LAWS:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John. It's very nice to talk to you.
LAWS:
Good to talk to you. Is there any rain where you are?
PRIME MINISTER:
There is a little. I'm very happy to say that some fell last night. I went walking earlier this morning with John Anderson and there was a light drizzle then, and I've been wandering around the Ag Quip gathering, which is this great rural gathering in Gunnedah every year, and there's a little bit of rain and a bit of mud on my boots, and I hope there's a lot more before the day is over.
LAWS:
Yes. Well I can tell you there's plenty in Sydney and up and down the coast there's plenty.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's terrific. I hope it's falling in the catchments.
LAWS:
It's not.
PRIME MINISTER:
The Gods are still unkind.
LAWS:
And I don't know why. I don't know why they're cross with us. We've done our best.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we've done our best and...
LAWS:
But we can only hope. But a lot of rain in Sydney and at least if there's some out there, that's good. And isn't that Ag Fest thing great that they have?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is terrific and it brings all the latest farm machinery, much of it Australian derived and Australian inventions. There's quite a spirit, people are quite positive, and Gunnedah is having a pretty good season. John said his people had planted a good winter crop and so they're reasonably optimistic, and that is fantastic because it's great to see country people getting a bit of a break because they usually are battling the elements and you feel sorry for them.
LAWS:
You sure do. God knows they need a break. Now I was saying this morning you can still support the Government's tough stance on asylum seekers and yet be a little skeptical about the claims in relation to the children overboard affair. It's only one incident relating to the overall issue of asylum seekers and should or should it not be important is entirely up to the individual. You've got a totally different recollection to Mike Scrafton on his phone calls. He passed the lie detector test, for what it's worth. Can you both be telling the truth?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can't speak for him. I can only speak for myself, and I don't pass any reflection on him. I'm just interested in the merits of this issue. We both agree that we spoke on that night. He said three times. I say twice. That's immaterial. It's what was said that matters. We both agree that we talked about the video.
LAWS:
You called him?
PRIME MINISTER:
I called him. I called him because Peter Reith had told me that he had been sent by Peter Reith to have a look at the video. That is why... that's the only reason I called him. I didn't call him to get a general briefing on this issue. I merely called him because he had seen the video - that was the only reason I rang him - and I wanted him to tell me of the video. He told me of the video and he said - Prime Minister, it doesn't provide evidence that children have been thrown overboard, that is the video doesn't, but then it doesn't provide evidence that they haven't. In other words, it is inconclusive. And I talked to him about it. He described it. He talked about seeing people on the roof and he said it was very grainy and it was very difficult and there seemed to be some recollections... there seemed to be things happening on one side that he couldn't quite work out what that represented. And the upshot of it all was exactly as I have described. He said it's inconclusive. And after talking to him, and I remember I had people around me at the time, people on my staff, and I think I may have been repeating some of the things he was telling me as we spoke, about the detail of the video, and their recollection is the same as mine - very strong that we just talked about the video. The whole purpose of the call was to talk about the video. Now I certainly dispute the proposition that he's put now that as well as describing the video and the relevance of the video to the debate about whether children had been thrown overboard, and bear in mind that you could have evidence quite separately from the video that children had been thrown overboard, the video itself was not the thing that stood or supported or destroyed the argument as to whether kids had been thrown overboard. It was just a piece of evidence in itself.
LAWS:
Yeah. But at the time, with so much claim and so much counter-claim buzzing around, did you not consider, or do you in hindsight consider that maybe qualifying the statements would have been a good idea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I don't have the benefit of hindsight. I have to live and die politically on the judgements I make at the time and the statements I make at the time. But can I make one very strong statement about the relevance of this issue. I'm not... I'm perfectly happy to talk about the allegations that have been made that I misrepresented the position. I will answer those and I don't run away from them at all. But John, the point does have to be made that the children overboard issue was not the determinant of the last election.
LAWS:
No, I'm aware of that. I've said that clearly.
PRIME MINISTER:
This is a fiction that has arisen since the election to explain away the fact that we won, and I feel that very strongly. The last election was won by the Coalition because we were seen as better economic managers, much stronger in a time of international terrorism and much stronger than the Labor Party on border protection. They are the three reasons that we won the last election. If children overboard had never arisen, the result of the election would have been no different.
LAWS:
It more than likely wouldn't have been, but it was certainly your stance on immigration that...
PRIME MINISTER:
Our stance on... yes but it was an aspect of it, but I remember a couple of years ago when we went through all of this, that I went through all the records and I think there was a period of about 12 days during the campaign in which the children overboard issue simply wasn't raised. I mean it was raised on the 7th of October and the original advice that children had been thrown overboard came out of a Government task group and then the issue died away and then it came back towards the end of the campaign when some claims were made by a journalist writing out of Christmas Island that some of the sailors on the Adelaide had said well we're not sure this happened. Now, that was... and then in the last few days I was concerned to ensure that the video was released, lest anybody said well he's holding the video back because it doesn't prove his case and therefore he's engaged in a cover-up. I mean what I find ironic about this is that my very action in releasing the video, knowing that it was inconclusive, was designed to prevent a charge being made that I was covering up. I mean heaven's above, I knew the video was inconclusive. Notwithstanding that, I said no you've got to put it out because I don't want people saying that I'm covering up.
