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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s negligence in responding to 33 separate warnings on the $300 million wheat for weapons scandal, its attempted cover-up of this scandal and its impact on the Australian wheat industry

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

Next month will mark one year since we in this place first started asking questions of the government about the biggest corruption scandal in Australia’s history—the $300 million wheat for weapons scandal. One year later it is worth reflecting on what exactly we have managed to extract from that mob opposite—otherwise called the government of Australia. It is interesting to have a look back at just how cocky they were a year ago. Take this, for example: in December last year the Prime Minister said in this place:

I begin ... by pointing out to the member for Griffith that it has not been established that AWB paid any kickbacks.

I thought that was a little novel, a little brave, a little unusual in defence. The Prime Minister goes on in a different answer:

... the people who run that company—

that is, the AWB—

are people of—

wait for it—

complete integrity.

That is the Prime Minister’s statement to the parliament, which puts a very interesting slant on the Liberal Party’s definition of integrity. Then, we have the real doozy. The Prime Minister says, referring to the member for Griffith again:

... is seeking through false allegations to blacken the reputation of ... the members of the Australian Wheat Board.

Poor petals, indeed. Twelve months later it is worth reflecting on how much things have changed. Man of steel these days barely mentions the ‘I’ word, that is the Iraq word, the war that dare not speak its name. It is the most spectacular failure of Australian foreign policy since Vietnam. Not only do we have problems mentioning the ‘I’ word in this place, there is the ‘A’ word—the AWB, the company that dare not speak its name. It is a company that, judging by at its employment record, becomes an employment agency for Liberal Party and National Party apparatchiks once they slither out of this place. The company that used to have untrammelled access to any government ministerial office it wanted at any time and at any place over the five years that this corruption scandal ran is suddenly a company that today dare not speak its name. It is a noncompany, erased entirely from the government’s public vocabulary.

There is a big linkage between these two—the Iraq war and the AWB. The Prime Minister said that the invasion of Iraq was necessary in order to deal with the global terrorist threat. That was an interesting argument in national security policy: you bankroll Saddam Hussein one day before bombing him the next. But the stupendous hypocrisy of this government’s foreign policy on Iraq is this: the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions in this place, ‘The reason we have to invade Iraq is because the UN sanctions are not working.’ We now know, courtesy of the Volcker inquiry, why they were not working. This government, this mob opposite, these ministers, presided over the single largest source of illegal cash funnelled into the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein while those sanctions were in place. The stupendous hypocrisy of this government in doing so allowed $300 million in cold hard readies to be tipped into the Iraqi finance ministry to enable the Iraqi regime to buy guns, bombs and bullets for use against Australian troops.

I believe this entire scandal speaks volumes about the values for which this government stands. This government preaches values day in and day out but I say look carefully at what this government does, not just at what this government says. Look at what happened in this $300 million wheat for weapons scandal: it has totally undermined wheat exports from regions like that represented by the member for Maranoa—he should hang his head in shame.

The Cole inquiry is due to report by the end of this month. More than a year later it is therefore important to draw together the facts we have thus far established in this parliament, because this is the only place we can do that, as to what complicity the government has had in this, the worst corruption scandal in Australian history.

Fact one: we now know that this government is guilty of gross negligence. There were 33 separate warnings over a five-year period about what the AWB was up to and each one of those warnings was ignored, including by the minister at the table, Minister McGauran. Fact two: once this $300 million scandal started to leak out, they tried to cover it up. They misled our allies the Americans on at least three separate occasions and told them that everything was just fine and dandy and that there was no problem at all with the AWB, knowing full well that it stank to high heaven. But they did not seek to cover up just with the Americans; they also sought to cover up with the UN and the Volcker inquiry. They gagged Australian officials from appearing before the Volcker inquiry or being interviewed by that inquiry. This is quite staggering—they actually coached the AWB on how to answer questions put to them by the Volcker inquiry. We have put questions to the Prime Minister over the last few days about his foreign policy adviser, about how he should seek to restrict the AWB to some sort of small target: ‘Do not answer too many questions; do not be too forthright.’ This is quite extraordinary.

