From: Philip, Ian Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 05:51 PM To: Baxter, Greg Subject: MW response

Jonathan,

Here are our responses to your comments and questions, starting with our comments on your observations. For clarity I have repeated your observations and then commented on each one immediately below it.

a. John genuinely believed, on the basis of what he was told on Saturday night by senior News Ltd people, that no News Ltd journalist was intending to pursue the Bruce Wilson matter in the coming days, and gave the Prime Minister an assurance to that effect.

This is correct. The Prime Minister claimed to have knowledge of two journalists who were intending to write the story. The PM named the journalists and as a result John could identify which newspapers might be involved. John investigated and found that neither journalist nor their mastheads were intending to publish anything on the matters raised by the Prime Minister. John called the Prime Minister and informed her accordingly.

John did not say and did not intend to convey the idea that had either of the journalists been writing a story that the story wouldn‟t be published. He only committed to letting the Prime Minister know if any such story was being published. b. No one contacted the Australian to ask them – but even if they had, at that stage both Clive Mathieson and Chris Mitchell would have said „no we‟re not‟.

John did not contact The Australian because the Prime Minister did not raise The Australian with John on either the Saturday or the Sunday. There was no reason for John to believe The Australian might be publishing a story about any of the matters raised by the Prime Minister. c. No one directly contacted Andrew Bolt either, which seems odd given his Saturday morning blog and Sunday morning „Bolt Report‟ on Ten both flagged the matter.

John did not contact Andrew Bolt, having already contacted the relevant editors. . d. Glenn Milne decided to write his column about the Bruce Wilson matter after seeing on Sunday morning. It was edited by Rebecca Weisser from her home, neither Mathieson nor Mitchell were alerted to its content, and it was not legalled.

We believe your first sentence is correct. We have no comment on the second sentence. e. John was totally taken by surprise – and embarrassed – when the PM rang him in a fury on Monday morning following the publication of the Milne column. He asked Chris Mitchell to call the PM and sort it out.

This is correct. f. The PM assumed – wrongly – that she had been deliberately misled by John Hartigan. This goes at least partly to explain her fury, and News Ltd‟s very speedy and drastic action in taking down the Milne column – with an abject apology – and, considerably later, the relevant parts of Andrew Bolt‟s blog. This is correct except for your point about our „speedy and drastic action‟ to take down the story. News has been criticised, wrongly, for taking down the entire story instead of only the parts the Prime Minister objected to. The story was taken down because the Prime Minister refused to tell John or Chris Mitchell which parts of the story were wrong, offensive or defamatory. We then acted after taking legal advice.

The correction that was published has been interpreted incorrectly as apologising for the entire content of Milne‟s column. The correction says the piece “included assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister” and “The Australian acknowledges these assertions were untrue.”

I further assume – but haven‟t had this confirmed – that Julia Gillard‟s continued offensive against News Ltd on the Tuesday morning prompted Mr Hartigan to make his remarks about her being „pedantic‟.

This is correct. The Australian had the day before withdrawn the piece, acknowledged that some of the assertions in it were untrue and apologised to the Prime Minister. The apology and acknowledgements were also carried on other News Limited websites.

The Prime Minister‟s further claims on Tuesday that The Australian had “breached all known standards of journalism” was offensive and wrong as was her implication that The Australian did not uphold ethics and standards. This was an affront to everyone that works for The Australian, which even among its harshest critics is acknowledged as having many of the finest journalists in the country.

Your Questions of Yesterday (Thursday)

1. Can you confirm that none of the above is wrong.

See above

2. Whether it is or it isn‟t, I‟d very much appreciate an off-the-record conversation with Mr Hartigan, especially about the allegation by Andrew Bolt that the PM threatened News Ltd with a media inquiry if the material were not removed. Is it true? If so, is it a concern?

The Prime Minister did not make threats to John Hartigan or Chris Mitchell about a media inquiry.

Your Questions of Today (Friday)

1. We understand that the Prime Minister contacted you on Saturday to ask whether News Ltd was planning to revive the allegations surrounding Bruce Wilson‟s alleged embezzlement of AWU funds in the 1990s, and her relationship with him at that time.

Answer: The Prime Minister did not ask this; she asked specifically about two journalists.

