Mr BALCH - 2000-06-15
Early last year local radio news reported that a complaint had been lodged with the Ombudsman by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the awarding of the seniors card contract by Territory Health Services. Those news reports aired a number of extremely serious allegations that brought into question the integrity of public servants as well as private business. Minister, can you explain why this investigation which started in March last year was not included in the Ombudsman’s annual report?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is indeed a sorry saga. The reason it was not in the Ombudsman’s annual report is because the findings were only released 2 weeks ago which is some 14 months since the allegations were first raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
The basis of this complaint was an anonymous phone call to the Leader of the Opposition’s office, who then wrote to the Ombudsman, and in her letter she said: ‘I am not in a position to ascertain the veracity of the complaint, but believe it is in the public interest that it be investigated’. Technically the Leader of the Opposition is the complainant who has gone to the Ombudsman on this.
At that time the Leader of the Opposition’s office caused considerable interest in the media by leaking this issue to the media. Following her March letter of last year – this is how long it has been going – the matter was reported in the media. I was most disappointed at this because it named the company that was involved and it also made a fairly substantial allegation. And you have to remember, this is over a year ago. So the company involved has been named.
It was said in the news grabs of 10 May 1999, which ran in the morning, which ran in the midday news, and which also appeared on Drive Time on that day:
The person who made the decision to award the contract had a personal relationship with the successful company.
The substantial allegation is that a company obtained a contract because one of the principals of that contract had a ‘personal relationship’ with one of my staff.
The Leader of the Opposition therefore was a complainant of a substantial allegation. The anonymity of her source meant that the Ombudsman took some time to investigate it. He wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and forwarded a copy of that letter to my department. In that letter he says that it was open for the department to request me to table this particular report. I chose not to do that on the grounds that the report of the Ombudsman included the names of not only the companies - and several of them are in Darwin - but of the names of several of my staff.
I contacted the Ombudsman and asked him if he could expunge that and anonomise the report so that I could table it in this parliament without further impugning the reputation of those people. And I’m happy to do that.
The matter should come to an end because it has caused immense grief among those people. I quote from a letter from the Chief Executive Officer, then Peter Plumber, to the Ombudsman:
Those staff and their families have been subjected to tremendous stress during the seven months the investigation has been ongoing, and their professional reputations have also been affected. I must express my concern that people’s lives are being sent into turmoil for seven months based on ill-informed and unfounded suggestions.
The Ombudsman acceded to my request. I now have the report that I am able to table for parliament and I hope that it brings this matter to an end. I point out to the House that there is a negative in the report where the Ombudsman talks about some poor record keeping in the department in relation to some contractual matters. It has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the investigation itself. I quote from some selected sections in that document I have just tabled:
While the agency’s apparent non-compliance with procurement guidelines was not considered to have any direct impact on the matters under review, nevertheless it would be remiss of me not to bring these matters to your attention.
They are in full in the report I have tabled. The next quote from the Ombudsman:
The allegations raised by this complaint, had they been substantiated, would have constituted serious misconduct. On the other hand, it is only after completion of a costly and exhaustive investigation that I am able to form an opinion as to whether or not an allegation made to me is false, unfounded, vexatious or malicious. Even then, it is difficult to be entirely sure whether an unfounded, false complaint is maliciously motivated or merely misguided. Either way, throughout the conduct of my investigation I was concerned and conscious of the heavy burden individual agency officers and, indeed, private sector business people, face while allegations of this nature are investigated by my office over protracted periods of time.
We have a most serious matter here. All of us have received complaints from time to time from people that we consider to be vexatious. I am mindful, when I receive complaints of this type, of the very sorry Penny Easton affair that occurred in Western Australia where parliament was used to engage in a personal war between people with some very, very tragic outcomes. That is in the forefront of my mind when I get complaints of this nature. I make sure, as I am sure most members of this House do, that you direct the people to the appropriate authority - who is the Ombudsman. There is absolutely no room for a middle man in this, because if you decide to take it on as the complainant, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, you must make the assessment as to whether it is vexatious, frivolous or specious in your own mind.
So, it is very important when you choose to intervene in ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr Palmer: You are the Leader of the Opposition. He is a parliamentary officer. He is obliged to investigate your complaints.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: When you choose to intervene in this way ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr DUNHAM: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be quiet, Mr Speaker. This is a matter that impacts on the lives of public servants, men and women, and people in private business and their families. They deserve a few minutes silence from you.
The matter for all of us is that it is properly up to the Ombudsman to investigate. But in order for him to make the assessment as to whether it is vexatious and, in this case, totally baseless, he should have the person referred directly to him.
