Latest / 360 with Katie Woolf / Katie Woolf spoke with Chief Minister Michael Gunner

Transcript

Katie Woolf spoke with Chief Minister Michael Gunner · 360 with Katie Woolf

0:00
Speaker 1: First up this morning, we're going to be speaking with
0:01
Speaker 1: the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner.
0:03
Speaker 2: He's in the studio already ready to join us.
0:06
Speaker 1: And first off, I am keen to get an update
0:08
Speaker 1: on the situation with those COVID restrictions. Will they be
0:11
Speaker 1: lifted on Friday. I'm also keen to ask a few
0:14
Speaker 1: further questions about the ikak's report into the Turf Club
0:18
Speaker 1: and those revelations. This morning in the Northern Territory News
0:21
Speaker 1: that the IKAK is set to be referred to the
0:23
Speaker 1: Privileges Committee following allegations that well that the commissioner misled
0:28
Speaker 1: budget estimates. Now, in a statement, the government has said
0:32
Speaker 1: it expected a motion to refer mister Fleming to the
0:35
Speaker 1: Privileges Committee would be put to the Parliament when it
0:38
Speaker 1: sits next in August. The referral follows the now retired
0:42
Speaker 1: mister Ken Fleming giving evidence to the Estimates Committee last month,
0:46
Speaker 1: the same day that Matt Cunningham from Sky News revealed
0:49
Speaker 1: the IKAK office was being investigated over an alleged conflict
0:53
Speaker 1: of interest. Now the IKAK Inspector, Bruce McClintock has since
0:57
Speaker 1: dismissed the complaint, but during that appearance in Estimates, the
1:00
Speaker 1: IKAC commissioner said that he knew the source of the story,
1:04
Speaker 1: claiming it was a disgruntled former employee who had made
1:07
Speaker 1: a complaint after being told she was about to be sacked.
1:11
Speaker 1: The Estimates Committee, though subsequently allowed the whistleblower's barrister, John
1:15
Speaker 1: Lawrence SC to give evidence in response to mister Fleming,
1:18
Speaker 1: and during that appearance on June twenty four, mister Lawrence
1:22
Speaker 1: table documents that he said proved mister Fleming hadn't informed
1:26
Speaker 1: his client her employment would be terminated until after she
1:31
Speaker 1: made the complaint, and that mister Fleming had confirmed she
1:34
Speaker 1: was a protective whistleblower before she was sacked.
1:37
Speaker 2: Now, there is a lot.
1:38
Speaker 1: To take in with this story, and also the report
1:41
Speaker 1: in the paper this morning that reporter Jason Walls was
1:44
Speaker 1: actually called before the IKAK more than a year ago,
1:47
Speaker 1: pushing for him to reveal a source of a story,
1:51
Speaker 1: something we as journalists would never do. However you look
1:54
Speaker 1: at it, there are certainly questions now about the framework
1:57
Speaker 1: in which the Office of the IQACK operates, and the
2:00
Speaker 1: government has previously said the eye Kake is being reviewed.
2:03
Speaker 1: But we'll talk a bit more about this shortly. I
2:05
Speaker 1: think what every territorium wants is to know that it's
2:07
Speaker 1: operating well in the way that they would expect. So
2:11
Speaker 1: let's get into it, because joining me in the studio
2:14
Speaker 1: right now is the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner.
2:16
Speaker 2: Good morning to you, Katie.
2:17
Speaker 1: Chief Minister, you must be pretty pleased that we're in
2:19
Speaker 1: the situation that we're currently in terms of the COVID situation.
2:25
Speaker 1: Are we on track for lifting the restrictions on Friday?