They sought to cover up their behaviour through the Volcker inquiry and to cover it up through misleading the Americans, but the grand cover-up of them all is this: the rorted terms of reference of the Cole inquiry itself. Anyone who looks at the text of these terms of reference knows that it is set up to do one thing alone, and that is to establish whether the AWB is guilty of criminal offences. There is no head of power and nothing to grant Commissioner Cole the power to determine whether ministers have done their job under Australian law—nothing whatsoever. This Prime Minister today stood at the dispatch box and tried to say that black was white yet again. So fact two is the cover-up.

Fact three is the gross damage to Australia’s national security and national economic interest. Our reputation around the world, though this government would perhaps not know it, is shredded. This country has prided itself for generations on being a bunch of people who respect international law and who uphold UN sanctions. We now discover that, of 2,100 companies investigated worldwide by the Volcker inquiry, we get the gold medal as the single largest provider of illegal cash to Saddam Hussein’s regime. I do not know how you blokes get out of bed in the morning and look in the mirror.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grandler has been warned that the chair will not tolerate any more interjections.

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

That is such a staggering indictment of your nonperformance as a minister in allowing the sanctions to have been breached so grossly. Then there comes a question of our wheat exports. Here we have in this chamber the farmers’ friend—at least the member for Maranoa might hang around for a bit; this bloke over here, Mr McGauran, looks as though he is about to jump ship to the Libs. They are part of the government, and the National Party describe themselves as the ‘farmers’ friend’. What have you done as a consequence of your failure to uphold the principles of international law and enforce UN sanctions? You have caused the new Iraqi government to penalise Australia because of the AWB. In the last 12 months alone our wheat exports to Iraq have sunk by 50 per cent. Those from America to Iraq have gone up by 300 per cent. Again, how do you blokes stare at yourselves in the mirror of a morning? You represent the wheat-growing areas of Australia and you have trashed Australia’s wheat exporting reputation.

But it gets worse. We now have a huge legal case on foot in the United States and another legal case in Australia. If these things wash through and the AWB is on the wrong side of the law, the legal and financial implications and the costs to be paid, which will potentially flow through to Australian wheat farmers, are mind-boggling indeed.

Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, how do you think this government rewards itself after this spectacular record of incompetence and gross negligence, gross cover-up and gross damage to the national interest? You would think they would hang their heads in shame, but in the last few days—and the member for Corio is going to talk about this a bit later on—we discovered that the Wheat Export Authority, set up by this government to make sure all was under control with the export of Australian wheat to markets like Iraq, has just awarded itself, approved by the agriculture minister, a 15 per cent pay rise for staff. Despite this spectacular scandal—the biggest corruption scandal in Australia’s history—what does this government do? It pats itself on the back and rewards its staff in the WEA.

Today in the parliament we sought to extract some truth from this Prime Minister about the exact state of the terms of reference. These rorted terms of reference represent the absolute core of this government’s attempted cover-up of its political and ministerial culpability in this scandal. The Prime Minister has become the cover-up king of Australian politics. This Prime Minister makes Richard Milhous Nixon look like a rank amateur. If you put it together and look at these rorted terms of reference, the misleading of the Volker inquiry and the misleading of the Americans when they sought to investigate these matters, you can only conclude that cover-up has become their credo. Across the board they have sought to prevent this information from reaching the public because it is all too politically damaging for them.

In these terms of reference, these letters patent which were released at the time the commission of inquiry was established, there is no power to determine whether ministers did their job to enforce sanctions—none whatsoever. So Mr Cole cannot make any findings on that. There is no power to determine whether the foreign minister did his job. What was that? To uphold the Customs regulations to approve each export contract with Iraq before moneys were paid. There is no power to determine whether ministers were negligent in not responding to the 33 warnings they received and no power to determine when ministers engaged in attempted cover-ups—none whatsoever.

