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

I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to my last question. He answered in the negative. Given the Prime Minister’s answer, which of the following statements, therefore, in the Prime Minister’s view, were not made by the office of Commissioner Cole? Firstly, that it is not the function of a commissioner to determine his terms of reference. Secondly, that it would not be appropriate for a commissioner to seek an amendment of the terms of reference to address a matter significantly different to that in the existing terms. Thirdly, that determining whether a minister had breached the legal obligations imposed on them by Australian regulations was a matter significantly outside his terms of reference. Fourthly, that it was open to the executive government to change the terms of reference. Prime Minister, these were all statements made by Commissioner Cole. In your view, which statements were not made by him?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will analyse the question, but let me begin with the terms of reference—and this is the central charge being made by the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Griffith have worked themselves up into great indignity and fury trying to persuade the Australian public that we deliberately designed the terms of reference to protect ourselves. That argument has been completely blown out of the water by what Mr Cole said—but not in his report. The report will be coming down. I am not going to comment on the report until it has been tabled in the parliament. If you have a look at what he said on 3 February 2006 you will find that that allegation has been totally blown out of the water.