TEL: No 9.. M0a 0.922 9P: 1.20 1/ 07
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, CANBERRA, 15 MAY 1992
E& OE PROOF COPY
PM: I amt here to advise you that as Senator Richardson
has said somewhat earlier this afternoon to you,
that I have received his report and accepted his
resignation. Naturally, I accept hi. s resignation
with regret, because as a Minister he has made quite
a profound contribution to this country in all of
the portfolios he has held, let alone his greater
contribution to public life. The issues were about
Senator Richardson, his Ministerial style and his
relationship with Mr Symons and the state of his
knowledge of Mr Symnons' business af fairs at the time
he gave him references and introductions. His
relationship with Mr Symons' was for Senator
Richardson, I believe, an unfortunate one but not an
improper one. I think the politics of the issues
were 6uch that there was going to be damage
somewhere, that was either going to be to the
Government's time and its standing, or to Senator
Richardson's position. He took the admirable step
of deciding the matter himself, by tendering his
resignation to me. And in so doing, allows the
public debate again to focus back to the main issues
which will decide the future of the country, its
economy, its society, and of course the next
election. I will be pleased to take questions.
a: Mr Keating it was said on the news today that if he
hadn't resi~ gned you would hee forced his
resignation.
Pm: Well the fact is, he did, he did resign. And I
would have been required to of considered the
report, and -ts ramifications, including its
political ramifications. AS it turns out I didn't,
I wasn't required to, I didn't need to. As I say,
TEL 19. May .92
TEL: 19. May. 92 9: 12~ No
2
Senator Richardson decided the matter himself in an
admirable way.
3; of* Senator Sibraa.
PM: Well my Judgement on Senator Sibraa was very much
the same as the utterances to date from the
Democrats. That was, that he was asked to do
something, which he did, he didn't approach any
foreign Governments he went through the channels of
the Australian bureaucracy abroad, iio further
reference was made to him about the matter.
J. Prime Minister, Attachment 5, this memo, can you
tell us anything more about that?
PM: No, just that it was uncovered in an investigation'
by the Departments at my request, and having
discovered it I thought it was important that
Senator Richardson know that it was in my
possession, and given the fact that he was about to
give me a report, to report upon it.
When did you discover it?
PM: On Friday afternoon.
J: And where was it discovered?
PM: The Department of Foreign Affairs, I understand.
3: Where abouts? Was it the Washington Embassy?
PM; I don't know.
Prime Minister you'll need now to reshuffle the
Cabinet, will you take the opportunity to make a
wide ranging change?
PM: Well I haven't given that matter any thought, at
all, at this stage.
J: What will happen to the package of broadcasting
legislation the Senator was going to take to Cabinet
on Wednesday?
PM: Well it will obviously have to be delayed.
J: When will that reshuffle be made, Mr Keating?
PM: Well I will have to think about it from now on, this
evening and obviously in the course of the week.
J: Having seen Senator Richardson's report do you still
accept that he did not misl. ead the Senate?
FM: Well I think that's in a sense academic. I am sure
the Opposition would say he did. My view was that .002 P. 02/ 07
TEL: 19. May. 92 9: 12 No. 002 P. 03/ 07
3
he didn't, but it is about him and his Ministerial
Position in the Senate, a position he has now
resigned.
J: Mr Keating do you think you should have asked
Senator Richardson questions earlier about this
affair?
PM: I asked him the question that mattered. That is I
brought the matter to a head requiring him to
produce a report to me when X first learned that Mr
Symons had a scheme of arrangement with creditors.
That is, the moment I knew that Senator Richardson
may have given a reference to somebody who he may
possibly have known was in this circumstance, I
thought required me to ask of him that such a report
be given. And that's when I did, when I found out.
J; Prime Minister are you now convinced that Senator
Richardson did not know anything about his cousin's
business affairs?
PM; Well as I say, I think that the relationship was,
obviously Senator Richardson believed that with
years of background in this relationship he could
with confidence provide a reference, it turns out to
be confidence misplaced, but as I said I think the
relationship has for him been an unfortunate one,
but not an improper one.
