Mrs HICKEY - 1996-11-26
Let me say, by way of preface, that there will be no apology from the opposition for doing its job. I point out to the Chief Minister that it was not the opposition but the AEC that was calling for this inquiry. Let me also say that this inconclusive report bears no relation to the seriousness of the issues.
Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please get on with her question?
Mrs HICKEY: Will the Deputy Chief Minister confirm that the handwritten note gives clear instructions that he wanted only the names and addresses of aged pensioners and seniors? Will he further confirm that the letter sent by the Country Liberal Party targets only aged pensioners and seniors and refers to housing for aged pensioners and to safeguarding retirement? Will he confirm also that it highlights a concession, single air fares, that only aged pensioners and seniors can access?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I am pleased that, after 4 days, they have decided finally whom to address the question to. They asked the member for Brennan ...
Page 1817
Mr Bailey: It is all a joke, is it?
Mr REED: I introduce the member for Barkly, the Leader of the Opposition, to the words `truth', `fact' and `integrity'. I suggest that she replaces the words `misconstrue', `deceive' and `false' with those words.
Ms Martin: You have been practising in front of the mirror, Mike.
Mr REED: You have more important things to do. The Paul's Iced Coffee ad is back on Channel 8. I know that is your biggest concern. Focus on that and we will get on with some matters of major importance.
It is interesting to note what happened here and how the members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, would act if they were in government. They embarked on a program of propaganda-based inquiry. They locked themselves in a room where they tried and convicted the accused - in this case, the CLP. Having done that, they attempted to present the evidence in a form that would substantiate their finding of guilt. The best example of that was the document that was tabled last week and to which the Leader of the Opposition now refers. It was a doctored document. I do not believe that a correct and full copy of that document has been tabled. I table a copy now so the parliament can record the full facts about this matter. Members opposite made certain assumptions that the list I called for was then used for purposes which they alleged - in fact, they went beyond that and found it a matter of guilt by accusation and by altering documents. That is a clear illustration of the way the member for Barkly would operate in government.
In relation to this minute that was written by the then secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services, Ray Norman, I must say that I have no doubt that it related to a request that I made for a list. I would not deny that for a moment. Where the member for Barkly, the Leader of the Opposition, has it wrong is that I did not request the list once. I requested it at least twice. I may well have done so more often in relation to pensioners. May I say this ...
Mr Ah Kit: On the day the election was announced.
Mr REED: I will pick up that interjection because it is very pertinent. It is the first pertinent comment the member for Arnhem has made since he has been in the Assembly, and I give him credit for that. It is the first time he has hit the nail on the head. The day on which the election was announced was the day this minute was written. Whether or not it was the day that the request came from my office, I do not know, but it would have been about that time - in the lead-up to the election.
Mr Stirling: It would have been about when the election was about to be announced.
Mr Bailey: In the lead-up to it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Page 1818
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Let us look at the request. If, Mr Speaker, you were a little smarter than members opposite and, as a minister, you sought a list of particulars from the department to use for political purposes, would you exclude anyone from the list? Wouldn't you want as much information and as comprehensive a list as you could obtain to enable you to maximise your opportunities and write to other groups for a political benefit? Would you exclude anyone from such a list? Of course you would not. You would take full advantage of it if you had the opportunity to do it in the context of an election campaign.
In their finding of guilt, without recourse to the facts, and trying first of all to alter this document to support their finding of guilt, what did they do?
Mr Stirling: No!
Mr REED: You cannot deny it. It was altered. The document tabled by your member was altered. It had been doctored. It was false. Let us put it on the record. It originally included information that was deleted from the copy tabled by the member for Wanguri because it did not support the opposition's argument. It did not support its finding of guilt. They could not have information on a document that they intended to table that did not support their finding of guilt. That is what they were about - constructing a position to support their finding of guilt for which they had no evidence. They then made the assumption that a list that came to my office would be provided automatically to the CLP.
Mr Stirling: It was.
Mr REED: May I just ...
Ms Martin: Deny it.
Mr REED: In relation to these ...
Mr Stirling: Deny it!
