN did fail in administering the oil for food program. Kofi Annan, as the Secretary-General, has accepted responsibility for that. Had there been warning signs for the Australian government in the information that the opposition argues are warning signs, then it logically follows that there were warning signs for the other 65 countries who had companies involved in the so-called kickbacks.

Yet we were apparently the only country in the world, according to the opposition, which was supposed to have detected those warnings. The fact that the other 65 failed to detect the warnings is all right! We should have been able to detect the warning signs. It simply demonstrates two things. First of all, the opposition do not know how the program worked. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that they have spent a long time making puerile party political points, and I am sure the great public of Australia reject their cheapskate politicking.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister point out to the parliament where it says in this document—that is, Mr Volcker’s terms of reference—that Mr Volcker was able to make any findings about national governments, including the Australian government?

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

I merely draw the member for Griffith’s attention to the Volcker report. He was not reluctant to make adverse findings about anybody who deserved criticism.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.