' 7fc
PRIME MINISTER' S INTERVIEW WITH DUNCAN FAIRWTEATHER, ABC,
21 AUGUST 1978
PRIME MINISTER
I didn't issue it last week because I had regarded the substance
of The Bulletin article allegations as being answered by the
statements of Eric Robinson and myself in the Parliament.
The matter referred to things that have been discussed
between Ministers and at one point, in part at least, in a
Ministerial meeting. I place a great deal of importance on
confidentiality in discussions between Ministers within the Cabinetwithin
the Ministry that is important to good government.
As the matter continued to obviously as public interest, as
there were others that did not regard those denials as
completely categoric denials as I had, and as Eric Robinson, the
matter was reassessed over the weekend. Therefore, in discussions
with the Deputy Prime Minister and Eric Robinson and other Ministers
I camne to the view that the statement that has been issued should
be issued, together with the draft of the letter which was
never sent, never signed and which I didn't see until today.
QUESTION Do you intend it to be your last word on this subject or
will you make an explanation to Parliament as well?
PRIME MINISTER
I have got no doubt that the Opposition will ask one or two
questions on the subject, because they seem to be incapable
of asking questions on mainstream matters that are of prime
concern to Australians. Throughout this whole year they have
been interesting themselves in peripheral issues, not devoting
themselves to Australia's main problems, main concerns, not
contributing to debates in that arena in any useful way.
QUESTION Prime Minister a central point of these allegations has been
that you asked M4r Robinson for a letter. Now you say you did
ask him for a note if he was sure of his recollection. Why should
he reexamine the evidence that he gave on oath before a
Royal Commission?
PRIME MINISTER
Let me explain that in plain terms. I had always been puzzled
w'yEric Robinson had such a clear recollection of a conversation
which he believed took place in my office on 17th January, when
I had none and had no awareness of that particular matter until
Senator Durack told me about it in April, he was concerned because
he was concerned, I was concerned. I was puzzled about this
difference in recollection. If it was merely the fact of a
phone call, that would not be remarkable. The phone call from
Senator Withers to Mr Pearson became remarkable when you knew
its purpose, its motive and its content. Part of that did not
come out, I think, until we read the Royal Commission Report
when it was not only the fact of the call, the content of
the call, but the purpose of the call in the terms of
Mr Justice McGregor. That was certainly remarkable.
When Mr Robinson said to a group of Ministers it was the fact
of the phone call, not the substance or contents of the phone
call that was related in my office on the 17th, when that was
said I said, well, maybe that is an explanation why he
remembers it, and why I don't. I asked him if your recollection,
meaning his recollection at the time, a couple of weeks ago
on the 7th and 8th of August that recollection then could
he give me a note about it. That might have lead to one or
two additional sentences in my statement to the Parliament
giving a possible explanation for the difference in recollection
but it didn'It turn out that way as you know.
QUESTION It was construed that you had tried to influence Mr Robinson.
Asking him to reconsider the evidence he gave to the Royal
Commission, you say if he was sure of his recollection.
What would have happened if he had not been sure?
PRIME MINISTER
I wasn't asking him to reconsider his evidence. What I did was
to if you are sure of your recollection, of what he had
just told Ministers on the 7th and 8th August, it was the
8th of August and the point he just made then was it was the
fact of the phone call that was related in my office, not the
substance. But it was said that he shouldn't do anything until
he had checked with his evidence, and I certainly concurred in
that, and the letter was never sent there never was a letter,
it was never signed, there was a draft but nothing else.
LAST QUESTION REPEATED:
QUESTION Prime Minister, could you relate how it was that you did ask
Mr Robinson for that note?
PRIME MINISTER
Mr Robinson was telling Ministers of what had happened, relating
events, and in the Ministry meeting the records show that he
raised this particular point in relation to the 17th January
that he himself made the point that it was the fact of the
conversation and not the substance that was bought to my attention.
In addition to that, the same point had been made in discussions
with other Ministers. When I heard it I was interested in it
for a very obvious reason.-I had always been puzzled about why
he had clear recollection of these events while I had none.
It was only the fact of the phone call, as opposed to the substance,
and that in itself is not remarkable. It is remarkable if Senator
Withers had said he had not spoken to Mr Pearson for three months,
being in a sense his permanent head that would be remarkable.
This phone call could only become remarkable when its substance,
its purpose, its contents and the motive behind it were known.
QUESTION Didn't Mr Robinson give evidence to the Royal Commission that the
question of a change in name of an electorate was mentioned
in that phone call and repeated after it?
PRIME MINISTER
I think you have got to read the whole of Mr Robinson's evidence,
and when you read that I think you will then get to a full understandir
of the position. In parts of that evidence he makes it perfectly
plain he didn't understand the full nature of the phone call until
Mr Pearson gave evidence before the Royal Commission that was
in May. I hadn't understood the totality of what was alleged
to have been said or not said, and in that sense, when you again
made the simple comment: it was the fact of the phone call and
not the substance that was related in my office. I was obviously
interested, because that was not the impression I had got from
earlier events and from the evidence as a whole. That has led
me to say, well, if your recollection meaning your recollection
here and now-is correct, can you give me a note in relation to it.
I again make the point, that the most that could have led to
would have been one or two sentences perhaps in my statement to the
Parliament giving a possible reason why he had a recollection of
those events and while I had none well, those one or two
sentences weren't there.
ENDS