From day one these terms of reference have been deliberately rorted by the Prime Minister. They knew what they were doing; they did not want the information to come out.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will withdraw ‘deliberately rorted’.

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

These terms of reference—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will withdraw ‘deliberately rorted’ or I will deal with him.

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

In order to facilitate the House—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will withdraw unreservedly.

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

I will do so, noting the fact I have already said that before.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Party has rorted.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corio will remove himself under 94(a).

The member for Corio then left the chamber.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, do not take my say-so for this. It is in black and white in the correspondence I referred to today with the Prime Minister in question time. The Prime Minister stands up and says black is white and white is black. Here it is, a letter from the Cole inquiry itself saying the matters that I have just referred to here—that is, whether ministers have actually done their job—do not have any head of power whatsoever in the current terms of reference.

His second line of defence is: ‘If these terms of reference are not up to it, what can I then do? It is all up to Commissioner Cole. He can request extra powers.’ Commissioner Cole’s office says in this letter that he cannot make any request whatsoever for an expansion of his terms of reference because that would represent such a grand, significant expansion of the limited powers he was given at the very outset. The nature of the cover-up embarked upon by this government is rendered for all to see. It is stark, it is clear and it is deliberate. These rorted terms of reference constitute an affront to any sense of accountability in this place.

Where does this leave Commissioner Cole? Commissioner Cole has a responsibility under law to report to the government. He has stated he will report by the end of September. The problem we face is that he has no power to act in making determinations about whether these ministers actually did their job. He only has the power to determine whether or not criminal offences have been committed, in particular by the AWB.

It would take an extraordinary act of courage on the part of Commissioner Cole to go beyond these terms of reference and make the types of findings that need to be made concerning these ministers’ complicity and the worst corruption scandal in Australia’s history. Unless Commissioner Cole ignores the constraints deliberately placed on him by the Howard government, my prediction is that the government in all probability is going to deliver a whitewash in terms of ministerial culpability and responsibility for this scandal. That is why the terms of reference have been constructed that way.

The Cole commission of inquiry is important in the overall process of accountability, but ministers, of course, are not accountable to it. This parliament is not a source of accountability, because each time we ask a question they say it is being handled by the Cole inquiry, but the Cole inquiry is not handling it. The Senate estimates have been shut down so they cannot deal with any question concerning the wheat for weapons scandal, and no Senate inquiry can sustain itself to investigate these matters of accountability.

This is a scandal of the first order of magnitude. As a member of this parliament, I cannot understand how ministers can stand at this dispatch box and seek to exonerate themselves of responsibility for the damage they have done to the good name of this country, to the interests of our hardworking wheat farmers and to those who have depended on Australia’s good and sound international reputation. They stand condemned. (Time expired)

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

This matter of public importance has been useful for one thing and one thing only: we now know what the member for Griffith’s strategy has been over the past few days in asking repetitive and stale questions of the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. All of the member for Griffith’s questions with regard to the Iraq issue have been asked before and answered repeatedly, and it has been a mystery to me for some days now as to why the member for Griffith was persisting with an ineffectual strategy. After his contribution to this debate, we now know why: he is setting up to criticise the Cole commission of inquiry before it reports for the simple reason that he now believes that the Cole commission of inquiry’s findings will not substantiate his overblown and exaggerated accusations, allegations and rhetoric. That is what this is about—a deliberate and calculated undermining of the Cole commission of inquiry with, I am afraid to say, barely disguised reflections on the commissioner himself. This is a very important point to note: the member for Griffith is attacking the Cole commission of inquiry. He is seemingly criticising an eminent judge in Justice Cole.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has just said I was attacking the Cole commission of inquiry and the commissioner in particular. I was doing no such thing.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. It is frivolous and I will not tolerate another one.

