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

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 Foreign Minister and Minister for Trade for:

(1)

turning a blind eye to cables sent to his/their office(s) that contained hard evidence that bribes were being paid to the Iraqi regime; and

(2)

for misleading this House on when he/they first had knowledge of the Wheat for Weapons scandal.

This is the fifth time that an effort by the opposition to censure the government or individual ministers in relation to what is without question the worst scandal in our national political history in living memory has been frustrated by a determination from the government that they will evade a censure motion. It is becoming a feature of the Howard government’s lack of accountability that they will not permit themselves to be subject to the testing of a searching debate on the state of their knowledge and their culpability and responsibility for this dreadful scandal.

They prefer to stand up in this place, beat their chests about their commitments to Iraq now, criticise the opposition for taking the view that this was a bridge too far in foreign policy and the wrong way to go, and refuse to answer questions about their personal and governmental culpability in this scandal. If this parliament cannot have a censure debate upon this motion, this parliament has no capacity to hold the government accountable. It is a serious issue, and when it is refused for the fifth time we know that this is a government that have absolutely no confidence in their capacity to explain things.

The new piece of information from today’s question time relates to the character of the knowledge of Minister Vaile. What Minister Vaile indicated—he got very close to it and he may have something more to say to us later or on a later day—was this: he had a general awareness back in 2000 or 2001 of the character of the complaints that had been raised at that point in time. He puts in his defence a quote from the particular cable which says that the Iraqi office in the UN had no capacity to judge the validity of the claims—that he puts in his defence. Precisely! They had no capacity; they relied on Australia. They relied on the effectiveness of the Australian investigation to determine whether or not they had a breach of sanctions on their hands. So what he used in his own defence in this place in question time is in fact the heart of the accusation against him.

We all remember what it was like back in November when he stood up in this place and said that the first time he became aware of any of this was when Mr Volcker reported. That was a statement of cover-up, pure and simple. He knew a heck of a lot about this a long time before Volcker reported. The Australian public believe that, and they are right to do so.

This is why we have to have the censure motion: the time for squirming and wriggling from this government is over. There have been pathetic hair-splitting and tricky excuses for what is essentially corrupt behaviour. That is enough contempt for this place and for the Australian people from this government. Heads should roll—the trade minister’s head and the foreign minister’s head. For too long, the bucks went to Saddam Hussein. Now the buck stops with Alexander Downer and Mark Vaile. They saw the cables. They knew they mattered. They turned a blind eye.

The trade minister is the biggest problem for Australian farmers since the arrival of the rabbit. My message to farmers is that Mr Vaile has let you down. He is now arrogantly trying to use our farmers as a human shield. He is incompetent and arrogant. Instead of investigating AWB at the time, he and his ministerial colleague tipped them off. The foreign minister is the best friend Saddam ever had. He is a foreign affairs fraud and his career has been marked by serious lapses of judgment. He has a perennial problem with the things that matter, but this was no inoffensive slip of the tongue; this was an ill-advised romp in fishnet stockings. This was about turning a blind eye to $300 million in bribes going to the very dictator our troops were fighting in Iraq.

What mattered here were the bribes to Saddam Hussein, and what did these two ministers do? Did they bring in investigators? Did they hold anyone accountable? Did they thump the desk and say Australia must not fund Saddam Hussein’s evil dictatorship? They turned a blind eye to things that mattered. They are stupid, arrogant, complicit and not fit to represent Australia’s interests abroad.

Yesterday, the ego of the Minister for Foreign Affairs got the better of him—another lapse in Mr Downer’s judgment. He spilt the beans when he had been misleading so well for so long. He wants to look like he is on top of his portfolio but he just keeps revealing that he is at the bottom of this scandal. The Prime Minister got up in parliament yesterday and said that there is not a skerrick of evidence that the government knew. In a weird way, there is not a skerrick of evidence; there is a mountain of evidence. There is too much evidence piled up for those absurd denials to continue.

