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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the parliament that his government responded competently to the concerns raised with the government by the United Nations in January and March 2000 concerning the AWB’s contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime?

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

I believe that the government did. The question, though, asked by the Leader of the Opposition is clearly something in relation to matters of fact on which Commissioner Cole will make a judgment. I therefore say, in relation to my own belief, it is my belief that the government responded competently, but unusually in this situation we have an independent adjudication. I remind the Leader of the Opposition: I lead the only government in the world that has been prepared to establish an inquiry with the powers of a royal commission.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I am the only one. They do not like it, Mr Speaker, but it happens to be true. The earnest tones and grave of the opposition indicate they do not like it, but it is true. I repeat: I believe that the government behaved competently. The commissioner has said he has the power to make a finding of fact in relation to the behaviour of the Commonwealth; and, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, that includes ministers as well as departments. Let the blame fall where it may.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the parliament on international reaction to the Cole inquiry? Are there any alternative views to those international responses?

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

I thank the honourable member for Barker for his interest. By raising this question he is, as usual, assiduously representing the interests of the good people of the electorate of Barker, which is adjacent to the electorate of Mayo. The Prime Minister set up the Cole inquiry in response to the request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that national authorities take action against companies in their jurisdictions which have been named in a negative way in the Volcker report.

To put that into some perspective: over 2,000 companies from 66 countries, including Australia, were named in the Volcker report. Leaving Australia aside, many of the 65 other countries have taken no action whatsoever. Of those that have, most have simply referred the Volcker allegations to investigative authorities. There are two exceptions: one is India, which has had—I think is still having—a closed door inquiry; and South Africa has just established an inquiry, which has not yet got under way. As the Prime Minister has just said, no country has set up a transparent inquiry with the powers of what we call a royal commission in the way that the Australian government has done.

During his meeting with the Australian Deputy Prime Minister the day before yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Dr Chalabi, praised the Australian government’s decision to establish the Cole inquiry. It was a clear appreciation by the Iraqi government of what Australia has been doing. By the way, Dr Chalabi made the point, as the Prime Minister of Iraq and others have made on occasions, that they are delighted with the contribution this government made to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and they appreciate the ongoing work of the Australian Defence Force.

Interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal, which I would have thought is an extraordinarily credible newspaper and which is read all the way round the world, praised the Australian government recently for establishing the Cole inquiry. This is what the article said:

But the good news is that—

Australia—

has had the nerve to sort the wheat from the chaff—and do it publicly

…            …            …

Opposition Members:

Oh!

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

You are easy to amuse. It goes on:

It’s striking how Australia has been one of the few countries to have pushed the oil-for-food investigations to the extent of examining its own role.

I believe Commissioner Cole is doing a very thorough and a very good job, and we will have to wait and see what conclusions he draws. All sorts of evidence has been brought forward. That is interesting, but we want to find out when it has been tested what is right and what is wrong, and Commissioner Cole will do that.

While others are praising the work of Cole and waiting for its report, the Leader of the Opposition has gone out and said that the government is corrupt. In recent days he has sunk to even newer lows. He has allowed shadow ministers to slur the reputation of one of the most honourable people ever to sit in this parliament—the member for Gwydir. He has gone on television attacking departmental officers because apparently, at some point, those departmental officers worked within the offices of ministers and shadow ministers. Yesterday he allowed the member for Wills—I heard it on AM this morning after I got back from Jakarta—to ridicule Trevor Flugge because he has a hearing defect. I thought this parliament had got over the fact that people with hearing defects should not be ridiculed.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Swan interjecting

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

The member for Lilley will come to order.

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

Certainly not. I make the serious point that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was once before the Leader of the Opposition, used to trade on the basis that he may not be very competent and hardworking but at least he is a decent bloke. He has abandoned all standards of decency through this debate.

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

I have been savaged by a sheep. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister on 30 January 2006 when he said in relation to the AWB’s dealings with Saddam Hussein’s regime: ‘We had no suspicion, no suggestion there’d been any bribes paid. There were no alarm bells.’ Why did the Prime Minister make that statement when his government received this cable dated 13 January 2000 which contained the following warnings from the UN office for the Iraq program: first, the Iraqis were demanding a surcharge of $US14 per metric tonne for wheat, which would be paid outside the oil for food program; second, the funds were to provided into a bank account in Jordan; third, the system was designed to provide illegal revenue for Iraq in US dollars; fourth, the UN believed the company involved in the scheme was owned by the son of Saddam Hussein; and, fifth, the AWB had concluded contracts of a similar nature to this with the Iraqi regime?

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

That is the so-called ‘Canadian’ cable.

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

So-called? It’s an Australian cable.

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

It is the so-called Canadian cable. It is based upon complaints originally made by the Canadians. The Canadians, be it remembered by this parliament, are competitors against Australia for Iraq’s wheat imports. Sometimes I think some of these characters, instead of being members with particular electorates, are the senior senator from Manitoba or Iowa rather than being concerned about the representations of the Australian wheat industry.

Let me go to the substance of the allegations that were raised in this cable. I point out that on 13 January the reporting cable clearly shows that the United Nations mission—that is, the Australian Mission in the United Nations—referred the matter back to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for advice as soon as the Canadian initiated complaint had been raised with the United Nations. I am advised that DFAT contacted AWB Ltd, who categorically denied the allegations.

Opposition Members:

Oh!

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

It is easy, six years after the event, to say, ‘Oh!’ But I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that three years later his colleague the member for Griffith was saying to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: ‘Get out of the way and leave it all to AWB Ltd. AWB is a paragon of virtue and competence in which we invested our entire faith and our entire hope.’

Let me resume the answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I am advised that DFAT contacted AWB Ltd, who categorically denied the allegations. In March of that same year, the United Nations query about Canadian allegations and on AWB contract terms was resolved to the United Nations’ satisfaction.

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

Mr Beazley interjecting

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

A query is raised, so what do we do? Roll over because one of our competitors says we are bad? We roll over, according to the Leader of the Opposition. That is not my idea of protecting the national interest. I repeat: in March the UN query about Canadian allegations and on the AWB contract terms was resolved to the UN’s satisfaction after the provision by the AWB of its contract terms and conditions. And importantly—and I emphasise this—the United Nations Office of the Iraq Program, which had raised the complaint in the first place at the instance of the Canadians, indicated that this had removed any grounds for misperceptions. That was the response. In those circumstances, I rest on my claim that we responded correctly.