Answer 1:
In an election campaign, as at any other time, I owe the Australian people an obligation to be truthful. I discharged that obligation because what I said about this issue was to my knowledge correct. Although I acted in good faith on the basis of advice, I do regret it if anyone now feels that they were misled.

Answer 2:
I would like to quote my right hand man in answering this question: Max Moore-Wilton said "I have no recollection of being aware that there was no evidence. I was certainly aware that a report had been provided to the Task Force that children had been thrown overboard. I have no recollection of being told that there was no evidence of children being thrown overboard, although I note in the reports that some of the defence personnel had raised that issue, and as I think the task force report indicated or the chronology, which I have never seen, indicated that this did not necessarily mean that children had not been thrown overboard."

Answer 3.
It is clear from what has transpired that the advice given to me by my staff and ministers was incorrect. I regret the fact that I have added to the misery and pain of the families involved, and undermined the brave actions of our defence personnel who put their lives at risk to rescue the men, women and children whose boat had been sabotaged. I am also very sorry that, subsequent to this poor advice, my comments and those of other ministers where untruthful and misleading about the circumstances surrounding this incident. Because we were in the middle of an election campaign we let our desire for electoral advantage overtake our responsibilities as public officials to uphold the truth and protect Australia’s interests and reputation. For all this I am deeply sorry.

Answer 1:
In a matter such as this a prime minister is entitled to rely, and base public statements on unambiguous advice originating from a designated taskforce of officials.

Answer 2:
No. I thoroughly trusted both the former Defence Minister Peter Reith and the current Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock. I had no reason to believe that the information they received and in turn provided to me was incorrect.

Answer 3:
Yes. In hindsight it is clear that such serious criminal allegations should have been substantiated by more than hearsay evidence before my Ministers or I made the derogatory statements against the asylum seekers and their families, which we repeated throughout the final weeks of the election campaign. If they had been Australian citizens – or for that matter, citizens of any country with reliable judicial and democratic institutions – we would have had been sued.

Answer 1:
Given that this issue is to be the subject of a likely Senate inquiry it is not appropriate for me to answer this question other than to say that I have full confidence in my department and great respect for the members of the ADF.

Answer 2:
Yes. If a subsequent enquiry finds that either ministers, my personal staff, officers of my department or defence force personnel have been negligent in their duties to the Australian public they will be appropriately dealt with. It is vital that the public confidence in the government and its institutions is maintained and that Australians understand that the rule of law must prevail. It would be hypocritical to detain asylum seekers who break our laws if we allow others to behave illegally with impunity because it is politically expedient.

Answer 3:
At this stage no evidence has been presented to show anyone intentionally misled the public or withheld information which should have been brought to light, except for a few minor incidents which have already been answered in detail.

Answer 1:
Relevant officials will be available before a Senate inquiry established for that purpose. It is not customary for such people otherwise to speak publicly on political issues.

Answer 2:
It has been my government’s custom to deny any government employee the opportunity to embarrass my government or inform the public about issues or incidents which we feel may be embarrassing in the future. I am a strong believer in custom and tradition.

Answer 3:
It is clear that one of the main reasons that this situation has got out of hand is that a veil of unrequired secrecy and misinformation has been thrown over incidents like this for too long. I intend to lift that veil of secrecy and begin a new era of open and honest government where people are treated like human beings rather than media opportunities and talkback radio fodder.

Answer 1:
My government will always seek to be truthful and open with the Australian public.

Answer 2:
Yes, of course. I have never, ever lied to the Australian public.

Answer 3:
Yes, particularly during election time.

So, what's the truth?

Well, the truth about Honest John is that in each case he chose Answer 1. The question remains whether Answer 1 is the truth...

Source: Questions and Honest John's answers - The Daily Telegraph 16/2/2002