PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT 21 AUGUST 1978 ? O
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL DAVEY, ABC
Question: Are you now categorically saying that the Bulletin article
is wrong?
Prime Minister:
It's wrong in its thrust, in its substance and that's
been said all along.
Question: And yet there were discussions on August 7 and 8 which you
said in* your statement, which included the matter of
Mr. Robinson's evidence concerning the evidence of January 17.
Prime Minister:
Eric Robinson raised these matters when he was reporting to
Ministers, refreshing Minister's minds on what had happened
and as it makes plain, he had reported then that it was the
fact of the phone conversation and not the substance, or contents
that had been conveyed in my office on the 17th. Now, in putting
it in that way, I was obviously interested in it because one
of the things that had always puzzled me in a sense was why
Eric Robinson had a clear recollection of the matter being
mentioned and why I had none. Now, if a Minister comes into my
office and says he has a conversation with his Permanent Head,
I'm not going to find that remarkable, it would have to be the
nature of the conversation that would make it remarkable or
alternatively, if he came into my office and said he hadn't
spoken with his Permanent Head for three months, I would find
that remarkable and what the Minister said, in my mind, appeared
to offer an explanation for that to me, for myself, and I had
asked myself this on a number of occasions and that's the way
the matter fell out.
Question: What did you then say to Mr. Robinson?
Prime Minister:
I said, well if that is your recollection, can you write me a note
about it? But it was also pointed out that he ought to refresh
his memory about the evidence given at the Royal Commission
which he did and even though a note was drafted, by Eric Robinson
which I didn't see until today, it wasn't sent for reasons
that are plain. / 2
( Paul Davey) -2-
Question: Would it be fair to say that Mr. Robinson, what he said in
evidence to the Royal Commission, was if you like a little
more forceful, a little more direct than what he has in this
draft statement which you have now released to the press?
Prime Minister:
I think you've got to take his evidence in total. There
are a number of questions on this subject and I think
you need to look at them all.
Question: Mr. Robinson told you in the statement which you've released,
that he recalled Senator Withers on January 17, amongst other
things, making reference to a telephone call that he had
made to Mr. Pearson. Do you, Prime Minister, see any
inconsistency in that fact and the fact of your telling the
Parliament that the first time you became aware of the situation
was on April 16.
Prime Minister:
No, because that is the first time I became aware of it.
I've got no recollection of having been told of it on other
occasions. Now, that's as it is. I mentioned that'fact to
you that if it was the fact I recall and not the substance,
that could have been an explanation in my mind about Eric
Robinson's recollection and my recollection. But that's not
as it is. He re-read the evidence, I re-read his evidence,
in terms of his evidence in relation to that point I accept
it and I've never sought to belittle it.
Question: One must ask, with respect, Prime Minister, why Mr. Robinson
should remember that January 17 meeting better than you do?
Prime Minister:
Well, that might be one of the mysteries that will never unfold.
I had thought that this particular matter might give myself
an insight into it because again I make the point that if it
was the fact of the phone call that in itself is a very
unremarkable event, and it can only become remarkable if the
substance and the substance I would believe, combined with the
motive that the judge. attributed to it, and that of course
didn't unfold until a very much later time.
Question: Given the looking at the overall situation of the past week
given the tremendous political flak that you have received,
why have you, if you like toughed-it-out, stone-walled, refused
to answer direct questions on this? / 3
-3
Prime Minister:
Well, I answered the substance let me just make that
point again I answered the substance and in my understanding
Eric Robinson answered the substance, but I do place a
very great importance on the confidentiality of discussions
amongst Ministers, of discussions that take place in a
Ministerial meeting, for example, and in these circumstances
I felt that however important I believe that confidentiality
should be, that the matter needed explanation and I discussed
that the Deputy Prime Minister and with Eric Robinson and
that's why this statement is being made, a statement in a
sense which is against convention; against convention of
confidentiality of those discussions.
Question: 1though
Do you think your credibility you could have saved, if you like,
or your credibility might have been overly damaged by not doing
this last week?
Prime Minister:
Well, maybe I am overly concerned about maintaining appropriate
confidentiality in discussions amongst Ministers and in my
own mind and in my own heart I know absolutely that the discussions
in their intent and in their purpose were completely innocent
and completely clear and to that extent I suppose I was surprised
at the degree of political flak that that in part's the name
of the game isn't it?
Question: Are you quite confident now that the issue is dead, that is
is finished?
Prime Minister:
I've got no doubt that the Australian Labor Party will continue
to try and revive the issue, but they will want to do that
because they've got no thought to offer on the Government of
Australia. They've not over the last two and a half years had
a constructive word to say about the management of the economy.
They know the economy is starting to run well. They know quite
well that we are facing a 5 percent rate of inflation, within
the 12 month period, and they also that in spite of some of
the newspaper headlines, this Budget out in the countryside and
where people gather in the cities and the countryside has been
much much better received than the headlines would lead one
to believe.
Question: What about your own Government members, though, Prime Minister.
There has been a lot of talk, open talk, by many of them that
they wanted a categoric expl. anation from you that there were
eruptions within the parties the-2oint Government parties
are you happy now that this will silence them, that you are
going into this coming week with a united front? ./ 4
4
Prime Minister:
Open talk, I don't know who open talk about any discussions
with me have always been very constructive and sensible
ones. Question: I'm just trying to ( inaudible) backbenchers the feeling
in the backbench?
Prime Minister:
I think that members in the total circumstances have a right
to know the nature of the discussions and now they know.
Question: And are they happy do you think?
Prime Minister:
I would hope so, and believe so.
000---