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

Let me come exactly to that point, because I listened carefully to the member for Griffith’s contribution. Commissioner Cole has said he can and must inquire into the extent of government knowledge. He has also said he would seek to broaden the terms of reference if necessary. Therefore, constant claims by the member for Griffith, laboured at length here today, of rorted terms of reference are a slight against Commissioner Cole. Commissioner Cole has made it abundantly clear that he will correct the terms of reference to the extent he needs to determine government knowledge in this issue, and yet the member for Griffith persists with his accusations that the terms of reference are rorted. The member for Griffith cannot have it both ways. He has staked his reputation on his criticisms of the government, and if the commission of inquiry finds those criticisms to have been unfounded then the member for Griffith knows his own credibility will suffer.

The member for Griffith also said during the matter of public importance debate today that we have learnt a lot over the past 12 months, and that is the fundamental failure of his allegations against the government. We have learnt a lot over the last 12 months because of the commission of inquiry headed by Justice Cole and established by the government, and that is why the Labor Party cannot gain traction on this issue. It is the government that took the step of establishing the Cole inquiry. Of the 66 countries and more than 2,000 companies that were named in the Volcker report, Australia is the only country to have established a fully transparent inquiry with extensive powers, and the government has cooperated fully, completely and unhesitatingly with the Cole inquiry. There has been unparalleled access, and rightly so, to government documents and officials.

The Cole inquiry has sat for 65 days. Over 70 witnesses have appeared before it, including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and 18 current and former government officials. There have been over 100 statements from current and former government officials. The government has nothing to hide. We look forward to Commissioner Cole’s report. We have supported it, especially since we established it, and it is improper for the member for Griffith to reflect on the commission of inquiry’s very existence.

The member for Griffith persists with the argument of a cover-up. Every document the member for Griffith cites is from the website of the commission of inquiry. One thousand exhibits, containing thousands of pages of documents, have been made public by the inquiry. The majority has been available on the inquiry’s website for months, and obviously Commissioner Cole has access to many more documents beyond those available on the website. This is the biggest cover-up in the history of Australian politics, according to the member for Griffith, and yet it is the government that is responsible for the inquiry’s very existence and for the full and unfettered access the inquiry has to every aspect of government.

Just as offensive in the member for Griffith’s contribution today was something that we need to pick up on. He said, ‘This country’s reputation is shredded overseas’—a typical exaggeration and unfounded allegation, but I will tell you something: the member for Griffith is singing the song of our wheat competitors. The member for Griffith is giving aid and comfort to those who would undermine out wheat growers. To allege in this House that this country’s reputation is shredded is exaggerated to the point of disloyalty to the interests of this country and wheat growers, and the member for Griffith must bear responsibility for the damage he does to this country’s reputation by joining in the criticism of those who have a commercial interest to sustain against this country. I have travelled to Washington, I have met wheat growers and I have spoken to members of parliament. Of course some of them will seize on the issues surrounding the inquiry, because that serves their interest, but to say this country’s reputation is shredded is an act of gross misjudgement, if I can put it as benignly as that, by the member for Griffith.

The simple fact is that Commissioner Cole and counsel assisting the inquiry have been fearless in every aspect of their inquiry. They have the resources as well as the capacity to get to the truth of all matters. What I am more interested in, because everything associated with the government is transparent and accountable through the commission of inquiry, is the member for Griffith’s own dealings with what he now says is the company that dare not speak its name. We know the member for Griffith met repeatedly with the Australian Wheat Board. Where are his notes? Where are his recollections? He will not make them public; instead he seems to have misled people about the frequency of his meetings with the AWB. At one stage he said he had had only one meeting; now he concedes there have been several meetings.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that right?

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

Yes, so why don’t we table the member for Griffith’s notes or recollections of his meetings with the Australian Wheat Board? We understand that the member for Griffith was fully informed as to all aspects of the Australian Wheat Board’s interests in Iraq. I am not alleging any improper knowledge or wrongdoing—of course not—on the part of the member for Griffith, but he was simply given the same lines, as I understand it, from the Australian Wheat Board as were government ministers.

