PRIME MINISTER
FOR MEDIA 20 September 1984
After all the extreme assertions and allega~ tions levelled
by Mr Peacock, what emerged yesterday was a statement which:
fails completely to substantiate the grave personal
allegations made against me
is based on misrepresentation and distortion
will be totally unconvincing to the Australian people.
The record is clear. This Government has consistently had, and
continues to have, an absolute commitment to the fight against
organised crime.
Mr Peacock called upon the Government to release the Costigan
report. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, most
recently in the Parliament on 12 September, that the Government
is committed to the earliest possibl. e release of Mr Costigan's
forthcoming report, limited only by Mr Costigan's own
recommendations on confidentiality and the need to ensure that
investigations are not prejudiced. on which point we will also
be guided by those who will have responsibilities in this regard.
The point was clearly made that should the Parliament not be
sitting, the Government will take steps to permit the appropriate
public release of the report. r.
This Government has been concerned to give the greatest possible
support to the Costigan Royal Commission. Early in the life of
this Government, in May 1983, the Government significantly
increased the financial and staffing resources available to
Mr Costigan. The previous Government had provided the Commission
with a staff of approximately 70 people. Under this Government the
number of people employed by the Commission has risen to
approximately 120, so allowing for the recruitment of additional.
professional legal staff, intelligence collators, and research,
records and ADP staff. New and larger prE! mises were provided
for the Commission. What has been done by this Government proves
the falsity of the assertion that we have failed to support
Mr Costigan.
Neither this Government nor its predecessor intended that the
Costigan Royal Commission would continue indefinitely. This
Government reached the view that it should seek to establish
a National Crime Authority structured in a different way to a
Royal Commission but able to take over, on a continuing basis,
those of the Costigan Commission's investigations which bear
on organised crime more generally than just in connection with
the Federated Painters and Dockers Union.
The National Crime Authority will clearly not be the under-powered
body described by Mr Peacock. While it is carrying out
investigations into matters referred to it by the Inter-
Governmental Committee, it will be able to exercise considerable
coercive powers. These powers include the right to summon
witnesses, to require the production of documents, to make
applications for search warrants, -to seize material pursuant
to those search warrants and to seek judicial orders to have
passports delivered to it.
In addition to these considerable coercive powers and this is
where the National Crime Authority differs from the Royal
Commission model there is also provisign for the protection of
fundamental civil liberties and for the active participation of
the States. As Special Prosecutor Redlich noted in his Annual
Report ( p. 48) " The National Crime Authority Act 1984 gives
genuine emphasis to all three considerations. The Authority
has the scope to maintain the initiatives developed by the
Costigan Royal Commission."
Mr Peacock quotes in a most misleading fashion from comments made
by Senator Evans on the role of the States under the previous
Government's National Crime Commission by deleting the very
significant qualification made by Senator Evans that State
co-operation would ultimately need to be forthcoming.
Mr Peacock tries to claim that matters under investigation by
Mr Costigan cannot be transferred directly to the new National
Crime Authority. In fact, all references from the commission have
been made available to the National Crime Authority and is
presently being examined by its members. The Authority will then
make recommendations to the Inter-Governmental Committee about
the references it believes it should receive from the Committee.
4.
This Government has always recognised the need, as the previous,
Government did, for a transition period which would overlap
conclusion of the Costigan Commission and the establishment of
the National Crime Authority. The opposition's actions in
referring the National Crime Authority Bill to a Senate Committee
in November 1983 delayed the establishment of the Authority.
But the Government has always sought to cd-operate with Mr
Costigan to ensure a successful transition.
In this regard, the statement by Mr Peacock that I did not
bother to reply to a particular letter from Mr Costigan is
blatantly and obviously misleading and typical of his selective
and tendentious quoting from tabled correspondence. The copy
of that letter which was tabled in the Parliament carries a
special annotation noting that the Special. Minister of State,
Mr Young met with Mr Costigan one week after Mr Costigan' s
letter was received. At that meeting Mr Young and Mr
Costigan agreed on a transition timetable. After the meeting
a statement agreed between Mr Young and Mr Costigan was
released on the future timetable of the Royal Commission.
Mr Peacock tries to imply that the Government has some political
concern about the effects of Mr Costigan's forthcoming report.
The lessons of history show that Mr Costigan's investigations
uncovered widespread illicit activity by the tax-avoiding
friends of the Liberal Party. These revelations were considerably
embarrassing to the Fraser Government. But this Government has no
reason to believe that the Costigan Commission's investigations
will reflect adversely on it.
1
Mr Keating has already denied completely allegations that he suggested
to the Cabinet that the Costigan Commission should be prematurely
terminated. The whole suggestion is wrong -it is preposterous.
It is in the same category as the allegation made in the
Parliament by Mr Steele Hall with the support of Mr Peacock
that Mr Barron of my staff had attempted to have suppressed
stories in the Age. This totally untrue and'scurrilous
concoction of these desperate men was destroyed by the editor
of the Age, Mr Burns.
Let me emphasise this particular point. Mr Costigan's correspondence
specifically refers to my suggestion to him that he should
particularly concentrate in the time available to him upon that
aspect of organised crime involving the drugs trade. He
expressed his unqualified agreement for r1 believe he shares
my view that this is an abomination and a threat to the stability
of our society. It is one subject in respect of which I have -to
fight to retain my rationality when contemplating what should be
done to those who endanger the lives, particularly of our young,
by profitting in this trade. I find it impossible to convey
the revulsion I feel at the allegation that I would seek
in any way to inhibit the identification and bringing to
justice of anyone, whatever their station in life, so involved.
