LABOUR LEADER PROTESTS TO SPY INQUIRY

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27404, 17 July 1954, Page 7

LABOUR LEADER PROTESTS TO SPY INQUIRY

(Rec. 10 p.m.) MELBOURNE, July 10. The Royal Commission on Espionage will hold a special hearing on Monday in case any members of the secretariat of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. H. V. Evatt) wish to appear to answer statements made at the commission today. The chairman of the commission, Mr Justice Owen, today read a telegram from Dr. Evatt protesting against the making of defamatory and injurious imputations reflecting against members of his staff. Mr Justice Owen said that the writer of Document J quoted as sources for certain information, some of it confidential, three of the members of the secretariat of Dr. Evatt, including the Sydney journalist, Fergan O’Sullivan.

O’Sullivan, who until recently was Dr Evatt’s press secretary, denied in the witness box today that he ever revealed any information contained in Document J Dr Evatt said in his telegram to the commission that he had questioned all the members of his present staff, and each had unequivocally denied having given at any time any such confidential information to the alleged author of Document J or any other person. [Evidence has been given at the commission that the Communist journalist, Rupert Lockwood, wrote Document J in the Soviet Embassy in Canberra in May, 1953. Lockwood refused to answer'any questions on Document J when he appeared at the commission, Document J is one of the documents handed to the Australian authorities by the former Soviet diplomat, Vladimir Petrov, when he sought political asylum in April.] . The commission decided today to hold a secret session on Tuesday to deal with a particular matter concerning indirectly persons who were not in Australia*and not all of whom were British nationals. . Mr Justice Owen said it would be proper to hear evidence on it in a private session, and it could well be that at a later stage it might be published, * _ _ When the commission adjourned for the week-end today, Mr W. J. V. Windeyer said that there was no material available for the commission on Mon■?he commissioners told Mr Windeyer, who is senior counsel assisting the commission, that in view of the communication received this morning, it was possible that some people might wish to say something, and the commission would sit on Monday to give them the opportunity. Mr Windeyer said that whatever happened on Monday all people who might be able to give relevant information on Document J would be summoned to give evidence. When the hearing resumed this morning, the Sydney journalist, Fergan O’Sullivan, the author of Document H was recalled to the witness box. Mr Justice Owen: As I understood

your evidence yesterday your purpose in preparing document H and giving it to Pakhomov, the Tass agency representative, was to help him obtain the publication of pro-Soviet propaganda in Australian newspapers without allowing it to be known that it was Tass material.—Broadly that. It was for that purpose that you provided him with that material?—Yes. Answering a question by Mr Justice Owen, O’Sullivan said it would not be fair to describe him (O’Sullivan) as a person who believed in the doctrine of communism, or who had some sympathies with communism. To Mr W. J. Windeyer, senior counsel assisting the commission, O’Sullivan said he had no thought of assisting the Soviet M.V.D. to recruit helpers when he made out the list of Canberra journalists. Mr Justice Owen: When you look at Document H it appears that some one answered a questionnaire. You can almost see the headings?—lt is almost automatic for a reporter to write like that. Do you still say that the insertion of a paragraph about yourself was not intended to cover up the fact that you were the author?—Certainly not Why did you put yourself in if it was not for that reason?—Nothing was known about me.

“I Know Now” Mr Windeyer: In your study of politics and from your friendship with Pakhomov didn’t you know that the material which you gave him was the information which Russian Communists seek when they are searching for recruits and helpers?—lt didn’t enter my mind. I know now. Mr Justice Owen: You now realise the significance of it?—Yes. Mr Windeyer: You mean’you were so naive that you thought Pakhomov wanted this information so that he could readily tell these people things? —Yes. He was just exploiting you. It was exploitation of one man by another? — Yes.

Did you expect this material to go back to Moscow?—Certainly mot. I thought it was for his personal use.

Have you ever written a document like that?—l did not write personal descriptions of journalists before and hand them to anyone. O’Sullivan said that while in London he had been instructed by the executive of the National Union of Journalists to make out a list of persons who might be put forward as members. This was the only list ho had written before. Mr Justice Owen: The scheme of things in Canada was to study a person carefully, ascertain his weaknesses if possible, get him to provide some information and, if possible, make 7 him accept payment for it and so compromise him. He was then described officially in Moscow documents as being “in the net.” Mr Windeyer: Pakhomov told you he was looking for helpers?—Yes. You suggest he wanted helpers in the dissemination of news?—Yes. O’Sullivan said that when Pakhomov had mentioned “helpers” he considered it was only for the dissemination of news. He said that he realised he had typed Document H when he looked at the original and found it was done on his machine. Mr Windeyer: You did that when you heard a typewriter expert was going to be called?—No. Mr Justice Owen: Had anyone told you that a subpoena has been served on the “Sydney Morning Herald” calling for documents relating to you and for letters typed by you?—No. O’Sullivan said that he was in Northern Queensland when the subpoena was served on him and he was shown Document H. He then expected he might be called. He had gone with his father to Queensland on holidays. Between May 25 and June 2 he had been in Sydney. Mr Windeyer: But you didn’t tell Dr. Evatt about it until June 2?—Jt was not a very easy thing to tell him. It required a great deal of willpower. Mr Windeyer: The elections had nothing to do with it?—No. O’Sullivan said that he thought he received a letter from Dr. Evatt about his dismissal on June 5.