The member for Griffith, in an attempt to generate interest or even a headline, alleges that the government have participated in a cover-up to the point where we even instructed our Washington representatives to obfuscate and deceive and mislead American senators. The simple fact is that the government have never sought anything other than procedural fairness for AWB in the congressional systems. Above all else, we cooperated fully with Volcker. Every aspect of the Volcker inquiry’s questions and requests for information was complied with. We provided records. Public servants were made available. We cooperated fully with Volcker and, as Volcker uncovered concerns about the Australian Wheat Board, the government told the Australian Wheat Board to cooperate with Volcker. Whether they did or not, as with all other aspects of their behaviour, will be a matter for Commissioner Cole.

The simple fact is that there was no protection of AWB from rightful, legitimate and lawful inquiries, whether in America or by Volcker from the United Nations. When Volcker reported disturbing findings, we established the Cole commission of inquiry. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by the government presented by the member for Griffith. You can see from everything that is available through the Cole commission exactly what the government knew and what the Australian Wheat Board was telling the government. What we do not know from the Cole commission is what the member for Griffith knew and what the Australian Wheat Board was telling the member for Griffith. In fact, all the questions the opposition asked on this issue are based on documents made available through the Cole inquiry. So, instead of being hysterical, the member for Griffith should either find some evidence to back up his outrageous claims or wait for the Cole commission to hand down its report, like every other fair-minded person is doing.

If Labor had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. The mass murders would still be continuing. Saddam Hussein would still be killing Iraqis, would still be working on his weapons of mass destruction programs and would still be rorting the oil for food program, with children needlessly dying as a result. We have only uncovered these scandals and wrongdoings by ousting Saddam Hussein, and we are proud of the role we played in ousting him. Apart from stopping his barbarism, preventing him from invading his neighbours, putting an end to his support for terrorism and ending his weapons of mass destruction programs, it has allowed us to uncover the rorting of the United Nations sanctions system. And we are determined to discover exactly what went on. The Cole commission—the inquiry we set up—will duly hand down its findings.

Moreover, the member for Griffith would have it that the government has failed Australian wheat growers because there is American wheat being sold to Iraq. His ignorance on this matter is pretty staggering. For a start, we know that between the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003 the United States had little or no trade in wheat, so the 300 per cent increase that the member for Griffith seized upon is coming from a zero base. It is now a competitive market. The Australian market share in Iraq was obviously unusually high because the United States was not a competitor during those years. Mind you, the United States had been a major exporter to Iraq before the sanctions. The government is keen for trade with Iraq for continue. The Deputy Prime Minister and the government as a whole have worked to facilitate the wheat trade while the Australian Wheat Board is excluded by the Iraqi Grains Board pending the outcome of the Cole inquiry.

The government’s efforts have successfully opened the way for Australian wheat to be exported to Iraq. While sales to Iraq may be down, sales to other markets are increasing. Expected returns to growers in the 2005-06 national pool have recently been upgraded by the Australian Wheat Board. The Australian government has strongly supported our growers in accessing, to the greatest extent possible, the Iraqi wheat market. The Iraqi Grains Board is currently conducting another tender, and I am hopeful of a successful commercial outcome for Australian wheat growers. I am assured that the Australian Wheat Board will be making wheat available from the national pool on commercial terms for the current tender.

Wheat Australia, the consortium of bulk handlers who have stepped into the breach in the absence of the Australian Wheat Board in the Iraq market, is continuing to fulfil its commitments against its 350,000-tonne deal with the Iraqi Grains Board. I wish to congratulate Wheat Australia for the hard work put into making these exports happen. It is a great outcome for Australian wheat growers and ensures a continued presence for Australian wheat in this longstanding market. But that is a great disappointment to the member for Griffith because, to be frank, he does not want Australian wheat growers to succeed in the Iraq market. So he goes around trashing the Australian reputation in the hope that there is a backlash that may reflect upon the government. Forget the interests of Australian wheat growers—the member for Griffith is only interested in his political interests. He is guilty of exaggeration and hype in his accusations against the government and in his lack of confidence in and his undermining of the Cole commission, and he is against the interests of Australian wheat growers. The member for Griffith knows only too well that he is guilty of a great deal of exaggeration over a long period of time, and the day of reckoning is coming. The Cole commission will do its job and will report its findings, as the government would have it do.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made a series of freedom of information applications to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade concerning the AWB scandal. The minister’s response has made a mockery of the government’s claims, which we have just heard, to be open and transparent about the scandal. Requests for documents have been rejected on the basis that the workload would be too onerous, yet the government claims to have provided all of the documents to the Cole commission. If this claim is true then it has done the work already, and the documents it has provided to me have been heavily censored—blacked out so as to make them meaningless.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and his colleague the Treasurer, as last week’s High Court decision showed, are the Boston stranglers of freedom of information. They have used conclusive certificates as chloroform, increased charges as a truncheon and delays in responding as a garrotte in order to strangle genuine efforts to obtain information.

