PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
KIRRIBILLI HOUSE, SYDNEY,
JULY, 1975
PRIME MINISTER: I want to speak to you about the announcement that
-the Speaker of the House of Representatives made -this morning. You
were told that he had notified all members that the House would sit
at 2.30 next Wednesday afternoon. During the week many members of
the Opposition and many of the media have made allegations about
the Government in general and about individual Ministers ccncerning
the propriety of their actions, in particular in respect to the
inquiries that had been made about overseas loans. Now the proper
place for such political issues to be determined is in the supreme
political forum of the nation, the House of Representatives itself.
There the Opposition can make charges against Ministers and can
substantiate them, if it can. And the Australian people will there
and thien have the opportunity to judge the facts and the mo-tives of
any such allegation.
I had earlier told your representatives that when Parliament next
sat I would table the reports I have received from the Ministers, the
Departmental Heads, the other officials concerning the letters to
Mr George Harris about which Dr Cairns spoke on the last afternoon
that the House sat. I shall, of course, now table those next
Wednesday afternoon. I shall also table the letters to and from
Dr Cairns about the subsequent letter or the letter which
subsequently came to light, the letter of the 7th of March.*
Also I will table Mr Connor' s letters to Mr Khemlani.* Now
Mr Fraser, when the House meets, will be able, if he wishes, to
make any of the charges which any of your media have made, or any
of his colleagues, or that his Deputy have made against Ministers;
they will also be able to make charges against any individuals.
' 17ey will be able to make charges against individuals who are not in
Parliament with complete safety, no legal consequences for them if
they make any charges at all, including some of the extraordinary
charges that have been made by these guttersnipe hirelings that
some of your employers have engaged. They will be able, for
instance, to explain, if there is an explanation for this story
in this morning's " Age", that a London finance broker said that
Isomeone in Australia had been prepared to pay up to $ 2 million to
-2
acquire certain vital documents relating to efforts by Australian
Ministers to raise multimillion US dollar loans"
Now all this can be said in Parliament and it can be substantiated
in any way that's available to.-the Opposition. The only thing
is that the Opposition will have to state the facts as they know them
or as they are prepared to authenticate or identify. There will be
a great opportunity for Mr Fraser and his associates, in the good
old Australian phrase, " to put up or to shut up". Now are there
any questions that any of you would like to ask?
QUESTION: Why, after so many refusals, have you now decided to table
the letter from Connor to Kheinlani?
PRIME MINISTER: Because of the allegations which have been made by
the various newspapers. In view of some of the statements and
interpretations -that have been made and given, let the public see
for themselves.
QUESTION: It has been hinted that you and Mr Connor are involved
just as much as Dr Cairns, would you care to comment?
PRIME MINISTER: Well would you identify the source of the hint?
QUESTION: Well, in the press.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but there is press and press and there is
radio station and radio station. Well, let me say, I have written
no letters at all to anybody that has been named in Parliament or
outside it. I notice that some of the papers mentioned on Friday
morning, I think it was, that a gentleman was writing to me to
claim $ 5 million commission on funds which he had been able to
secure. I haven't seen any such letters; I've been informed that
that gentleman for at least the last five years has been putting
proposals to the Treasury and the Department of Trade the
Department of Overseas Trade as it now is and that nobody has ever
given a second thought to his proposals. I'm told that he is or has
been a bankrupt and that there is some medical disturbance also.
But this is the only thing that I have seen concerning me.
QUESTION: What about Mr Connor sir?
-3
PRIME MINISTER: Well, you will be able to judge this from the letters.
The great difference between Mr Connor and Dr Cairns is that
Mr Connor was authorised to pursue inquiries and took advice on
any responses he had and was, in general, con-sulting with his
colleagues. Dr Cairns was not authorised, did not consult.
QUESTION: Have you met Mr Khemlani or had any verbal negotiations
with him? Have any of your staff or your Permanent Head, Mr Menadue,
negotiated with Mr Khemlani or any one else in such matters?
PRIME MINISTER: Now a couple of days ago when I was asked in writing
by one of the Canberra Press Gallery a question which any of you.
are entitled to put to me in writing along the lines which you have
just put I was asked whether in effect I had ever met or spoken to
Mr Khemlani. My written reply to your colleague was: that I had
never met him, I had never communicated with him, I believe I had
never seen him. I would believe that the same applied to the Head
of my Department and every member of my staff. I have heard nothing
to the contrary.
QUESTION: Would you describe the Labor Government's loan raising
activities as extraordinary?