I call on her to apologise unreservedly. I call on her to take heed of the effect that her headline-grabbing has had on the lives of individuals in the Northern Territory, in the business community, and in my department.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is indeed a sorry saga. The reason it was not in the Ombudsman’s annual report is because the findings were only released 2 weeks ago which is some 14 months since the allegations were first raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
The basis of this complaint was an anonymous phone call to the Leader of the Opposition’s office, who then wrote to the Ombudsman, and in her letter she said: ‘I am not in a position to ascertain the veracity of the complaint, but believe it is in the public interest that it be investigated’. Technically the Leader of the Opposition is the complainant who has gone to the Ombudsman on this.
At that time the Leader of the Opposition’s office caused considerable interest in the media by leaking this issue to the media. Following her March letter of last year – this is how long it has been going – the matter was reported in the media. I was most disappointed at this because it named the company that was involved and it also made a fairly substantial allegation. And you have to remember, this is over a year ago. So the company involved has been named.
It was said in the news grabs of 10 May 1999, which ran in the morning, which ran in the midday news, and which also appeared on Drive Time on that day:
The person who made the decision to award the contract had a personal relationship with the successful company.
The substantial allegation is that a company obtained a contract because one of the principals of that contract had a ‘personal relationship’ with one of my staff.
The Leader of the Opposition therefore was a complainant of a substantial allegation. The anonymity of her source meant that the Ombudsman took some time to investigate it. He wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and forwarded a copy of that letter to my department. In that letter he says that it was open for the department to request me to table this particular report. I chose not to do that on the grounds that the report of the Ombudsman included the names of not only the companies - and several of them are in Darwin - but of the names of several of my staff.
I contacted the Ombudsman and asked him if he could expunge that and anonomise the report so that I could table it in this parliament without further impugning the reputation of those people. And I’m happy to do that.
The matter should come to an end because it has caused immense grief among those people. I quote from a letter from the Chief Executive Officer, then Peter Plumber, to the Ombudsman:
Those staff and their families have been subjected to tremendous stress during the seven months the investigation has been ongoing, and their professional reputations have also been affected. I must express my concern that people’s lives are being sent into turmoil for seven months based on ill-informed and unfounded suggestions.
The Ombudsman acceded to my request. I now have the report that I am able to table for parliament and I hope that it brings this matter to an end. I point out to the House that there is a negative in the report where the Ombudsman talks about some poor record keeping in the department in relation to some contractual matters. It has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the investigation itself. I quote from some selected sections in that document I have just tabled:
While the agency’s apparent non-compliance with procurement guidelines was not considered to have any direct impact on the matters under review, nevertheless it would be remiss of me not to bring these matters to your attention.
They are in full in the report I have tabled. The next quote from the Ombudsman:
The allegations raised by this complaint, had they been substantiated, would have constituted serious misconduct. On the other hand, it is only after completion of a costly and exhaustive investigation that I am able to form an opinion as to whether or not an allegation made to me is false, unfounded, vexatious or malicious. Even then, it is difficult to be entirely sure whether an unfounded, false complaint is maliciously motivated or merely misguided. Either way, throughout the conduct of my investigation I was concerned and conscious of the heavy burden individual agency officers and, indeed, private sector business people, face while allegations of this nature are investigated by my office over protracted periods of time.
We have a most serious matter here. All of us have received complaints from time to time from people that we consider to be vexatious. I am mindful, when I receive complaints of this type, of the very sorry Penny Easton affair that occurred in Western Australia where parliament was used to engage in a personal war between people with some very, very tragic outcomes. That is in the forefront of my mind when I get complaints of this nature. I make sure, as I am sure most members of this House do, that you direct the people to the appropriate authority - who is the Ombudsman. There is absolutely no room for a middle man in this, because if you decide to take it on as the complainant, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, you must make the assessment as to whether it is vexatious, frivolous or specious in your own mind.
So, it is very important when you choose to intervene in ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr Palmer: You are the Leader of the Opposition. He is a parliamentary officer. He is obliged to investigate your complaints.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: When you choose to intervene in this way ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr DUNHAM: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be quiet, Mr Speaker. This is a matter that impacts on the lives of public servants, men and women, and people in private business and their families. They deserve a few minutes silence from you.
The matter for all of us is that it is properly up to the Ombudsman to investigate. But in order for him to make the assessment as to whether it is vexatious and, in this case, totally baseless, he should have the person referred directly to him.
I call on her to apologise unreservedly. I call on her to take heed of the effect that her headline-grabbing has had on the lives of individuals in the Northern Territory, in the business community, and in my department.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016