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

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement that the findings of the United States Department of Defense September 2003 report which names the AWB were unsubstantiated and did not use the word ‘kickbacks’. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now confirm to parliament that he misled the House, given that the report refers explicitly to kickbacks, including a finding that ‘former Iraqi ministers had provided information indicating illicit kickbacks were standard practice for oil for food contracts’?

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

The member for Griffith would be aware that to accuse a member of misleading the House requires a substantive motion.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You did not pick up the Deputy Prime Minister when he accused the opposition of misleading the House. We have to have a consistent rule here.

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

The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. As he was probably observing, I am still calling the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question.

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have not misled the House. In the document, when it talks about Australian wheat, it says ‘potentially overpriced’. The member for Griffith is referring to the preamble at the start of the report.