LAWS:
Does it concern you that now a second former public servant has backed up Mike Scrafton's account?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think she's backed up his account in a way that's any different from what's already known. I mean I've read her transcript and what she said was that Scrafton spoke to her the following day. We all know that because that was made public at the time of the Senate inquiry. There's no secret about that. That's not a new revelation that they spoke the following day, and that was a necessary consequence of his speaking to me about the video, and I said I wanted the video released. And what she said was what I've just said in relation to the video, because when she was specifically asked the question, Mike... and this is the interviewer, the interviewer says - "Mike Scrafton says that he told the Prime Minister that no one he spoke to in Defence believed that children had been thrown overboard. What about you? Did you believe that children had been thrown overboard?" And she said "I had no evidence to believe that children were thrown overboard". But she wasn't asked the question - did Scrafton tell Howard that nobody in Defence believed that children had been thrown overboard? Because that is the central claim he's making which I dispute. I mean she might independently have had a view they hadn't been thrown overboard. There may have been other people in Defence who thought they had been thrown overboard. I mean there's nothing odd about that. And so I read Jenny McKenry's transcript and to me there's nothing really different or new in that. It is... sure we talked about the video, sure he told me it was inconclusive, sure he said it didn't support the claim that kids had been thrown overboard - equally it didn't disprove they'd been thrown overboard - and therefore it was inconclusive. I mean that's what inconclusive means. It's shorthand for saying it doesn't prove it one way or the other.
LAWS:
Yeah, I'll be talking to her later in the morning and I'll...
PRIME MINISTER:
But I'm not... look I'm not, you know, I don't see anything in what... I mean on what she has said so far. I mean I qualify what I'm saying that what she has said so far, and I am reading her transcript, I don't see any... I don't think it takes the matter any further. I think all it confirms is that she spoke to Scrafton the day after, as she would. She was head of Defence Public Relations. Mr Scrafton said I've spoken to Howard, I've told him the video didn't prove kids had been thrown... no evidence kids had been thrown overboard, but it was inconclusive. Now if you have a look at Scrafton's record of interview with the first administrative inquiry, that's what he said then. He said I've seen the video and the video didn't prove that it was... that it happened, but equally it didn't prove it hadn't happened.
LAWS:
Would a qualification on your behalf at the time have been reasonable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look John, this is all hindsight stuff. I mean what we're engaged in now is plainly... you know it's certainly from the Labor Party. I mean I don't... I mean I've only ever spoken, to my recollection, with Mr Scrafton once in my life and that was on the 7th of November 2001. I don't know him. I make no assessment of his motivations. I'm not getting into any criticism of him. I'm just simply dealing with the allegation he's made and I am retailing to you my powerful recall of that discussion. The reason for it was to find out what the video had revealed. There was no other reason for my to ring him, my ringing him. I mean if I wanted to get information on Defence's attitude I would have spoken to the Minister for Defence or the Chief of the Defence Force. In fact I had spoken to Peter Reith earlier that day, as is on the public record, and I had asked Reith whether he'd been given any advice contradicting the original advice and he said no.
LAWS:
In relation to this lie detector...
PRIME MINISTER:
And I've said that myself already when asked years ago.
LAWS:
Yeah, I heard you. In relation to this lie detector test, I quite understood your attitude to that, I think it would be ridiculous for a Prime Minister to have to be taking a lie detector test but you did describe it as a gimmick, but don't these new anti-terror laws contain provisions for a lie detector test?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's a gimmick for me to be taking it in the current circumstances.
LAWS:
I accept that.
PRIME MINISTER:
And look, John, the Australian people are the great lie detectors of Australian politics and collectively they will decide in the fullness of time in their wisdom who to believe on this and many other matters. But let me make a prediction, there will be another Senate inquiry because the Labor Party and the Democrats and the Greens have got the numbers. There'll be another Senate inquiry, and I'll make another prediction, they will find me guilty as charged and won't that be a surprise? You see, I mean I'm quite happy as you can tell to deal with the minutia of this, I'm quite happy to go into it, it's important to me that allegations that I've been untruthful are refuted because I haven't set out to mislead the Australian public on this issue, we did originally get advice, okay it was demonstrated subsequently after a proper inquiry that that original advice was wrong but it certainly was there in the first place and it was not concocted by politicians, it came from official sources and I refresh my memory on that only yesterday of looking at the original document of the 7th of October, the taskgroup which reported in unequivocal terms that children were being thrown overboard, that was in writing, that was official, it did not come from Philip Ruddock, it came from a Government taskforce. Now that was the original you know written source if you like. Now okay later on doubts developed and it's true that as shown at the Senate inquiry that the acting head of the Defence Force, Air Marshal Houston, rang Peter Reith, conveyed his view, Reith decided he wanted, before taking the matter further, to talk to the CDF who conveyed a different view earlier, the CDF was then overseas. Now that's the chain of events. Now I can only say obviously the Labor Party wants to make merry political hell out of it, but fair enough, that's their political game. But you know this is three years ago, the next election should be about the future, not about the past, I keep being told by Mr Latham that I'm living in the past, well I'm happy to revisit the past to defend my reputation. But I point out that this very much the Labor Party still unable to accept that the Australian people rejected them three years ago, they didn't reject them on the basis of a lie told by me, they rejected them because they were weak on border protection, they were poor economic managers and they didn't trust them in a time of international terrorism.
