PM: What is at stake in this entire debate is the integrity of Mr Turnbull and his core claim that at my request, my office made representations to the Treasury on behalf of Mr John Grant.
Today Mr Turnbull is in full retreat on this claim.
Mr Turnbull's allegation is based on the existence of an alleged email between a staff member of mine and a Treasury official on the 19th of February.
Mr Turnbull claimed he was in possession of this documentary evidence when he threatened a member of my staff at the Press Gallery Ball on Wednesday night.
Furthermore Mr Turnbull's Senate representatives purported to quote from this documentary evidence in the Senate Inquiry on Friday.
In addition, both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers today have reported, the Federal Opposition has claimed to them they are in possession of the email or have read the email.
Yet this morning Mr Turnbull, remarkably, states as follows, and I quote him:
‘Well the email itself, the existence of the email, I don't have a copy of the email, I hasten to add, I do not have a copy of the email. So the email is presumably in the possession of those people between whom it passed. Mr Lewis has an account of it and that was not provided to him by us,' unqote.
Who is telling the truth here? The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian newspaper who state clearly that the Opposition claims that it has the email in their possession, or Mr Turnbull today who claims that he does not.
Let me reiterate, for the record, what the Government has done since these allegations were first made.
My office has conducted extensive searches on Dr Charlton's emails and computer system - and has found nothing.
Following yesterday's Senate Committee hearing and following an allegation last night by Steve Lewis, who I am advised claims he is in possession of an email from Dr Charlton to the public servant in question, dated 19 February, we requested both the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury search both Dr Charlton's computer system and the computer system of the public servant.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's IT department has advised us that no such correspondence can be found on Dr Charlton's computer system - either for that date or the dates preceding and following it.
The Department has provided the following advice, and I quote it:
‘The Department has this evening', referring to last night, ‘undertaken a search of all of the emails in the Prime Minister and Cabinet's email system for the period 16 February ‘09 to 22 February ‘09. This search includes all emails from and to Mr Charlton. The search would include any material deleted from the system.' Any material deleted from the system.
‘PM and C captures a copy of all emails in and out of the Department's system.'
Furthermore, it goes on, ‘the Department has not found any record of an email from Mr Charlton to Treasury which relates to motor vehicle dealerships or any related matters.'
The Department of Treasury's IT department has advised us that they also can find no correspondence between Dr Charlton, or anyone in my office, and the public servant on that date.
As I said last night, tracing through the independent public service, the alleged originator of the communication, through the PM & C system, and the alleged recipient of the communication, namely, the public servant within Treasury, through two different systems.
Furthermore, on top of these, as a senior Treasury official made it clear in the Senate Inquiry yesterday, the Department of Treasury has conducted an extensive search of its computer systems to locate any such correspondence from my office more generally, or Dr Charlton in particular to Treasury on the John Grant matter - and it has found none.
Therefore, given that I have made no request for such recommendations to be made; and my staff have advised me they have made no such recommendations; and the public service has independently confirmed that there is no record of any such communications - our only conclusion is that this alleged email is false and a fake.
Therefore, it is time for some honesty from Mr Turnbull on this matter. Mr Turnbull must now detail all dealings the Federal Opposition and the Liberal Party have had in relation to this fake email. And they must explain the following:
Who supplied the contents of this fake email to the opposition?
Who in the Liberal Party has read this fake email?
What did they do with it after they read it?
Has anyone in the Liberal Party described the contents of the email to any other journalists other than to Mr Lewis?
If Mr Turnbull claims he is not in possession of this email then he must release the other documentary evidence he claims to have in relation to this matter.
Of course these matters are not just matters for political debate. Impersonating a public official in the performance of their public functions is an extremely serious offence.
Which is why the Secretary of the Attorney General's Department has today referred the matter of this alleged fake email to the Australian Federal Police.
The Attorney General has today released the following statement:
‘The Attorney-General's Department has today provided me with advice in relation to a very serious allegation that a false email, which purports to relate to the performance of functions by a Commonwealth public official, may have been created and distributed.
‘The Department has advised that if substantiated, a range of offences may have been committed against the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995. These offences are indictable and are very serious in character.'
‘The integrity of information and identity relating to public officials is crucial to the proper performance of Government.
‘Accordingly, these are very serious allegations that warrant full investigation.
‘The Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department has written to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner requesting that this matter be investigated.
‘I am advised that the Australian Federal Police Commissioner has agreed to commence an investigation.'
As the Australian Federal Police investigation relates to possible criminal offences, that investigation can operate concurrently and without duplicating the inquiry currently being conducted by the Auditor-General.
I would urge Mr Turnbull to commit today to cooperate fully with this Australian Federal Police Investigation.
I am happy to take your questions.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well can I just say, I can only act on the basis of the advice that I have received and the information that I have provided. As I said to you all gathered here yesterday, that had we been in possession of any conflicting advice or information since these matters were first raised, we would have simply gone out and spoken to you all and said, ‘well there has been a mistake here, sorry about that'.
But we have been as comprehensive as is humanly possible, I believe that we have done everything that we can within the resources of an independent audit within our own office, but critically, relying upon two independent agencies of Government to conduct their own independent IT audit, including, not just emails which still exist, but deleted items.
And I have been advised, that the systems which are used to track these things are fully capable of tracking any deleted items.
JOURNALIST: But Mr Rudd, you do have some conflicting information which you haven't given us a theory about. The issue here surely is not Mr Turnbull, which is just a smokescreen, but the public servant who gave evidence, claiming that he thought, probably, he remembers such communication. Now what is your theory on why he did think he remembered it (inaudible)
PM: Michelle, it is not my business to speculate on theories, I can deal with the facts as they present themselves.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Can I just say I can deal with the facts as presented with me, and what you have omitted from your remarks now is the other statements made by the public servant on the day in question, when he indicated quite clearly that his recollection may not be correct.