But sometimes not everything goes according to plan. The copy they sent me of a briefing note prepared by the department of foreign affairs for a meeting scheduled with Andrew Lindberg, Managing Director of the AWB, on 20 January 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, had most of the paragraphs blacked out, as usual, but the blacking out was—how shall I put it?—half-hearted or half-baked. It is in fact possible to read many of the words underneath the blacking out. The first paragraph, under the heading ‘Key issues’, reads:

Note that the nature of any post-Saddam transition arrangements in Iraq has yet to be determined. Australia favours significant UN involvement. This would inter alia help ensure the transparency of purchasing decisions. Australian personnel could be seconded to some of the UN branches, for example the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, involved in aid procurement and coordination.

The timing of this note—a meeting between the foreign affairs minister and the AWB CEO on 20 January 2003—is highly significant. At the time, Prime Minister Howard was insisting invasion was not inevitable and would only be a last resort. The notes they tried to black out show the government was planning to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein even though the Prime Minister was still pretending to be giving peace a chance.

Minister Downer’s claim that we invaded Iraq to stop it using weapons of mass destruction is nowadays about as plausible as a man who says he buys Penthouse to read the articles. The notes they tried to black out also show the government was more prepared to be candid with AWB about its intentions than it was with the Australian people. The government and AWB were bosom buddies throughout this corrupt charade. The consequences of the Iraq invasion have been disastrous for the war on terrorism, providing an apparently endless supply of recruits for Osama bin Laden and his allies, and disastrous for Australians, leading to the Americans taking Australia’s wheat market in Iraq and being a major factor in the doubling of petrol prices.

It is hard to imagine a piece of greater Keystone Cops bungling and it would be comical if it were not so serious. On national security, the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister are driving in the way made famous by Laurel and Hardy: one foot flat on the accelerator but the steering wheel has come off in their hands. They are clueless as to where the war on terrorism is headed next. We have a foreign affairs minister who told the Cole commission that he does not have time to read diplomatic cables, but it turns out he has time to read the anonymous right-wing US website Zombietime.com and prefers to believe them than have his department check out matters with the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘zombie’ as ‘a lifeless, apathetic, or completely unresponsive person’. That is Minister Downer, all right: apathetic about the catastrophe that is Iraq, apathetic about the scandal that is AWB and unresponsive to the basic standards expected of a minister.

AWB is a union. It is a union of Australian wheat growers. It is not just a union, though—it is a compulsory union. AWB has a monopoly on Australian bulk wheat exports. Australian wheat growers can only export through AWB. They call it the single desk. Every time you hear someone talking about the single desk, it is worth remembering that what they mean is a compulsory union of wheat growers. Some wheat growers do not want to be in the union.

Over in Western Australia, most wheat growers do not want to be in the union. I notice another group of farmers, called the Eastern Grain Growers, are also calling for total deregulation of the export market. They do not want to be in the union either. We have wheat growers coming to us and asking, ‘Why should we have to pay this tax on our wheat to fund the Wheat Export Authority?’ The Cole inquiry has shown that this body was completely incapable of discovering the corrupt payments to Saddam and shown it to be as useful as breasts on a bull, if I might employ a little agricultural parlance. But the government says to these farmers: ‘No, you’ve got to be in the union. Everyone’s got to be in the union. The union makes us strong. It is a tough world out there and the single desk—the union—is the best way to go. Collective bargaining is how we will get the best result.’