PRIME MINISTER: Unprecedented in degree, that is all. There is
nothing illegal whatever. It is significant that nobody has suggested
that there was anything illegal or that there was anything so extraordinary
as to be improper in the fact that the Government authorised
one Minister to pursue inquiries in response to approaches that had
been made to him. I emphasise: -there has been nothing illegal,
there has been nothing which was so unusual as to be improper. This
is a great opportunity in the Parliament for people who are
answerable to the public, that is members of Parliament, Opposition
Leaders and others to specify if there is anything illegal or if there
is anything so unusual as to be improper. I would like to emphasise
that, as was reported in the press, we had a loan raising, the other
day, in New York which was filled in a single day. Now this was in
the light of reports which are made by the agencies which assess the
credit worthiness of various nations. For the first time, about last
September or October, Australia was given a triple A credit rating,
the top credit rating in the world equal to Canada, France, Germany
4
and -the like; the first time that Australia had ever got it.
And recently the other agency came to Australia and confirmed that
assessment. Standard and Poor were here last month or the previous
month and confirmed it. So Australia has an equally top credit rating
with any country in the world; the last loan we raised was filled
in a single day.
QUESTION: Will the Caucus Meeting be put forward due to the
recalling of the House of Representatives?
PRIME MINISTER: No) I haven't planned to do so.
QUESTION: Will the guidelines of raising loans overseas be changed
or reviewed by you in light of what's happened in recent times?
PRIME MINISTER: The method for the Government to raise a loan has
for countless years back been the same. A loan is raised on the
authority of the Executive Council.
QUESTION: Did you ever consider having a judicial inquiry into the
overseas loan-funds borrowing, and if so does the recalling of
Parliament now overshadow that?
PRIME MINISTER: I have considered having a judicial inquiry, a
Royal Commission into any matters where a Royal Commission is
appropriate. I will still consider that if any questions arise which
would seem to show that that was the proper course. If allegations
are made or documents produced in Parliament for which there is no
proper explanation and a Royal Commission would be the appropriate
procedure to seek an explanation, then of course I will appoint the
Royal Commission. But let me point out this: that Royal Commissions
or inquiries of any kind are only set up to ascertain facts. They
don't issue decisions, they don't bring down judgements, they don't
impose penalties, they don't deliver verdicts. A Royal Commission is
only to ascertain facts and it can make a recommendation, it can make
a report on the facts as it sees it. But the fact that a Royal
Commission believes that the facts establish certain matters doesn't
conclude the question. If there is any matter which I believe shows
any illegality then I will of course pursue it. I told you a couple
of days ago that it seemed quite possible that Mr Sear'Cowls' action,
admitted by him in a Statutory Declaration his action in falsifying
telexes that that should be investigated. If that was illegal, as
5
would certainly appear to be possible, then action should be taken
to prosecute hima. It is not clear, it's perhaps unlikely~ that he
has committed any offence against Federal law but the general question
of his having committed an offence against State laws and which State
would have been concerned, that is being pursued. Now here is a clear
case; there would be in that Statutory Declaration admitted facts.
Now if those facts disclose any illegality there will be no hesitation
whatever, there has been no hesitation in pursuing the legal
consequences of that action and bringing them home to Mr Sear Cowls.
QUESTION: Would you see your sacking of Dr Cairns based solely on
his not having authority to raise loans?
PRIME MINISTER: No. Dr Cairns had his commission terminated because,
on the facts as they appear, he has misled the House of Representatives
You will remember that he stated on the 4th June, in answer to a
question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and an interjection
by the Leader of the Opposition, that he had not offered anybody a
commission or a brokerage fee of 2 on any loan monies that he
found or introduced. Subsequently, a photostat appeared of a letter
of the 7th of March which had Dr Cairns' signature on it and which
offered a brokerage fee of 23 to Mr George Harris in those
circumstances. I discussed this photostat with Dr Cairns last
Tuesday, late afternoon, and we agreed that he should think about
it and the following day give me a written explanation. He gave
me a written explanation at 6.00 p. m. on Wednesday afternoon that
he had no recollection of having signed the letter of which we
had looked at the photostat. In those circumstances there would be
an allegation that he had misled the House. It would have been an
irresistible allegation in the absence of any explanation. That
is why I advised the Governor-General to terminate Dr Cairns'
commission. QUESTION: Members of your own Party have been critical of that action
because there was no inquiry first and it didn't have the backing of
Caucus. The dismissal of Dr Cairns as Deputy.
-6
PRIME MINISTER: There was no option for any Prime Minister in
such a matter. No Prime Minister can have a Minister against whom
it could be said that he has misled the Parliament.
QUESTION: Would you allow Dr Cairns to serve as a Minister again
under you?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
QUESTION: Do you propose tabling also Departmental documents
associated with the Connor loan raising propositions?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I propose to, as I said, to table the documents
which have been signed by Ministers and those documents which, as I
have told you, I have sought from Departmental Heads and those
officials concerning letters signed by Ministers.
QUESTION: How many communications between Mr Connor and Mr Khemlani
will you be tabling?
PRIME MINISTER: Two letters.
QUESTION: The letter and the memorandum?
PRIME MINISTER: The two letters.