3: Mr Keating, have you ever met Mr SymorVand has he
ever asked you for any favours?
PM: I met Mr Symon3when he was at the Youth Council
Labor Party, twenty odd years ago, X have not met
him since. In fact, I couldn't recall his face
until I saw an early picture of him in the Sydney
Morning Herald.
J: Not a bad scalp for John Hewsori, it it?
Pm: Well the issue is, always the big issues, and Dr
Hewson always talks about distractions and moving
away from the main issues, but it suited the
Opposition to engage in this issue as a distraction
from the main issue. He now knows, as I know, that
selling the Australian electorate on consumption tax
adding 15 per cent to their goods and services is
unpalatable, disruptive, and he will not like us
returning to those issues.
J; ( inaudible)
PM: Well that was what I was asked earlier and I gave an
answer.
3: Could you have continued to
TEL: 19. May. 92 9: 12 No. 002 P. 04/ 07
4
PM: well, I mean, I would have considered the report now
much more closely after having read it carefully
this morning, its ramifications, including its
political ramifications, In political, terms this
was always going to be a grey matter and as Senator
Richardson himself said, impossible to be settled in
black and white terms. And that would have been as
Much a matter for me as for him.
J: Prime minister can I just ask you two questions
about Attachment 5. First of all given that it came
from Foreign Affairs and that Gareth Evans had faced
questioning in the Senate about Mr Symons'
activities, particularly in relation to Washington,
shouldn't he have known that Attachment 5 was
residing within his department? And secondly,
Senator Richardson says he was unaware that he had
received this letter, it is unsigned and it seems to
trail off in the middle. Are you convinced it is a
bonafide document?
Pm: I can't comment on the status of the document and I
don't want to be drawing judgement about the
document because Mr Symons himself was in the
invidious position of having to face charges about
other documentation in another place.
Would you like to see Senator Richardson returned to
the front bench at some stage?
PM; Well, Senator Richardson made his position clear, I
think, to the public, to you today, by saying that
he wouldn't be seeking a return to the front bench
in this Parliament. That's all that matters I
think.
3: senator Evans, Prime Minister, should he have known
that this document was In the Department of Foreign
Affairs?
PM: We asked the Department to provide any reference
whatsoever to any associations or dealings with Mr
Symons. That turned up upon that extensive check.
That's obviously taken some time and Senator Evans
couldn't be aware of all these things from the
moment the issue arose. I mean, the Senate has been
up now well over a week.
J: Wasn't Senator Evans cavalier initially though, Mr
Keating, in telling the Senate that he wasn't
prepared to investigate this issue?
PM: I em not aware of every utterance Senator Evans made
upon the subject, but in the initial phases of this
I think his responses have been appropriate. And as
time has gone on we have discovered these documents.
But again, the process was there for the discovery:
a) that Senator Richardson and the Government and I
TEL:
set up the process, that he should report to me.
And this is what has in fact brought these events to
a head. And also it was upon my initiative that
Departments were asked to go back through their
files.
J: Prime Minister you referred to Senator Richardsons'
Ministerial style. Do you think it ha8 always been
an appropriate style?
PM: Well, everyone has a style in public life. I
suppose some people display more reserve, caution,
guile perhaps, in their dealings with people, don't
take them at face value as he has believed he can
take a long-standing personal relationship at face
value. They are very tough Judgements. But I think
it is important for ministers to be always aware of
relationships in relation to the kinds of issues
which Mr Symons has raised with Senator Richardson.
J: Do you regret being so strongly supportive of
Senator Richardson in the initial phases and not
asking him for a full report earlier in the
controversy?
PM: No, because in the House of Representives the
questions were about his call to the Marshall
islands which were about not going to the issue, but
which were about him seeking for Mr Symons a right
to prepare himself a trial.
J: 0.6a meeting with Symnons and Finch on the Marshall
Island Scheme?
PM: First let me deal with this and in that sense,
and his inquiry to Senator Evans, and Senator Evans
specifying the terms of his phone ca~ ll I found to be
no problem.