Mr Windeyer: You told him (Dr. Evatt) that you wrote the document for Pakhomov? —In effect. And you thought it was what I had referred to?—That’s correct. And that was the only one you wrote for a Russian? —Yes. As a result you were dismissed on June 4?—Yes. To Mr Windeyer, O’Sullivan said he lived in Mr B. F. Yuill’s flat in Canberra for a period. He had left the flat in November last year as a result of a hint from security. He had been advised not to associate with Yuili. Mr Windeyer: Weren’t you told by your employer to cease the association? —I would see him casually. I did not see very much of him. And you were associated with Lockwood while you were Dr. Evatt’s secretary?—l saw him. And Chiplin?—l saw him in the press gallery. Mr Windeyer then tendered a notebook which belonged to Petrov, in which he (Petrov) had written a number of telephone numbers. Mr Windeyer said it contained a number of numbers which would become of interest later. Telegram from Dr. Evatt Mr Justice Owen said that the Commission’s secretary had received a

telegram from the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Evatt. The telegram said: “I request that you draw the attention of members of the Royal Commission to the following communications. ‘‘Yesterday the chairman of the Commission was reported as saying that the document known as Document J quoted as sources for various matters some of which were very confidential to three members of my secretariat. ‘‘As a result of this statement I have made inquiries of all members of my present staff. Each one of them has unequivocally denied having given at any time any such confidential in--1 formation to the alleged author of Document J or to any other person. “I therefore feel It my oounden duty to protest at once at . the making

iof the defamatory and injurious imputations reflecting on the members of my staff. This statement has been I given the widest circulation by the . press and radio. Moreover the imputations appear to have been made without any evidentary support, and upon the assumption that events and sources said to be contained in Document J are truly and accurately stated by the author. “The course taken of naming persons by obvious reference to a small group is opposed to the basic procedures of justice which were outlined at certain stages of the commission. No notice having been given the injury to individuals ts immediate and may be irreparable. “I therefore request that a copy of this protest be embodied in the proceedings of the commission.—Herbert Evatt, Leader of the Opposition and of the Federal Parliamentary Labour Party.” Mr Justice Owen: Yesterday I said that nothing in Document J reflected [ on Dr. Evatt. The document quotes as sources of various matters three members of the secretariat of the Leader , of the Opposition. Included in that » three is O’Sullivan. > Mr Justice Owen said that Mr Jus- : tice Ligertwood had said that O’Suli livan denied he had given the information and Mr Justice Philp said that ’ the sources may be untrue. "As we have already pointed out, . this inquiry cannot be conducted effi- . ciently without the names of persona , being mentioned,” said Mr Justice I Owen. “The persons to whom the telei gram refers will be given an opportun- - ity of refuting the allegations.” Mr Windeyer: You are aware from i what you have been asked, and what you have heard, that information about i journalists and their habits were sent by Moscow to the M.V.D. office here r for the use of Pakhomov’s successor? - —I knew some were sent, but not for i that purpose. O’Sullivan said that he was unaware J that the information was sent so that 1 the successor to Pakhomov would have 5 influence to get matters into the newspapers. He thought Pakhomov wanted 1 information about journalists so that 5 he could hand out information to , journalists. Otherwise he would not 3 have written document H. 3 Mr Windeyer: You did not think it . would be part of the technique of the 4 Soviet in seeking agents to obtain that sort of information?—l did not think “ that at aIL I am aware of it now. i Reference to Father ?. Mr Windeyer said there was referi ence to O’Sullivan’s father in a MosI. cow letter. He asked O’Sullivan what i information about his father- had been given to Pakhomov. J O’Sullivan said that he had told an i anecdote about his father’s news gath--1 in Ireland during “the trouble* ’• Then, the Irish regarded his father as “ a spy for Britain and Britain regarded him as a spy for Ireland. It must have t appealed to some obtuseness in the 1 Russians’ sense of humour. . He said that his father had had no • dealings with Communist circles in London or New York. His father had advised him that the position with Dr. Evatt would be very good experience. He (his father) was a personal e friend of Dr. Evatt’s. n x Q’SuJlivap said he had come to Australia because his father had pressed p !V m ’ He was Australian-born and ” here 6 Were * ar greater °PP° rtu nities u To Mr J. A. Meagher, for O’Sullivan, O’Sullivan said Pakhomov had , given him the official press gallery “ list, and his name (O’Sullivan’s) was ' on the list. J Mr Meagher: You said Lockw’ood was politically dangerous. Is there . anything further you want to say?— The word political may not be needed. Mr Windeyer said he was going to e recall Mrs Petrov. She would say she had met Petrov’s successor, Kovalenok, when he arrived at the Soviet n Embassy in Canberra on April 3. She would say that one of the tasks he had been instructed to carry out a was “the cultivation of O’Sullivan.” »_ Kovalenok had said then that Moscow considered Dr. Evatt might become Prime Minister within a short period and O’Sullivan would be in* an imi- portant position. a To Mr Windeyer, O’Sullivan said ho )- had not met Kovulenok. O’Sullivan was then excused from at further attendance at the Commission, rs Mr Windeyer said that there was no 1- material available for next Monday, but it was possible some people might »e wish to say something, ig The hearing was adjourned to Monday./