QUESTION: And are you satisfied at_ having looked at those again
recently ) that no interpretation of them could lead to an agency
or commission or any understanding by Mr Khemlani that he was
to operate on Australia's behalf?
PRIME MINISTER: That is right. I am satisfied of that. That's not
only my own opinion but of course, in such matters I seek the advice
of the crown law authorities, that has been given. It confirms that
opinion. That advice was sought some weeks ago. Mind you, you will
remember that I stated in the Parliament, I think it was on the
of May, that not a cent had been paid to Mr Khemlani, not a
cent had to be paid to Mr Khemlani and that not a cent would be paid
to Mr Ehemlani. I made that statement in the confidence that there
was no inducement offered to Mr Khemlani which would give him any,
which would lay any obligation at all on the Australian Government.
7
QUESTION: At the time that you agreed to Mr Connor seeking an
overseas loan, did you have a clear idea of the detailed purposes for
whicbhit was required and are you prepared to say what each amount
was to be spent on?
PRIME MINISTER: I have in mind that if this matter arises in the
House the information can be given.
QUESTION: The Opposition apparently is already considering recalling
the Senate to use its majority to force a judicial inquiry over
this issue. Would that concern you?
PRIME MINISTER: Now. I have made it plain on earlier occasions, I
mightn't have mentioned it to you, that neither House of Parliament
can hold a judicial inquiry. A judge is commissioned to hold an
inquiry by the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Ministry
or at the request of a Minister. Judges are not appointed to hold
inquiries by either House of the Parliament or by both Houses of
Parliamenh. You might remember that there have been resolutions by
Houses seeking judicial inquiries. For instance -there was a year or
so ago a motion by the House of Representa. tives that there should be
an inquiry into various social issues. The Government, of course,
commissioned the judge, the archbishop and the other women who are
conducting that inquiry as a Royal Commission. Again the Senate,
a couple of months ago, asked that there should be a judicial
inquiry into the qualifications of Members of Parliament, outside
interests and so on.., arising from the Webster case. It was, of course,
recognised by the Senators who unanimously passed that resolution that
it lay upon the Government to commission the judge or judges to hold
that inquiry. Also in that matter there is a case pending and there
has been another judgemnent given and judges are not available, they
are not willing to serve on that inquiry until the next court case
has been determined. So let that be quite plain. The only inquiry
that either House of Parliament could hold itself would be by its
own members. I don ' t believe that that sort of inquiry impresses
the public because every Member of Parliament is a partisan and
votes accordingly.
8-
QUESTION: Mr Prime Minister there has been increasing pressure on
Mr Fraser, particularly from people like Mr Bjelke-Ptersen, to
precipitate a double dissolution. Do you believe Mr Fraser will
hold out still against that pressure on him or will he cave in
and try for a double dissolution?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh Mr Bjelke-Petersen is not the only one that has
given this advice, Sir Charles Court has given it also. It is
quite plain however that the proper course is to allow any
Parliament to run the full course for which it was elected. And the
House of Representatives is elected for a period of up to three
years from the first day on which it-sat, that is, the House of
Representatives should go until the middle of 1977.
QUESTION: Mr Fraser has said that but also he gave himself an out
by talking of extraordinary circumstances. You don't believe that
the events of the past week would constitute those extraordinary
circumstances. PRIME MINISTER: There have been some extraordinary circumstances,
namely the circumstances which led me to terminate Dr Cairns'
commission. But nobody has doubted that I, Mr Fraser hasn't doubted
that I did the correct thing. So that's not an extraordinary
circumstance which would justify trying to get non-Labor Senators
to vote against Supply. It was an extraordinary situation for any
Minister and regrettably the Deputy Prime Minister of all ministers,
to mislead the House as we must assume was the case in the absence
of any explanation at all. Now-, the proper result ensued.
QUESTION: Your answer before last you gave very good reason for
not letting either House inquire into this matter by saying that such
an inquiry would be partisan. Surely it would seem that the proper
course would be a judicial inquiry? It's still not clear to
me why you are not having a judicial inquiry?
PRIME MINISTER: Well I thought that TDT people were sharper than
that. I thought that the facts would be clear. Let me go over it
again. Where there are facts which appear to be the foundation of
legal proceedings, those legal proceedings will be taken' as far as
the Government is concerned. They are being investigated now in the
9
one case where the facts are known and where it would appear that
there might have been illegalities. Now where there is something
which is illegal or so unusual as to be improper and it is not
possible to ascertain the facts by ordinary police inquiries, by
ordinary investigations, then there can be a case for a R6yal
Commission. But I repeat that a Royal Commission or any form of
inquiry can only seek facts. It can then express its view on
those facts. But its view has no legal consequences'whatever and
it can make recommendations but those recommendations do not lead
to any necessary action. But what I believe we all have to recognise
is that if there has been a breach of the law in any respect then
the courts exist to see that that breach of the law is punished.