Mr FINCH - 1996-11-27
Mr FINCH (Public Employment): Mr Speaker, in the adjournment debate last night, the member for Nhulunbuy, followed by the member for Wanguri, made some fairly outrageous comments and misinterpretations in relation to a document tabled by the member for Nhulunbuy himself. The document tabled was ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Under what standing order is the honourable minister speaking? Is this a ministerial statement? Is it a personal explanation?
Mr FINCH: At the end of Question Time, a minister has the opportunity to provide an answer to a question raised in the House or supplementary information on an answer.
Mr Bailey: It was not a question. By definition, a question is something ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am advised that sessional orders do allow for answers to be provided in relation to matters raised either in Question Time or in the adjournment debate.
Mr FINCH: In relation to that construction industry finding, the member for Wanguri asked which minister was responsible for, in his words, the `doctoring' of the tape that was forwarded in evidence. I am attempting now to answer that question. The comments from the member for Nhulunbuy included phrases such as `fraudulent evidence tendered', `doctored evidence', `a tape purporting to be a complete copy', `a tape had been selectively edited' etc. He also used expressions such as `it was fraudulent evidence'. The member for Wanguri used phrases such as `corrupt practices' and `fabrication of evidence'.
I will make 2 points. First, if they had read the document that was tabled - that is, the commissioner's finding - they would have realised that the only reference that he made to the tape was that it was incomplete. Being incomplete is nothing like `fraudulent', nothing like `fabrication', nothing like `doctored', nothing like `selectively edited' ...
Mrs Hickey: He did not say it was all right though, did he?
Mr FINCH: There is a very simple explanation. I take exception to the commissioner's report where he went on to say that, while he did not have any doubts about the integrity of counsel presenting the information, he had `serious doubts about the integrity of the person who supplied him with the incomplete copy'.
Mr Bailey: The buck stops with the minister.
Page 1847
Mr FINCH: The buck probably does stop with the minister. I am not sure who actually provided the tape, but I assume it is exactly the same as the one I have in my office. The one I have in my office is one obtained, through Channel 8, from Channel 9 - I assume in Sydney. The tape is totally untouched since it arrived through Channel 8. It starts off: `NTD8 record for ACA [A Current Affair] story, attention M. Park'. It finishes at an advertisement. At that point, the tape, as sent from Channel 9, states: `End of feed, end of feed, end of feed. Check tape'. In other words, it is a completely intact tape as provided from A Current Affair through Channel 8 to whomever requested it. Whether it was TCA or the government, I do not know. That is where the matter ended.
The honourable members are suggesting all manner of tampering and interference. The tape was not touched. It is in my office if anyone cares to look at it. It is exactly as it was received. Quite clearly, the tape is what was provided from A Current Affair. The honourable members referred to its being only half the story. The other 3 or 4 minutes of the program continued after the advertisement, and it went on with some of the same concerns about the CFMEU, and finished with a little note by Mr Ferguson, on behalf of the CFMEU, saying that that was not exactly what the CFMEU was like at all. In not taking the tape into account in any way whatsoever, as he indicated in his report, the commissioner has led us and, of course, TCA to examine whether we should appeal the decision.
As for waste of public money, I refute that suggestion. The private sector and government construction program in the Northern Territory is worth almost $500m. On the basis of cost implications interstate, it is threatened with a 30% surcharge. We will not wear $150m more per year by having practices by this union that are now recorded interstate. We will not have them in the Territory. If we are spending $20 000, $50 000 or even $100 000, it could not be called a waste of money.
Page 1848
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Under what standing order is the honourable minister speaking? Is this a ministerial statement? Is it a personal explanation?
Mr FINCH: At the end of Question Time, a minister has the opportunity to provide an answer to a question raised in the House or supplementary information on an answer.
Mr Bailey: It was not a question. By definition, a question is something ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am advised that sessional orders do allow for answers to be provided in relation to matters raised either in Question Time or in the adjournment debate.
Mr FINCH: In relation to that construction industry finding, the member for Wanguri asked which minister was responsible for, in his words, the `doctoring' of the tape that was forwarded in evidence. I am attempting now to answer that question. The comments from the member for Nhulunbuy included phrases such as `fraudulent evidence tendered', `doctored evidence', `a tape purporting to be a complete copy', `a tape had been selectively edited' etc. He also used expressions such as `it was fraudulent evidence'. The member for Wanguri used phrases such as `corrupt practices' and `fabrication of evidence'.
I will make 2 points. First, if they had read the document that was tabled - that is, the commissioner's finding - they would have realised that the only reference that he made to the tape was that it was incomplete. Being incomplete is nothing like `fraudulent', nothing like `fabrication', nothing like `doctored', nothing like `selectively edited' ...
Mrs Hickey: He did not say it was all right though, did he?
Mr FINCH: There is a very simple explanation. I take exception to the commissioner's report where he went on to say that, while he did not have any doubts about the integrity of counsel presenting the information, he had `serious doubts about the integrity of the person who supplied him with the incomplete copy'.
Mr Bailey: The buck stops with the minister.
Page 1847
Mr FINCH: The buck probably does stop with the minister. I am not sure who actually provided the tape, but I assume it is exactly the same as the one I have in my office. The one I have in my office is one obtained, through Channel 8, from Channel 9 - I assume in Sydney. The tape is totally untouched since it arrived through Channel 8. It starts off: `NTD8 record for ACA [A Current Affair] story, attention M. Park'. It finishes at an advertisement. At that point, the tape, as sent from Channel 9, states: `End of feed, end of feed, end of feed. Check tape'. In other words, it is a completely intact tape as provided from A Current Affair through Channel 8 to whomever requested it. Whether it was TCA or the government, I do not know. That is where the matter ended.
The honourable members are suggesting all manner of tampering and interference. The tape was not touched. It is in my office if anyone cares to look at it. It is exactly as it was received. Quite clearly, the tape is what was provided from A Current Affair. The honourable members referred to its being only half the story. The other 3 or 4 minutes of the program continued after the advertisement, and it went on with some of the same concerns about the CFMEU, and finished with a little note by Mr Ferguson, on behalf of the CFMEU, saying that that was not exactly what the CFMEU was like at all. In not taking the tape into account in any way whatsoever, as he indicated in his report, the commissioner has led us and, of course, TCA to examine whether we should appeal the decision.
As for waste of public money, I refute that suggestion. The private sector and government construction program in the Northern Territory is worth almost $500m. On the basis of cost implications interstate, it is threatened with a 30% surcharge. We will not wear $150m more per year by having practices by this union that are now recorded interstate. We will not have them in the Territory. If we are spending $20 000, $50 000 or even $100 000, it could not be called a waste of money.
Page 1848
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016