PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 20 SEPTEMBER 1984
PM: Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry there has been aslight
delay, but I thought it was appropriate and better for your
purposes that you have a prepared statement from me. I would
just point out one grammatical I think it is the only one -1
can find on the bottom of page three the second sentence iLn
that last paragraph the " is" should be " are". Thank you.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr Peacock makes the general
charge you have closed down the Costigan Commission effectively
protecting the most powerful criminals in Australia according
to Mr Peacock. He won't name names inside Parliament or
outside Parliament but one person you are supposed to have
protected is referred to as ' Goanna" in the current issue of
the National Times. " Goanna's" real name has been the subjec:
of notorious rumour around Parliament House for days. I ask
you specifically did you close down the Costigan Commission to
protect " Goanna" from being investigated, particularly in
reference to the funding of drug trafficking.
PM: Unequivocally no, and I am glad that question has been
asked at the outset. You will notice in the statement that I
have issued that I go to the fact that I had discussions with
Mr Commissioner Costigan in 1983. And I put the view to him that
in the limited time available to him that he should concentrate
on the question of drugs. As I point out in my statement, he
agreed with this and I expressed the view that I believed that-.
Commissioner Costigan agreed with me, because he shared my viE! w
about the abomination of the drug trade and its impact on our
society. And I make it clear in my statements that I find that
the one area in my thinking where I have difficulty in controlling
rationality when I contemplate what should happen to those who
are involved in the drug traffic. There is no matter which, for
intimate reasons, I feel more strongly about than this. And may
I say that it would be a matter of knowledge that colleagues in
my government also have reason to share this feeling. And I find
it difficult to express my revulsion, as I say in my statement.,
about an allegation that suggests that I would in any way do
anything to cover up or prevent the identification of anyone,
whatever their station in life, who may be involved in this
insidious and abominable traffic. I make the point to you, PEter,
that I accept the rough and tumble of politics. I accept that
hard statements can be made, but this suggestion that I would in
any way remotely or directly or indirectly seek to cover up the
identification of anyone engaged in this abomination is not ge~ tting
into the gutter of politics, it is into the sewer of politics.
JOURNALIST: Sir, may I follow it up with a supplementary
question, because I think we can now assume after Mr Costigan's
special hearing yesterday that this material is official and
represents part of the material passed from the Costigan
Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority for ongoing
investigation. Under the heading of " Goanna" is the reference
Costin that is the shorthand for the Costigan Commission
has investigated this allegation referring to the " Goanna"
to a point, but is too severely constrained in time to complete
it. That seems to suggest there, assuming the authenticity of:
that statement that Mr Costigan wants to investigate further
into " Goanna' s" activities in relation to the funding of drug
trafficking and everything from land deais to suggestions of
complicity in murder that he has been cut off, Sir, would you
care to comment on that.
PM: I certainly would care to comment, Peter. The statement
m~ akes it clear that this Government, as the previous Governmet
and this is a point I * think that has been made in Victoria
today by Mr Cain at all points understood that the Costigan
Royal Commission would come to be subsumed under the National
Crime Authority when it is established. Now I want to make it.
clear on your point which is an important one, that all the
references, including the one from which you have quoted, have.
been handed over to Mr Justice Stewart and his fellow Commissioners
on the National Crime Authority. And so that what Mr Costigan
has has been examined by them and they take the view, and I have
made it clear to them, that it is our wish and it is theirs they
have made it quite clear that they will pursue all matters
referred if on their judgement, which is now they are the Authority,
the material warrants such pursuit. And I cannot emphasise too
strongly the way in which I have said to the National Crime
Authority that this is the expectation of the Government and
indeed let me say this that if there were any sense of
suggestion that the material, having been handed over to the
National Crime Authority were for some reason which escapes my
comprehension, not pursued, then this would be a matter of the
gravest concern to the Government. But let me make it clear
that obviously I have no reason to believe that that would happen.