News Limited did not have any plans to revive the allegations. The decision to write about the allegations was taken by individual journalists who report to their editors. There was no attempt by the company to marshal any kind of planned assault on the Prime Minister as has been suggested elsewhere.

2. Did she make clear what prompted her suspicions – was it (a) the small item called „Back to the Future‟ in The Weekend Australian‟s “Cut and Paste”, or (b) Andrew Bolt‟s blog that morning, or both? Or did she not mention any particular News Ltd item?

Answer: No

3. Is it correct that you caused inquiries to be made, especially of News Ltd‟s Sunday papers?

Answer: No. John Hartigan investigated whether the two journalists named by the Prime Minister were intending to write stories about the matter raised by the Prime Minister and John contacted the relevant newspapers.

4. Were you aware of Andrew Bolt‟s blog or the Cut and Paste item at that time?

Answer: John Hartigan was not aware of either before he spoke to the Prime Minister on Saturday.

5. Were direct inquiries made either to Rebecca Weisser, editor of Cut and Paste, to anyone at The Australian, or to Andrew Bolt?

Answer: John Hartigan made inquiries of the editors of The Sunday and The Sunday Telegraph on Saturday and of the editors of Sun and The Daily Telegraph on Sunday. He did not make inquiries of The Australian because the Prime Minister did not ask him about The Australian.

6. We understand that Piers Akerman had included material in his column for the Sunday Telegraph about the Bruce Wilson matter – material that was excised by the editor prior to publication. Were you made aware of this?

Answer: Not until after publication

7. Is it correct that as a result of what you were told, you informed the PM in good faith that no News Ltd journalist was intending to pursue the matter?

Answer: See our comments to your point (a) above

8. Did you indicate to her that you had any knowledge of any other media outlet that did intend to pursue the matter?

Answer: No.

9. In her conversations with you on Monday morning, following the publication of Glenn Milne‟s column in The Australian, did the Prime Minister (as hinted at by Andrew Bolt in his column on Wednesday) indicate that unless Milne‟s column was taken down and an apology issued, the government would think again about supporting an inquiry into media ownership with possible consequences for News Ltd?

Answer: No.

10. Does the possibility of a media inquiry, in Andrew Bolt‟s words, „greatly worry‟ News Ltd? Did it have any influence on the decision to take down both Glenn Milne‟s column and the relevant parts of Andrew Bolt‟s blog?

Answer: No and No.

11. What prompted your remarks on Tuesday about the PM being „pedantic‟?

Answer: See answer above

12. According to Laura Tingle in the AFR, and to Laurie Oakes on 3AW, Monday evening‟s cabinet meeting discussed what the government should do about what it saw as a concerted News Ltd campaign to bring down the government. Do you have any comment on that story, or on the general allegation that there is such a concerted campaign?

Answer: There is no concerted campaign by News Limited against the federal Government in general or against the Prime Minister in particular. John Hartigan has made this clear to the Prime Minister on previous occasions, most recently when the Prime Minister attended and spoke at our recent Editors Conference in .

Jonathan, in response to your final question about anything else we would like to make clear, I can advise that there is one final and important point. The Prime Minister sent us a draft of the apology with a demand that we publish it in The Australian and on The Australian websites and other News Limited websites.

The draft sent to us from the Prime Minister included the following words:

“The Australian will ensure these claims are not repeated in its newspaper or on its website or in any publication of any form under its control.”

AND

“News Limited will ensure these claims are not repeated in its newspaper or on its website or in any publication of any form under its control.”

Given that the Prime Minister refused to tell us which particular claims concerned her, the demands contained in the two passages quoted above amount to a demand that no News Limited outlet would publish any information related to any of these matters at any time in the future.

Not surprisingly, we did not agree to publish these passages as part of the apologies that appeared in The Australian and on News Limited websites and we do not agree to these demands in any terms.

Of the questions you have sent to Chris Mitchell, the answers above apply except to your question 7 in your email to Chris which reads “To your knowledge, was Glenn Milne acting in concert with either Andrew Bolt or Michael Smith of Radio2UE when he wrote his column?”

Answer: No

Yours Sincerely

Greg Baxter Director Corporate Affairs, News Limited