INTERVIEW WITH 0-10
Question: Mr. Robinson, that he make a check of his evidence, to see
if he still believed that was accurate?
Prime Minister:
No, the point was raised in this way; in discussions Eric
Robinson indicated it was the fact of the ' phone conversation
and not the substance of it that had been related in my office
on the 17th. Now one of the things that had puzzled me was
how Eric Robinson could have a clear recollection of it, when
I had none. If a Minister comes into me and says he has spoken
with his permanent head, I am not going to regard that as
remarkable, if he came and said he hadn't spoken with his
permanent head for three ftonths, I would regard that as
remarkable. So the fact of the ' phone call in itself, was
not remarkable and as it was put in that discussion, it gave
me an explanatLion in my own mind, about Eric's recollection
and my own complete lack of recollection. Now that was my
interest in the matter and that was my only interest in the
matter. It might have-ended up in one other sentence or two
other sentences in the statement I made in the Parliament
explaining the very point I have just made but could I make
another point not really related to your question. I've had an
extreme diffidence in talking about these matters. I do believe
it is very important for conversations between ministers and
conversations in a Ministry, because part of this conversation
was in a Ministry conversation, to be confidential. That is
absolutely vital for the proper operating of Government and
it's only because something has been blown up out of all
proportion that was entirely and absolutely innocent in its
nature and intent, that with Eric Robinson's agreement and
after discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Anthony,
it was determined that I ought to take this course.
Question: You did suggest, though, to Mr. Robinson, at a Ministerial
Meeting, according to you statement here, that he put pen to
paper on the issue of his recollection. He did do that.
Prime Minister:
Not on the issue of his recollection, in relation to the matter
that he'd just put to me. The Bulletin has made the suggestion
that I was saying to him write me a note saying your
recollection was hazy or inaccurate. Now, that suggestion is
totally and absolutely false.
Question: The distinction is you asked him merely to confirm his
recollection as he best could at that stage? ./ 2
-2
Prime Minister:
Confirm what he had just put to me, but it was also put
to him, before you do that, look at the evidence.
Question: When this attached attached to your statement is a letter
which he had proposed, he did put pen to paper. Now that
says that he doesn't remember the detail of what Senator
Withers did. Was that how it happened at that time?
Prime Minister:
That was how it was related at the time amongst Ministers.
Question: Him saying that though. Is that any retraction from his
evidence given before the Royal Commission?
Prime Minister:
Well, I think his evidence before the Royal Commission needs
to be looked at in total.
Question: And do you say, why then wasn't the letter sent, that he
did pen?
Prime minister:
Because that was Eric Robinson's decision and therewas certainly
no pressure from me that it ought to be sent. I hadn't seen
it until today and quite deliberately, although I had earlier
known of a draft existence, quite deliberately had not. Why
he didn't send it was on advice and on re-reading the evidence.
His evidence.
Question:
Would you agree though that is a softening of the position as
the evidence originally came out which led to a lot of these
stories?
Prime Minister:
I accept the position in the evidence as it is taken totally.
The totality of his evidence.
Question: And his recollection, according to this letter, that is wasn't
clear in detail?
Prime Minister:
I'm sorry, I don't understand that...
-3
Question: According to his letter here, he says he doesn't really
remember all the detail that Senator Withers did mention...
Prime Minister:
Part of his evidence also says that. But in answer to other
questions put differently, there is a suggestion that some
detail at least was made available in my office.
Question: So it is entirely up to Mr. Robinson that he didn't then send
on that letter?
Prime Minister:
Absolutely and completely.
Question: Would that letter have helped your position?
Prime Minister:
No, it wouldn't have made any difference except it would have
explained to me, to myself, why he had a-clear recollection
of it and why I had none. Because I mention it to you again,
if a Minister comes into my office and says he has been speaking
with his Permanent Head, that's not remarkable, it could only
become remarkable because of the nature of the conversation
or alternatively if he came in and said he wasn't on speaking
terms with his Permanent Head. r I would find that remarkable.
Question: Have you any idea why Mr. Robinson wasn't prepared to say this
in the House? Is he under the same sort of strictures of
Ministerial meetings
Prime Minister:
The question of Ministerial confidentiality between, amongst,
Ministers, that applies to all of us.
Question:
But this letter attached could be the only thing around that
any newspaper, or bulletin or whatever it be, could get hold
of at this stage.
Prime Minister:
I'm not aware of anything else being around. I think it would
be very unlikely that they could have got hold of this either,
for that matter. But, that's up to them.
Question: Speculation about leadership challenges, taking to the enth
degree some of the newspaper articles that have come. Have
you considered that seriously?
-4-
Prime Minister:
No, not for one minute.
Question: You didn't think it was ever on at all?
Prime Minister:
No
Question: Is the issue closed now?
Prime Minister:
I've got no doubt that the Australian Labor Party will continue
to try and press around in the peripheral matters in politics
because they haven't mounted an argument against the Budget.
They haven't mounted an argument against any of the mainstream
policies of the Government. They know quite well that this
Budget is being very well received in the business sector.
and very well received in financial markets overseas. They also
know that that reception will be conducive to more and increased
investment in Australia from Australian investors and from
overseas investors and that's one the things that will certainly
assist in economic recovery and in~ the creation of jobs.
Question:. Can I put just one final point that the Opposition has made?
They said that by your own admission on April 16th you say
then that you knew about it, yet on the 23rd, one week later
and I think about five weeks later again, terms for the
Royal Commission were announced. It wasn't until May 26, some
five weeks later that you actually included Senator Withers
in it. Why was that?
Prime Minister:
On the 23rd of April the matters before us were the allegations
against Eric Robinson. In addition to-that, as I've made plain
in the Parliament, there was evidence before us about how
the name could have been changed relating to Senator Withers.
The Attorney-General took quite specific action to make sure
that that evidence would be available to the Royal Commission.
Indeed, in relation to that part of it, the terms of reference
were draw in such a way that all the evidence could, would
and did, come out---and it was only when matters began to
unfold at a later point in evidence, Mr. Pearson had given
evidence, Senator Withers had given evidence, that highlighted
matters that had been said in the Senate on the 4th of November
and consequently other debates in the Senate, all these matters
came together and threw a greater importance on this particular
matter and as a result of that, the terms of reference were
widened in relation to a finding but there was no need to
alter the terms of reference in relation to substance, to
eliciting all the facts because the original terms of reference
were adequate for that and the. Attorney-General, in the name
of the government, took very specific action to make sure
that all the evidence would come out. 000---