LAWS:
You've predicted that there will be another Senate inquiry...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes.
LAWS:
And you've predicted that they'll find you...
PRIME MINISTER:
They will find me guilty.
LAWS:
Well why wouldn't you then allow your ministerial staff to appear before that inquiry? Wouldn't that be to your benefit?
PRIME MINISTER:
They will find me guilty no matter what happens, you know that John. I mean this is a political game, this is not a court of law, this is not a serious impartial inquiry where we carefully weigh the evidence and you know chief justice Faulkner comes to a very objective conclusion that the Prime Minister is guilty. I mean really. I mean what are we on about, I mean let's get a little bit of perspective about it. The Senate is being used by the anti-government parties to score political points against me. Now we have been over this before, but they will want to go over it again and they will want to play their political game, they tried to verbal me about something I said on Four Corners the other night, I said on Four Corners two and a half years ago, they tried to verbal me the other night on that suggesting that I talked to Scrafton about the photographs when plainly if you read the transcript I was talking about the photographs with Peter Reith, not with Scrafton. Because my whole purpose in ringing Scrafton was to check the video because he'd seen the video, Reith hadn't, Reith was in the air, Reith had been to some submarine launch in Adelaide and he was on his way back, he couldn't see the video so he said he asked Mike Scrafton who was on his staff to go and have a look at it and Scrafton went to Sydney where the video was and then Reith had given me his telephone number and I rang him from the Lodge, not from Kirribilli, and we had I say two, he says three, that's immaterial discussion. Now that's my strong recall. And that's my version of it, he has a different version, I dispute his version in one important respect. I don't dispute that we talked about the video, I don't dispute that he said it was inconclusive because it didn't provide evidence that kids had been thrown overboard, equally it didn't provide something in the opposite direction.
LAWS:
Did he actually say that there is no evidence to support the claims children had been thrown overboard?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no he spoke of the video, he said the video did not provide evidence.
LAWS:
There is no evidence...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no he said the video did not provide evidence.
LAWS:
I got it, I got it.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the point, you see the difference?
LAWS:
I do.
PRIME MINISTER:
There is a real difference. See you could have separate evidence that kids had been thrown overboard but the video mightn't show it. I mean the whole purpose of having a look at the video, well to get a briefing on the video, was to know. I mean that's the, I mean to some of your listeners this may sound sort of splitting hairs but actually it's not, I mean there's all the world of difference between somebody saying to you look Prime Minister, forget about this video, I'm telling you straight that there's no evidence at all, this is all a cock and bull story. Now he certainly didn't say that or anything remotely resembling that.
LAWS:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
And that's my very powerful recall of the discussion. Now he's got a different view, and okay he's putting his view and the Australian public will have to make up its mind. But as I say I predict we'll have a Senate inquiry and we'll have grave deliberations and they'll objectively come to the conclusion that I'm guilty.
LAWS:
As charged.
PRIME MINISTER:
As charged, and you know slap him in irons.
LAWS:
Do you think it's going to hurt you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, that is ultimately a matter for the public to make up their mind about.
LAWS:
But what do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you never know with these things, I know there are some people who will believe anything of me, everything I've ever done, I'm the great Satan of Australian politics in the eyes of a section of the Australian public. They've never accepted the legitimacy of my Government, they resented the fact that I won the last election, they felt they were robbed, they thought they were going to coast to victory on the last election on the basis of resentment against the GST, they had no policies and they lost. And subsequently they've invented this incredible conspiracy story that was all about children overboard. Well it wasn't, it was about our strength on border protection, Labor was weak and we were strong, and our strength on national security and the economy.
LAWS:
Okay, I appreciate your time Prime Minister. Any more rain yet?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's clouded over again but I hope it keeps, you know I hope it comes back and we'll all collectively pray for rain.
LAWS:
Yeah, you could do a little dance.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, that would, how shall I put it? I think I would shock people if I did that, my dancing is not that good.
LAWS:
Mine either. Thanks for your time Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay. Bye.
[ends]