EVIDENCE BY JOURNALIST AT SPY INQUIRY

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27403, 16 July 1954, Page 11

EVIDENCE BY JOURNALIST AT SPY INQUIRY

(Rec. 11.30 p.m.) MELBOURNE, July 15. Fergan O’Sullivan, a journalist and former press secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. H. V. Evatt), said today at the Royal Commission into Espionage that he had written Document H to help relationships between Australia and the Soviet Union. O’Sullivan admitted that he was a “radical,” but denied that he was a Communist. Asked if he were ashamed, proud or neutral for writing Document H, O’Sullivan said: “My feelings are neutral. I think this document has assumed a sinister importance that was not intended.”

When the hearing resumed this morning, Mr W. J. V. Windeyer, Q.C., senior counsel assisting the commission, recalled Vladimir Petrov, former Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy, to the witness box.

To Mr Windeyer, Petrov said it was not the practice to tell Moscow the names of all persons who attended receptions at the Soviet Embassy. The M.V.D. (Security) office in Canberra informed headquarters in Moscow only of persons to whom M.V.D. officers had spoken and who were considered to be of interest t<? the M.V.D. Mr Winfieyer: The second paragraph of Exhibit E 8 and 9 (instructions from Moscow) reads: “We consider that, by continuing to study and verify O’Sullivan, you can draw him gradually into our work by way of putting before him concrete tasks which he is in a position to fulfil.” Did you do anything in compliance with that instruction?—No. You handed over control of O’Sullivan to Antonov? (Tass agent)—Yes. Did Antonov do anything in compliance with that instruction?—No. Mr Windeyer: The third paragraph of the letter reads: “It is desirable that, when a suitable opportunity offers, you should ask him to compile for us a survey concerning the economic, political and military penetration of Australia by America, with the inclusion of unofficial data. Warn O’Sullivan that his survey will not be published in the press, and that it is required by you for your personal use. Promise him that the time spent by him on the preparation of this survey will be compensated by you. Ascertain also whether O’Sullivan has contacts with circles pertaining to the Government, the Parliament and business, and also in Liberal, Country and Labour Party circles.” Mr Justice Owen: Did you do what Moscow told you to do? Did you ask him (O’Sullivan) to compile that sur-vey?—-No. I did not

Did you give Antonov those instructions?—Yes. I showed them to him but, at that time, he had not been introduced to O’Sullivan.

Mr Windeyer: The last paragraph reads: “We request you to inform us in detail in every letter the progress in the study and cultivation of O’Sullivan.” Is that what you mean by “control”?—Control means study. Mr Justice Owen: Did you inform M.V.D. headquarters by letter from time to time about what you call the “control” of O’Sullivan?—Reports were only made after meetings, but if there were no meetings no report was sent.

Meetings between you and O’Sullivan?—Yes. Between myself and O’Sullivan and Antonov and O’Sullivan. Where was Antonov introduced to O’Sullivan?—ln Parliament House. Letters from Moscow Mr Justice Owen then asked Petrov if he recollected a letter sent to him from Moscow in 1953, parts of which dealt with O’Sullivan. His Honour said the relevant portion discussed the work with Zemlyak (O’Sullivan s code name in Moscow) whose study had been delayed through “our fault.” The letter said that Zemlyak was “a prominent person” and had given written information to Pakhomov (former Tass agent) with whom he had held conspiratory meetings. The letter said that the study of Zemlyak should be “livened up.” . Petrov said he recalled the instructions. When Kovalenok came to relieve him in Canberra he did not discuss O’Sullivan with him. He did not know whether Mrs Petrov had discussed O’Sullivan with Kovalenok. He had received two cables from Moscow to expedite the study of O’Sullivan. Mr Justice Owen then read a letter from Moscow sending information from Pakhomov which might be useful to the M.V.D. It said that “basic work” in the study of Parliamentary correspondents and members of Parliament should be conducted by Antonov. It also said Antonov should take measures to establish contact with O’Sullivan.

Petrov agreed with Mr Justice Owen that in the letter the names of a large number of press correspondents serving in the Parliamentary Press Gallery at Canberra, were set out. Petrov said many statements were made about those individuals. Some of the information had been supplied by O’Sullivan to Pakhomov. Included in some of the information, said to be provided by O’Sullivan, were two men said to be

connected with Australian counterintelligence. Mr Justice Owen: I suppose the M.V.D. would be very interested to know the names of persons connected with the Australian counter-intelli-gence?—Yes. And whether any newspaper men were so connected?—Yes.