Ms Martin: Deny it! Come on!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: In relation to these lists, where the Leader of the Opposition has it wrong is that I did not call for a list on one occasion only. I called for it a number of times. I called for a list in March 1993. On that occasion, I wrote to thousands of pensioners in the Northern Territory who were concerned at the time about the pensioner concessions program, principally because of false information being spread by members opposite. In May 1993, I wrote to pensioners again. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition was spreading rumours that nursing homes in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Darwin were to be closed or their services reduced. People were very concerned about that. As Minister for Health and Community Services at the time, I wanted to get advice to pensioners and people living in nursing homes
Page 1819
that their situation was secure and that funding to nursing homes was to be maintained. I table a copy of that letter.
Mr Bailey: Of that one.
Mr REED: I table a copy of that letter to ...
Ms Martin: On CLP letterhead, is it?
Mr REED: Stupid woman! I said I wrote to them as minister.
I table also a media release that gives some background information to the circumstances that existed at that time.
I sought other lists covering other categories ...
Mr Stirling: A bit of a list-maker, are we?
Mr REED: As a minister ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister please resume his seat. There is far too much interjection from the opposition benches at present. It is not loud, but it is continuous and it is annoying.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, as the minister, I found it necessary, and I still do, to seek lists from departments to enable me to write to individuals in different industries, to write to parents about vaccination programs to ensure that their children are protected against type B influenza. I believe I did that in mid-1993. To do that, I obtained a list from the department relating to parents with children in a certain age group. I can give an assurance that those lists were never passed on from my office to an outside party.
Mr Stirling: No, but you cannot give an assurance about the other one.
Mr Bailey: Can you give an assurance for 1994?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: The same assurance ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: I was speaking about those lists collectively. I will mention specifically the 1994 list. That came to my office. It was never approved by me and, as far as I know, never went anywhere beyond my office to a third party, be it the CLP or anybody else. I am happy to make that admission.
Page 1820
Mr Stirling: No.
Mr REED: I have made the admission that the member for Nhulunbuy called for, and still he says no. How am I to convince this man of the facts? Members opposite do not know the meaning of the words `fact', `truth' and `integrity'. I hope members opposite will look those words up in the dictionary to familiarise themselves with their meaning. The process they went through in finding a person or a group - in this case the CLP - guilty upstages Heinrich Himmler and Josef Goebbels. Goebbels, one of the great propagandists of this century, would be ashamed to think that this mob opposite have done better than him. It is a disgraceful case of the ALP finding another party guilty without any supporting evidence. Not only that, it doctored evidence to try to prove its case.
My office and my staff have not passed any information on to outside parties. I remind honourable members opposite that they have undertaken practices of this kind in the past themselves.
Mrs Hickey: Rubbish!
Mr REED: The member for Barkly says it is rubbish. Can I remind her of a little problem experienced by her predecessor as Leader of the Opposition, Brian Ede? He wrote to a wide range of people - doctors, lawyers, teachers, health workers, right across the whole field. He wrote to thousands of people. She might recall that he wrote, inadvertently apparently, to convicted murderers and rapists, seeking advice as to how to run the prison system. That is where he fell down. In admitting that he wrote to people, he was caught out. When he was caught out in respect of whom he wrote to, did he accept the blame himself? No, he did not. He blamed the staff of my office for that. The then Leader of the Opposition never had the integrity to admit that he had been caught out.
What they did on that occasion was what they do on all occasions - call for an inquiry. They called for an inquiry into who wrote what letter, who doctored what and whether someone in my office sent a letter to a prisoner. That was the accusation they made, much the same as when poor old Brigid took the blame for the current Leader of the Opposition when something went wrong in her electorate. The Leader of the Opposition, who was unable to obtain an inquiry on that occasion, referred the matter to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reported on investigations that he undertook on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition which the Leader of the Opposition never raised in this House. This was because, to quote from the Ombudsman's report of 1992-93 at page 33, `Mr Ede's complaints were not sustained'.
They have done it again on this occasion. They have raised false expectations. They have accused people wrongly. They have found people guilty without any substantiation of the facts and, worse still, they have doctored documents to support their case. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have upstaged Goebbels and Himmler. I totally reject any suggestion that I or my office was involved in this process.