J: Mr Keating, do you support the practice of Ministers
giving letters of introduction to business friends
or personal friends? Do you do so? And in the
light of what's happened, if you do support it do
you think maybe you might take a different attitude
from now on?
PM: All Members of Parliament, House of Representatives
and Senate are all the time required to provide
references to people. Now some people they know
exceptionally well, others by association. And I
think a reference of that variety always carries
with it, at least the knowledge, certainly in this
country I think, that people in public life are
prevailed upon to provide references.
J: Do you do it? T1EL9:. May. 92 9: 12 No. 002 P. 05/ 07
T1EL9:. May. 92 9: 12 No. 002 P. 06/ 0?
6
PM: Yea, I do. Have done but not extensively, but I've
done it.
J: Is there a need for guidelines in this area?
PM: I don't know, I think commonsense is the beat
guideline.
J: Senator Richardson said you were surprised by his
decision. Did you try and talk him out of it today?
PM: He was fairly clear about his intentions. He
arrived, he gave me the report, I read it. Upon the
completion he said he intended to resign and he had
the letter of resignation there, and we discussed
the issues and later in the conversation I actually
opened and read the letter itself.
J: Do you see any prospect of Senator Richardson
returning to a senior role in the Government
sometime in the future?
FM: It's not sensible or politic for any of us to
contemplate our positions, unless in the course of
each Parliament. The Government will be seeking its
re-election at an election and then, and only then,
after the public have supported the Government again
in a poll is a question of any persons prerogatives
within the Ministry or within the Caucus open of
discussion. I don't think it's relevant and it's
not open for discussion now, as I think Senator
Richardson himself has indicated.
J: What were your personal feelings about seeing a
close colleague's demise?
PM; As I said, I accepted his resignation with regret.
Graham and I go back now to our youth, in reality,
certainly to our early 20s and he has made a
tremendous contribution. He will be remembered for
his quite milestone performances in the environment
portfolio in this country, for his substantial
stewardship of the Department of Social Security.
And, while less so for his work now because he's
only in the course of doing it in his current
portfolio, but across that period and, need I say,
as a rank and file Senator and member of the Caucus,
his involvement in many issues of substance, good
things for Australia. Good things where he went
through that Caucus with people raising with them
issues to support the Government and~ the Cabinet on
matters of substance which have certainly moved the
debate along. He has been a very positive force for
good Government, good policy, social change in
Australia.
J: Did Senator Richardson do anything wrong Mr Keating?
TEL:
TEL 7
PM: Senator Richardson, 88 I said, decid~ ed the issue
himself. He decided, as he said I think to you,
that there would be a protracted debate about his
role, that the Opposition were not prone to believe
him saying that he provided this reference free of
any knowledge that the person who he was providing
the reference for was subject to a scheme of credit
arrangements et cetera and that there would be a
protracted debate, and that there would be damage to
either himself and the Government or both. So in a
sense he did decide the issue.
J; Mr Keati~ ng to you believe that this issue has done
long term damage to the Government?
PM. I don't thInk so. I agree with his assessment of
the damage. These issues have come and gone over
the years. In the Fraser ministry, this was the
fate of very many Ministers and yet that Government
won successive elections.
J: Mr Keating would you expect pay TV to be considered
now?
PM: I don't know, but obviously it will not be managed
under the stewardship of Senator Richardson
therefore which ever Minister is managing it will
have to immerse themselves in the issue and be in a
position to competently take the matter forward to
Cabinet. That's obviously not nlow.
J: When will you plan to start considering
replacements?
PM: Well I will from now on.
J; Prime Minister, are you disposed to keeping the
reshuffle relatively minimal?
PM: Well I'll consider the issue myself for the moment.
If you've got any tips Glenn ( Milne), you can ring
me down or leave them on a note and Mark ( Ryan) will
bring them into me, but in the meantime I'll just
think about them myself. Thank you very much.
ENDS T1EL9: . May. 92 9: 12 No. 002 Id. U(/ U(