And I say that because the members of the National Crime Authoritylet
me remind you who they are Justice Stewart, probably the
most experienced respected crime fighter in Australia, and you
have in addition the two other members of the Authority Dwyer
and Mr Bingham, and I remind you Peter, those two unanimously
endorsed by all the governments of Australia, irrespective of
political persuasions and you will recall that in my statement
I refer to the observations by Mr Redlich in his report about the
National Crime Authority being appropriately placed to continue
investigations and may I just add to that report to quote
from the report. On page 48 of his report he says that " throughout
its long history the debate on the configuration of the authority
has been influenced by the three factors".-and you are aware of
the three factors. That is the optimum means of detecting and
investigating organised criminal activity. Two the protection
of civil liberties. Three -the integrity of the States and their
law enforcement agencies. And he concludes on this point -" the
National Crime Authority Act 84 gives genuine emphasis to all -three
/ 3
considerations. The Authority has the scope to maintain the
initiatives developed by the Costigan Royal Commission. There
are substantial safeguards within the Act to protect the
rights of witnesses and those under investigation. The States
and their investigative agencies are given a voice in the
operation of the Authority. The Authority must now be given
an opportunity to work." And that is the position of the
Government and I conclude my observation, therefore by saying,
Peter, all the Costigan references including the ones you
refer to have been ' handed over to that properly equipped
Authority. It is my expectation and earnest hope that all the!
matters will be thoroughly pursued. And if that should lead t~ o
prosecutions, then so be it. And it woul-d be my hope that it
happens. And, as I say in my statement, let the cards fall
where they may.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on page 5 of your statement, Sir,
you say" Mr Keating has already denied completely the allegations
that he suggested to the Cabinet that the Costigan Commission
should be prematurely terminated." That is apropros of stopping
Costigan....... Was thdre any discussion by any Cabinet Minister
in regard to stopping Costigan
PM: Absolutely no suggestion. And indeed I trust that you
know me well enough to know that I would repudiate any such
suggestion. I repeat, and I can't emphasise it strongly
enough, that when it comes to the sorts of issues that here
involved and the one that I regard and . I think all Australians
would share my view is the question of drugs there can be
and there must be no pirotection of any person or any group of
persons. The dangers that this insidious traffic constitutes
for the well-being of this society is such that it is preposterous
that there can be any barrier put in the way of the pursuit of
those involved in this deadly traffic.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, given the depth of your feelings on
this subject, may I ask, do you intend to take legal action
against any person who has made allegations?
PM: Peter, I am glad that question has been asked. I think
there has been a misunderstanding of what I thought I said very
clearly. Let me repeat it so that there can be, I hope, no
further misunderstanding. You will recall that .1 said I had
been placed in an impossible situation. You will understand
now from my further elaboration the depth of my feelings about
this issue. I can't express the revulsion that I feel that
there could be any allegation that I would do anything to protect
anyone in respect of the pursuit of those involved in drugs.
Now, the allegations have been made. Now, I obviously do not
want to adopt the position which is going to prevent any people
making statements or producing evidence which is relevant in
this area. Now I have not instructed my solicitors to look at
this matter. I have not. I have proceeded on the basis that
although it seems to have a fast disappearing basis, I have
proceeded in the hope that Mr Peacock will recognise the
enormity of the allegation that he has made against me that Ic
am a crook, that I associate with criminals, and I am directed
by them. I have explained why I have thE! depth of the revuls..-on
that I have on this matter. So I am not taking action. I will
let this matter go up until the. Parliament and in the hope
that by then Mr Peacock will have the honour and the decency
to retract, because, as I say, there is not a skerrick of
substance in what he has done. And I simply have to say
this,' though, that if after that -after the Parliament when
he has had the full opportunity which I have allowed to him,
if after the Parliament he should make these statements again,
outside the Parliament, I am not p : repared to deny, not only to
myself, but to my family, the protection which I believe they
are entitled to under the law.
JOURNALIST: Don't you think it makes something of a mockery
of our political system if politicians feel inhibited in making
statements about one another simply because there is a threat
of legal action hanging over them?