Mr Peacock also attempts to blame me for leaked information
such as that which appeared in the National Times last week.
I must agree with Mr Peacock that the publication of this
information was harmful and may well prejudice investigations.
But it is Mr Peacock who has had access to leaked information,
and indeed who has encouraged and incited the leaking of material
by the use he has made of it, who is in a position if he
wishes to remind those responsible of their obligations to protect
confidential information.
The spurious allegations made by Mr p -acock about material not having
been tabled have already been answered, As I said in Parliament
on September 6:
' at is the wish of the Government to sdean effective
transition from the proceedings and processes of the Costigan
Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. It is clear
that Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority have a
different view on the adequacy of the transition
arrangements. While Mr Costigan appears to believe
that there will be problems with the transition, the
National Crime Authority has advised that its members
' disagree' unanimously with Mr Costigan's assessment
of the situation. Clearly this is a matter between
Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority.
I am pleased to say that to assist the House I will
table later this da y the full correspondence from
Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority on this matter."
I tabled exactly what I undertook to table. Again Mr Peacock
engaged in misrepresentations by suggesting I had not tabled
all correspondence. I dealt with this explicitly in the
Parliament on the 10th September when I said:
" On 7 September the Leader of the Opposition read
out a list giving the dates of other correspondence
between Mr Costigan and me. As he indicated, these
letters were not included among those tabled on
Thursday. A cursory inspection of the dates involved
would have shown that they all dated back to at least
March, and in a number of cases to 1983. These
letters cover a period well before the transition
commenced, and well before the National Crime
Authority had come into existence. Indeed, the date
of the first letter mentioned by Mr Peacock showed it
was written four days after this Government was sworn
into office. I at no stage indicated that I was
purporting to table related correspondence with
Mr Costigan extending back to the commencement of my
Government. Nor was this sought by the Opposition
prior to the tabling. Eut, to make it crystal
clear that this Government has nothing to hide in
this matter, that is what I have just done."
By our-willingness to table material we have clearly shown we
have nothing to hide.
8.
Mr Peacock's comments on the transition show that he fails to
recognise that the Costigan Royal Commission and the National
Crime Authority have independent status based on statute.
When certain problems emerged during the transition period,
the Government made clear its firm wish that the transition
be effective and that the necessary liaison take place for this
to occur. Discussions were held with botWI Mr Justice Stewart
and Mr Costigan. But it would have been wrong and improper
for the Government to seek to intervene and to purport to issue
instructions to these independent bodies. For Mr Peacock to
suggest that this should have been done shows how little he
appreciates the position and nature of either organisation.
On 6 September I met with the Chairman, Mr ' Justice Stewart,
Mr Max Bingham, QC, * and. Mr John Dwyer, QC,* of the National
Crimes Authority, all of whom command the highest possible
respect in the community. It should be noted Mr Bingham and Mr
Dwyer were unanimously endorsed appointments by the Federal
Government, all State Governments and the Northern Territory.
I asked Mr Justice Stewart, with
all his experience in fighting organised crime, whether there
was any further assistance the Authority required from the
Government in its fight against organised crime. He
replied there was not. I asked Mr Justice Stewart whether he
was confident the Authority would be effective in fighting
organised crime. He replied that he was. In my discussions
with the members of the Authority I have emphasised that
the Government expects the Authority to investigate vigorously
all matters of substance concerning organised crime without
fear or favour and let the cards fall as they may. This is
the policy of the National Crimes Authority. By his statement
Mr Peacock has impugned the integrity of its members.
On the subject of the transition, the Authority has indicated
to me that it expects that among the resources it will have
available to it at the termination of the Costigan Commission
will be: Sthe computer data base and system;
the analyses prepared by Commission staff;
Sthe material contained in the Commission's reports;
one of the junior Counsel assisting Mr Costigan;
Sthe team of solicitors who have been engaged in
conducting Mr Costigan's operations;
Saccountants who have been involved in Mr Costigan's
operations; and
analysts, collators and other staff said by Mr Costigan
to have been trained for the Authority.
The Authority's access to these resources is presently limited
by Mr Costigan's proper requirements for writing his report;
but once that task is completed and the Authority has full use
of the transferred staff and materials from Mr Costigan's
Commission the Authority is confident that its work will proceed
satisfactorily.
Mr Peacock makes some statements about The Age tapes. The
Government appointed the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Mr Ian Temby QC, to inquire into this material. It was Mr Temby
who recommended, after he had concluded his inquiries, that the
matter be left as it is until Mr Justice Stewart and the Senate
Committee have completed their relevant inquiries. This
.11.
recommendation has been accepted by the Government. If
Mr Peacock condemns this decision he condemns the
recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr Peacock's latest statement is the action of a desperate mani.
He has been unable to make any effective criticisms of the
Government's economic policies. He is feduced to mud-slinging
and misrepresentation in a sordid attempt to get political
mileage out of the organised crime issue. The fact is that the
Government's actions in supporting the fight against
organised crime have been responsible and realistic and will
stand up to any fair inspection.
Mr Peacock has made specific, scurrilous allegations against me.
The virtually universal reaction within the community has been
that he has demeaned himself, his office and his Party. The
judgement has been that unless he backs up his allegations wiLth
hard and relevant facts his position will be irretrievable.
This he has totally failed to do. And this has been
inevitable because the allegations are entirely without
substance.