They constantly invite us in this place to go to the cables and take a look at them. They do not want us to only go to the parts of the cables which indicate in very considerable detail the fact that there was a company in Jordan receiving illicit funds in US dollars in clear breach of the sanctions regime of the United Nations. Do not look at that part of the cable, they say. Look at the fact the Iraqi office at the United Nations could not substantiate this—look at that, they said today. Precisely! The office and the United Nations relied on the honesty and integrity of the Australian processes—it is as simple as that.

The UN cops an awful lot of flack around the place, but the UN’s defenders say—and honestly—that the UN is only as good as its member governments. The United Nations is not a country. The United Nations is a collection of countries that does not transgress the sovereignty of each member country, and it relies on the goodwill of its member countries to ensure that the sanctions that all the members agree on are being upheld.

If you go to those cables, you will notice something else apart from the weakness of that essential defence. When the cables refer back to consultations with the Wheat Board, you will notice that there is no record of a hard, tough investigative process being put in place. Instead, there is an immediate assumption that if anything is being done by the Wheat Board it must be at worst inadvertent and that all that is required is to speak to the Wheat Board and say to them: ‘You need to properly explain your contracts. This issue has been raised, and you need to properly explain this issue to the United Nations. That’s what you need to do.’

These events, which have an enormous amount of literature behind them in the cables of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and I will lay you London to a brick, Mr Speaker, that there are a load more cables than those we have seen already—rather than showing diligent action on behalf of the Australian government to uphold the sanctions regime to which we had signed up, have much more in common with a tip-off to a gang. That is what the materials that emerge from those cables make this seem like.

What every department requires, when the hard stuff has to be done and the tough work has to be done, is the action of the minister. That is when the minister steps in to make sure the right thing is done. What happened here was that the ministers stood to one side, completely indifferent as to whether or not the wrong thing was being done. That is why, if this parliament is to have any credibility at all, this parliament now needs an opportunity to censure these ministers, to hold them properly to account for the way in which they have failed this nation. They have failed our allies, and they have failed the international organisation to which we have signed up. They have failed the farmers but, above all, they have failed the Australian people in protecting our reputation. This is a massive scandal which they treat as a joke, and they should be censured. (Time expired)

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

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.

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

I rise to speak in this debate about whether or not a censure motion should be allowed in this place. The Australian government has not failed our allies in terms of the United Nations, it has not failed our trading partners, and it has not failed the wheat growers of Australia who have put a great deal of faith in this government to look after their interests internationally. All the points by the opposition should be absolutely refuted. The Leader of the Opposition mounts his case today for this censure based on information in a series of cables that have become a part of the Cole commission of inquiry. He claims that the government is trying to cover up what it did during the course of the oil for food program, but the government has handed all this information over to the Cole inquiry.

What the cables do prove—and this is what the opposition absolutely ignore in this debate—is that the government did not ignore the issue. The government did not turn a blind eye; the government responded to the request of the UN. The cables indicate this very clearly. The Leader of the Opposition knows this, but he quite conveniently ignores that part of it. When we approached AWB, they categorically denied the assertions and the allegations that the UN indicated that they could not disprove or otherwise. So the AWB categorically denied those allegations that were contained at the time that the information was brought to us from the UN.

DFAT subsequently sought further information from AWB about terms and conditions. This is in the cables that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. What happened? What did the government do? The government went to AWB and said: ‘You need to provide this information to the organisation that is overseeing these contracts, the Office of the Iraq Program at the United Nations. You need to deliver this information to them to reassure them on these concerns.’ That was done. In response, the people at the oil for food program in the United Nations under the section 661 sanctions committee—the people responsible for running this program, the people who had oversight of it, the people who were supposed to be checking all aspects of this program in the conduct of the contracts—responded in this language: ‘The Office of the Iraq Program has confirmed that this clarifies the matter and removes any grounds for misperception.’ That was in response to the provision of information and some of the terms and conditions in the contracts that they asked about—the subject of the cable traffic at the time. So, quite clearly, there are no grounds for this censure motion.