PM: I thought I had made it clear that I had not instructed
my solicitors and I have expressed the hope that Mr Peacock
will retract and I still have that hope. But I want to say this
that we already have the demonstration that the people concerned
Mr Peacock, Mr Steele . Hall are prepared to fabricate demonstrable
untruths. I refer to the statement in the Parliament by Mr
Steele Hall with the obvious support of Mr Peacock, that I had
Mr Barron of my staff go to The Age and seek to have a story
suppressed. Now that it totally untrue and Mr Burns has
repudiated it and destroyed that lie. Now it seems to be
implicit in what you are saying that to have these lies just being
allowed to go on and on and I repeat that in public life you
cannot, it seems to me, entirely abandon the rights that you have,
because it is not only a matter affecting yourself. You don't
cease to be a husband. You don't cease to be a father. My
children and my wife have a right to be protected in this matter
but I trust it will not be necessary.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, in that context, were you upset particularly
at the National Times story about your daughter?
PM: Of course I was because like any father I love my daughter.
I trust her. And she was completely exonerated by the processes
of the law. I had no contact with the Judge or anyone involved
in it and yet you have this insinuation that affects her. Of
course I'm upset.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, when will we have an election date?
PM: What I said before, that I will be making a statement on
tEhat matter at the earliest possible opportunity. I gave the
approximate time that I would be speaking on that and I adhere to
that.
JOURNALIST: Getting back to the Parliament. Should Mr Peacock,
if he is going to continue this, name names. It is getting back
to Peter Bowers point where it would seem that some have been
bandied around the community lately......
PM: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that..
JOURNALIST: Should Mr Peacock if he wishes to pursue this
Mr Hawke, get into a position where he actually starts naming
names. I refer to Peter Bowers question.
PM: I think the point, I an, is well covered by that statement
on page 48 of Mr Redlich's Report, where he says there are
three considerations, and three valid considerations. The most
effective pursuit of criminal activity, the civil liberties of
individuals, and the co-operation of the States. It seems to
me that all of those points are important: and clearly if anyone
is to be investigated whover they may be, then it is important
firstly that those ifivestigations be able! to proceed in an
unfettered way and in a way most likely to bring to justice
whoever should be brought to justice. SEcondly the rights of
individuals must be protected as Mr Redlich observed. And I
think it is the view of all those~ who are involved in these
matters, including Mr* Costigan, I would think the National Crime
Authority, and Mr Temby, that nothing should be done that wil.
inhibit either the capacity of the relevant authorities to
pursue those who should be pursued and secondly to inhibit thE!
rights of individuals. And it has been the view of all concerned
up to this point that ' that will mean that particular names of
those who maybe subject to investigation should in further
processes should not be named. And I would hope that those
involved on both sides of politics in this matter will not take
action which will either place some inhibition on the capacity
of the Authority to pursue those who should be pursued or to
inhibit the rights of individuals. That is -as far as the
Government is concerned, I made it cle ' ar in my statement before
that we will be advised by Mr Costigan and by the National
Crime Authority, by the Federal Commissioner of Police, and Mr
Temby, I would think. Those are the sorts of people we would
be advised by as to whether names should be released. We will
take the proper-and strictly adhere to such advice about the
naming of names and I would expect that th e obvious correctness
of that would be appreciated by everyone.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what do you think the electoral effect
of this whole issue is going to be?
PM: Let me say this that I said before that there is no-one
in public life whose life has been more of an open book than mine.
I think the people of Australia know me. I think they respect me.
They won't always agree with everything I have -every opinion I
have expressed but I beleive that they will be appalled by th.' is
totally unsustainable attack upon me. It is already obvious
publicly and we also have other indications that not only has
there been this public condemnation of Mr Peacock in the media,
by a range of people, but there is obviously an enormous amount:
disquiet within his own Party. I believe that this will work
against the Liberal and National Parties.
JOURNALIST: So you think the Government will actually gain in
the electorate?
PM: Yes, but it is not a way I want to gain. / 6
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, can I seek a clarification. Are you
saying that you still consider legal action if Mr Peacock
only gives a repeat of the allegations outside Parliament,
Or if he fails to withdraw...
