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.
Penny Wong is a WEF puppet
They are all puppets of the fascist globalists, taking orders from their global bureaucracies, including WEF, IMF, UN, WTC.
Thank you for your work, Senator Roberts. Let the truth reign
That didn’t look like a typo error, that statement looked to be deliberately taken out of the transcript. Now we all know that he had reason to not get legal advice. Thank you Senator Roberts.
It is hard to get to truth with this obfuscation. Wong is a pain, an embarrassment and a bully. In short; the answer to the question has been deleted. Thanks Malcolm.
When there is an error in the transcriptions the information the people receive is flawed, this is more dis-information, not mis-information, and this can be likened to a back door escape route. Myself I would like to see the passage of wording that would be contained in the constitution if a yes vote is successful, to be published before the people have their vote. The time between referendums in Australia is to long, this is a tool for the people to have a say in how our country operates, provided of course that we are given accurate information.
Malcolm Roberts stands for truth and honesty. Many others try to survive on lies. That means they must go on using lies to cover the early ones. We must name them and find honourable people to replace them. We can Make Australia Great Again.
This why I (and many others) am switching off – constant obfuscation, lies and misdirection on straight-forward issues. This is a government with a flawed moral compass; the truth is not in them!. Albanese claims to have honoured the “three” pillars of border protection policy yet he knows that there is a critical fourth (TTPs) pillar which Labor has discarded. Where is the media comment? Richard Myles grandly states that Australia should sanction countries which support Russian invasion yet refuses to include China in that category. Gutless hypocrite! Albanese’s ‘Voice’ is claimed to be about fairness, equity or equal rights but productive Australians have been unfairly discriminated against for decades to the advantage of the aboriginal industry. These fools seem to have deliberately ignored any obligation for equal responsibility and accountability from our so-called “First Australians” who apparently want no part of sovereign Australia anyway. I suppose the ‘sheeple’ will swallow all this BS. In the words of Sam Goldwyn, “include me out”.
Brilliant! What was that first statement about the Voice from Penny Wong “,,,(something, something),,,and TRUTH” ???
It appears to be the case that if the relevant information can’t be provided it has either been lost, shredded or maybe hopefully not the case but maybe non existant or even covered up.
The whole parliament is full or lawyers cough cough splatter splatter. Look around the world on this subject with other indigenous people and what do they all have in common the World Economic Forum.