2:27
Speaker 3: I'm not sure pleased is the right word to thought
2:30
Speaker 3: about this a bit. I'm obviously very grateful that we
2:33
Speaker 3: trap the virus. Things are looking good, but more so
2:36
Speaker 3: extremely mindful that businesses, casual workers, weddings, that a lot
2:40
Speaker 3: of people got hurt on the way through in trapping
2:43
Speaker 3: the virus. I'm very much aware obviously of the serious,
2:46
Speaker 3: significant consequences that the virus have got loose. So yeah,
2:50
Speaker 3: is that one where it's a bittersweet that we've got
2:52
Speaker 3: to where we've got to. Territories are being magnificent, Things
2:54
Speaker 3: are looking good. I can we're on track for absolutely
2:57
Speaker 3: on track for lifting on Friday. At this day, it
3:00
Speaker 3: appears that the lockdown worked. We trapped the virus and
3:03
Speaker 3: we made sure there wasn't community spread. So that's all
3:06
Speaker 3: important ticks. But I will not forget on the way
3:09
Speaker 3: through that we're safe because a lot of people made sacrifices.
3:13
Speaker 1: Now, when do you reckon these Territory Days celebrations are
3:16
Speaker 1: going to happen. It is something that a lot of
3:17
Speaker 1: listeners are wondering about.
3:19
Speaker 3: So I don't want to jinx where we're currently at.
3:22
Speaker 3: So this is the second year in a row we've
3:23
Speaker 3: had a mess with Territory Day. Last year was canceled,
3:25
Speaker 3: this year deferred. I want to get through this fourteen
3:28
Speaker 3: day restriction before we get round to announcing new date.
3:31
Speaker 4: We can celebrate Territory Territory Day and have a hell
3:33
Speaker 4: of a party.
3:34
Speaker 3: I want to celebrate too, but I feel that let's
3:37
Speaker 3: just get through this current replication cycle, which expires essentially
3:41
Speaker 3: one o'clock on Friday.
3:43
Speaker 1: Let's just get through, get through that, and then make
3:45
Speaker 1: an assessment on when Territory Day is going to happen.
3:47
Speaker 4: Really don't want to jinx ourselves here.
3:49
Speaker 2: All right, Well, I'll tell you what.
3:51
Speaker 1: There is quite a bit to talk about this morning,
3:53
Speaker 1: and last week we didn't really get the opportunity to
3:55
Speaker 1: speak about the IKAK report into the Dar and Turf
3:58
Speaker 1: Club grandstand. The Northern Territories Anti Corruption Watchdog made findings
4:02
Speaker 1: of improper conduct against your former chief of staff, as
4:06
Speaker 1: well as three members of the Dar and Turf Club
4:08
Speaker 1: and a company director over the twelve million dollar government
4:12
Speaker 1: grant for a new grand stand. Now, Chief Minister, can
4:15
Speaker 1: I just ask you from the outset, why did the
4:17
Speaker 1: government ever think that awarding this twelve million dollar grandstand
4:22
Speaker 1: was a good idea?
4:23
Speaker 3: So we accepted the argument that this would be good
4:27
Speaker 3: for the territory economy to be in the short term
4:29
Speaker 3: to create jobs and long term help grow the Cup Carnival,
4:32
Speaker 3: which we can all agree is an ecoric driver for
4:34
Speaker 3: the territory and proven draw card for territory, and so
4:37
Speaker 3: we were always supportive of the idea of a grand stand.
4:41
Speaker 3: We just wanted there to be an open and transparent
4:43
Speaker 3: process about how we made that consideration. The report very
4:46
Speaker 3: extensively goes through how Cabinet thought there was open and
4:50
Speaker 3: transparent process occurring, how there wasn't an open and transparent
4:54
Speaker 3: process occurring, and it details some deceitful behavior and officially
5:00
Speaker 3: the findings of misconduct and the handling of that.
5:02
Speaker 1: Now, we covered this extensively when the report was released,
5:05
Speaker 1: but just to give our listeners some background. In June
5:07
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, the Northern Territory Government announced that twelve million
5:11
Speaker 1: dollars of taxpayer dollars had been awarded to the Turf
5:14
Speaker 1: Club to build a new corporate grandstand at Fanny Bay Racetrack.
