Subjects: children overboard allegations
E&OE...........
MITCHELL:
In our Sydney studio the Prime Minister Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Neil.
MITCHELL:
You told Parliament yesterday you';d checked the facts with Peter Reith on November 7, a few days before the election. Peter Reith says that is not true. Who';s right?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I stand by my recollection, I saw the reference in the Australian newspaper this morning. I haven';t heard any context to that, I';ve just seen that story. I don';t know whether or not Peter';s confirmed it…
MITCHELL:
Well he';s quoted.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';ve read the paper… MITCHELL:
Have you spoken to him?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven';t.
MITCHELL:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven';t over the past few days personally spoken to Peter. But can I just give you my recollection of events and I';m puzzled at the story in the Australian, I really am quite puzzled. But let me give you my recollection of events.
MITCHELL:
Can I just say I';ve let a message for Mr Reith today telling him that I';m interviewing you and asking him to listen if he could.
PRIME MINISTER:
I naturally spoke to Peter on a number of occasions regarding a number of issues during the election campaign and I was asked about two particular issues, one of them following a press conference I did I think in Ballarat on I think the 10th of October and I indicated that I would see if there was any further material or evidence or whatever in relation to the claims that had been made a few days earlier, whether any of that could be obtained. I did after that press conference speak to Peter and we discussed the photographs, whether they could be released, and I have a clear recollection of speaking to him then and it was in that context that I made that reference. And in fact I had staff with me at the time who clearly recollect that I had conversations with him, I think it was from a…
MITCHELL:
I don';t think that';s an issue though. The issue is the 7th of November and what you told Parliament yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, I';m sorry the Australian story refers to both, with respect Neil, the 10th of October and the 7th of November. So it is legitimate I deal with both of them. My very strong recollection is that on the night of the 7th of November, it was the night before my appearance at the press club, the final big media event of the campaign. I in fact had a number of staff with me over dinner because we were talking about preparation for my appearance. I had several staff and I did speak to Mr Reith that night, I may have spoken to him a couple of times, I can';t remember. I also spoke to a member of his staff, a man called Scrafton who had viewed the video and advised me as he previously advised Peter that the video was inconclusive ,and it was released the next day. My recollection is that in the course of my conversation with Peter I did ask whether he';d received any advice contradicting the earlier advice, now that';s my recollection and that was the basis of the answer that I gave in the Parliament yesterday. And what strengthens the recollection, or strengthens my belief that that recollection is correct is that the following day, or it may have been on the Friday, either in an interview with you or in an interview with some other people, I in fact said that I had checked the issue as recently as the night before. Now it stands to reason that if you check with somebody it would have been likely that you would have checked with the Defence Minister because people who would have had first hand knowledge of whether [tape break] children went overboard were in fact defence personnel.
MITCHELL:
I know you said in an interview with the ABC that you';d spoken to him the night before, you said to me you';d seen a report from the Office of National Assessment which you confirmed…
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah you';re right, that was speaking of material I got back in October, that wasn';t as contemporaneous to that interview as the discussion I had on the 7th. Now that is the, that';s my recollection and I do know that I spoke to Mr Reith that night from the Lodge, I';m certain of that, and that';s been confirmed and I spoke to one of my senior staff this morning who was with me at that time, and in fact with was with me during the whole of the campaign and he confirms that I did speak. He wasn';t privy to the contents of the discussion from recollection, I probably would have had the discussion on a mobile phone in one part of the Lodge and he and the rest of the staff would have been in another part. But Neil, that';s my recollection. Now as you can understand with fast moving events and you don';t when you, particularly these days when everybody';s using mobile phones, you don';t keep a record of every conversation you make. I mean I saw some journalist this morning suggesting that you know Philip Ruddock should keep a diary of every single conversation he has, well that is just a bit unrealistic.
