Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Minchin in his capacity representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware of reports of US government action as early as 2003 regarding potential kickbacks paid to the Iraqi regime? Was the Australian government informed of the US General Accounting Office finding in 2003 that kickbacks had been paid to the Iraqi regime through the oil for food program? Was the Australian government informed of the US Defense Contract Audit Agency finding that the AWB wheat contracts had been inflated by kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime? Did any US security agency convey these concerns about the rorted oil for food program to their corresponding security agency in Australia?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say at the outset that it is not unexpected to have some questions on the issue of AWB, and it is proper. I say as a true democrat that it is appropriate for the opposition to ask questions about major public policy issues, but in this instance we are dealing with a very significant issue that is the subject of a full royal commission. Therefore, we need to be very careful not to compromise the conduct of that royal commission. The royal commissioner has made it clear that he regards his terms of reference as sufficiently wide to enable him to inquire into all matters pertaining to the oil for food program and AWB’s involvement in that program and give him full authority to investigate all the issues highlighted in the Volcker report. Insofar as the specifics of US attention being drawn to the possibility of the rorting of the oil for food program, yes, of course there were allegations being made in that period—2000 to 2003—about the oil for food program, which I remind the Senate was conducted by the UN.

In the case of allegations raised by and emanating from the United States, the context was a situation where Australia as a major wheat exporter faced its most serious and aggressive competition from the United States, and obviously that was a factor in the Australian government’s attitude to concerns being raised from that end. Nevertheless, it is the case that, whenever concerns were raised over this period by the United States, agencies from the United States or in one case Canada, appropriate inquiries were made by the relevant government authorities of AWB and of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. In no case—particularly, I am informed, in 2003—was any substantive evidence presented to support the allegations that were being made. In all cases, AWB strenuously denied any involvement in any kickbacks or rorting of the oil for food program.

I am satisfied and the government is satisfied that certainly in the lead-up to and in this period—2000 to 2004—all allegations of this kind were investigated. They were never really supported by any evidence. Indeed, the Volcker report says that there was no evidence before it of any culpability on the part of AWB. But, in the light of what the report said, we undertook—and I think quite properly—to set up the Cole royal commission with wide terms of reference to determine whether there was any breach of Australian law by AWB, and the commissioner has made clear that his terms of reference allow him to question government officials and inquire into the state of knowledge of DFAT. With great respect to the opposition, I think we should respect the Cole inquiry and await the findings of the Cole inquiry before we start the witch-hunt.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note that the royal commission is not a full royal commission and that a whole range of areas are excluded from that inquiry. In terms of the minister’s answer, he referred to actions that were taken regarding these UN and US warnings. What action was taken? Was it more than just asking AWB if it was true, because that seemed to be the only indication in his answer for the action taken? More importantly, can the minister also inform the Senate if any ONA analysis and reporting took place on the corruption of the UN oil for food program?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the first note that Senator Evans made, I refer him to the statement by Commissioner Cole in which he makes it clear that he sees no need for an extension of his terms of reference with regard to the government’s role at this point, but he will come to us if he feels that is necessary and, of course, we would consider it. We have already granted his request to extend his terms of reference to enable him to investigate BHP’s role in this whole matter.

In relation to the matter specifically raised in his question, I note that in June 2003 the US Wheat Associates made allegations but provided absolutely no evidence. The US General Accounting Office issued reports in May 2002 and April 2004 about problems with the oil for food program conducted by the UN but did not name AWB in its report. We are satisfied that the government took all appropriate action in relation to allegations made in that period.