Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.

I particularly want to focus on the answer by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, to my question and part of Senator Coonan’s answer to Senator Conroy’s question. Firstly, isn’t it remarkable that when a minister of the Crown stands up in this place, answerable to the Australian people, he relies upon the reference of certain matters to a commission of inquiry in order to deny the public and the parliament information?

The minister could not answer, for example, a simple question as to whether the Wheat Export Authority is responsible under the Wheat Marketing Act to monitor, examine and report on the performance of AWB Ltd. Apparently, because of that inquiry, the minister cannot answer that question. He could not tell us whether the Wheat Export Authority was required to examine contracts entered into by the AWB and analyse, assess and report on AWB’s pricing performance and supply chain arrangements, allegedly because there is a commission of inquiry. He could not answer a question as to whether he had a brief on the matter. That must have also been because of certain matters being referred to a commission of inquiry.

He certainly could not tell us whether the government had any knowledge as to why the Wheat Export Authority apparently did not know anything about the $300 million paid by AWB to Saddam Hussein under the UN’s oil for food program. Enough comment has been made about that publicly by ministers of this government to the media and in the other place to know that this government hitherto has not had a problem in answering questions about the AWB and the oil for food program, but apparently it has decided that it has become too hot and it is making too many mistakes so it has shut down its accountability through the parliamentary process and is refusing to answer questions.

I think the Australian people ought to know that under the Wheat Marketing Act the Wheat Export Authority is required:

... to monitor nominated company B’s—

that is, AWB International’s—

performance in relation to the export of wheat and examine and report on the benefits to growers that result from that performance.

It has, under section 5 of the act:

... power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done in connection with the performance of its functions.

So the Wheat Export Authority has wide powers. Under part 5D of the act it has authority to get any information, documents and copies of documents in custody or control of the nominated company, which is AWB International, or a related body of the nominated company that it considers relevant to the operation of the export pools that AWB has control of. Of course, the export pools are the pools of wheat which provided the wheat exported to Iraq and the basis for the $300 million in payments, allegedly for trucking, that AWB managed to funnel to Saddam Hussein’s accounts.

So the Wheat Export Authority has, since its inception, had enormous powers—indeed, a responsibility and an obligation—to investigate the performance of AWB in terms of these contracts. If it was doing its job, wouldn’t it have seen some remarkable payments being made to AWB Ltd? The government is saying, ‘We’re not going to tell you what we know about that because there’s an inquiry.’ I want to know what it has told the inquiry about that, what access the inquiry has to the Wheat Export Authority’s documentation, when it is actually going to pull the Wheat Export Authority before the commission and whether the commission is going to ask them what they told the government in those secret reports that have not been provided.

In the short time available I want to deal with the false and misleading misrepresentation that Senator Coonan made regarding a press release by Dr Emerson and me in June 2003—it has been done in the other place before, and frankly I would have thought the government would have learned—in which Dr Emerson and I called on the government to investigate claims that there were kickbacks being paid with respect to the AWB’s performance. In the last paragraph, after calling for the inquiry, we say that in the absence of any evidence we would have to dismiss the claims that this had occurred. But the previous eight or so paragraphs and the heading call for an inquiry—an inquiry which the government refused to conduct. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The week began with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, making all sorts of claims and promises on the ABC that this was going to be the issue of the decade and the issue to bring the government down. There were claims of government ministers connected with bribes and corruption. In fact, even the Prime Minister was to be linked with it all. What is more, they went a step too far in the House yesterday, claiming that all of the government is linked with the bribes and corruption and therefore linked to suicide bombers. What a shrill lack of credibility was brought to the debate yesterday. That was how they began the week.

At best, we can say we have seen a lot of heat but no light at all. If you ever doubted that the opposition were using this issue—using it not in the public interest, not in the national interest and certainly not in the interest of the wheat farmers—to milk it for whatever political advantage that the desperate opposition on the other side could get out of it, you need not have, because that is exactly their motivation. According to the Australian Financial Review, it was leaked from the caucus meeting—which, as we know, would be a correct report because those caucus meetings leak like a sieve—that on Monday Mr Beazley was hosing them down, telling them that the expectations at the beginning of the week were not going to be met and they were not going to get a ministerial scalp out of this. So forget about the national interest; it was all about getting a ministerial scalp, about discrediting the Prime Minister.

Do not think that the public do not see through that. Of course they see through all of your shrill shrieking and misrepresentation of the whole Cole inquiry. To instil a few facts into this issue is what is needed, not the opposition’s shifting from one allegation, one claim and one assertion to another. As each one has been proven false, as you prejudge the royal commission, your credibility has sunk in the public eye; it could not have sunk lower. The government has acted properly and creditably. From the time of the Volcker inquiry we have acted according to the recommendations of that inquiry. We have set up a transparent and open royal commission with references that give the ability to call government ministers or officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The government has not turned a blind eye to this issue. We have put in charge of that royal commission a former New South Wales Supreme Court judge, the Hon. Terence Cole. He is known to the other side as the former royal commissioner into the building and construction industry. He is a man who knows how to get to the bottom of corruption if there be any. He knows all about royal commissions and how to conduct them. He has not felt constrained at all in administering this inquiry.