MITCHELL:
Sure, but isn';t the point now that we';re now in such a state of confusion and conflicting memories that we need to clear this up fully somehow for the sake of the credibility of your government not to mention the bureaucracy, not to mention some of the security agencies.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t think the security agencies bear on this issue.
MITCHELL:
Well surely the report from the Office of National Assessment was one of the sloppiest things you could have done. Every Department knew, your Department knew, the Defence Department knew, the Immigration Department knew and the Office of National Assessments based their report on press reports. Basil Fawlty.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I note that, I understand that. But look I';m sorry I thought you were referring to the DSD issue when you said…
MITCHELL:
Well that';s another thing, four times they made an error and eavesdropped on Australians.
PRIME MINISTER:
But the nature of intelligence gathering is that it operates in sort of, as it were, a vacuum cleaner sort of way and then you have protocols… well there';s no other way of doing it. Let us be reasonable, let us not sort of abandon a common sense approach to these things with people having, I';m not saying you but others having that sort of scent of political combat in their nostrils.
MITCHELL:
It';s a scent of dishonesty Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have not been dishonest with the Australian people on this issue. The information on which I based my original claim was information I had received from the Immigration Minister who rang me on Sunday the 7th of…
MITCHELL:
But can you understand…
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just finish because this is my integrity that';s being attacked and I am entitled in a calm way to defend my role in this. I had every reason to believe when I made those statements that they were correct, they';d come from the Immigration Minister, he in turn had got it from the head of his Department who was a member of the taskforce. Now a lot of other things have now come out but we didn';t know about them then.
MITCHELL:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why?
MITCHELL:
How did Defence, Prime Minister';s and Immigration Department know about it and you didn';t?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the explanation for that is contained in the report that I tabled yesterday. The officer of the Prime Minister';s Department indicated that in the light of the publication of the photographs they believed that the matter had been resolved and they did not pursue it any further.
MITCHELL:
Well do you agree with the assessment that there is either dishonesty or incompetence here either by the bureaucracy or by the politicians?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will speak for myself and I think in fairness to other people involved in it as a Senate inquiry has been foreshadowed, I';m not going to make any assessment of that, I think it can be prejudicial. I have not acted dishonestly. I don';t believe any of the officers of my Department have acted dishonestly.
MITCHELL:
Incompetently?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don';t believe they';ve been incompetent.
MITCHELL:
But how is it possible with such an important issue and the attention it';s getting that the Prime Minister';s Department knows what you';ve said is wrong and doesn';t point it out to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they explained in the report why they behaved as they did. They said that they had been told that there was doubt about the original advice but when the photographs had been published they came to the conclusion that that doubt had been resolved and they did not further pursue the matter. Now some people will make an adverse judgement of that, I';m not going to make an adverse judgment about that, particularly in the light of the fact that there is a Senate inquiry coming.
MITCHELL:
Will you appear before the Senate inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it';s not normal for prime ministers to appear before the Senate inquiry but I am accountable to the Parliament and look, the Senate inquiry…
MITCHELL:
… Ministers appear…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it';s not normal for Ministers to appear but the question of…
MITCHELL:
But this isn';t a normal situation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, hang on. Well, let';s understand this, the Senate inquiry is being established through a resolution of the majority in the Senate which are our political enemies.
MITCHELL:
But what about an independent inquiry…
PRIME MINISTER:
I have had an inquiry.
MITCHELL:
By one officer. What about a full…more questions have arisen since, what about a full independent inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
But all of those people who gave statements to that inquiry, Neil, were given the opportunity of, you know, given full natural justice as far as their statements were concerned. The thing was conducted in a very proper fashion. I mean, I after all initiated the inquiry and I tabled the report which has formed the basis of the attack on me. I mean, I can hardly be accused in those circumstances of being involved in a cover up.
MITCHELL:
Well, will you consider appearing before a Senate inquiry even though it';s not normal?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am accountable to the Parliament.
MITCHELL:
Will you consider appearing before a Senate inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. It';s not normal for prime ministers to do so.
