PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT 2 UUT17
PRESS CONFERENCE
Question: You said today you saw this draft for the first time today.
When did you become aware of its existence?
Prime Minister:
I've been aware of the existence of a draft sometime ago,
but I deliberately didn't see it.
Question: Didn't you say this morning that you didn't know of such a
draft? I'm sorry I haven't got the exact words...
Prime Minister:
I said I haven't seen any letter at any time.
Question:
Where does ( inaudible). Mr. Robinson actually wrote it?
Where has it been said that Mr. Robinson wrote it?
Prime Minister:
I think the copy was destroyed and it was re-written from shorthand
notes this morning.
Question: Wasn't that how it was destroyed or by whom?
Prime Minister:
You would have to ask other people that because I never had
a copy in my possession.
Question: Isn't that splitting hairs a bit to say that you hadn't seen
the draft?
Prime Minister:
I didn't say draft, I didn't see any letter at any time.
and there never was a letter. Nothing was ever signed or
sent. 21 AUGUST 1978
-2
Question: What did you want it f or?
Prime minister:
Because I had always been puzzled as to why Eric Robinson
had a very clear recollection of events of which I had
absolutely none and what he said amongst Ministers, that
what had been said in the office on the 17th, was the
fact of the phone call, but not the substance, that would
obviously give me an explanation in my own mind in relation
to that, because if a Minister comes in and says he's had
a talk with his Permanent Head, that's in no way remarkable.
If he says he hasn't spoken to his Permanent Head for
three months, that would be remarkable. In addition, a
conversation can become remarkable because of its nature,
its content or its motive and the full nature and content and
the motive attributed to it by the Judge, later became
apparent in relation to that particular conversation, a very
( inaudible) much later time. At the most it could have
resulted in one or two sentences additional to my statement
in Parliament. Nothing else than that not altering the
substance but offering as a possible explanation because
I haven't challenged Eric's recollection, ( inaudible)
my awareness of the matter was Senator Durack came to me
about these matters with concern, . as Attorney-General, at a
much later point.
Question: In the statement that you put out today with the categoric
denial, followed I believe talks with Ministerial colleagues
today. Could this statement not have come out on the same
day as the Bulletin last week which would have prevented the
issue dragging on for three or four days?
Prime Minister:
It should have, but there is a certain principle of confidentiality
of discussions between ministers and especially so if it
involves in part discussion with a full Ministry, and I happen
to regard that principle of confidentiality as one of very
great importance to the proper workings of Government, but its
over the weekend and discussion-with the Deputy Prime Minister
and Eric Robinson and other Ministers that came to the view
that that principle ought to be breached on this occasion.
Question: If I could push the point there? Presumably your reservations
about making public confidential talks in Ministerial meetings
was raised with the Ministers today. Could not this meeting have
taken place on the same day as the Bulletin was circulated.
Prime Minister:
They were discussions..
-3
Question: Allegations have been very damaging, which have taken
( inaudible)
Prime Minister:
Let's say you made allegations. Sometimes the judgement
made in Canberra of what's happening in Australia is not
the judgement made by people outside. I've made that
point on a number of occasions. The judgements were made
last week that the principle should not be breached at
that time because it was also believed that the com ' ments,
statements, made by Eric Robinson in the Parliament and
by myself, answered the thrust and the intention of the
Bulletin article, as I still believe they do and as I
know Eric Robinson believes they do.
Question: Why has it then been decided to breach the standing regulations
as you might say, and put out the statement now. What has
occured? Prime Minister:
A continuation of public interest, or media interest, obviously.
Question: It seems odd, looking at this, that Mr. Robinson, iuhose recollection
of most these matters seems to be fairly clear, has produced,
or seen to produce at this Ministerial meeting, a recollection
which is fairly different from that qiven in his evidence.
Prime Minister:
I think you ought--to look at his evidence.. in total. For example,
there is one part in Page 1685 which I know is immediately
followed by another, but one part that said I was only aware
how the name came to be changed when Mr. Pearson gave his
evidence, and the detail to the Royal Commission.
Question: He says specifically that he was aware of the name change and
he aware that Withers told you about the name change on
January 17
Prime Minister:
I'm well aware of what's in the evidence but it was when certain
matters were related to Ministers, which were very specific,
it is the fact and not the substance that could have offered
an explanation in my own mind as to why I had no recollection
of it, and that's why I was interested in it. 4
-4
Question: Talking about the principle of confidentiality, when Mr. Howard
moved to stop speculation on television licenses he
breached a principle of not commenting at all on the Budget.
Isn't that the same sort of principle?
Prime Minister:
I don't think these .: two are exactly the same but
making a comment on that was delayed a number of days also.
Question: Do you think this sort of note either adds anything to
the press, anything from Mr. Robinson's desk?
Prime Minister:
I don't want to comment on the note in relation to the
evidence. I've said on a number of occasions that I accept
Eric Robinson's evidence in relation to that ( inaudible).
Question: Why did... ( inaudible) send it to you on the day that he
did it? Does it not suggest that after re-reading it,
he decided that at least ( inaudible) were in conflict with
the evidence?
Prime Minister:
I think you'd have to ask him that. It was suggested at
the time, and as far as I know suggested before anything
was drafted, that the evidence ought to be checked; the
transcript ought to be checked, and I certainly concurred
with that very much so.
Question: You have no knowledge of why it was not sent to you by
Mr. Robinson?