That is what he said. I do not have his precise testimony before me but I did read it to you last night.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, if this email is never found, is it tenable for Mr Turnbull to remain Opposition leader?
PM: You know something, integrity is a difficult quality to attain in public life and I am surprised that Mr Turnbull, having raised these matters so volubly in recent weeks, concerning this matter, could then run so rapidly from his core charge today.
Mr Turnbull has some grave questions to answer in relation to his own credibility and integrity on this matter and I await for his answer to the questions I have just raised. It is easy in this business with people such as Mr Turnbull, to throw mud.
It is easy for people in the business of politics to smear other politicians. What I can do as Prime Minister of the country is deal with the facts as they are presented with me. And as I said, for Mr Turnbull, only two nights ago in this place, to confront, to threaten, and to intimidate, a member of my staff, by saying that he had documentary evidence concerning this matter, implication my staff member, and only two days later saying he has no such email in his possession, I believe speaks for itself.
These are questions which he must answer for himself.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister is it reasonable for an opposition to rely on the reports by a senior press gallery journalist, and indeed, didn't you often do that yourself in relation to the AWB scandal?
PM: Glen, at the end of the day we are all judged on the basis of the authenticity of our action and also, our preparedness to stand by the claims that we make. Mr Turnbull has made some fundamental claims in relation to my integrity and in relation to the integrity of others. What I have said, very clearly, is, he has gone out there and said, quite directly that, to my staff member, whose singed record of conversation was released yesterday I think, that he possessed this documentary evidence.
And today, when confronted with that proposition, says, ‘well the email itself, the existence of the email, I don't have a copy of it, I hasten to add, I do not have a copy of the email. The email is presumably in the possession of those, between, people between whom it passed'.
You cannot simply make an allegation like that, to a senior member of my staff and to reflect that allegation in the purported representation of documentary evidence in the Senate, through one of his Senators, and then the next day when the heat comes on, run away from it at a million miles an hour.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Lindsay Tanner said it was likely that the Liberal Party had made up this fake email (inaudible)
PM: I haven't seen the text of what Lindsay has said today. Can I say that my conclusion is as I described it before, I have made no such a request for recommendations to be made, my staff advised me they have made no such recommendations.
The public service has independently audited all communications for this period between my office and the Treasury and found nothing. Therefore, I can only conclude that this alleged email is fake and false.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) the question of impersonation (inaudible)
PM: That is where I read from the statement of the Attorney General.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: I believe Glenn, the right course of action is for the AFP investigation to proceed unimpeded. My call today, very bluntly and directly, to Mr Turnbull, is to commit today, to fully cooperate with this police investigation.
The Commonwealth Criminal Code does not exist for a bit of fun of a Sunday afternoon. It is there for fundamental and serious purposes, one of which goes to the provisions that I just referred to you before, under the relevant sections, concerning indictable offences in this category.
Therefore I would strongly urge Mr Turnbull to commit today to 100 per cent cooperation. I would also say that in terms of the political debate in which we are legitimately engaged at present, it would also advance our general knowledge of these matters, as to who supplied the contents of this email to the opposition, who in the Liberal Party read this email, what did they do with it after they read it, and has anyone in the Liberal Party described its contents to any other journalist other than Mr Lewis.
This would add to the public debate on these matters and to a source of public information. Michelle.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: No, no. What have we had over the years? We have had a few cars, but no no I don't think so.
JOURNALIST: There are suggestions today, members of your family might have used cars provided by Mr Grant?
PM: Where have they come from Glenn, those suggestions? Could you elaborate where they have come from Glenn? The answer is, no. Can I just say it is very easy to be smeared in politics. The answer to that question is no, absolutely no.
TREASURER: (inaudible) treasurer
PM: The Treasurer has done a first class job, not just in terms of his discharge of the portfolio, in the most difficult circumstances of the time but as I indicated yesterday, has acted entirely appropriately in this matter,
And I said, I got back to what I said before in relation to Mr Turnbull, and how easy it is in the business of national politics, simply to throw mud at people, and then having thrown the mud, to run away.
Mr Turnbull has done that today. He said all this stuff exists, he said he is in possession of it, and then when put on the spot today in an interview, when asked repeatedly by your colleagues as ladies and gentlemen of the press, says, ‘email, what email? I don't have such an email'. Come on now, I mean -
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well I notice when Dr Charlton's note was produced yesterday, there was no statement to the contrary from Mr Turnbull, this is something which he is now disputing as of today, is that right?
Well it is, I find that remarkable if this goes directly to the accuracy of Mr Turnbull engaging in a threatening and -
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well Dr Charlton as you know, from his signed statement, was quite shaken by the exchange with Mr Turnbull, and as a staff member I could understand how that could be the case, then went out, as he said, and discussed the matter with another member of staff who happened to be outside. And then, of course committed his note to file some time later.
I find it remarkable that if Mr Turnbull is disputing the content of his threatening behaviour towards a member of staff, that he would not have done so in complete detail yesterday, in terms of what he agrees with and what he doesn't.
Can I just say also that, it comes on the day, yesterday, when we have also this extraordinary set of statements about Mr Turnbull's relationship with the big end of town and this is on the front page of the Australian yesterday.
And I have found that rather remarkable in terms of how you would conduct business with people in general, let alone on the serious matters which we are discussing in this matter. Having said that folks, got to zip.