PRESS OFFICE~ TR~ ANSCRIPT 21 AUGUST 1978
INTERVIEW WITH MIKE PETERSEN
CHANNEL SEVEN
Question:
Why has it taken you five days to refute the allegations
in the. Bulletin?
Prime Minister:
In substance, the allegations were refuted by Eric Robinson
and by myself, in the Parliament and I think also outside
it, but the discussions that are referred to took place
amongst ministers, part of it at least in a Ministerial
meeting and I place a very great deal of importance on the
essential confidence of discussions between ministers and
it's only with extreme reluctance that I break that
confidentiality down. Now because the matter had obviously
built up into a matter of some degree of media concern that
just during the weekend I started to have discussions with
the Deputy Prime Minister and also with Eric Robinson as
to whether or not, in this particular circumstance, that
principle confidentiality shouldn't be breached.
Question: Given the fact that the Parliament was sitting until Thursday
night, and you had a meeting at the Lodge of senior ministers
then, might you not have been better to have put this statement
out on Thursday night and therefore saved a lot of damage?
Prime Minister:
I think with the wisdom of hindsight, that's a very easy ( inaudible)
wisdom to have. It might well have been better to make the
decision that all right, a statement of this kind when the
matter was first raised, but I think you underestimate the
importance I attach to confidentiality. It is very important.
Confidentiality of discussions between Ministers is quite
essential to the good and proper operations of Government.
All right, in view of everything' that's gone on, that's been
broken on this occasion.
Question: Having broken it, you say in a written statement this afternoon:
" I asked Mr. Robinson if he was sure of his recollection to
write me a note". Now since the transcript of the Royal
Commission was available to everyone, why did you need a note?
Prime Minister:
Because he had said something to Ministers, in front of Ministers,
which made it perfectly plain that it was in his then
recollection, the fact of the phone conversation and not the
details, the substance, the contents of that conversation that
had been related to me. Now one of the things which, if you like,
in a sense has puzzled me, how Eric Robinson can have a very / 2
-2
Prime Minister ( continued):
clear recollection of the reporting of that conversation
while I had none. Now if a Minister comes into my office
and says I've been speaking with my Permanent Head, that
is thoroughly unremarkable. It can only be the substance
and the nature of the conversation that start to make it
remarkable. It wasn't only the substance of this conversation,
it was the purpose which Mr. Justice McGregor attached to it
that-really made it remarkable and that came out obviously
many many months later with the Report of the Royal Commission.
If I could just take that one stage further. If a Minister
came into my office and said I haven't had a conversation with
my Permanent Head for three months, I would also find that
remarkable. Now, if it was only the fact of the conversation
and nothing else, that might well have offered an explanation
as to why it was in Eric Robinson's recollection but in no part
of mine whatsoever. Now, that's not the way it fell out, as
the statement indicates.
Question: Did not Mr. Robinson, before the Royal Commissioner, say that
he was quite certain that Senator Withers had mentioned a name
change about talking to Mr. Pearson?
Prime Minister:
I think it would be a good idea to read the totallity of
this evidence. There are a number of questions on this
particular point. At another point for example, Mr. Robinson
says that he was only aware of the substance and detail of the
conversation when Mr. Pearson gave his evidence before the
Royal Commission.
Question: I'm sure you won't mind if I go back to the question of, however,
why you asked Mr. Robinson, to write you a note.
Prime Minister:
Because it would explain to me why he remembered the incident
and why I didn't. If it was as, he'd.. related to Ministers at
that time but now, again let me make the point, it was suggested
he should check the transcript. But he did.
Question: Why then, would a busy man write the note first and then
check the transcript. Which you say...
Prime Minister:
I don't find that unremarkable. / 3
3
Question: I'm afraid I do Prime Minister. If you asked him for anote,
surely he would go away and check first, before writing the
note to you?
Prime Minister:
The note was never sent. It was never signed. I didn't see
it before today.
Question: I appreciate that. But why would a busy Minister of State
write a note and then go away and check.
Prime Minister:
Well, that's just the way it fell out.
Question: Are we able to talk to Mr. Robinson about this?
Prime Minister:
I think you can talk to whoever you like but the fact remains
the note was.. never sent and also, it's worth noting I think
that the note itself, or the draft, because that's all it
ever was, confirms the substance of what I'm saying to you
in very precise detail. 000---