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 interview with Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report last night when he was asked:

... don’t you want to know whether Australia has breached its international obligations or one of your ministers, that is Mr Downer, has breached obligations imposed upon him by Australian regulations ... ?

It was then answered by you ‘... yes I do ...’. If this is the case, will the Prime Minister now agree to submit this Federal Executive Council minute—which the opposition has drafted for him—which extends Mr Cole’s letters patents so he can make conclusions about whether the government has done its job in enforcing UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime? I seek leave to table it.

Leave not granted.

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

It is interesting that, after he repeated the question from Kerry O’Brien, the Leader of the Opposition did not provide my answer. Instead he provided some kind of mock executive council minute. I know he still lives back in those days when he was the Deputy Prime Minister—those great and glorious days!—and we were reminded of those—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is quite wrong—my question did include his response:

JOHN HOWARD: But Kerry, the answer is yes I do—

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

That is not a point of order.

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

As I indicated in that interview with Mr O’Brien last night, the reason the government does not intend to change the terms of reference as requested by the Labor Party is that the royal commissioner already has all the authority to make adverse findings in relation to ministers. He has already given an indication that, if, at some stage during his investigation, he comes across something indicating that a minister or anybody else in the government has behaved illegally, he will seek an extension of his terms of reference. I have already indicated in those circumstances that extension would be granted. He has also indicated that he has adequate power to make findings of fact in relation to the knowledge and behaviour of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth’s officers. Any commonsense understanding of the English language will tell you that that is all the power to make findings of fact and, if necessary, after extension of terms of reference, findings of illegality in relation to any officer of the Commonwealth—and that, of course, includes a minister.

I would say again that what the Leader of the Opposition ought to do is allow the commissioner to do his job. While I am on my feet, I might draw his attention to an article on page 2 of the Australian this morning which quoted a person who I think had been the head of Canadian intelligence and had been a senior officer in the Volcker oil for food inquiry. It is very interesting that, at the conclusion of that article, he contrasted the reaction of the Australian government to these allegations—the reaction of the government I am proud to lead—with the reaction of 24 other governments whose companies had been named. In the case of the 24, he indicated that all of the inquiries were restricted to in-house police inquiries where, by contrast, the Australian government had engaged in an open, transparent public hearing. That is a measure of this government’s openness on this issue. We are the only government in the Western world to have had an open royal commission into these matters. This government deserves praise for having established this inquiry. This government, unlike other governments, has not been afraid to get to the bottom of this matter. We will, and we all await with great interest the findings of Mr Cole.