My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and follows the one asked earlier by the honourable member for Griffith. Does the Deputy Prime Minister recollect saying in this place these words:

The investigation of the Volcker inquiry was assisted to the fullest extent by the Australian government. The information that was required was provided. All the information that we had was provided to the Volcker inquiry.

Does he now understand that the WEA chief executive, Mr Taylor, has told the Senate estimates committee this morning that WEA did not provide any information directly through DFAT to the Volcker inquiry? Given that the WEA had numerous matters related to the AWB before them, firstly, is what the Chief Executive Officer of the WEA said a fact and, if it was, how does it comply with what you have said you have done to the Australian parliament along with your other ministers?

In calling the Deputy Prime Minister can I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he should address all remarks through the chair.

I have not seen that evidence given by the Chief Executive Officer of WEA. With regard to my comments can I make it very clear to the Leader of the Opposition that when the Volcker investigators came to Australia my recollection is that they spent almost two weeks with DFAT officials going through the list of electronic files and getting the hard copies of what they required. Two weeks they spent down at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade going through those files. That is how we have cooperated fully with the Volcker inquiry, and that was recognised. The cooperation of the Australian government was recognised by Volcker himself.

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House what action other countries have taken to address the issues raised by the Volcker report?

I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question and his interest. He is a good member and he asks good questions. The Volcker inquiry, which honourable members may have already noticed, examined allegations of corruption of the United Nations oil for food program. It was completed in October 2005. Overall the Volcker report found evidence that illicit payments in relation to humanitarian sales had been made by 2,200 companies in 66 different countries. Honourable members may be interested in what has happened in other countries. For example, there were 14 British companies identified, 15 Swedish companies, over 50 German companies, 21 Danish companies, over 50 Swiss companies, four Canadian companies and two New Zealand companies.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations said that he hoped that national authorities would take action against companies falling within their jurisdictions. Within 14 days of the Volcker report being handed down, the Australian government established the Cole inquiry, with the powers of a royal commission. I think that was a very strong and a very principled response, and I am sure that is very much appreciated by the United Nations.

Of the 65 other countries named, many of them took no action at all. Of those that have taken action, and I include countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden—countries that I think on the whole we would regard as somewhat comparable with Australia—they have simply referred the Volcker allegations to police or prosecutors for investigation. That has certainly been the approach of the British government of Tony Blair. He has not chosen to establish an independent inquiry of the kind that has been established here in Australia.

Only two countries, as far as I am aware, have set up inquiries. One of them is a behind-closed-doors inquiry that was established by India. The other is an inquiry that has just very recently been established in South Africa. Neither of these inquiries have so far conducted forensic and open hearings of the kind we have seen conducted by the Cole inquiry. I do not think this is a contestable proposition. No other country—and there are 66 countries involved here; not just Australia—

The opposition wants to bag Australia. I think Australia is a great country and I am on Australia’s side. They bag Australia, which is of course the approach of the opposition to foreign policy—bag Australia; the little Australia, small country mentality. We stick up for Australia on this side of the House. Proudly we say that, of the 66 countries who had companies identified in the Volcker commission, this is the only country that has set up a fully transparent inquiry with royal commission powers, as we call it—in our case, in the form of the Cole commission.

Ms King interjecting

Order! The member for Ballarat is warned!

Quite contrary to the phoney arguments being made by the opposition, this country stands tall as the one country that has been transparent and up-front in addressing this issue.

Wrap yourself in the flag—it’s the last defence of the knave!

The Leader of the Opposition has not got the call.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.

Great windbag of a loser!

Coming from you!

The Leader of the Opposition will get to his question!

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, it is in continuation of the questioning that we are running on what was identified as the worst offender in this episode.

The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.

I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to Senator Heffernan’s comments on 8 February that the AWB had been meeting him in his office since the middle of 2003, and, concerning Iraq, that:

I kept saying to them we hear that you blokes are on the take as it were or giving kickbacks.

Over that 2½-year period, did Senator Heffernan raise any such concerns with the minister, his office or his department?

No.