MITCHELL:
I understand that but will you consider appearing?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think it';s appropriate.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept the people of Australia have been misled, on the eve of an election misled?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t believe that anything I have done constituted deliberate misleading of the Australian people.
MITCHELL:
Inadvertently misled.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, who knows when you might inadvertently mislead people, the reality is that if I had known before the election what I now know I obviously would have made that public.
MITCHELL:
Do you believe you should have been told by your Department or others?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can understand the explanation that';s been given but the question of whether they should have behaved in a different way is really something that because of the upcoming Senate inquiry I don';t want to say anything further about.
MITCHELL:
But would you act on that, the results of that Senate inquiry because this is part of the credibility and the competence of government…
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I am not going to in advance say how I am going to react to the findings of the Senate inquiry….
MITCHELL:
But you are holding it up as the reasons now why you won';t answer questions.
PRIME MINISTER:
But that is out of deference to the rights of people who may appear before that inquiry and that is a perfectly legitimate thing for me to do. I mean, the question of how I react to that Senate inquiry, I will not comment on how I am going to react to that until it has been held and I have the opportunity to examine what its findings are. Because it is essentially a politically motivated inquiry and you know as well as I do that the main issue on asylum seekers during the election campaign is whether people supported or opposed our policy not whether children went overboard or not. You know that.
MITCHELL:
True, but this is about credibility, competence and honesty. This is not about the asylum seekers issue any more, this is about the competence of the people who work for your, your department heads. It is about your credibility and your ministers'; credibility and it';s also, I believe, about the competence of the security organisations.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am perfectly happy to answer questions about my credibility and the way I have conducted myself and I am doing that now, right now. And nothing that has been put to me has shaken the claims that I have made in relation to my having been originally told by Mr Ruddock, based on the advice he got from his departmental head, who was a member of the taskforce that children had been thrown overboard. At no time, as the report finds, this is not my assertion, as the report finds at no time was I told by my Department and I would add to that nor was I told by any official of another department that the original advice was wrong.
MITCHELL:
Okay. If we accept what you are saying, you weren';t told. We accept what Philip Ruddock is saying, he told me yesterday he didn';t believe that the head of his Department ever knew, well that';s now proved to be wrong. The head of his Department did know and didn';t tell him and we accept what Mr Reith';s saying there was a degree of confusion at the very least. Surely that says that we are running, in the situation we still have a hot issue running, things being said by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers which are wrong and we have the most senior bureaucrats in the country deliberately or otherwise deciding not to tell you. Now, at the very least, even if it wasn';t deliberate, that says that we have people running the bureaucracy in this country who are not up to the job. Will you act against them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I have to say again in fairness to them given that there is going to be a Senate inquiry, given that some of them may be called and given that I have no idea what the findings are going to be or indeed how the thing is going to be conducted, I am not going to start trying to anticipate what the finding of that inquiry will be. That is just not responsible. You are asking me to behave in a responsible manner…
MITCHELL:
No, I am asking….you already said that the inquiry itself is a political inquiry. Put that aside and make your own assessment….
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s politically motivated.
MITCHELL:
Okay. Well, why is it relevant? It';s politically motivated, put that aside, make your assessment and act.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don';t think it';s….part of the assessment I have got to make will inevitably be coloured by what is said before the inquiry.
MITCHELL:
So in the meantime we continue with people in these jobs over whom there is significant doubt.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you have seen the report and the report contains their explanation of what occurred. I can accept myself in relation to an issue like this which was fast moving and certainly surrounded by a great deal of controversy, I can accept that there could have been confusion and I believe that if you read through the report you will find that there was a great deal of confusion. I don';t think anybody set out to mislead anybody, I don';t think anybody in any of the departments set out to mislead people, I don';t.
MITCHELL:
Well, that says they are incompetent because they should have told you shouldn';t they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that at this stage is not a question I am going to answer.
