PRIME MINISTER 137/ 95
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
JOHN HOWARD AND THE MARKS ROYAL COMMISSION
John Howard's claims today concerning Justice Marks are transparently
dishonest. His only truthful statement was his grudging admission that the Telstra matter
and the Marks Royal Commission were totally " unrelated".
Mr Howard claimed on " AM" that the Government had appointed Justice Marks
to carry out a Telstra review this is untrue. Justice Marks was appointed by
Telstra, not the Government.
For Mr Howard to imply that the appointment of Justice Marks by Telstra long
before the establishment of the Marks Royal Commission somehow invalidates
the Government's criticism of the Commission is either ignorant or deliberately
deceptive. Criticism of Justice Marks followed his acceptance of a politically motivated
Royal Commission. His previous professional life has never been at issue.
The Marks Royal Commission was the product of deliberately narrow terms of
reference designed to deny Dr Lawrence natural justice while the terms of
reference in the Teistra inquiry were wide ranging and properly constructed.
There was also no question of improper contact between the Government and
Justice Marks in the Telstra case. In the Western Australian case the contact
between Richard Court's staff and the Royal Commissioner is open to question.
It is drawing a long bow indeed to compare Mr Marks' involvement a year ago
with an external Telstra review with his later involvement in Richard Court's and
John Howard's politically malevolent Royal Commission. It is also completely
dishonest for Mr Howard to say the two cases were run " simultaneously".
With the connivance of John Howard, Richard Court established a Royal
Commission with the express purpose of having terms of reference guide the
Royal Commissioner towards a ' guilty' finding.
2
It was a vicious $ 5 million political onslaught against one woman. It was the
most savage and systemic personal attack against someone in political life in
the post war period.
Its findings were left open to doubt by even the Royal Commissioner himself.
Mr Howard's dishonesty in exploiting this matter deserves to be condemned.
CANBERRA 24 November 1995