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 comments on 28 February that Mr Cole has:

... made it very clear that he has all the power ... to make findings of fact about the behaviour of anybody, including the Commonwealth ...

I also refer the Prime Minister to the commissioner’s statement on 3 February when he said:

The present terms of reference ... do not permit me to make findings of illegality against the Commonwealth or any of its officers.

Why has the Prime Minister, in his public comments, completely misrepresented Commissioner Cole? Will the Prime Minister now expand the commissioner’s terms of reference and give him the power to make findings about the behaviour of anybody, including government ministers?

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

In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I have not in any way misrepresented what the commissioner has said. I have his statement before me. The commissioner has said that, under the current terms of reference, he has the power to make findings of fact in relation to the behaviour of a whole list of people and organisations, including the Commonwealth. He uses the expression ‘the Commonwealth’ generically. That means he can make findings of fact in relation to officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, findings of fact in relation to ministers and findings of fact in relation to employees or officers of statutory authorities.

I invite the Leader of the Opposition to contemplate for a moment the difference between a finding of fact and a finding that there has been a breach of law by somebody. There is a very clear distinction. Any rudimentary understanding of how our legal system operates would tell you that there is a difference between making a finding of fact and going on to then say that the finding of fact represents a breach of the law. The commissioner could find, for example, that X had done something in a careless fashion, but that does not represent a breach of the law. It does not represent a criminal offence.

The commissioner goes on to say—and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this:

Accordingly, if, during the course of my inquiry, it appears to me that there might have been a breach of any Commonwealth, State or Territory law by the Commonwealth—

again, generically used—

or any officer of the Commonwealth related to the subject matter of the terms of reference, I will approach the Attorney-General seeking a widening of the terms of reference ...

In other words, the commissioner is saying that he has ample power to make findings of fact. If he needs a widening of the terms of reference to make a finding that an offence has taken place, as distinct from an extension of some finding of fact, he will approach the Commonwealth. I have already indicated—and I hope I do not presume, on the authority of the Attorney-General, to repeat this indication—that, if the commissioner were to seek an extension of the terms of reference, he would be granted that extension.

The Leader of the Opposition is without substance in this allegation. This government has been transparent. This government has established an inquiry with the powers of a royal commission. We are now drawing to the end and how many questions must it be—60, 70 or 80?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 110.

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

110! It is a world record in futility. They have had 110 opportunities to actually finger some misbehaviour by an officer of the Commonwealth, to establish some link between the allegations made against AWB Ltd—and they are at the moment only allegations. Whatever people may say about the conduct of that company, the members and the officers of that company are entitled to due process. That due process requires people to at least wait until the commissioner has made a finding and to at least wait until all the directors of the company have had an opportunity to express their points of view.

Let me say again lest there be any doubt in the minds of anybody in this parliament: no knowledge in relation to the alleged bribery by AWB Ltd was in the possession of members of my government—in my or any of my colleagues possession—at the time those offences occurred.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You knew of the allegations and you chose not to look.

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

If in fact they did occur. On the evidence I have seen—

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tanner interjecting

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

Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!

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

I do not believe that any officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been guilty of misconduct or guilty of negligence. But these are matters properly left to the commissioner. No government in the world has been as transparent as this government has been. Not only do we have an inquiry with the powers of a royal commission but day by day, not every second day but every day that this parliament has sat, all of my ministers, from me down, have been here in the parliament, answering questions on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition carries on about accountability. The ultimate test of an accountable government is its willingness and its capacity, where allegations are made, to establish an independent inquiry to get to the truth of those allegations, coupled with a willingness to make itself accountable every day, not every second day, before the parliament of this nation. On that test alone this has been a very accountable government. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition: you have had all the time in the world to make your case, and you have failed miserably.