PM: I thought I had made it quite clear. It amazes me that
you don't understand what I said. Let me repeat it so that
you will. I said I have not instructed my solicitors to look
at this matter. I said I had done this in the hope, which may
be a disappearing hope -I have done it in the hope by the
time Parliament resumes Mr Peacock will have the decency and thE
honour to retract. I have said for the re, 4sons to which I have
referred, and I apologize that I am emotional about it, but I
have said that should Mr Peacock after the Parliament resumes
not do that and repeat-again outside the Parliament those
allegations which are totally without substance, then I am not
going to deny to myself and to my family the rights to protect
ourselves. Now it seems to me that that is crystal clear.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke,. do you know the identity of the " Goanna",
and if so, have you ever met or had dealings with that person
and was the " Goanna's" name one of those deleted from the
Costigan correspondence which you tabled in Parliament?
PM: I am not going to the question of individuals in the way
that you put it and I thought I would have made it clear from
my answer to this point the reasons why I am not going to it either
directly or indirectly in the way you have put. The important
point is this that I say again, I think I have said it a number
of times today, I repeat without equivocation that this
Government and this Prime Minister in particular will do nothing
to protect anyone whether that person is known or not known to
me, whatever the station in life of that person. If that person
or persons on the basis of the decision of -the National Crime
Authority with the material referred to it believes that a
prosecution must follow, then not only will there be no attempt
to protect any such person, but should I form the judgement that
there has been any attempt, at any point by anyone to inhibit
the pursuit of such person or persons, known or unknown to me,
then all the force that I have to bear in my office will be
brought to bear on that situation.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you think you gave Mr Peacock a
tactical advantage by waiting a week before you responded to
the substance of the allegations in fact last Thursday.
PM: I would have hoped that it be clear that I'm not concerned
with tactical advantages in this matter, views have been expressed
to call the Parliament back immediately and sought to take a
tactical advantage in that way. I calmly came to the view that
the processes of Government should proceed, members of Parliament,
including ministers had made their plans for that two week break.
Ministers are overseas on important government business, members;
on both sides of the House are obviously engaged in important matters
in their electorates, and it seemed to me appropriate to not do
anything unusual in that respect. I want to say this, Greg, that. I
had the hope that on calmer reflection Mr Peacock would do the
honourable and the obviously honourable thing. And he has been
given time to do that. He hasn't done it. And may I interpolate
just as a matter of logic, he has made these charges and not it
appears according to his statement that if I say what I
have already said about the making publicly available of the
Costigan Report then he would withdraw the charges. A
remarkable thing. I am a crook. I associate with criminals
all in quotes from Mr Peacock. He alleges I am a crook,
I associate with criminals and I am directed by criminals. He
makes those allegations. They cease to be true if I do what
I already said I would do. Now what I have tried to do is to
play this matter which I think you can understand affects me
deeply I have tried to play it in a reasonable way to allow
Mr Peacock the opportunity of a retraction. It is not a
question of tactics or tactical advantage.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, during the week the debate on
this whole issue has' gone up some pretty extraordinary alleyways.
One of them was that Andrew Peacock would disappear into the
ether and Malcolm Fraser would return. What do you think of that?
PM: Well, I don't want to compound the problems, self inflicted,
of the Liberal Party, I simply say this that the leadership
of the Liberal Party is a matter for them. There have been
a range of observations by people within the Liberal Party
and outside about the necessity for change. I will deal with
whoever is the leader of the Party. I must say, if I can put
this interpolation in, I felt a sense of some frustration that
Mr Fraser resigned.' I would have liked to have had him across
the table as Leader of the Opposition. And,
JOURNALIST: So to speak.
PM: So to speak, ye-s-, I take your point. No, just a minute
I haven't finished. But let me say this there has been
under his successor a departure from principles in a number
of matters. I have referred, for instance particularly, to
the attitudes towards South Africa. Mr Fraser would not have
departed from that principle and I believe that Mr Fraser
would not have descended into the sewers in the way that
his successor has. But I repeat Jlet the Liberal Party make
whatever decision it will, this Government under my leadershi'
will go on with conducting the affairs, the important affairs,
of this country in an efficient and an honourable fashion.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, given that, you've said that
you would not table but make available'the Costigan Royal
Commission Report when it became available even during the
election campaign, but that Parliament will not be sitting
P. M: I said should Parliament not be sitting.
JOURNALIST: Yeah. What form of protection will there be as
against parliamentary privilege for the release of that report.