5:17
Speaker 1: Several months later, it emerged that the Turf Club's tender
5:21
Speaker 1: panel awarded the construction contract to a company co owned
5:24
Speaker 1: by Brett Dixon, who is also the chair of the
5:27
Speaker 1: Turf Club. Now, following the decision, a Northern Territory government
5:31
Speaker 1: investigation and an independent auditor both concluded that the decision
5:36
Speaker 1: to give the contract to Jtech's construction was above board.
5:40
Speaker 1: I mean, how did neither of these investigations identify any issues?
5:45
Speaker 3: So the IKAC report actually goes into that in quite
5:47
Speaker 3: a bit of detail, that we asked the right questions.
5:50
Speaker 3: In this instance, the CEO of DTBI, done at the
5:53
Speaker 3: Department Trade Business Innovation, asked the right questions of the
5:56
Speaker 3: Turf Club, and as the report shows, a Turf Club
5:59
Speaker 3: deliberately line to the CEO of the Department of Trade
6:03
Speaker 3: business and innovation. If they taught us the truth at
6:06
Speaker 3: that point in time, we could have actually taken the
6:08
Speaker 3: money back. We were very concerned about that tender grant process.
6:12
Speaker 3: We've since changed the rules around capitol grant so we
6:15
Speaker 3: could take that money back if ever happened again. But
6:19
Speaker 3: we could have actually done it at the time. And
6:21
Speaker 3: as the report shows, there were deliberate lies told to us.
6:26
Speaker 3: They told the same lies to the IQAC. The ICACK
6:29
Speaker 3: asked the same questions that we did, but the IRECAC
6:31
Speaker 3: has obviously quite extensive powers, was able to prove that
6:35
Speaker 3: those were live.
6:36
Speaker 1: The report found, though, that you and the cabinet approved
6:38
Speaker 1: this twelve million dollars this grant well one day after
6:42
Speaker 1: receiving the application from the Turf Club, which contained no
6:46
Speaker 1: cost benefit analysis or no verifiable costings to explain the
6:50
Speaker 1: price tag. How was the decision made by the cabinet
6:54
Speaker 1: to award twelve million dollars without that information.
6:58
Speaker 3: That's one of the larger parts of the report goes
7:00
Speaker 3: into that in quite a bit of detail through.
7:02
Speaker 2: The from your words, how did that happen?
7:05
Speaker 4: Yeah, That's what I'm going to go into.
7:07
Speaker 3: So the i CAT report actually goes into quite extensive
7:10
Speaker 3: detail about how that occurred over the twelve months.
7:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I'm asking you this morning, how on earth
7:15
Speaker 1: without a cost benefit analysis or without verifiable costings to
7:19
Speaker 1: explain that price tag, how did our cabinet, so the
7:23
Speaker 1: Cabinet of the Northern Territory make a decision to award
7:26
Speaker 1: twelve million dollars without that information?
7:29
Speaker 4: I understand the question.
7:31
Speaker 3: So the IKAC report shows the quite extensive process that
7:35
Speaker 3: cabinet thought was occurring, and it goes into quite extensive
7:38
Speaker 3: details about essentially the SAT and misconduct. So there's a
7:42
Speaker 3: market lead proposal process that we believed it had gone into.
7:45
Speaker 3: The market lead proposal process for what is genuine and
7:49
Speaker 3: good reasons requires ministers to stand aside from that process
7:52
Speaker 3: for probity purposes. We now have seen the consequence of that,
7:56
Speaker 3: so we're changing the rules around market lead posal process
7:58
Speaker 3: that there is a constant report back to ministers because
8:00
Speaker 3: we are the ones that are held to account have
8:02
Speaker 3: to make these decisions. So essentially it shows that the
8:05
Speaker 3: misconduct and deceit that occurred where we felt a twelve
8:08
Speaker 3: month process had happened, that the business case was essentially
8:12
Speaker 3: verified or had been worked on a reperior toward months
8:14
Speaker 3: and that's why there were finings of misconducts. So cabinet
8:17
Speaker 3: made a decision based off bad information, and there's a
8:21
Speaker 3: pro that's outline in quacs that details how that bad
8:23
Speaker 3: information came into the cabinet.
