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 again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to his evidence to the Cole inquiry that he did not have a ‘specific recollection’ of receiving or reading the critical warning cable of 13 January 2000, and further that he did not ‘have a recollection six years back of precisely that’. Why did the minister claim in parliament on 28 February to in fact have had very specific knowledge that of course he would have read this cable? And he then went on to say:

Obviously, this happened six years ago, but I have had the opportunity during the last few weeks to examine all of this material again very carefully, which is why I know so much about it today, 28 February 2006. These are cables from early 2000, but I do know a lot about them and I have examined this material very carefully.

Isn’t it the case that in February, before he was hauled before the Cole inquiry, the minister was happy to boast to parliament about his detailed knowledge of this cabled warning but then suddenly developed an acute case of amnesia when he was required to repeat the same on oath to the Cole inquiry?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make two points about this. First of all, it is I think unprecedented for an opposition the day after a budget to run out of questions on the budget after six questions. I have sat in this parliament for 21 years and I have never seen an opposition give up on questions on the budget after just six questions. May I congratulate the Treasurer on a great job and a well-done job. Secondly, there are two completely different propositions here. Would I have seen the cables? I told the House that I am sure I would have. Did I specifically remember the details of the cables? Of course I did not—it was six years ago—but I explained to the Cole inquiry that I would have seen some of the cables. If the honourable member looks at the evidence given before the Cole inquiry and reads the transcripts, he will see that the two statements were entirely consistent.