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 censures the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister for:

(1)

turning a blind eye to stark warnings that AWB was doing illicit business with Saddam Hussein behind the United Nations’ back;

(2)

ignoring cables that told the Government in no uncertain terms that this was going on; and

(3)

treating this Parliament and the Australian people with contempt by refusing to come clean in this place about the Government’s role in this Wheat for Weapons scandal.

Leave not granted.

You just said you wanted to. I move:

That so much of sessional and standing orders be suspended to permit me to move the following censure motion:That this House censures the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister for:

(1)

turning a blind eye to stark warnings that the AWB was doing illicit business with Saddam Hussein behind the United Nations’ back;

(2)

ignoring cables that told the Government in no uncertain terms that this was going on; and

(3)

treating this Parliament and the Australian people with contempt by refusing to come clean in this place about the Government’s role in the Wheat for Weapons scandal.

This is the fourth time that a censure motion has been refused by the government on this matter—this the worst scandal that has confronted a national political government in my lifetime in parliament and, I would suspect, the lifetime of everybody here in this place. This is a Prime Minister who was fulminating about two minutes ago on how open and accountable he had been and how much he enjoyed these opportunities in parliament, yet he has permitted his Leader of the House on four separate occasions now to deny a censure motion in this place. I call that cowardly running away. The cables I am speaking about today, which is why we ought to have the censure motion, stand guilty on the forehead of the Prime Minister and his ministers—guilty of turning a blind eye. We got very close to that in the statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I will get to that.

The government think it is business as usual to do business with Saddam Hussein behind the UN’s back. Now their pathetic defence of stupidity and ignorance is in tatters. Negligence: case proved. Recklessness: case proved. Turning a blind eye: case proved. The time for squirming and slithering is over. They have to come clean, front the Cole commission and explain themselves. They have ruined the trade for our wheat farmers and now they are trying to use the wheat farmers as a political human shield. What sort of government is this Prime Minister running? Wages for our troops, millions for their mates, turn a blind eye to warnings. This is not just turning a blind eye. Bronte Moules has poked them in the eye. She said: ‘This is crook. Do something about it. This is serious.’ She said, ‘The Canadians alleged AWB were complicit; check it properly.’ If you turn a blind eye from such a stark warning, you are complicit in corruption. It is seriously corrupt and heads should roll. This is the putrid underbelly of John Howard’s government: forgetful people get $1 million tax-free jobs and the warnings of senior bureaucrats are studiously ignored. They would not listen because they were more interested in protecting their mates than they were in protecting the farmers. That is this government.

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

Order! I ask the leader to link his remarks back to the motion before the chair.

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

The reason we have to have a censure motion on this today is that there is much new information tabled here. The Prime Minister had to say today that the opposition had introduced no facts in this place. In question time after question time, we have introduced documents. We have used documents which have become public. We have used reports from witnesses at the various points of time when warning signals were sent to this government about what was going on with the oil for food program. We have used occasional testimony from individuals who have been involved. We have used materials from the Cole royal commission which, while focused on AWB, have nevertheless had ramifications for this government.

There is only one place in Australia where this government is being held accountable, which is why we have to have this censure motion. There is only one place in Australia, and that is here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Yet, apart from day one, not one censure motion has been permitted. You have the Prime Minister there, with one of those leering grins on his face, telling us all how much he enjoys being questioned on this matter. He enjoys it not one whit because he is totally culpable in this and he knows it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs here at the table is totally culpable as well, and we will get on to the minister here and why the censure motion should be moved in a minute.

The simple fact of the matter is that every element of the case against this government has been proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable person out there. The public of Australia does not believe you, Minister. The public of Australia has made a very clear-cut statement about whether they thought this government knew everything. The public of Australia has wisely and overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that it did know, and it was reasonable for them to do so.

There is another reason this censure motion ought to be moved today, and that is this admission for the first time today by the foreign minister that he was aware of the content of these cables back in the year 2000, early when these cables were produced. I would suggest to people that they take advantage of what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said when he said we should read the whole cable. They ought to read the whole cable. For that to arrive on the desk of a foreign minister in most places, if a foreign minister was not shiftless, lazy and turning a blind eye, would have set alarm bells ringing that would not have been satisfied with a couple of phone calls between the members of his office or the members of his department and the AWB. This is not a minor thing.

