I/ 7
INTERVIEW WITH PETER HARVEY 21 AUGUST 1978
QUESTION
How did it suddenly emerge?
PRIME MINISTER
The draft the shorthand notes of it, I think had always
been in existance, well obviously they had, because during the
discussions in Sydney Eric Robinson did dictate a draft and
I didn't see it I didn't see it until today.
I had been aware of its existenceI had been advised actual
copies had been destroyed. A request was made for the notes to
be retyped today, and they were.
QUESTION
Why have you waited so long before producing it?
PRIME MINISTER
For a very good reason. There is a question of confidentiality
of discussions between Ministers, especially when those conversations
are in either a Cabinet meeting or a full Ministerial meeting,
and indeed it is very important for the operations of government.
The substance of The Bulletin charges, as I believe, as other
Ministers have believed, amongst whom I have discussed this matterthey
had been answered last week by Eric, and by myself, without
going into the detail. Quite plainly, as things continued, and
as media interest continued, not content with those denials of
the substance, it was necessary to lay the whole matter bare, and
yesterday in discussions with Doug Anthony in discussion with
Eric Robinson and in discussions today we agreed that this course
should be taken and so it was.
QUESTION
Let's look at some of the things he says in the draft note to you.
He says that he couldn't recall any specific detail of the
conversation, yet in the~ evidence, as you are well aware, on
page 1685 on the 6th June, he says that he became aware precisely
of what Senator Withers had done. How do you explain this sort
of contradiction?
PRIME MINISTER
I think you have got to read the evidence as a whole because in
other parts of the evidence it says that he only became aware of
the full extent and nature of the discussions when Mr Pearson
gave his evidence before the Royal Commission so you have got
to look at the evidence as a whole. The thing that had interested
me was when he raised the matter and indicated that it was the
fact of the conversation and not the substance that had been related
in my office, was that, well, all right, this maybe gives an
explanation of why he has got a clear recollection of it and I haven't.
Because if a Minister comes into my office and says he has
been talking with his permanent head, that is not remarkable.
If he says he hasn't spoken with his permanent head for some
time it would be remarkable. In terms of a particular phone
conversation, it had to be the nature, the purpose, the substance,
themotive of a phone conversation that made this a remarkable
one. Some parts of that, as denoted for example, was only
revealed, I believe, when Mr Justice McGregor made his
findings in his Report. If it had been the fact of the
conversation, there is no-particular reason why it would
stay in my memory. Now all along I said I haven't I don't
question the Minister's recollection of the 17th January.
I only say that I have got no awareness of that incident until
April when Senator Durack, as Attorney-General, came to me
with a report of a particular conversation which caused him
concern and if the Attorney-General was concerned, I was
obviously going to be concerned about it.
QUESTION
Why then the need for the note at all?
PRIME MINISTER
Because it would have clarified the point for me, and at the most
it could have led to one or two additional sentences going into
the Parliamentary statement. But the Minister was advised to
check the evidence before the Royal Commission I concurred with
that, as did other Ministers who were present and even though
a draft was dictated, and it ought to be kept in that perspective,
it was never signed, it was never sent, and there was never
any pressure to have it sent.
ENDS