Prime Minister:
Well, he made a decision not to send it to me. One reason
why, it had been said that he should check and I think its
also known that he checked the generality of this with his
legal advisers. But he was advised that he should check
against the transcript and I concurred and certainly agreed
with that. I don't think there was any question of anything
being drafted and signed forthwith.
Question: Were you there when he drafted this first version?
Prime minister:
I was in the same building, I certainly wasn't in the
I wasn't in the room with him, and I didn't know what
he was dictating obviously.
Question: You categorically denied that you requested Mr. Robinson
to cast doubts on his evidence. Can you deny the entire
Bulletin article?
Prime Minister:
I think that the only element of the Bulletin article which
carried credibility is that there was a note. But I think
the purpose, the intent, and the thrust of it, is totally
and absolutely distorted and made so grotesque that it bears
no relationship to the original, to the facts of the
matter. Question: Isn't there a very real risk, in asking anyone. to ( inaudible)
whether they are sure of their recollection, that you are
inviting people to cast doubt on that recollection. It's
just a fact of life ( inaudible). Are you sure of your
recollection. Isn't there a danger of that being construed
as an attempt, as a request, to change that recollection?
Prime minister:
It was a question in relation to that of recollection on
the 7th or 8th. If you're sure of what you're saying now,
not of what was said in relation to the evidence of the
Royal Commission.
Question: Mr. Robinson volunteered this ( inaudible)?
Prime Minister:
Yes, the records show that he raised the subject.
Question: At a full Ministry meeting? Right and when did you talk
about... Prime Minister:
No, he raised the subject of his evidence and the nature of
of what was said on the 17th. He raised that. There was no
question about it at alT until after he had raised it.
( end tape).
( Rest of interview from SMH draft) / 6
THIS SECTION OF TRANSCRIPT FROM THE S. M. H.
6.
QUESTION
And later, not at that full meeting, but later you spoke to him
about the possibility of a note?
PRIME MINISTER
It was either at that meeting, or at a meeting of five, six
or seven people. There were no bilateral conversations on the
point at all.
QUESTION Just one point if I may. The transcript of Eric Robinson's
evidence page 1731 says: the question was: But I thought
you said that Senator Withers raised the change of name.
Answer: yes. What did he say about that? Answer: He informed
the Prime Minister in my presence of his role in the change of
name. Doesn't that cut across the draft of the letter where he is not
aware of the specific content of the telephone call?
PRIME MINISTER
But hten he spoke to Mr Pearson read the next line
that he had spoken to Mr Pearson. You've got to read it in
total. QUESTION That evidence there on page 1731 appears to cut across the
last paragraph in the draft letter.
PRIME MINISTER
Well, I'm not commenting on that because I didn't draft either
of them. / 7
( TAKEN FROM SMH TRANSCRIPT) -7-
Prime Minister ( continued):
Again, if you go to page 1685 referring to the statement:
" I was only aware how the name came to be changed when
Mr. Pearson gave his evidence in detail to this Royal
Commission". Question: He appears to contradict himself.
Prime Minister:
But if you take the question and answer immediately after
that.... . there are a number of points.. page 1687 " 1 don't
recall any detail other than that Senator withers in my
presence told the Prime Minister of his phone call with
Mr. Pearson. I don't recall anything else."
Question: This apparent conflict in Eric Robinson's evidence is why
you wanted it checked, I gather?
Prime Minister:
Well, I said before I was alwasy puzzled why he had such a
clear recollection when I had none. But I don't challenge
this recollection. I made the point that it was only the
fact of the call and not the substance, or its nature, or
its purpose, or its-motive, it's not remarkable.
Question:
What I mean is the point you just made about before he
drafted the letter, he was advised to check the transcript.
This is why you wanted it checked, presumably?-
Prime Minister:
Obviously, It wasn't related to drafting. It was obviously
before anything was signed that it had to be done.
Question: who suggested that-somebody else?
Prime Minister:
Somebody else suggested it and I concurred. In fact everyone
who was present concurred.
( Taken from SMH Transcript) -8-
Question:
Why, Mr. Fraser, did you ask Mr. Robinson if he was sure of
his recollection to write you a note when he had already
given evidence before a Royal Commission.
Prime Minister:
I was referring to the recollection as he was relating to
ministers at that time. I've already indicated my interest in
the matter that if it was conversation of substance I would
have expected to remember it. As I have no recollection of it
it was merely a Minister referring to a phone call, a
Minister to a Permanent Head, that's most unremarkable.
I made the point earlier, it's much more remarkable if a
Minister comes in and says he hasn't been speaking...
Question: It appears that Mr. Robinson in his evidence said that he was
aware of Senator Withers' involvement in the name change
which seems to imply that he was aware of the nature
and substance of that phone call.
Prime Minister:
Well, I can only go back and suggest you read the totality
of the evidence. I can't answer questions about somebody
else's evidence.
Question: If you did not leamnthen from Mr. Robinson what was the
substance of the phone call by Senator Withers, did Senator
Withers himself tell you that he had made the call.
Prime Minister:
I've got no recollection, as I said in Parliament, of this. I
became aware of this matter when Senator Durack brought it to
my attention in April. When he brought it to my attention he
was concerned in his own mind in relation to it. I've got a
clear recollection of the time and the circumstances of that.
Question: When were you first aware of the conflict of Mr. Robinson's
evidence, because there does seem . to be a pretty clear conflict
between page 1731 and page 1685.
Prime Minister:
To the extent that there is or isn't when I first read it. But
I'm not commenting on the evidence in terms of substance. The
evidence is there and I don't seek and I never have, to challenge
it or to quibble with it any sense, shape or form.
( ends) 00