You have to remember what the corruption of the oil for food program meant at the time, why there was such a tight, tough administration of it and why it was supported so very reluctantly by the United States and the United Kingdom. They and many other countries around the place were trying to disarm Saddam Hussein of what they believed at the time was his development of weapons of mass destruction. They were trying to prevent Saddam Hussein developing a military capability whereby he could threaten his neighbours. They were frightened that, if Saddam Hussein was able to trade unfettered in the area of oil, he would use the resources that were obtained by him to rebuild his military, massively oppress his people and use weapons of mass destruction on his own population or on his neighbours.

We all know now that there were many false assumptions about that. But there were not any false assumptions that he was supporting terrorists in Israel and in the areas controlled by the Palestinians. We know that for a fact. We know at least he had a research program associated with weapons of mass destruction, though not deployable weapons, which was what he was accused of at the time. He certainly had a research program and we know he was rebuilding his military and rebuilding his air defences and testing those air defences on the US and UK planes that were flying over the no-fly zones at the time. There was all of that—which is why this was the ultimate, sensitive program. This was not some piece of detritus out there that would occasionally attract the attention of a foreign minister. This was front and centre involved in our relationship with the United States, in our relationship with the United Nations and in our supervision of effective international governance of a person with whom we had previously been to war on behalf of Kuwait and on behalf of the United Nations. This is not a matter of small moment.

Today the foreign minister told us this: ‘I saw the cable which suggested that another outfit performing exactly the same sorts of tasks and seeking the same opportunities as the Australian Wheat Board had been informed of the price of what it was that they had to do. The price of what it was that they had to do was to provide a de facto subsidy that could be realised in US dollars to Saddam Hussein—to an account in Jordan owned by one of the sons of Saddam Hussein. Amurderous pair those late sons of Saddam Hussein—a murderous and wretched pair if ever there were one, and known to be wretched at the time.

What the Australian government did when they received this cable was go into closeting mode as quickly as possible—covering and closeting, covering up. They went straight into cover-up mode: ‘Let us ask a few questions of AWB. Are you chaps doing anything untoward? You chaps had better start supplying a copy of this contract in a way that will convince the United Nations that there’s nothing untoward here, because you chaps are in a spot of trouble.’ This was not an investigation; it was a tip-off. What you ran was not an investigation, Minister; you ran a tip-off on the AWB. That is what you did—you told them to regularise their affairs so they could get it through the United Nations. That is what you told them to do, and that is what these cables very, very clearly show. You had the warning; you then provided not an investigation but a tip-off.

It is an appalling chapter in the history of this government. I think it is so totally appropriate that, in this week of the 10th anniversary of the Howard government, we have this to symbolise their laziness, their sleaziness, their conniving, their total wretchedness which has represented this government and is why they ought to be censured. (Time expired)

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

Before I call for a seconder, I remind the Leader of the Opposition he should address his remarks through the chair. Is the motion 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.

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

The government does not believe that this motion is worth supporting and that a censure is due. We hold that view for a number of reasons. First of all, when I was first a member of parliament I was in opposition and it seemed to me that the important thing was to attack the government as furiously as you could—and try to make the anger not too confected, by the way. You had to try to create a sense of sincerity and, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition fails on that test. Secondly, one of the things that oppositions should be careful of is trying to censure governments every single day of the week, because if you overuse the censure vehicle—

Opposition Member:

Opposition member interjecting—

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

‘Try to censure,’ I said—not that you would succeed. If we were so wretched as the Leader of the Opposition says, the public presumably would hold that view and we would not have won any elections. Or maybe we are wretched—but not as wretched as the Labor Party, which have lost the last four elections. A censure overused is a censure discredited, a vehicle that does not become in the end credible for parliamentary practice. This attempt to censure is completely hypocritical, because the Labor Party’s contention is that somehow the government is involved in a cover-up. That is their contention, and the Manager of Opposition Business—

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

True. It is true.

