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 addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Commissioner Cole does not have the power, under his current terms of reference, to investigate and make findings about whether ministers—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 98(d)(ii), which says that a member may not ask a question seeking an explanation about an opinion, including a legal opinion. That is precisely what the member is asking. Therefore, I ask you to inform him that he is out of order.

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

I thank the member for Mackellar. I am listening closely. The member for Griffith has not completed his question and I will allow him to continue.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Commissioner Cole does not have the power, under his current terms of reference, to investigate and make findings about whether ministers upheld their obligations under the Customs prohibited goods regulations to enforce UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime, as required under UN Security Council resolution 661?

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

I am surprised that the member for Griffith has asked me this question, because the secretary of the commission wrote to him expressing a view on the matter. Nonetheless, I will take him through it and explain the position for the benefit of the parliament. The decision by the government to establish the Cole inquiry followed a request from the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the wake of the Volcker committee inquiry, and I will quote the relevant extract from the spokesman for the Secretary-General. This is what he had to say:

He notes that a vast network of kickbacks and surcharges has been exposed, involving companies registered in a wide range of member states, and certified by them as competent to conduct business under the Programme—

that is, the oil for food program. He continued:

He hopes that national authorities will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such practices in the future, and that they will take action, where appropriate, against companies falling within their jurisdiction.

That is precisely the request that the government responded to—in other words, to take action against companies falling within their jurisdiction. There were three such companies named in the Volcker inquiry. There was the AWB and there were the other two, which have not received very much coverage, which is hardly surprising. We thought the correct thing to do was to establish an inquiry as to whether those companies had broken any law of the Commonwealth or a state or territory of Australia in relation to their conduct. It was precisely in response to the request of the Secretary-General that we established the inquiry.

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

Mr Rudd interjecting

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

If the member for Griffith will contain himself, I will come to the issue that he has raised. The commissioner has said a number of things. I refer the House back to the statement he issued on 3 February 2006, in which he said that the inquiry will address and make findings regarding at least the following: the role of DFAT; the knowledge of DFAT; what AWB told the Commonwealth and in particular DFAT; and whether the Commonwealth, and in particular DFAT, was informed of any knowledge AWB may be found to have had regarding payments by AWB to Alia. In other words, Mr Cole is making it very clear that he will make findings in relation to all of those matters.

Importantly, he also said in paragraph 14 of that statement—and I ask the House to listen to this carefully because it goes to the core of what we established the committee to do:

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 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 to permit me to make such a finding.

Mr Speaker, let me, I hope doing no injustice to the language of the commissioner, spell out a little further what that means. That means that, if he thought a minister had broken the law, he would ask for an extension of the terms of reference to investigate that. And it is entirely proper that he would do that. Interestingly and instructively, he then went on, in paragraph 15, to say:

That position has not been reached. The position may change—

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 raise a point of order as to relevance. The Prime Minister has been going for four minutes or so and not one word has been in answer to the question asked.

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

The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order, and I call the Prime Minister.

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

Let me start again in relation to paragraph 15 and the need to request an extension of the terms of reference to examine whether there has been any illegal conduct, including by an officer of the Commonwealth, which means a minister, amongst other things. He then goes on to say:

That position has not been reached. The position may change as inquiries continue and evidence is called. There is thus no basis upon which, at this time, it would be appropriate for me to suggest to the Attorney-General that the terms of reference be widened to enable me to make findings regarding whether the Commonwealth, or its officers, might have breached Commonwealth, State or Territory law.

The situation, therefore—and in direct response to what the member for Griffith has asked me—is that the terms of reference are limited to whether any of the named companies broke a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory. The commissioner has further said that if he thinks somebody else has broken a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory he will ask the government for an extension of the terms of reference. I can say now that, if he were to do so, he would get that extension. We are doing exactly what Kofi Annan required us to do, and we will continue to do so. The House would be well served by allowing a highly professional, highly competent lawyer, Mr Terence Cole QC, to do his job.