Will names therefore have to be deleted?
PM: Well, I made it clear, just picking up the ' latter part of
your question first. That whether the Parliament was sitting
or not, you would have to consider the question of names for
all the reasons that I have put. I mean this has been a fact
in the past, it's a requirement of the authorities who have
the responsibility of proceeding with prosecutions and
investigations, that they don't want their capacities
inhibited by identification. And you've also got the question
of the rights of individuals concerned. So whether the Parliament
was sitting or not, that's a question separate to the
Parliament that depends upon those considerations that I alludE~ d
to. But going to your first point that is a matter that we
have to take into account. That's a matter on which we will
be advised by the authorities that I have mentioned too and
the Attorney General's Department to ensure that the protection
of individuals, the proper protection of individuals, and the
proper protection of the investigating authorities is not
inhibited. And we will be advised on that and we take the
advice given to us.
JOURNALIST: The makbrs of Simon Townsend's Wonder World, sir,
have announced that they are planning a mini-series on your
life, the Life of Bob, how do feel about that and how do you
think it would rate.
PM: How do I feel about it. Well, as 3' say Laurie, I've said
earlier, I guess there's no-one in public life who has been
more of an open book. I have prepared, I have been prepared
to allow it out, warts and all, as I have used. I haven't
addressed my mind this other sort of aspect that you have
talked about so I capi't give you an answrer to it. But as to
the latter part of your question, how do I think it would rate,
I understand that-the authorised biography is sold rather well,
it may suggest that there may be some interest. But that'll
be for others to decide.
JOURNALIST: Sir, do-You think there's an actor who could
play the title role?
PM: I haven't got the time, nor the lines now to cover the
earlier period.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in view of Mr Costigan's commnents
about the powers of the National Crimes Authority, will the
Government give any consideration to strengthening the National
Crimes Authority.
PM: Well, what you must appreciate of it that the process of
arriving at the National Crimes Authority has been one which
has involved the political processes of this Parliament,
c4iscussions with the States, because at all points it has
been understood that if we're going to have the maximum
efficiency you have got to have a structure and a system
which will ensure the full co-operation of the States not
only as governments but of the police forces of the states.
I think the statement on page 48 of Mr Redlich's report sums
it up, that he says well all the debate, you will recall the
actual words that he uses that I read out, he says " throughout
its long history the debate on the configuration has been
influenced by the three'factors", I won't read them again,
but it has been influenced by those three factors. And he
says that the Act as it stands now gives genuine emphasis to
all those considerations and he lists them and then says
" the Authority must now be given an opportunity-to work".
So Mr Costigan, for whom I have publicly, as you know already,
expressed the greatest admiration for what he has done. He has
his views and his views are entitled to respect. He participated
in the seminar that was held in the Parliament. His views have
been expressed, the views of others have been expressed and I
think that Mr , Redlich has put it correctly. There has been a
debate. The Chairman of the Authority has been asked directly
by me, as I say in my statement, is there anything more the
Government can do, and he said no, there is no more the
Goverrnent can do. I asked him, will it be an effective
authority to fight organised crime, he said yes it will be.
Now it seems to me that having gone through all those processes
where there are differences of emphases, let's see if it can
work. I am confident that the community will respect
Mr Justice Stewart's assessment. I believe they will respect
the assessment of Mr. Max Bingham and of Mr Dwyer. Now that's
the view that I have expressed. What I want to do now is to
see that it can get on with its job.
JOURNALIST: Sir, what do you say to Mr Peacock's suggestion
that the hiatus between the Costigan Commission finishing
its investigation in June and the National Crimes Authority
being fully started sometime after the end of October. Will
it lead to the trail going cold, as Mr Peacock suggested,
the investigations into the
PM: Well, may I say-this and I remain as cool as I can about
it. I would have thought that the community would place greater
reliance on the judgement of Mr Justice S~ Tewart and Mr Binghamu
and Mr Dwyer in this respect than they would upon the allegations
of a man who has been totally di~ creditei.
I' t f C hflF