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

says it is true. But they obtained these cables because the government has set up a public inquiry, and these cables have been tabled in the public inquiry. In other words, the government have facilitated the publication of this material. We have made it possible. If the government were involved in a cover-up, we would hardly be having cables published in a public place and allowing the opposition to raise questions about these cables. We are very happy to answer questions about the cables. As to the substance of them, the cables are only a sliver of the total story and I took the time of the House during question time to give the total story. All of the material is with Commissioner Cole and he will make findings on all of these things, which will be findings based on the objective assessment of a judge, not the fulmination of a desperate Leader of the Opposition.

These cables show quite the contrary to what the opposition is claiming. They show that the department was actually assiduous, that the department followed up the allegations that had been made by the Canadian Wheat Board. It would have paid to have followed through and listened to what was said in question time instead of exploding into confected anger, having of course planned the whole attack before question time regardless of what was said by the Prime Minister or me during question time—it was all planned and the little speech was all typed out for the Leader of the Opposition by his office. What was said in question time was that there were subsequent investigations over quite some period of time which culminated with the department obtaining for the United Nations, the body responsible for the investigation, the key contracts that the United Nations wanted to establish the veracity or otherwise of in these claims by the Canadian Wheat Board. Eventually, and I would have to say, as I put it in question time, without being too judgmental, rather reluctantly AWB Ltd gave up these contracts to DFAT and these contracts were given to the United Nations. They examined the contracts. Nobody had hindsight, but for right or for wrong—and the Cole inquiry will establish this—the United Nations drew the conclusion that these contracts were actually in order. Maybe they were, maybe they were not, but there was no evidence at that time that these contracts were not in order. This matter is certainly not worthy of a censure. This is easily answered and easily dealt with, as the Prime Minister and I, I would have thought, had rather comprehensively demonstrated during question time.

I will make one final point. Unfortunately I was away yesterday. I hate to be away from the House because I like question time, I like the procedures of the House and I enjoy parliament. But I was in Jakarta, so I was not able to be asked questions. I noticed that the opposition yesterday spent a good deal of time, including in the media subsequently, attacking the personality of Trevor Flugge. Let me make this point about Trevor Flugge—

Opposition Member:

Opposition member interjecting—

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

No, this is not worthy of a censure, because Mr Flugge is a decent and honourable person and that was the basis on which we employed him. The allegation against him that he is deaf and therefore he should be mocked for being hard of hearing is something I think a lot of Australians will take a very dim view of. This couples with the Leader of the Opposition allowing the attack by the member for Wills on the member for Gwydir through the media. The Leader of the Opposition approved that attack. He hid of course; he did not like to show. He thought it was a bit dirty for the leader to be seen to be involved, but the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for that grubby attack. The Leader of the Opposition loves, as he did on the Sunday TV show, to drag the names of departmental officers into this whole debate. Imagine how those officers feel when they see somebody fulminating about them on a television program for their own personal political advantage. It is very ugly. I will tell you something, Mr Speaker: I defend these people. These people indeed work—

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

Mr Beazley interjecting

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

Alistair Nicolas did not work in my department; he worked for Austrade. But I share a department with the Minister for Trade. Some of these officers work in my department. The Leader of the Opposition singled out particular people in a television interview. This causes these people great pain. I will say more than that: these are good people, who work hard, and they are decent people, and they do not deserve to be dragged through the mud by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to move a censure motion here, a confected argument based on the fact that the government has made available documents. The government made available documents to Cole, which have been tabled in the Cole commission. The Leader of the Opposition argues that this is a cover-up. It is a cover-up but the government makes the documents available through a public inquiry that the government established! It beggars belief that that could possibly be a cover-up.

The point we make is that, unlike at least 63 of the 66 countries that had companies involved in oil for food rorts according to the Volcker report, we want to get to the bottom of this. The government thinks that it is best for Australia that we deal with this up-front and in a transparent way—and if there are eventually to be prosecutions that should happen. If we wanted to do what other countries have decided to do, we would have just referred this matter to the Federal Police or to the Australian Crime Commission or whatever. Of course the government could have done that. That was absolutely an option for us. That was an option we considered, and we decided we would not do that. We decided that what we would do was set up a transparent public inquiry. And when it comes to this point about whether the Cole commission’s terms of reference have anything to do with the government—of course they do.

