❓ I refer to the recent community debate and strongly demonstrated opposition by Western Australian wheat farmers to the federal Government’s proposal to leave WA farmers out of pocket by forgiving the
AnsweredQoN 562Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the recent community debate and strongly demonstrated opposition by Western Australian wheat farmers to the federal Government’s proposal to leave WA farmers out of pocket by forgiving the 1990 Iraq wheat debt. (1) Given that in the 1990s Iraq oil was traded using United States dollars, does the minister have any information about the mechanisms by which Iraq regularly paid for its wheat shipments from Western Australia? (2) Has the minister received any advice on what has happened to those funds during the long period of economic sanctions since 1990 and during and after the latest US-led invasion of Iraq? (3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(1) Given that in the 1990s Iraq oil was traded using United States dollars, does the minister have any information about the mechanisms by which Iraq regularly paid for its wheat shipments from Western Australia? (2) Has the minister received any advice on what has happened to those funds during the long period of economic sanctions since 1990 and during and after the latest US-led invasion of Iraq? (3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(2) Has the minister received any advice on what has happened to those funds during the long period of economic sanctions since 1990 and during and after the latest US-led invasion of Iraq? (3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(1) Given that in the 1990s Iraq oil was traded using United States dollars, does the minister have any information about the mechanisms by which Iraq regularly paid for its wheat shipments from Western Australia? (2) Has the minister received any advice on what has happened to those funds during the long period of economic sanctions since 1990 and during and after the latest US-led invasion of Iraq? (3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(2) Has the minister received any advice on what has happened to those funds during the long period of economic sanctions since 1990 and during and after the latest US-led invasion of Iraq? (3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(3) Will the minister confirm that the US has taken the opportunities presented to it from the latest invasion of Iraq and its aftermath to commandeer a portion of the Australian wheat market in Iraq? (4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(4) Given the damage to the Iraq economy by 14 years of economic sanctions and the devastating effects of the latest US-led invasion, which were both based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that never materialised, does the minister agree that the United States has an obligation to contribute, along with the Australian Government, to making good the debt still owed to Australian wheat farmers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
I will first add to my answer to the question asked by Hon Murray Criddle, who asked about the source of the funds. The source of the funds is the consolidated fund. I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for the question, which is somewhat of a challenge as it was given without notice. Many of the issues she raised in the question seek my opinion on matters that I cannot possibly know. I appreciate the question because this is a contentious matter and one on which clarity is needed. I would like to take the opportunity of providing the honourable member with a more detailed answer to this question once I have been able to check some of the facts. (1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(1)-(2) I believe that Iraq transacts its business in US dollars, as does every wheat customer in the world. The grain trade is a US dollar business. Iraq was no different in that respect. I understand that, subsequent to the first Gulf War and subsequent to the freezing of Iraqi funds in US dollar accounts - that is, prior to the war, but the same situation existed after the institution of the food for oil program - funds in US dollar accounts designated for the payment of Australian wheat by Iraq were frozen, because all US dollar accounts held by the Iraqi Government were frozen in that form. I will not draw from that the extension that might seem obvious - that is, the Iraqis paid for the wheat and that payment was frozen in the US - because I simply do not know that. We know that all Iraqi money in US dollar accounts was frozen by the action of the United States Government, but it would be too big a step to then claim that the payment was made and then frozen by the United States. (3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(3) The Iraqi market has been supplied predominantly by Australia for a very long time. There has been a close relationship between former regimes in Iraq and AWB Ltd. Indeed, over many years Iraq has been a highly valued customer of the Australian Wheat Board, now AWB Ltd. The Americans clearly do not like that. We are the Americans’ strongest competitor in international markets and particularly in markets in the Middle East. I am sure that there was an ambition by the US wheat industry to try to stake out some of Australia’s market share in postwar Iraq. I think it will be successful in the short term. I do not think there is any doubt that the US wheat industry will increase its sales in Iraq postwar. I think that in the long term all that market will ultimately come back to Australia, because Iraqis clearly have a distinct preference for Australian wheat. However, in the short term, this proposition will probably be self-fulfilling. (4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
(4) I may well agree with Hon Dee Margetts, but I could not possibly say so. This is a matter that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better placed to answer.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.