The government did not ignore the issue. The government did not turn a blind eye. The government sought information from the private sector body, the organisation that was engaged in the contractual arrangements. It denied any wrongdoing. It refuted the allegations that were being made. Subsequently, when we sought to deliver that information with regard to the terms and conditions—as is quite clearly outlined in those cables that the opposition has, that the Cole inquiry has, that the government has given to the Cole inquiry with a whole heap of information to assist that inquiry to uncover the facts in this whole exercise—the claim and the charge is that the government is covering up, that the government is turning a blind eye. We did not turn a blind eye at the time. We got the information quickly back to the oil for food Iraq program at the United Nations, and then they responded that ‘this clarifies the matter and removes any grounds for misperception’. Far from covering up, far from being of no assistance to the UN, we have assisted the UN. We have sought out the information that was required when they made those inquiries that have been the subject of questions and the debate today.

In terms of mounting the case for a censure motion, the Leader of the Opposition has maintained that the Australian government has failed in its responsibility as a member of the UN, failed in its responsibility as a member of the international community and failed in its responsibility to look after the interests of wheat growers. We have not failed on any single one of those counts. As a responsible member of the international community, we have gone to enormous efforts in recent years to ensure that we play a responsible role. That was clearly outlined to me on my recent visit to Baghdad in discussions with Prime Minister Al-Jaafari, Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi and trade minister Basit Karim. They reflected on the contribution that Australia had made in terms of helping establish a democratic process in Iraq—one that they are rejoicing in and one that we take too much for granted in Australia but one that was certainly a clear objective. They were very complimentary about the way the Australian government has quickly established the Cole inquiry with regard to the whole oil for food program.

Obviously the Iraqi government are interested in the operation of the oil for food program. But I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, without opening up confidential conversations I had in Iraq, that the Iraqi government have far greater concerns about many other countries and institutions than they have about Australia in this matter. That is a fact. That point was made to me while I was in Iraq. They are concerned about many other countries and institutions in this matter. That gives me heart that I am comfortable in what the Australian government have done over the preceding years that cover the time frame that this debate is focused on.

In going to Iraq over the weekend in the interests of Australian wheat growers, we have not failed in our responsibility to look after them. We have not failed to do that. We did see media reports in recent weeks about what the Iraq government was prepared and not prepared to do. Unlike the Labor Party, we are not prepared to stake the future interests of Australian wheat growers on media reports. We are not prepared to do that. We are prepared to travel to different parts of the world to represent their interests, as they should be, in face-to-face meetings with the governments and ministers with whom we are trying to ensure an opportunity for our wheat growers to do business.

That was certainly the case on Sunday, when I spent many hours with Iraqi ministers in Baghdad. They clearly indicated that to me, as outlined in the joint statement that I made with Dr Chalabi after our meeting. I will quote from the statement so that it is on the record. This is in response to the charge that in this whole matter we have abrogated our responsibility to Australian wheat growers. It states:

The Ministers agreed to redouble their efforts to ensure that the mutually beneficial economic relationship continues in an open and transparent way.

In particular Ministers reaffirmed their strong desire for the longstanding and important wheat trade to continue into the future on a secure and predictable basis.

In this context, the Iraqi Government will continue to welcome offers to supply high-quality Australian wheat through participating in competitive tendering in Iraq.

The Ministers agreed that the two Governments should remain in close contact over coming months to ensure the trading relationship continues to move forward.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that you need to front up and eyeball people whom you are doing business with—you cannot rely on media reports—and that is what I did and that is the statement that came out of the meeting. I am absolutely confident that, even in the short term, Australian wheat growers will have an opportunity to get into this market. I would like to table a copy of that joint statement by Dr Ahmad Chalabi, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, and me on 26 February 2006, upon my visit and meeting with him in Iraq.