We have said from these front benches, as has been said in the lower house, that the government will not prejudge this royal commission. We will not jump in early and follow it line by line, piece of evidence by piece of evidence, claim by claim and counterclaim by counterclaim. It is neither the correct thing to do when you establish a royal commission nor is it in the national interest. But when those recommendations are handed down by the most credible man who could possibly run the royal commission, rest assured that whatever the findings and recommendations, the government will implement them to the full. We have said that much.

On the other side, you decided to take the advantage, following it line by line, claim by claim and counterclaim by counterclaim, and along the way have been proven incorrect and each claim has been shown to be false. Time does not permit me to go through those claims. Perhaps you should bring on an MPI so that we get a little more time or we could discuss it in general business on Thursday. But your initial claim against the Prime Minister in regard to a letter he wrote in 2002 simply shows the absurdity of the effort you are making to drag this government down. On each occasion you have been knocked on the head over it. In the time I have left, I say that we simply reject the opposition’s claim that the government has acted improperly. (Time expired)

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answers that the government gave today on the AWB wheat scandal simply mirrored what we heard yesterday. They were no different to what we have heard before. They are designed to hide the truth, to cloud the air and to muddy the waters. They are not designed to do what our community expects of this government and that is to come clean—to come clean about what it knew, when it knew it and what involvement this government has had in the whole affair.

Senator McGauran is wrong. Justice Cole has been given certain terms of reference, but not wide enough to ensure that the facts will be found out and known. It is incorrect to say that Justice Cole will be able to get to the bottom of it. I concur with Senator McGauran: Justice Cole is an eminent person to do the job that he has been given. But the job that he has been given does not include investigating the role of this government and the role of the bureaucracy that advised the government. That is the issue that we have with the inquiry as it stands and that is the issue that this government will not come clean with the Australian community about.

In taking note of the answers I want to also take note of the comments that Senator Abetz made. We know that in this place Senator Abetz likes to think of himself as an eloquent speaker and, in fact, wrote a column about that at some stage last year himself. Vainly, again today he was trying to be a comedian by accusing Senator O’Brien of being Inspector Clouseau. I suggest to Senator Abetz that it would have been more appropriate if some of the people on his side had been behaving a bit like Inspector Clouseau themselves—if they had been asking questions and trying to find out what was happening. That is on the points that they did not know about, but surely there were enough indications that things were going wrong to suggest that questions should have been asked. I prefer Mr Kevin Rudd’s description of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he talked about them as using the Sergeant Schultz excuse of ‘I know nothing’. It is amusing but also accurate. They knew nothing because they did not want to know anything.

The themes of the answers we have heard today and yesterday are: we don’t know, we can’t remember, the dog ate my homework. This is what we are hearing from this government. It is simply not good enough for the Australian community, particularly the wheat industry in Australia, to be provided with this sort of misinformation, just a plain cover-up or denial. Senator Coonan went on to accuse the Labor Party regarding a ‘Get Senator Joyce’ campaign. I thought that was quite amusing because for us to get Senator Joyce we actually have to stand in line. There are many others on that side who are trying to get Senator Joyce. We had the spectacle of Senator McGauran’s defection last week, ostensibly because he could not bear Senator Joyce’s behaviour. He had to leave the National Party because he could not bear Senator Joyce’s behaviour. Further to the coalition’s problems are those running particularly in Queensland. Senator Boswell’s preselection has had to be deferred so that Senator Boswell can go and collect the numbers a bit more. It is a tricky time in Queensland for the coalition at the moment.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your father would be proud of you.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will send him the speech. Senator Boswell is clearly under attack from Senator Joyce’s faction in the National Party. The National Party in Queensland is getting smaller, but it is not as small as the Liberal Party in the state arena. We have the ridiculous situation where a coalition of sorts is presented to the Queensland community but we still cannot get agreement about what the role of each party is. We have the bizarre appointment of Senator Santoro as the Minister for Ageing. The last election Senator Santoro faced was in the seat of Clayfield—a blue ribbon Liberal seat—and he was absolutely trounced. He has not faced the electorate in the state. This is about the debacle of the coalition in Queensland. (Time expired)

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am deeply appreciative of Senator McLucas’s concern for my numbers. Her dear old dad is a lovely person and he is one of my numbers. He was the chairman of the Hughenden branch and a very staunch Boswell supporter. I thank her for her concern and ask her to talk to her father. But we are debating a motion to take note of answers to questions. Senator McLucas was diverted slightly; she lost her way about halfway through her five-minute contribution.