MITCHELL:
Will you apologise to the voters for misleading them, inadvertently misleading them?
PRIME MINISTER:
I owe people an apology if I have done something that';s wrong. I will always apologise for having done something wrong, I will always apologise for having made an error of judgement. I think on this occasion I acted according to advice and I don';t believe in those circumstances it';s appropriate to do so.
MITCHELL:
But you do accept that you misled the public?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, let me put it this way, I regret very much that the information that is now available was not available for me to make public at the time.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept that you should have been more thorough in checking the facts on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don';t because you have got to put this in context. I mean, this is the only game in town at the moment but at the beginning of an election campaign can I tell you this came and went within two or three days as far as I was concerned. I went through my media transcripts yesterday and between the 10th of October and the 26th of October, a period of 16 days, I didn';t get any questions on this issue. I mean, it';s all very well for people….
MITCHELL:
And then it came back.
PRIME MINISTER:
…then it came back, but you know as well as I, I don';t even think it was referred to in the debate between Kim Beazley and myself. Everybody is now saying, oh, this is the only issue in town. It might be now but it certainly wasn';t in the early days of the election campaign, it really wasn';t.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, if the Senate inquiry does find incompetence will disciplinary action be taken against the bureaucrats?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, what I will say about the Senate inquiry is that I will…we will respond to participation in the Senate inquiry in the appropriate way. As to how we react to it, I';m not going to say in advance how I';m going to behave until I';ve seen it. I';m just not…it';s just not wise to do that.
MITCHELL:
Will the relevant defence officials – this question on the front of the Sydney Telegraph today – will the relevant defence officials be allowed to speak publicly to give their side of the issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';ll get advice on the involvement of people before the inquiry. I mean, obviously if anybody appears before the inquiry they should tell the truth.
MITCHELL:
What about now? Why not have the defence officials speak to the media?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is not normal for that to occur and I think in the circumstances normal practise should be followed. I mean, I don';t remember any of my critics in the Opposition arguing that when they were in government that every time there was a political controversy people should have been, everybody in the bureaucracy and in the Defence Department should have been allowed to speak out. I don';t remember that standard being applied then. I mean, that would represent a total and complete change in the way government is being conducted anywhere. So, let';s not have a suggestion that on this and this only occasion that ought to occur. But look, if people appear before the inquiry they tell the truth and as far as I';m concerned I have nothing to fear in relation to the truth on this matter. I don';t have anything to hide. What I';ve said is correct and…
MITCHELL:
But what you said wasn';t correct [inaudible] inadvertent. What you said at the time was incorrect, inadvertently incorrect. Surely on the eve of an election the people are owed an apology for that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes but I wasn';t responsible for the error.
MITCHELL:
But you';re responsible for your Department, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m responsible for the fact that in an election campaign I owe the Australian people an obligation of truth and I discharged that obligation because what I said about this issue was to my knowledge correct and no circumstances…I mean, I regret that people - and we';re getting back to a difference between regret and apology – I regret the fact that this information was not available. If it had have been I';d have made it known to the Australian public.
MITCHELL:
A couple of other issues to deal with, do we now believe the boat was scuttled by these people or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the evidence on that is…I think the evidence still is that they did carry out deliberate acts of sabotage.
MITCHELL:
Do you owe the people on that boat an apology for saying they threw their kids overboard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we based that policy on advice. I tell you what, to a lot of people listening to this programme it';s beyond argument that some of the children, that at least on one occasion a child was held over the railing.
MITCHELL:
Yes and if the boat was scuttled that';s relevant, we';re now not sure of that. You said that people were thrown overboard on advice. Now, if I say something wrong about you because I';ve got the wrong information you';ll want me to apologise. Isn';t it fair that you apologise to them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what I';ve said is that the original advice has been qualified. I mean, that is self-evident, that is what this is all about.
