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

My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows the one I asked him previously and his answer. Of course he knows that Coronation Hill in those circumstances is no precedent for the position he is adopting now. I refer also to the government’s exclusion of findings on ministers’ competence in the discharge of their responsibilities from the Cole inquiry’s terms of reference and now the government’s gagging of officials in Senate estimates hearings, a step they did not take in the previous Cole royal commission nor the HIH royal commission. Prime Minister, isn’t this arrogant abuse of power all about protecting the Prime Minister and the five ministers now embroiled in the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal? What do you have to hide, Prime Minister?

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

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if I had anything to hide I would not have established the royal commission. It is as simple as that. The Leader of the Opposition gets very worked up, but let me just calmly remind the House of this. Let me read from the terms of reference. I read these terms of reference advisedly: ‘It necessarily follows that the knowledge of the Commonwealth’—and ‘the Commonwealth’ there is used generically, so that includes me, it includes all of my colleagues, it includes public servants and it includes the secretary of the department—‘of any relevant fact is a matter to be addressed by this inquiry.’

That is Mr Cole. Could I let the Leader of the Opposition into a secret: I think the Australian public will place more reliance on Mr Cole’s findings than on the Leader of the Opposition’s fulminations. We will leave that to later on. Continuing to read from the terms of reference:

It necessarily follows that the knowledge of the Commonwealth of any relevant facts is a matter to be addressed by this inquiry and is within the existing terms of reference in the letters patent.

That is what Mr Cole said. That is not John Howard, Alexander Downer or Mark Vaile.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made the point in my question explicitly that findings on these matters and on the competence of ministers in addressing their ministerial responsibilities are not possible and Cole himself has said that.

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

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

Mr Beazley interjecting

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. When the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order, he should not debate the point but get straight to his point. I call the Prime Minister.

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

I return to the point that the commissioner himself has said that it:

... follows that the knowledge of the Commonwealth of any relevant facts is a matter to be addressed by this inquiry and is within the existing terms of reference in the letters patent.

He then goes on to say that, if he needs any further power, he will ask for it. The Leader of the Opposition asks why we did not draw the terms of reference differently. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that we decided to establish this 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 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition’s question dealt with Cole’s capacity to make findings on the competence of ministers, not the breach of law—and you will not answer that, Prime Minister.

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

The Prime Minister is in order.

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

We established this inquiry because Volcker had made an adverse finding about AWB Ltd and other companies; he did not make an adverse finding about the Australian government. If he had, then the terms of reference would have gone further than they have. Our terms of reference do exactly what Volcker asked be done. In fact, almost alone amongst the countries around the world, we are having a proper inquiry into this matter. We have not referred it to the police, where you would not have the capacity to compel the attendance of witnesses and you would not have an open inquiry. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that this government has been utterly transparent in this matter—utterly transparent. We have established a commissioner with the powers of a royal commission, who can compel witnesses. As I said yesterday when being interviewed on television, I am content to let the blame fall where it may. This government has nothing to hide in relation to this matter.