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

Claims by the Prime Minister and parallel claims by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that they had in fact provided full cooperation with and full documentation to the Cole inquiry as of January this year were brought fundamentally unstuck by the submission to the Cole inquiry of the Office of National Assessments. The submission by the ONA stated:

On 17 February 2006, certain Australian Foreign Intelligence Community (AFIC) agencies received notices to produce from the Inquiry into Certain Australian Companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (the Inquiry).

What does all that mean? It means that, as of February, the Howard government had not provided full documentation to the Cole inquiry, but the Prime Minister had assured the country and the parliament that, as of January, they had. So we had the Prime Minister and the foreign minister saying, ‘full cooperation, full documentation provided’, whereas the truth is each document which the Cole inquiry needed to do its job was having to be extracted from the government, kicking and screaming, using legal means. Voluntary cooperation has in fact been at a minimum, and this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Evasion and the government’s pattern of cover-up in this sordid scandal has also been demonstrated in the way in which ministers themselves have provided their own statements to the Cole commission of inquiry. The trade minister appeared before the commission on 10 April. On the same day, his 15-page statement to the inquiry regarding his knowledge or otherwise of 21 cables that were addressed to him, containing concerns about the AWB’s activities in Iraq, was made public. The trade minister stated on 41 separate occasions that he either ‘had no recollection’, ‘could not remember’ or ‘could not recall’ whether he had read the warnings in question. It makes you wonder why the trade minister continues to draw a salary. On the next day, 11 April, the foreign minister had a similar lapse of memory. On 27 occasions, he said could not remember anything of the warnings that had been provided over the course of the wheat for weapons scandal.

The foreign minister and trade minister have tried to justify their sudden inability to recall such critical documents by saying they receive thousands of cables each week—but 21 cables spread over a five-year period about a $300 million wheat for weapons scandal involving a country which Australia was about to go to war with? It beggars belief that ministers negligently did not bother reading or being briefed on cables which went to the heart of the effectiveness of the sanctions program against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

All these assertions, however, came unstuck in evidence delivered to DFAT Senate estimates on 29 May, when it was revealed that since 2000 DFAT has been ‘able to formally audit the process of a cable having been received, opened and actioned’ and, in the words of DFAT officials, the department can:

record the opening of a cable, the printing of a cable, the forwarding of a cable, the export of a cable and the closing of a cable.

In other words, there is a full electronic cable log. The question we asked in here yesterday of the trade minister was: when the trade minister provided his statement to the Cole commission of inquiry on 11 April, was that statement constructed on the basis of having consulted the electronic cable log? What was the trade minister’s answer? The trade minister’s answer was no. This is a most disturbing state of affairs.

Therefore, what did the Minister for Foreign Affairs do when he presented his statement of sworn evidence to the Cole commission of inquiry? Did he consult the electronic cable log or not? These questions raise further new questions which these ministers have yet to answer, concerning the accuracy of the statements they have made not just to this parliament but to the Cole commission of inquiry itself.

Of course, when it comes to this pattern of cover-up, the core of the cover-up lies in the limited terms of reference Commissioner Cole has himself been given by Prime Minister Howard. Prime Minister Howard has run around the country saying there is a full royal commission of inquiry with full powers to do whatever that commission of inquiry wants to do. That is absolutely untrue and the Prime Minister of this country knows it full well. Prime Minister John Howard designed Commissioner Cole’s terms of reference to produce a narrow commission of inquiry, not a broad-ranging one: one which would focus almost exclusively on the AWB; one which would focus only passingly on the role of ministers. But the critical element is this: Commissioner Cole has no powers whatsoever to make determinations about whether these ministers have done their jobs under Australian domestic law. That is a power he has not been given. That is therefore an area where he cannot go when it comes to reaching his conclusions. What we have had is a pattern of negligence, a pattern of cover-up and, as a consequence of this $300 million wheat for weapons scandal, damage to Australia’s national interests. (Time expired)

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—Listening to the member for Griffith last night, I heard him speak repeatedly about gross negligence and gross cover-up, and he reminded me of Lord Chancellor Baron Rolfe’s remarks in the case of Wilson v Brett (1843), when he said hundreds of years ago that ‘Gross negligence is just ordinary negligence with the addition of a vituperative epithet’. It is a great pity that the vituperation in the speeches of the member for Griffith and other opposition members was not limited only to epithets. Their speeches on the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 have not contested the substance of the legislation—they support it—but have simply been a series of vituperative claims and allegations about the subject matter of the royal commission.

The government has held the most open and the most thorough inquiry into this issue anywhere in the world. The cooperation of the government has been complete and unprecedented. The notion that the government has tried to limit the terms of reference is absurd. The government provided the commissioner with terms of reference to allow him to investigate and make findings in relation to the knowledge of the Commonwealth of alleged misconduct by Australian companies participating in the UN oil for food program. That was noted by the senior counsel, Mr John Agius, on 14 March this year.

The commissioner himself stated on 3 February that, if there was any suggestion that there had been a breach of any Australian law by the Commonwealth or its officers in relation to the terms of reference, he would seek a widening of those terms of reference to permit him to make a finding to that effect. No such request has been made. The Prime Minister has made it clear again and again, in this House and elsewhere, that the government would seriously consider any request by the commissioner for an extension of the inquiry’s terms of reference. The government is committed to enabling the inquiry to do its job, and that is reflected in the fact that it has implemented all extensions and variations to the letters patent which the commissioner has requested.

The inquiry is being conducted by the commissioner, Mr Cole. It is not being conducted by the member for Griffith or any other member of the opposition. The opposition seems to think that it can get some political mileage out of making claims about the very subject matter of the inquiry. The fact is that all of these issues are before the commissioner. The only judgment, the only conclusions and the only findings that matter will be those of the commission. The government has done everything within its power to ensure that that inquiry can be completed and can be completed thoroughly and has cooperated and supported the commissioner whenever he has sought assistance.

I will just deal with one matter which was raised by the member for Wills, who has a habit of making wild claims in this House in respect of these matters. He repeated the false claim that the government had only given a cursory reply to India’s request for assistance with an investigation into allegedly corrupt wheat sales. That statement is utterly false and the Attorney-General has asked me to advise the House that, when the Attorney-General’s Department received the request from India, it asked the Australian Federal Police to assist in responding to India’s request by obtaining witness statements and documents on a voluntary basis. The Attorney-General’s Department advised India of the Federal Police’s actions on the same day and that India would need to provide Australia with more information for the AFP to be able to investigate further using coercive powers. The Indian government did not respond. The Attorney-General’s Department wrote again to the Indian government saying that, if they wanted Australia to use search warrants or compel witnesses to give statements under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, they would need to provide more information. Again, the Indian government did not come back.

As the matter was not progressed by the Indian government, and as the allegations concerned Indian officials, there was no sufficient evidence to warrant a domestic investigation. If there is at some time in the future sufficient evidence concerning Australian offences, then they will be assessed in accordance with the normal Australian Federal Police processes. Australia’s response was substantial and as complete as it could be with the information that had been made available to the Australian government. As the Attorney-General has said publicly, if India wants to reopen the case, Australia stands ready, as it has done in the past, to assist the Indian government under the very longstanding arrangements for mutual assistance in matters of this kind.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.