This was going to be the killer blow to end all killer blows. This was going to drive the National-Liberal coalition into the dirt. We were all going to be running for cover concerning the Wheat Board. What a big, big fizzer. This has not got off the ground. Even your leader admitted to caucus that you were not going to get any heads on this one, that it was quietening down a bit. You have been asking questions all over the place. That is your right and you should do that. But the government has established the Cole inquiry. It has established an inquiry that will get to the bottom of this. All your probing and the futile questions you are asking here will be dealt with by the commissioner, Mr Cole.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they’re good questions, then?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have not hit paydirt yet; that is all I can say. You have been spraying around but you have not struck a blow yet. The Cole inquiry has been established and has expanded its terms of reference to get to the heart of the matter. This is where the matter will be resolved. They have had full and open access to DFAT—all the documents and all the officials. The Prime Minister has clearly stated that all the ministers called will be invited to attend. But you guys have been whipping up hysteria. All you have been doing is driving a wedge into the Wheat Board, upon which Australian farmers depend so heavily to market their product.

There are two distinct things here. Everyone wants to get to the bottom of whether there has been corruption. But there is also a very clear understanding in the country that the Wheat Board is an essential part of marketing the industry. Making the connection that we have corruption on one side and that therefore the Wheat Board is ineffective is totally wrong. We are talking about two totally different issues. One is about corporate governance and the other one is about how we market our wheat, and they should be very, very separate. It is important that we do not play into the hands of vested interests that want to destroy the Wheat Board and see this as an opportunity to get rid of it: international grain traders, people that want to see the Wheat Board destroyed because it provides an essential service to Australian growers and about a $15 a tonne premium to Australian farmers.

As a member of the National Party and a member of the Senate, I want to stand up for the Australian Wheat Board and say that it has provided a wonderful service to Australian wheat growers. When the farmers make the decision that it is no longer useful as a one-desk seller then they can come to us and say, ‘It’s served its purpose; it is the judgment of the wheat growers that it is not required any longer.’ But until they do that the National Party is locked solidly into the Wheat Board. It is an act of faith with the National Party and it will not be abandoned by the National Party. We will fight for its existence. That is not to say that we do not want to get to the bottom of these claims. If there is anything substantial about them, the Cole inquiry will make its report and then it will be duly followed through by a process. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is an essential way to sell our wheat. There is $1 billion worth of subsidies going into American wheat and EU wheat every day of the year. While our farmers have to compete against that, the Wheat Board is the way to go. (Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever the hypocrisy, the duplicity and the deceit of this government was exposed, it is being exposed now with this scandal regarding the corrupt payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime. We have heard pathetic defences coming from ministers in question time today and elsewhere, and also from the speakers during this debate on the motion to take note of answers. Let me just deal with a couple of those, starting with the argument that the government have established the Cole royal commission and therefore they are going to get to the bottom of it, so we should just let Commissioner Cole get on and do his job. The problem with that argument is, firstly, that the terms of reference are limited in terms of what Commissioner Cole can actually make findings about.

Secondly, that argument is being put by people from this government who have made an art form of standing up in this parliament when other royal commissions have been held, asking questions and having questions answered about what is being investigated. I can recall back in the days of the royal commission into the Penny Easton and Carmen Lawrence issues in WA, day after day Senator Vanstone—who was then an opposition frontbencher—getting up here and trawling through all the issues. And more recently, with the royal commission into the building industry that Senator McGauran mentioned, the fact that that royal commission was being conducted did not stop members of the government from standing up in parliament and pre-empting the findings, making claims and dealing with the issues that were being covered by that royal commission. So do not try now, when your own government is under the microscope, to hide behind the argument that it is somehow sub judice because it is being dealt with by the Cole royal commission.

Senator Boswell just said, ‘They’re going to find out whether there was corruption.’ There has been corruption—we know that. That has already been found through the UN and the Volcker inquiry and it is clearly evident. What is now being inquired into is: how did it occur; who knew about it; why did it occur; and why is it being covered up? Clearly the evidence is pointing to a total failure on the part of this government and departments administered by ministers of this government. They either knew and did not say, or they did not know.

Senator Coonan said that there is no evidence that any minister was involved. Either ministers did not know—and therefore they were negligent and ignorant—or the evidence will prove that they did know. Whichever way it is with this argument by the government that they did not know and therefore they are not culpable or guilty, the fact is, at the end of the day, the responsibility rests with the government. It rests with the ministers. Senator Coonan, Senator Abetz and most of the other frontbenchers here are lawyers. They know that old adage ‘ignorance is no excuse’.

Let me make another point. I can remember a former Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition back in the mid-seventies standing up in this parliament and talking about what were reprehensible circumstances. That, in part, related to what was happening with borrowing money overseas. What we have here is clear evidence of corrupt payments—$300 million being paid to a dictator responsible for some of the worst atrocities that have occurred in recent times—and the government sit there and say it is not their fault. The fact is the AWB is a creation of the government; it is a body set up to look after the interests of the wheat farmers. That $300 million would have done a lot of good to assist farmers. But, no. What happened? It got paid to that murderous dictator in Iraq.

Senator McGauran, the former National Party member, talks about us not having a ministerial scalp. Senator McGauran, you would know all about getting ministerial scalps, mate, because when you ratted on your former party, your former party lost a ministerial position. What hypocrisy and obfuscation we are getting from this mob. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.