Page 1821
Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please get on with her question?
Mrs HICKEY: Will the Deputy Chief Minister confirm that the handwritten note gives clear instructions that he wanted only the names and addresses of aged pensioners and seniors? Will he further confirm that the letter sent by the Country Liberal Party targets only aged pensioners and seniors and refers to housing for aged pensioners and to safeguarding retirement? Will he confirm also that it highlights a concession, single air fares, that only aged pensioners and seniors can access?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I am pleased that, after 4 days, they have decided finally whom to address the question to. They asked the member for Brennan ...
Page 1817
Mr Bailey: It is all a joke, is it?
Mr REED: I introduce the member for Barkly, the Leader of the Opposition, to the words `truth', `fact' and `integrity'. I suggest that she replaces the words `misconstrue', `deceive' and `false' with those words.
Ms Martin: You have been practising in front of the mirror, Mike.
Mr REED: You have more important things to do. The Paul's Iced Coffee ad is back on Channel 8. I know that is your biggest concern. Focus on that and we will get on with some matters of major importance.
It is interesting to note what happened here and how the members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, would act if they were in government. They embarked on a program of propaganda-based inquiry. They locked themselves in a room where they tried and convicted the accused - in this case, the CLP. Having done that, they attempted to present the evidence in a form that would substantiate their finding of guilt. The best example of that was the document that was tabled last week and to which the Leader of the Opposition now refers. It was a doctored document. I do not believe that a correct and full copy of that document has been tabled. I table a copy now so the parliament can record the full facts about this matter. Members opposite made certain assumptions that the list I called for was then used for purposes which they alleged - in fact, they went beyond that and found it a matter of guilt by accusation and by altering documents. That is a clear illustration of the way the member for Barkly would operate in government.
In relation to this minute that was written by the then secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services, Ray Norman, I must say that I have no doubt that it related to a request that I made for a list. I would not deny that for a moment. Where the member for Barkly, the Leader of the Opposition, has it wrong is that I did not request the list once. I requested it at least twice. I may well have done so more often in relation to pensioners. May I say this ...
Mr Ah Kit: On the day the election was announced.
Mr REED: I will pick up that interjection because it is very pertinent. It is the first pertinent comment the member for Arnhem has made since he has been in the Assembly, and I give him credit for that. It is the first time he has hit the nail on the head. The day on which the election was announced was the day this minute was written. Whether or not it was the day that the request came from my office, I do not know, but it would have been about that time - in the lead-up to the election.
Mr Stirling: It would have been about when the election was about to be announced.
Mr Bailey: In the lead-up to it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Page 1818
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Let us look at the request. If, Mr Speaker, you were a little smarter than members opposite and, as a minister, you sought a list of particulars from the department to use for political purposes, would you exclude anyone from the list? Wouldn't you want as much information and as comprehensive a list as you could obtain to enable you to maximise your opportunities and write to other groups for a political benefit? Would you exclude anyone from such a list? Of course you would not. You would take full advantage of it if you had the opportunity to do it in the context of an election campaign.
In their finding of guilt, without recourse to the facts, and trying first of all to alter this document to support their finding of guilt, what did they do?
Mr Stirling: No!
Mr REED: You cannot deny it. It was altered. The document tabled by your member was altered. It had been doctored. It was false. Let us put it on the record. It originally included information that was deleted from the copy tabled by the member for Wanguri because it did not support the opposition's argument. It did not support its finding of guilt. They could not have information on a document that they intended to table that did not support their finding of guilt. That is what they were about - constructing a position to support their finding of guilt for which they had no evidence. They then made the assumption that a list that came to my office would be provided automatically to the CLP.
Mr Stirling: It was.
Mr REED: May I just ...
Ms Martin: Deny it.
Mr REED: In relation to these ...
Mr Stirling: Deny it!
