Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 16 September 2019

Prime Minister, which of those two complaints will look at which of your Ministers or staff knew about the allegations, and will you make that public?

I expect that all those required will participate and engage fully in the second of those processes. So that’s the one that will be undertaken by a third-party reviewer. That’s, simply, because, as you’ve heard me set out, Maria Dew wishes to focus on the complaints and the complainants, and that is appropriate. So it would be that second process.

Will Kensington Swan, in their review, talk to some of your staff and some of your Ministers about what they knew?

As I said, it will be based on the evidence that was provided to the Labour Party and on papers, and then both parties—all parties—will have a chance to respond to that. And, again, that’s been done, simply, to stop complainants having to be involved in multiple processes. I’ve seen the statements that are being made by complainants via the media. My sense is that they want to see progress—they want to see us learn from this; they want to see me take this forward. And that is absolutely what I am focused on.

Will those Kensington Swan findings be made public?

As I’ve said, Kensington Swan is the party’s lawyer. We’re very aware that that won’t give a sense of confidence or neutrality to those involved. That’s why it will be handed to a third party reviewer to complete, first of all. Second of all, subject to the agreement of parties involved—because, of course, there may be sensitive information in that—you won’t see hesitation from us—subject to the agreement of those parties involved.

Just to be clear, and to shine a light on this issue, which you, obviously, are keen to do, which of those reports will be made public? Can we just have your firm word on that?

So, look, on the Maria Dew, that really is going to come down to the complainants. Obviously, it’s likely to include sensitive information, so that will be a matter for them. When it comes to the work, we’re looking at our processes. Subject to those parties involved being happy with the content being released, then that will be something that we’re happy to make public.

Does the public need assurances, though?

And I’m giving that. But you’ll understand that, of course, whilst I’m giving the assurance that we will make public that second report, there may, of course, be sensitive material that complainants may ask for us to redact. So I need to leave that option open for them. Look, my very clear view at this point is that, of course, best practice has been lost in all of this, and that has been because, first and foremost, the Labour Party did not conduct a process that allowed for it. But now my job is to create a best-practice environment, where, actually, complainants can be heard and that we respect their confidentiality as well, whilst meeting also the expectations that we’re transparent about what went wrong. So I am now bringing out that best practice in this process.

The chair of Labour’s panel has lawyered up, and his lawyer’s put out a statement saying that the complainants’ statements are untrue and not credible. Who do you believe?

I am putting in place a process here that, first and foremost, restores best practice for complainants; secondly, allows the Labour Party to look at itself clearly and learn from it. That is my job. That is how I will move us forward.

You said you erred on the side of the victims in the case. Is that still the case?

My general value set and philosophy, of course, is to take a victim-centred approach, and, from the steps you’ll have seen me outline today, I’ll believe you’ll see that as clear. That is where I am taking this process. I’ll just pan to who hasn’t—

Do you expect to hire forensic IT experts for the—I mean, there’s a bit of kerfuffle over whether emails were seen or printed out, and I know that last week some people at council wanted forensic IT experts brought in to exonerate them?

And, look, the physical evidence that is being provided to the party will now go to that third-party reviewer, and you’ll see that, of course, my focus here is providing an environment where there can be confidence of all those involved, by taking that away from what is, essentially, the party’s lawyer, who originally was looking at this, and give that to that third party. Again, for me, it’s about creating a process that people can have confidence in.

[Inaudible]

Ultimately, what we’ve tried to balance here of course is, yes, making sure that the physical evidence of what’s being provided to the party is made available, but also the fact that we don’t want a situation where complainants are having to be interviewed multiple times, by multiple parties. The remedy for that is to allow all parties to be able to respond to the summary of facts by the reviewer. So it is a balance trying to be struck here, but, again, it’s about trying to find an approach that doesn’t re-victimise anyone that’s been involved.

Do you have a time line?

A time line? Look, originally there was a view from Maria Dew, I believe, of around four weeks. I haven’t asked that question since the terms of reference have been finalised. So I would act with some caution putting any constraint there. The focus now will just be on getting this right, and I want to leave the QC to do that.

Would you expect any more resignations from the Labour Party Council as a consequence of (a) what you’ve said here today and (b) what might come up in the various reports?

I’m not going to pre-empt that process. We’ve put in place two processes now— one that is very much focused on complainants finally being heard in a way that meets their needs, and, secondly, the Labour Party learning what it’s done wrong, what it needs to fix for the future. I’m already very clear, though, that when it comes to allegations of the nature that have been discussed publicly, these are not matters that the Labour Party should ever be involved in investigating. The rest we will learn from down the track.

Was it helpful to have the Labour Party coming out and calling the complainants’ statements untrue and not credible?

Again, I am absolutely focused here on creating an environment that is a place that complainants can be heard by a QC, not the party, where there is not that contested questioning over what was provided and not provided. This now needs to be a process for them, with the QC, without the Labour Party involved.