Mr Justice Owen then referred to letter A. 29 which, he said, began frith a reference to a person said to be a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. The letter continued: '‘O’Sullivan and another press correspondent, who is said to be a member of the Communist Party . . . O’Sullivan was described as “an honest man holding Labour views.” The letter said that this was in “no way to his discredit.” To Mr Justice Philp, Mr Windeyer said there was nothing to suggest that O’Sullivan gave information other than that contained in Document H. (O’Sullivan yesterday admitted writing Document H, described earlier by Mr Windeyer as containing names, political leanings and habits of journalists and broadcasting men working in Canberra.) Petrov Cross-Examined Mr J. A. Meagher, for O’Sullivan, then began his cross-examination of Petrov. What, precisely,' was the role in which Pakhomov came to Australia?— His official position was that of Tass correspondent, but unofficially he was a cadre worker, of the M.V.D. (security). What were his duties as Tass representative? Apart from being an M.V.D. man, he was the genuine Tass representative?—Yes. That work brought him into touch with journalists?—Yes. And, as far as you know, any relations he had with Fergan O’Sullivan were as a journalist and on a journalists’ basis?—Yes, certainly, at the beginning. And as far as you know Pakhomov never revealed to anyone his other activities?—No. Document H came into your possession at some time?—Yes. And that document refers solely to journalists?—Yes. Petrov said that, when Pakhomov handed over, he (Petrov) had been acting Chief Resident. The handover was completed in approximately one day. At that time his interest was awakened in the document as he had to register it and keep it safe. He had first studied its contents after the handing over. He discussed Document H with Pakhomov. Petrov said he was not sure whether Pakhomov or himself had sent it to Moscow. It was possible that the document was sent to Moscow at the end of 1951. To Mr Meagher Petrov said that nothing was done to cultivate O’Sullivan. He added: “I gave him away. Moscow was always interested in him, but we did nothing.” Mr Meagher: Might I suggest that you deemed it unfruitful soil on which to labour?—Yes. That is so. Moscow considered it was fruitful soil, but I did nothing. . At this stage, Mr Windeyer recalled Fergan O’Sullivan to the witness box To Mr Windeyer, O’Sullivan said he had written Document H in the second half of 1951. He gave the document to Pakhomov. O’Sullivan said that Pakhomov had asked him to write the document. Pakhomov had asked for some personal details of members of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery which, he said, would be of assistance to him for a project he (Pakhomov) had in mind. Pakhomov said he was very concerned about the lack of publicity from the Russian point of view in Australian newspapers, particularly after the referendum. Pakhomov asked him to write in some personal details about the men. I O’Sullivan said that Pakhomov told I him m the Federal Press Gallery thatj he had an idea about arranging dis- • tribution of publicity from Russia 1 through the Australian newspapers. Pakhomov said he wanted to know the »!r let Z t 0 cir cumvent the bad press ' u Windeyer: You had been asked . by Pakhomov for information to present the Russian point of view more ; readily than he (Pakhomov) had 1 been able to?—Yes. | Did he tell you what sort of details he wanted?—Their political attitude • and personal details. He knew some were married or single. There is an

official document. Did he tell you what headings he wanted?—ln a way. He wanted political and personal details. You have dealt with various matters on each of these persons. You started generally by dealing with the age, information and religion?—ln some cases. Whether he was married or not and whether he drank?—ln some cases. Whether or not he was talkative after drink?—ln some cases. Would you tell my why it would help Pakhomov to get news into a paper by telling him whether a man drank or was talkative after drink?—• Pakhomov had asked me to get personal details. I believed Pakhomov wanted the information for a background story. Mr Justice Owen: not think it would be used to bring pressure to bear on persons?—No. Mr Windeyer: You included yourself In the list?—l was on the official list of the gallery. You did not put it in so that If it fell into anyone else’s hands they would not know who had written it? —I did not have that intention. You did not give any characteristics of your own, but you did give details of other people?—l knew Pakhomov. O’Sullivan told Mr Windeyer that the information he gave about these people was not all true to the best of his Relief. “Canberra Gossip” Mr Windeyer: You wrote falsehoods?—l wrote from Canberra gossip. You wrote scandal, whether it was true or false? —I know now that a lot of it is wrong. O’Sullivan admitted that he had wrongly given his own age in Dolument H as 25 when it should

have been 23. He could not remember his state of mind at the time. He had not done it in an affort to conceal the identity of the author of the document. Mr Justice Owen: Do you mind if we read what you say about yourself? It is quite innocuous?—lt is innocuous, but I would rather not. Mr Windeyer: It is much less detailed than what you said about other people?—Yes. It says you were in Ireland, tn England and on the "Sydney Morning Herald” for two years?—That’s true. It says you are radical—Yes. You must have gone to a good deal of trouble to collect this gossip and detail?—No. this type of material came to you day by day talking to the people in the press gallery. Mr Justice Owen: You even stated the type of literature they liked?— That came in the same way. What do you think would be the point of telling Pakhomov that a particular person or persons was connected with. counter-intelligence?— In this case, it was for Pakhomov to attempt to carry out an under-cover campaign. It would be a sheer waste of time for hiirt to approach such a person.

What would you think of a person who told a Tass man the names of persons who assisted the Australian Security Service?—ln this context I don’t think it was particularly serious. What would you think of an Australian citizen who gave representatives of a foreign Power the names of persons whom he believed to be connected with the security services? —I don’t think there was anything remarkable in saying that a man was believed to be a security agent. Why did you say it?—lf he was an agent, it would be dangerous for him to approach him. Mr Justice Owen: You said of one person that he was not very trustworthy?—ln this type of campaign, it would be dangerous to contact him. Mr Justice Owen: Are you a member of the Communist Party?—No. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?—Never. Mr Justice Owen asked: Can you suggest to us, or give us any explanation which may occur to you. why it should appear that the M.V.D. took such an interest in a young man who had recently come to Australia and held a comparatively minor position on a newspaper?—l cannot understand it at all. Mr Justice Owen: I suppose the press secretary to a man who is Leader of the Opposition might, in the course of his duty, come to know some very confidential information affecting the country?—No. Not as press secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. But he might find himself in the position of being press secretary to a Prime Minister?—Yes. that’s possible. A person in that position would have great responsibility as to what he | said —Yes.