Ms Martin: Deny it! Come on!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: In relation to these lists, where the Leader of the Opposition has it wrong is that I did not call for a list on one occasion only. I called for it a number of times. I called for a list in March 1993. On that occasion, I wrote to thousands of pensioners in the Northern Territory who were concerned at the time about the pensioner concessions program, principally because of false information being spread by members opposite. In May 1993, I wrote to pensioners again. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition was spreading rumours that nursing homes in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Darwin were to be closed or their services reduced. People were very concerned about that. As Minister for Health and Community Services at the time, I wanted to get advice to pensioners and people living in nursing homes
Page 1819
that their situation was secure and that funding to nursing homes was to be maintained. I table a copy of that letter.
Mr Bailey: Of that one.
Mr REED: I table a copy of that letter to ...
Ms Martin: On CLP letterhead, is it?
Mr REED: Stupid woman! I said I wrote to them as minister.
I table also a media release that gives some background information to the circumstances that existed at that time.
I sought other lists covering other categories ...
Mr Stirling: A bit of a list-maker, are we?
Mr REED: As a minister ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister please resume his seat. There is far too much interjection from the opposition benches at present. It is not loud, but it is continuous and it is annoying.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, as the minister, I found it necessary, and I still do, to seek lists from departments to enable me to write to individuals in different industries, to write to parents about vaccination programs to ensure that their children are protected against type B influenza. I believe I did that in mid-1993. To do that, I obtained a list from the department relating to parents with children in a certain age group. I can give an assurance that those lists were never passed on from my office to an outside party.
Mr Stirling: No, but you cannot give an assurance about the other one.
Mr Bailey: Can you give an assurance for 1994?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: The same assurance ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: I was speaking about those lists collectively. I will mention specifically the 1994 list. That came to my office. It was never approved by me and, as far as I know, never went anywhere beyond my office to a third party, be it the CLP or anybody else. I am happy to make that admission.
Page 1820
Mr Stirling: No.
Mr REED: I have made the admission that the member for Nhulunbuy called for, and still he says no. How am I to convince this man of the facts? Members opposite do not know the meaning of the words `fact', `truth' and `integrity'. I hope members opposite will look those words up in the dictionary to familiarise themselves with their meaning. The process they went through in finding a person or a group - in this case the CLP - guilty upstages Heinrich Himmler and Josef Goebbels. Goebbels, one of the great propagandists of this century, would be ashamed to think that this mob opposite have done better than him. It is a disgraceful case of the ALP finding another party guilty without any supporting evidence. Not only that, it doctored evidence to try to prove its case.
My office and my staff have not passed any information on to outside parties. I remind honourable members opposite that they have undertaken practices of this kind in the past themselves.
Mrs Hickey: Rubbish!
Mr REED: The member for Barkly says it is rubbish. Can I remind her of a little problem experienced by her predecessor as Leader of the Opposition, Brian Ede? He wrote to a wide range of people - doctors, lawyers, teachers, health workers, right across the whole field. He wrote to thousands of people. She might recall that he wrote, inadvertently apparently, to convicted murderers and rapists, seeking advice as to how to run the prison system. That is where he fell down. In admitting that he wrote to people, he was caught out. When he was caught out in respect of whom he wrote to, did he accept the blame himself? No, he did not. He blamed the staff of my office for that. The then Leader of the Opposition never had the integrity to admit that he had been caught out.
What they did on that occasion was what they do on all occasions - call for an inquiry. They called for an inquiry into who wrote what letter, who doctored what and whether someone in my office sent a letter to a prisoner. That was the accusation they made, much the same as when poor old Brigid took the blame for the current Leader of the Opposition when something went wrong in her electorate. The Leader of the Opposition, who was unable to obtain an inquiry on that occasion, referred the matter to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reported on investigations that he undertook on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition which the Leader of the Opposition never raised in this House. This was because, to quote from the Ombudsman's report of 1992-93 at page 33, `Mr Ede's complaints were not sustained'.
They have done it again on this occasion. They have raised false expectations. They have accused people wrongly. They have found people guilty without any substantiation of the facts and, worse still, they have doctored documents to support their case. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have upstaged Goebbels and Himmler. I totally reject any suggestion that I or my office was involved in this process.
Page 1821
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016