ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN MINISTER: No, not deliberately so, and I am happy with the comments we made. I mean I haven't reviewed everything I've said over the last year in the light of subsequent events, but if you're referring specifically to weapons of mass destruction, the concerns that we expressed were legitimate concerns. They were concerns that were expressed to us by the Australian intelligence community and we articulated those publicly. I have no reason to change my mind.

MARK DAVIS: The US Congress is now investigating the veracity of the American intelligence that was presented. The British Parliament has just announced it's also to launch such an inquiry. Isn't there a case, given the heavy reliance that we have on those intelligence sources, that such an inquiry be made in Australia?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: I don't think so, no. Certainly it would be preposterous that we would establish an inquiry into American and British intelligence, that would be silly. We could, I suppose, have inquiries into Australian intelligence or Australian intelligence assessments, but, look, I think it's far too early to get to that sort of a conclusion. We are just seeing the deployment of the survey group into Iraq of 1,300 to 1,400 people, including some Australians, who are going to undertake a comprehensive analysis including interviews with Iraqi scientists and other people associated with WMD programs as well as go through documentation. And this will take time and once that's all complete and we know what the total picture is, we can of course measure that against the intelligence assessments but we can't do that yet.

MARK DAVIS: If the British and the Americans can do it now because it's an issue of such seriousness - I mean, we did go to war on the basis of what some people are now alleging was false information. Surely it's as relevant for us as it is for them?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, if I thought the information was false, I'd agree with you, but I don't. Look, they have their own political processes. First of all, people used to tell me we shouldn't follow the British and the Americans, Australia should be an independent country, and now the Left are telling me we should follow the British and the Americans. I mean, excuse me, but we are actually an independent country and we'll make up our own minds. We've been happy with the work that's been done for us by the Office of National Assessment and other agencies of the Government. We've got no reason to be unhappy with them.

MARK DAVIS: But a former ONA officer, Andrew Wilkie, has just claimed that the Australian Government was not duped by foreign intelligence, but that it actively participated in misrepresenting the intelligence presented to it, specifically that you and the PM grossly exaggerated the intelligence material available to you.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, it's quite untrue. Making allegations like that is easily done but the evidence would have to be presented to establish that particular and rather preposterous claim. This is simply not right, actually. We still indeed stand by the claims that were made by the intelligence community and articulated by the PM and me before the war. And we'll just have to wait and see the extent to which the full picture of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can be put together.

MARK DAVIS: I It seems to be a question of scale, though. It is a deadly serious matter. There is no more greater undertaking than a nation can take than to launch an invasion of another country. You and the Government suppose the issue is where could this issue be properly tested, given that it deals with the intelligence material, but if there were to be a parliamentary inquiry, are you confident that the government’s public statements would be in accordance with the advice that ONA presented.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Absolutely. Remember, ONA is an organisation we meet with and talk with the whole time, and ONA have never expressed to me any concerns about public comments that I or the PM have made about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability.

MARK DAVIS: Look, it seems to be a question of scale, though. It is a deadly serious matter. There is no more greater undertaking that a nation can take to launch an invasion of another country. You and the government claim that Saddam Hussein posed a real and imminent threat, that he possessed massive amounts of weaponry, tens of thousands of litres of chemical or biological material, missiles capable of delivering them, and a nuclear program in development. Do you still stand by each of those claims?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Sure, I do. The quantities of materials that Saddam Hussein's regime was said to have were figures taken from the United Nations, by the way. They were the figures of materials that were unaccounted for and the United Nations - UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, the predecessor of UNMOVIC - made those points. As far as the missiles are concerned - well, that isn't a subject of debate, clearly Iraq had missiles - it had missiles that could carry those sorts of materials. They did, though, over and above that, have missiles that exceeded the United Nations limit, and as you know, the United Nations did succeed in discovering those missiles.

MARK DAVIS: But surely the question is, where is all this material? This is the question at the moment being asked around the world. It's not apparent, it's not there, where is it?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, that's what the Iraq survey group is designed to do, the 1,300 to 1,400 people who have been sent there, are hunting for.

MARK DAVIS: Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz have recently commented that Saddam's weapons may have been destroyed before the war even began, and that America focused on the issue of weapons of mass destruction purely for bureaucratic reasons that everybody could agree on. Were you aware that that was their reasoning before we committed to go to war?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, what Paul Wolfowitz means by bureaucratic reasons - and I know this is his position - that there were a number of reasons why they wanted to see the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime - the barbarism of the regime, the simply grievous human rights abuses, the support by the regime for terrorist organisations in the Middle East, the destabilising impact of the regime on the Middle East peace process, and so on. But, of course, in those particular cases that I've just cited, there wasn't a legal justification under the Security Council resolutions or the UN Charter to launch a military action against Iraq. But there was on the basis of Iraq's breach of 17 Security Council resolutions, many of which were Chapter 7, and therefore mandatory Security Council resolutions, that is just his reference. Now, that is not to detract from the importance and the danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability. That is the explanation for what he said.

MARK DAVIS: It does seem to detract from the central case that was put certainly by our Government and by the British Government. The Americans may have a host of reasons, but Australia and Britain were quite specific in that they were to disarm the weapons of mass destruction. Have we gone to a war on false information and on disguised motives by the Americans?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, not at all. Don't get me wrong here. The legal justification of the war is entirely, as you say, was the breach of the Security Council resolutions and the deep concern about the weapons of mass destruction, which was the reason for the Security Council resolutions in the first place. After all, 1441, which was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council towards the end of last year, made it perfectly clear that the international community, right across the board, including France, Germany and Syria, was totally dissatisfied with Saddam Hussein's performance in terms of complying with Security Council resolutions and satisfying the world his country was free of weapons of mass destruction. That was indeed all the basis for the war, but that shouldn't - that legal basis for the war and the importance of those issues doesn't mean that other issues weren't important.

MARK DAVIS: Mr Downer, thanks for joining us.

ALEXANDER DOWNER; It's a pleasure.