MITCHELL:
So no apology to the people on the boat either.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I';m not apologising for having stated things that I believed to be true. I deny that we have set out to demonise people who are seeking to come to this country illegally. We';ve never tried to do that. I know the policy that we are adopting is unpopular with a lot of people in the media, not all of them I might say, not all of them but with a lot of them but we have not set out to demonise people. And what I said at the time was based on advice that we had at the time. I regret that the correction of that advice was not available earlier. If it had have been available earlier then I would have made that public.
MITCHELL:
Can we trust other information we';re getting such as the claims that asylum seekers sewed their children';s lips together?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, those allegations were, in the main, ones that emanated from the South Australian child welfare or human services department.
MITCHELL:
So are they true?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t know. I don';t know.
MITCHELL:
Well, there';s been a fair deal of mileage made out of it by your Government.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, I';m sorry, I haven';t seen that report. I do know that Mr Ruddock was shown that report and that was the basis of the action that was taken to remove the children.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, we';re almost out of time, I thank you for your time but do you feel this could taint your position in history?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I don';t. I mean, it would if I had deliberately lied to the Australian people and deservedly so it should. But I haven';t and, I mean, that';s the difference, I have not and I don';t mind, I';ll do any interview anybody likes within reason in relation to this and I don';t think anybody can suggest that I haven';t been forthcoming in making myself available.
MITCHELL:
No true, but what about a full press conference, which the Opposition';s demanded?
PRIME MINISTER:
As I said yesterday, if I want media advice I';ll take it from Tony O';Leary and not Simon Crean.
MITCHELL:
Do you know the sad thing is that people are not surprised by this, they expect politicians to try to con them, to mislead them inadvertently or otherwise, that';s the really sad thing, people are not surprised.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that';s a judgement you make. I';d be sad if that were the genuine view of the Australian community because I have not sought to mislead the Australian people. I';ve always sought to be very candid with them. I think there is a level of cynicism, I think it is fed, if I may say so, by many in the media who denigrate everybody in public life at some stage, often with reason, often without good reason and often in an exaggerated fashion. This asylum seeker thing has been a very difficult issue and I can well understand that people could have been confused. If you read the report and the frantically difficult situation those naval officers had in dealing with the situation where people were undeniably jumping in the water, where there was clear and strong suggestions that people were trying to sabotage the vessel and you have fairly difficult seas and you have naval officers trying to handle this sort of thing in a humane and decent fashion and now the media and the critics take it upon themselves to stand back, sit back in an armchair fashion and say, well, they should have done this, they should have done that, they should have been crystal clear in the reports that they gave. Look…
MITCHELL:
…we';re talking about people sitting in Canberra offices who should have done things differently, Prime Minister, not the people out in the ship. We';re talking about your bureaucrats sitting in a meeting the very day it happened, three heads of department being told there is no evidence this happened.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but I';ve already answered that when they subsequently see some photographs they conclude that on the basis of that they should not pursue the thing any further.
MITCHELL:
You obviously maintain full support for Philip Ruddock.
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely.
MITCHELL:
And Peter Reith.
PRIME MINISTER:
I remain a very strong supporter of Peter Reith. I believe that Peter Reith was one of the most competent and effective ministers that I';ve worked with and he remains, whatever the circumstances, a very close friend of mine.
MITCHELL:
Do you accept that you modified your language after the 10th of October on this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I';ve looked back over the transcripts and it would appear that that is the case but I think part of the reason for that, Neil, is that I was moving on to other issues. I really was.
MITCHELL:
No hint, absolutely no hints.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I had not…if what you';re getting at is the Simon Crean line, and I don';t mean that offensively to you but if what you';re getting at is the line that, oh you know, I was told and therefore I was sort of in the process of easing out, no. It';s my nature with something like that, I made a few comments and then I moved on to something else. I mean, I dealt with it for two or three days and as I say after the 10th of October a period of 16 days elapsed before I said anything further about it.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay.
[Ends]