Subjects: Breast Cancer Awareness Week; Minister Reith.
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
JOURNALIST:
A very worthy cause and a strong message here for younger women?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, early detection, no precaution is too much for something like this. And it is very important that women of all ages understand that they can be affected by breast cancer and early screening is very important and not taking any risks and getting second opinions were the things that came through to me very strongly from what both Jane and Carmen had to say was that getting a second opinion, as in so many aspects of life, is important.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Carmen also implored you to reduce the screening age to free to under 40’s, will that happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am going to examine that. There’s conflicting evidence, medical evidence and science on that. And as one should with all of these things you always err on the side of greater caution, but I am having that issue examined at present. We’re putting a lot more resources into relaunching the TV campaign and that’s going to start tomorrow. And under the present arrangements, any woman over 40 who has the screening done the cost is carried by the public purse. The question of whether we should further target women under 50 to encourage them to be screened is an issue we’re looking at and whether we should take it any lower is also an issue that we’re looking at and as in all of these things you try and balance up priorities. But the campaign is certainly very important and it does receive the very strong support of the Government and the success of this morning’s breakfast, the willingness of very prominent women to talk very directly and in a very sensitive way given the emotion of it is quite inspiring and very important. We have to talk about these sorts of things more openly and one of the encouraging things about modern society is that both men and women are willing to talk more openly and more directly about health challenges. And I would say to all people in the community that that’s part of the I guess the deterrent mechanism and it’s also part of the cure – the willingness of people to share their experiences is important to them, but it’s also important to people who are going to be affected in the future and an occasion like this is a fantastic way of bringing it to people’s attention.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister do you support Mr Reith’s reassertion that he will not be re-investigated or be questioned again by the Federal Police?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Peter Reith is an excellent minister. He’s been one of the really strong, effective ministers in the Government and the only comment I would make about the whole issue is that nothing has come out of substance, I repeat, nothing of substance has emerged over the last eight days which in any way contradicts the basic version of events outlined by Mr Reith when he came to see me in May of this year. On top of that Mr Reith is paying in full the amount, even though there is no legal liability to do so. Now amidst all of the media coverage and all of the focus on this, those two facts appear to have been lost sight of. I repeat, nothing has come out in the last eight days to contradict the basic story, the basic version of events that I was given in May of this year by Mr Reith. And he’s paying the amount in full. There’s no criminal liability. There’s no civil liability. Now I think those facts are being lost sight of. I’ve said all along that if other material comes along that ought to be investigated, it will be. I won’t be standing in the way of that. We don’t have anything to hide. But nothing has happened in the last eight days to alter the version of events I was given in May. And I think this has been lost sight of. I mean he has acknowledged all along that he was in error in giving details to his son. Now that occurred when he was not a minister, that occurred six years ago. He’s paying a very high financial price for that because he’s accepting the moral responsibility to meet the amount even though there’s no legal responsibility to do so according to the Solicitor-General. And who are any of us to contradict what he’s had to say? He’s had all the material in front of him. Now I can only say again two things – he’s paying the money in full even though there’s no legal liability and nothing has come out in the last eight days to contradict the version of events that Mr Reith gave me in May.
JOURNALIST:
Even though Ms Odgers contradicts him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I am talking about the Minister. I am talking about what the Minister has said. The question of conflict between other people is not relevant to what the Minister has said to me.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard have you had any calls from the backbench? Have you been approached over the weekend asking because of the length that this affair has dragged on, have you been fielding concerns from your backbench?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven’t been approached over the weekend by my backbench no.
JOURNALIST:
Or the Nationals sir?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
It took so long to surface, could it happen again from a departmental point of view, or can you put a stop on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Harry, the arrangements have changed. I mean you must remember that the reason that it took so long to surface was that Mr Reith had not been told. I mean people once again are losing sight of this fact that nobody told Peter Reith until August of last year that there was improper use of his Telecard, nobody. And nothing has happened in the last eight days to shake that assertion by him. And I have had a very exhaustive examination made of the documents and of the departmental record and nothing I have yet seen as a result of that examination contradicts Mr Reith’s assertion that the first he knew of this gross misuse was in August of last year, 30th of August. That was the first. He had no previous contact with anybody from Telstra. He was not told by the Department of Administrative Services. All of that material in the papers on Friday about a leaked memo – he didn’t know anything about that and neither did the Minister. And what happened was there was a low level contact between Telstra and the department and they looked at Reith’s travel patterns and were satisfied that the use of the card was consistent with those patterns and decided to take it no further. Now you can’t hang him on that. I mean you can criticise him for having given the information to his son in the first instance. But that was known to me last May and I made the judgement last May that that of itself, given that it occurred in 1994 when he was not a Minister and given the circumstances of it and the intent at the time that that was not of itself a reason to dismiss him. He has picked up the legal obligation, the moral obligation to pay the money, even though he has no legal obligation. We were in fact informed by the Attorney-General when I sent it off to the police in May that it was appropriate to defer until we got the police examination the question of whether he should pay the $50,000. And that in fact is what has occurred. He’s paid it recently. So can I just say again to try and sort of cut through the extraordinary focus on, you know, the colour of it. I mean I know it’s a good story, there are colourful figures and I make no judgements on people’s characters, I am not doing that. I am not criticising anybody involved in it. They’re entitled to their privacy. But two things stand unchallenged – the first of them is that nothing has come out in the last eight days to shake the essential Reith story, nothing. And he’s picking up the tab for something which according to the Solicitor-General is not his legal responsibility. Now I think that’s right, I think he should pick up the tab for it, I think most Australians do. And I don’t have any argument with that and I am glad he’s doing it and he should do it. But we’ve got to keep a sense of proportion. And I know people in the other side are after his blood because Peter Reith has been a very good Minister. He’s been one of the star Ministers of my Government. He did something in relation to waterfront reform but nobody else had had the guts to tackle in previous governments. Now he’s made a lot of enemies. A lot of enemies in the union movement. He’s made a lot of enemies in Canberra because of his tough stand on that issue. And he’s copping it in spades now. I know that and you all know that. People are really going for him. Now when that’s happening, somebody in my position has got to try and look at the facts. And the facts are that nothing has happened in the last eight days to shift his basic story. I mean nobody has undermined his story in the last eight days. You’ve had a lot of you know colour and it’s interesting and it sells papers and it makes good front pages, but it doesn’t really prove that he was told before the 30th of August that there was a problem with his Telecard. It doesn’t prove that he’s told me something wrong. It doesn’t prove that he improperly tried to interfere with an investigation. None of that has been established. So until I can be, somebody can show me where his basic story has been undermined and challenged than I believe that the judgement I made in May was right.
Thank you.
[ends]