Earlier this year the Albo had an embarrassing interview with Ben Fordham where he admitted he hadn’t even asked Australia’s Solicitor General for legal advice on the Voice to Parliament. But when the transcript of the interview was published, this embarrassing omission had been removed from the record of the interview. Genuine mistake or erasing the record because it is politically inconvenient?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: A transcript of the Prime Minister’s 18 January interview with Ben Fordham on radio 2GB was published to PM&C’s website. The transcript omitted a key statement by the Prime Minister on the Voice. Specifically, Ben Fordham asked, ‘So you got legal advice from the Solicitor-General?’ In response, the Prime Minister clearly said, ‘No.’ Yet this was omitted from the transcript. Would you agree that the transcript is not an accurate record of the interview, given that omission?
Mr D Williamson: I’ll ask Mr Martin to assist you on this issue.
Mr Martin: The role the department plays in transcripts is that we receive the transcript from the Prime
Minister’s office. The transcripts are undertaken within the Prime Minister’s office, and we publish it. We are aware of media follow-up and media interest in the nature of the transcript. The department doesn’t do any editing or have any involvement in the transcript itself. We note that the transcripts provided from the Prime Minister’s office are marked that they may have errors or exceptions, but, otherwise, we don’t do any editing on them. We just publish them.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the responsibility with the PM&C or the Prime Minister’s office?
Mr Martin: We receive them from the Prime Minister’s office.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department reviewed the incident?
Mr Martin: We’re aware of the incident.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the Prime Minister’s office reviewed the incident?
Mr Martin: We haven’t had any specific engagement with the office on this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide to the committee on notice all documents the department holds in regard to this interview and the publishing of it?
Mr Martin: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Can the public trust what you publish as being an accurate account of the Prime Minister’s statements, given that you don’t check what he actually said?
Mr Martin: Our role is to ensure that they are published properly and in a timely fashion to the Prime Minister’s website and that’s what we do.
Senator ROBERTS: So you do no checking? We have to rely upon the Prime Minister’s office for the accuracy?
Mr Martin: It’s not part of the department’s role to check them.
Senator ROBERTS: That doesn’t reflect well on the Prime Minister’s office, especially in a critical matter like the Voice. People are already saying, Senator Wong, that there’s not enough information about the Voice. And now what has come out has been inaccurate.
Senator Wong: Firstly, on there not being enough information, I’d make a few points. There’s actually been a long process of this being discussed publicly, whether it’s from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which identified Voice, Treaty and Truth as being important. Then we had the Prime Minister at Garma, who made clear the proposed words, which he said are a draft. He said this is about recognition and it’s about consultation. My recollection is the Referendum Working Group has put out a number of principles. And, as I answered in the Senate, in the event that a referendum passes, I’ve made the point that the parliament legislates, of which you are a part. So I think that some of these criticisms perhaps actually, fundamentally, go to people not supporting the Voice. I have a different view. I think people having their say isn’t a bad thing. On transcripts, I don’t actually have any. I’ll see if I can get you anything further, Senator Roberts. I would say to you I think all transcripts have E&OEs—errors and omissions excepted. I’ve seen mistakes in my transcripts—spelling mistakes et cetera. Generally my staff are very good, but afterwards I go: I think that’s actually a different word. There’s a judgement about getting something out and making sure it’s timely. But I will find out if there is anything further I can add.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Wong.