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

Mr Beazley interjecting

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

The Leader of the Opposition is not forensic. He does not do the work. He is lazy and he does not do the work. You can see that on TV shows in the mornings when he does the interviews: ‘Oh, I haven’t read that; I don’t know about that.’ No, because he does not do the work.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this faintly relevant to the motion before the House?

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

There was a wide-ranging motion moved. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs to speak to the motion.

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

I am just making the point that, if the Leader of the Opposition were a little more forensic, he would know what Commissioner Cole said: that if the AWB had been lying to the government—including departmental officers—that is potentially an offence and he therefore has to establish whether the government knew about the kickbacks or whether it did not. If the government knew about them, then AWB would not be misleading the government. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition’s attempt to move a censure is another explosively failed attempt to try to rebuild his leadership at a time when it is tragically failing.

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

Why is this suspension motion of urgency before the House to consider? Because among other things we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs who presents himself in the parliament, slapping himself and the government on the back because they have been oh such good boys. They have said that there are 65 countries involved in the oil for food program scandal, involving 2,200 companies around the world—but which mob got the gold medal? Answer: AWB, approved by the minister scuttling out the door of the chamber right now. They got the gold medal because the $300 million they tipped into Saddam Hussein was bigger by a factor of five or six compared with the company that came second. They ask in this place: aren’t they good boys for setting up an inquiry they had no alternative but to set up, for the simple reason that this is a scandal of monumental proportions not just in Australian political history, not just in Australian corporate history but in terms of the world itself when it comes to the breaching of sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime?

Why is it so urgent that the House consider this suspension motion? The matter contained within it goes to the core of negligence on our national security and damage to our exports—negligence and damage that have been caused by this government failing to respond in any way to the 17 warnings we have documented so far that they received and turned a blind eye to. This is a government that did not do its job. This is a government that has instead had its energy focused on its short-term internal political interests, not the long-term national interest.

The reason this motion is particularly urgent is that, quite apart from the 17 warnings we have documented so far—warnings from the United Nations, warnings from the United States, warnings from the government of Canada, warnings from Australian wheat farmers, warnings from the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, warnings from their own government officials and even warnings from good old cowboy Trevor Flugge through the communications that have come through the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq—the government could not find anything that was sufficiently meritorious for them to act on.

But the reason why this matter is of such urgency for the House to consider is that, in the four cables that have been presented today in the Cole commission of inquiry, we have new information. It is brand new. This is not generic in terms of something that might have been going wrong with the oil for food program here or there. This is information that is direct, explicit and specific. It is about the detail of what was alleged that the AWB was up to—and our fearless friend the foreign minister, in question time today, dropped himself right in the middle of it. He is always going a step too far, our Alex. He is always wanting to prove what a fine fellow he is in his parliamentary performance. He went a step too far when he actually told the truth to the parliament and said this: ‘I personally received these cables, I personally was briefed on these cables and I personally read these cables.’

So what was contained in these cables that our fearless foreign minister has today admitted to receiving, being briefed on and having read? These cables from January 2000 say—and I emphasise the specificity of what is contained in the documents—first, that the Iraqis were demanding a surcharge of $US14 per metric tonne for wheat, which would be paid outside the oil for food program; second, that the funds were to be provided into a bank account in Jordan; third, that the system was designed to provide illegal revenue for Saddam Hussein’s regime; fourth, that the company was supposed to be owned by Saddam Hussein’s son; and, fifth, that the AWB itself had concluded just such a contract with Iraq.

How on earth could you claim, as the foreign minister has done in parliament, that this was not explicit, direct and indeed alarming information about the activities of the AWB? His public claim up until now was that it had all been someone else’s fault, all the AWB’s fault. This minister has today admitted in parliament that he personally received this information. This minister’s defence, in terms of what he did with it, was that his department made a few phone calls to the AWB and the AWB chaps said it was all fine. The government say this is all about accountability. They want plenty of questions but they scurry from this place when a censure motion is on. Where is the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile? Jeannie Ferris, who went with him to Iraq, has mysteriously reappeared in the Senate today. The trade minister has not reappeared in the House. They deserve to be censured. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion () be agreed to.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.