Simon Mitchell says he’s hired a forensic computer expert, who’s found that there were no attachments on that email, but we’ve seen your original email that was sent to him. It did have two attachments. Are you concerned about that discrepancy between the claimants’ statements and the statements of the Labour Party?

My view is that continuing to contest this in the public domain serves no one, not least the complainants. They now have a place where they can be heard. When it comes to the Labour Party looking at what it knew, when it knew it, and how it handled those complaints, we’ve set up an environment where that can be dealt with. But, actually, best practice dictates that we do not continue to undertake a forensic analysis of an incredibly sensitive complaint in the public domain. Complainants themselves, I believe, have asked for an alternative place.

And yet you’ve got the chair of the investigating panel, effectively, coming out and saying that they’re liars?

Again, I am creating a space here now to take us forward and for complainants to be able to, in good faith, have their views heard by an independent third party. It’s what they’ve asked for, and that’s what I’m delivering.

Who’s going to select the independent reviewer to look at the Kensington Swan review, and will they be able to sort of reopen some aspects of what they’ve done?

In terms of appointing a specific person, my primary focus has actually been making sure we’re in a position to start the offer of meeting with complainants at a time that they’re ready—so finding the right victims’ advocate. In terms of finding the third-party reviewer, my expectation is that we’ll make sure all parties are comfortable with the appointed persons. They have not yet been appointed, Audrey.

Simon Mitchell has put out this statement ahead of any investigation. Is that helpful, in your opinion, given that we have several investigations ongoing now

My view is that, at this point, we need to focus the process on the complainants.

Continuing to prosecute this case in this manner does not help those complainants. We’ve now created a place where they can be heard. I’m focused on taking this forward by giving them the ability to confidentially deal in that process directly with a QC and not with the Labour Party.

Have you asked Simon Mitchell or other members of the Labour Party to stop taking these issues to the court of public opinion?

I’ve given my very clear view on the path forward. I’ve set out that path forward today. My expectation now is that this is something that the Labour Party will fully reinforce that this now needs to be dealt with via the QC process to allow the complainants to be heard.

Just to be clear in terms of the—

Yes.

—original QC review from five weeks ago. So the terms of reference there haven’t broadened at all because you said that she wanted to just keep going with the work that she was doing in terms of the complainants’—

Ah. Yeah—no, I can clarify that. It’s not that the terms of reference haven’t changed; it’s that they have not expanded to take into account the process that the Labour Party undertook. The QC wishes to focus on the complaints and the substance of the complaints rather than looking at how they were originally received or dealt with by the Labour Party. Terms of reference, though, obviously have been back and forth between complainants, and obviously with the QC, until they’ve been resolved, in just recent times.

Because presumably—I mean, this is at least five weeks now, isn’t it, since you put her in place, so surely a lot of work has been done, hasn’t it?

Yes, there has, but as I’ve said, those terms of reference now include all complaints, including those that have been made publicly and privately.

Some complainants have raised concerns with us that a witch hunt is under way.

Can you give them an assurance that no one—

Yes, I can

—in your office or the Labour Party is spreading their names around?

I can give that absolute reassurance, and that has not been the case throughout the course of this issue. I’ll just take a couple more, and then—

In an email to members—and you said publicly as well to us—that you had called for people to come forward and email you. Have you received many—much communication from people, and have any more victims come forward?

Yes. Look, of course, as I’ve said, my focus now is on creating a process that’s best practice, and so I will always protect the confidentiality of those involved unless they seek to deal with something otherwise.

What I can say generally, though, is that we have received feedback directly from the Labour Party, and it’s been across a broad range of areas—their view on, you know, the current situation, their view on what we can do to improve the Labour Party, and there have been a small number of emails that I will follow up with where they’ve asked for direct contact.

Have you had any members of your staff or Ministers come to you in recent days and confessed that they actually did know some of these specific allegations of sexual assault?

Again, I’m moving to a process now where we can move forward and give the space to complainants to deal with this, examine the Labour Party, and beyond that I’m not going to continue to engage in speculation that I’ve seen, including speculation put forward by other parties in this Parliament.

Prime Minister, just on another matter, could I just ask you—the United States now seems to be blaming Iran for the attack on the Saudi oil facilities. Have you had any briefings on that, or what’s your take on that?

I haven’t had a direct briefing from a foreign policy perspective, but what I can say is that already we’ve seen, I think, an impact on oil prices: Brent crude, I believe, at about 12 percent. We’ve seen an impact there, and I believe we’ll continue to see that flow through to the fuel market. It is obviously a market that jumps very quickly when we see international events such as this, but beyond that I haven’t been specifically briefed. We’ll have one more.

Did Cabinet make a decision today on farming going into the ETS?

When we’ve made decisions—as you’ve me say this many times before—when we’ve made decisions that are ready to be announced and communicated, then we do. OK, thanks, everyone.