The AWB is not just a union and not just a compulsory union; it is an affiliated union. It is affiliated with the Liberal and National parties. I respect farmers. They are decent, hardworking people and I support them in their struggle to get a mandatory code of conduct for fruit and vegetable growers—something they were promised before the last election. But farmers’ representative organisations like AWB have unfortunately become part of the career path for Liberal and National party personnel. This week the Eastern Grain Growers spokesman Mark Johns said:

Grower election of board members has provided a career path for agri-politicians encouraging inefficiencies aimed at political solutions.

Here are some of the names featuring prominently at the Cole commission: there is gun-toting Trevor Flugge, former Director and Chairman of the AWB, paid over $900,000 out of the AusAID budget for a few months work in Iraq—a former National Party candidate. There is Darryl Hockey, AWB’s Government Relations Manager, former adviser to the last National Party leader and member for Gwydir. There is Tom Harley, Liberal Party activist and author, Chair of the Menzies Research Centre and BHP executive, who was implicated in the Tigris affair: AWB’s scam to pass over $10 million BHP wanted for wheat it decided it had not really given Iraq.

Then there are the Liberal and National members of parliament, including the member for Gwydir, the former Leader of the National Party. As Minister for Primary Industries and Energy he ordered the privatisation of AWB, but it was a privatisation with a difference: he gave—not sold, gave—the 67½ thousand grain grower members of the Wheat Industry Fund A- and B-class shares in AWB, allowing these members 241 million shares or 90 per cent control of AWB. It turned out to be worth $800 million to them. Medibank Private fund members please take note. If the Howard government really believes a privatised Medibank Private will perform better and is not doing it for the money, why does it not hand over Medibank Private to the fund members the same way it did with AWB? Minister Anderson personally received shares in AWB.

There is the Minister for Community Services, Mr Cobb, National Party member for Parkes—former President of the New South Wales Farmers Association; he held AWB shares. There is the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Liberal member for Groom, Mr Macfarlane—former President of the Queensland Graingrowers Association; he held AWB shares. There is the National Party member for Maranoa—who is in the chamber now. His family trust had AWB shares. There is the Liberal member for Grey, Mr Wakelin; he held AWB shares. There is Senator Heffernan, Liberal senator; he had AWB shares. And it is the same deal for former Liberal Party President John Elliot, and the current National Party President, David Russell. There is now-disgraced Andrew Lindberg, who was appointed CEO of AWB by a National Party minister after working for a National Party minister in Victoria as head of the WorkCover Authority.

The jobs, the shares and the campaign donations all add up to one thing: AWB is an affiliated union of the Liberal and National parties. If one of Labor’s affiliated unions were to be involved in a $300 million corruption scandal with anyone—much less Saddam Hussein—heads would roll. We would never hear the end of it. But, here, no heads have rolled. We are told that everything is being taken care of by the Cole commission. But the truth is: the Cole commission will not make any adverse findings about ministers or their staff, because to do so would be outside their terms of reference. It is high time ministerial heads did roll and high time the Liberal and National parties took real action to deal with the corruption of one of their affiliates.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this MPI that has been introduced by the Labor Party. It reads:

The Government’s negligence in responding to 33 separate warnings on the $300 million wheat for weapons scandal, its attempted cover-up of this scandal and its impact on the Australian wheat industry.

That is the MPI that has been presented by the Labor Party, and this side of the House rejects those allegations outright. I have a great interest in the Cole commission of inquiry, because I represent a large group of wheat growers in Australia, and I know that we on this side of the parliament are interested in the outcome of the Cole investigation—unlike those on the other side of the parliament. The matters relating to the Australian Wheat Board and its trade under the oil for food program are before the Cole commission now, and the Labor Party should allow Commissioner Cole to do his job.