I will just recap in this debate why the government is not prepared to accept a censure motion and why the case has not been mounted. The case has not been mounted because we did not ignore the issue. The government did not turn a blind eye to it. The government has not abrogated its responsibilities, either internationally or domestically, to the Australian wheat growing community and the Australian public.

We have at every stage responded to requests and, as was clearly indicated by the Office of the Iraq Program upon our delivering that information to them, they confirmed that this clarifies the matter and removes any grounds for misperception. I look forward to the time when the opposition bring up this cable in question time, which has positive advice from the United Nations after the government addressed the issues that had been raised. (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

One of the questions that we would like to have answered is: where have all the Liberals gone? Where are the Liberals? They have left you in the lurch, Mark. Not one of them is in the chamber—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Andrews interjecting

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

You are only a token Liberal at that, Kevin. They have not just left you in the lurch on this one. When you listen to the Prime Minister’s answer carefully in question time today—

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw the member for Griffith’s attention to the fact that there are Liberals in the chamber. His statement that there is not one in the chamber—

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

The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat.

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

Just like the Liberals let The Nationals answer this question alone in parliament today, they are leaving The Nationals in the lurch on the future of the single desk. National Party members in this House know it, because they listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say.

Why there is a matter of urgency as would warrant the suspension of standing orders goes not just to the fact that this is a $300 million wheat-for-weapons scandal—the worst in Australia’s history—or to the fact that we have a government which ignored 17 successive warnings and chose not to act but also to our concern that two ministers have misled the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. With the first of those ministers, the Minister for Trade, it all turns on a key proposition he put to the parliament. Last year, when this wheat-for-weapons scandal was just unfolding, I posed this question to the trade minister:

When did the minister, his office or his department first have concerns conveyed to them on whether the Wheat Board’s dealings with Iraq were violating UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime?

What was the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer? He said:

The allegations raised first came to my attention as a result of the Volcker inquiry.

The Volcker inquiry began in April 2004. Honourable members will ask: why is this important? There is of course the general principle that ministers should tell the truth in this parliament—increasingly a novel proposition in the last decade that we have been subjected to in this country. Mr Speaker, that is a core principle which you would agree to as upholding Westminster and everything which is true to it. But there is a second reason why it is important.

What we are concerned about in this $300 million scandal is when the government first knew and why they did not act upon the knowledge of warnings which came in their direction. When did they first know of these warnings? If the warnings came early, then they could have acted early in order to prevent the $300 million scandal from unfolding. The Deputy Prime Minister knew today when the Leader of the Opposition put questions to him that he was in deep trouble—very deep trouble—because, on the one hand, he has this undertaking to the parliament that he did not know anything by way of warnings or concerns until April 2004, but now he has a cable, released through the Cole commission of inquiry, dated April 2001.

What did it have to say? It warned about hard evidence that Iraq was using the oil for food program to breach sanctions and that this was linked to discussions between the AWB and Iraq which they were having at the time and which were known to the government. That was in April 2001. The Deputy Prime Minister’s claim is that he knew nothing until April 2004. That was three years later. The Deputy Prime Minister would have us believe that he had no knowledge of the contents of that cable. Problem No. 1 for the Deputy Prime Minister is that it is on the distribution list as being copied to his office—something he did not want to admit to in the chamber today. Problem No. 2 is that he had a massive Trevor Flugge moment in here today. He had a comprehensive Trevor Flugge moment, because three times he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, ‘What’s happened to this cable? Did you have any knowledge of its contents?’ and he said he did not.

But, having had his Trevor Flugge moment, he then had, unfortunately for him, an Alexander Downer moment. What happens when you have an Alexander Downer moment? You say too much. As a result of that, in response to a further question from me about an Austrade cable he went on to say that these were certainly known to the government at the time because DFAT was dealing with it. That cable in fact came from earlier, back in 2000. So we have the Deputy Prime Minister saying he and the government knew of these matters back in 2000. It fundamentally contradicts his assertion to the parliament that he did not know about these matters until 2004. He deserves to be censured. (Time expired)

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

The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders 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.