The United Nations established an independent committee of inquiry, led by Paul Volcker, to examine the operations of the oil for food program in Iraq. This government cooperated fully with that inquiry. There has been no cover-up; we are not hiding anything. We cooperated fully with that inquiry. The final Volcker report raised questions about activities of three Australian companies during the oil for food program. We cooperated with the inquiry and they raised questions about three Australian companies. In response to the Volcker inquiry, this government established a commission of inquiry led by Justice Cole.

I have been joined in the House by the member for Riverina, who I know has a great interest in the welfare of Australian wheat growers and who fully supports the Cole inquiry that has been set up by this government to investigate matters raised in the Volcker report. In the Volcker report, something like 2,000 companies from 66 countries were named. It is interesting to note that Australia is the only country that has established an inquiry that is fully transparent. This government is cooperating to ensure that Commissioner Cole can do his job. That is hardly a cover-up.

I want to touch on some of the comments and allegations that come from the other side of the House repeatedly. The Labor Party say that they are the friend of the Australian wheat grower. It is worth putting on the Hansard record that during the first Gulf War, when we were on the other side of the House, the Labor Party were on the Treasury bench. The now Leader of the Opposition had become Deputy Prime Minister. The Australian Wheat Board, selling on behalf of Australian wheat growers, had contracted to sell wheat into Iraq. Supported by both sides of the parliament at the time, in order to ensure that we could help as part of a coalition of like-minded countries, and to ensure that Iraq was pushed back out of Kuwait, wheat had been forward sold into that market in Iraq. Up to 85 per cent of the value of that wheat was covered by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. Fifteen per cent of the value of that wheat got tied up in the failure of the Iraqi regime to honour payments to the Australian wheat growers. This was a Labor Party, in government, that could have done something about those payments to ensure that the wheat growers of Australia were not the innocent victims of the Labor Party support of our involvement in the first Gulf War, to ensure that Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait.

That debt to Australian wheat growers has since been written off. But who had to bear the brunt of that loss? The Australian wheat grower. So when the Labor Party comes into this place and says that they are the friends of the wheat growers of Australia, I say—

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell the truth.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, tell the truth. Their actions demonstrate to me that they are more interested in supporting the American wheat lobby.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are the best friends the American wheat growers have ever had.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the American wheat growers have an ally on the other side of this House. The Australian Labor Party have become the best friend of the American wheat growers. They are not interested in the welfare of Australian wheat growers.

Every day, the member for Griffith comes into this place with another question to the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. They are all questions about baseless allegations against ministers of this government; a government that has fully cooperated with the Cole commission of inquiry. This government has absolutely nothing to hide. In fact, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the foreign minister have all appeared before the Cole commission of inquiry and given evidence—that is the sort of power that we have given to the Cole commission of inquiry.

Let us talk about the wheat trade with Iraq. Wheat was Australia’s 10th largest merchandise export in 2005, with almost $3 billion worth of exports. That is a significant contribution to the Australian economy. It is a valued part of our export performance. Iraq has been a substantial market for Australian wheat growers for more than 50 years. It is a market valued by the Australian wheat grower. In 2005-06, we sold Iraq some 715,000 tonnes. We care about the prospects for future sales of wheat to Iraq. The Deputy Prime Minister cares about the prospects for future sales of wheat to Iraq.

Clear evidence of that was the Deputy Prime Minister going to Baghdad earlier this year to ensure that Australian wheat growers were able to tender for the 350,000-tonne contract that was up for negotiation at that time. The Iraqi Grains Board had banned the Australian Wheat Board from bidding for that wheat tender. But the Deputy Prime Minister went into the most dangerous war zone in the world and negotiated with the Iraqi Grains Board and their ministers to ensure that Australian wheat growers were able to bid for that wheat tender—and we were successful. Is that the action of a government that does not care about the wheat grower? Is opening a full royal commission-like inquiry into the allegations that have been made in the Volcker report the action of a government trying to cover up actions that might embarrass the government? No, it is not. We reject the allegations and we reject the MPI presented by the Labor Party. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is concluded.