8:24
Speaker 2: Who took that proposal to cabinet.
8:27
Speaker 4: I'm the chief Miness, I'm the chair of cabinet. I'm
8:28
Speaker 4: responsive for.
8:29
Speaker 2: Everything in cabinet, So you took it.
8:30
Speaker 4: I'm the cabinet, I'm responsible for everything.
8:33
Speaker 1: But very specifically, I'm asking who took the proposal to cabinet?
8:36
Speaker 2: Was it you?
8:37
Speaker 4: And I'm saying, I'm responsible for everything in cabin.
8:39
Speaker 2: So you were the minister that took it to cabinet.
8:41
Speaker 4: I'm responsible for everything in cabinet.
8:42
Speaker 1: Was it a situation though, where it was something that
8:45
Speaker 1: you know that you took in.
8:48
Speaker 3: I'm saying to you, I'm the chief Minister, I'm the
8:50
Speaker 3: chair of the cabinet. I'm responsible for everything in cabinet.
8:52
Speaker 3: This was a cabinet decision based off a twelve month
8:55
Speaker 3: process that's now been shown by the EYECAC to have
8:58
Speaker 3: been a process that essentially there was deceit and misconduct
9:03
Speaker 3: occurred over a period of twelve months that led to
9:04
Speaker 3: bad information going to the cabinet room, and as the
9:06
Speaker 3: Chief Instry and Chair of Cabinet, I take responsibility for that.
9:09
Speaker 1: So it has been widely reported that you had no
9:12
Speaker 1: knowledge of your former chief of staff, Al Leonardi, liaising
9:16
Speaker 1: with the.
9:16
Speaker 2: Chair of the Turf Club about this project.
9:19
Speaker 1: Last week, though, Brett Dixon's legal team wrote to you
9:22
Speaker 1: saying that your former chief of staff actively encouraged the
9:26
Speaker 1: application for the twelve million dollar Northern Territory government grant
9:29
Speaker 1: for the construction of the grand stand, because it was
9:32
Speaker 1: enthusiastically supported by you.
9:36
Speaker 2: Was that the case?
9:37
Speaker 3: So this is all confirmed in the IKAC report, So
9:40
Speaker 3: it's not just widely reported as a thorough investigation that
9:42
Speaker 3: shows that I, amongst others, supported the grandstand. I've been
9:46
Speaker 3: the public record saying I support the grandstand, but as
9:48
Speaker 3: the report also shows, myself and others the whole cabinet
9:52
Speaker 3: thought there was a process being conducted into that which
9:55
Speaker 3: didn't actually occur.
9:56
Speaker 1: So were there conversations between you and Brett Dixon about
9:59
Speaker 1: this grandstand?
10:00
Speaker 3: Yes, and that's also covered in the report itself. So
10:03
Speaker 3: I've been on the public record saying I support the
10:04
Speaker 3: grand stand.
10:05
Speaker 4: It's not news. I support the grand stand.
10:07
Speaker 1: You see how people though, would be thinking to themselves
10:09
Speaker 1: right now, well, if you did have conversations with Brett
10:12
Speaker 1: Dixon about that grandstand and you know, but then you're
10:16
Speaker 1: saying that you know that that all of that information.
10:21
Speaker 1: Your understanding was that then there had been that market
10:24
Speaker 1: lead process had taken place, Like how did we then
10:27
Speaker 1: end up in a situation where where now you know
10:31
Speaker 1: you didn't know that detail.
10:33
Speaker 3: So this is all thoroughly covered by the investigation eighteen months,
10:37
Speaker 3: fifteen thousand documents, as a witness testimony, the market lead
10:40
Speaker 3: proposal process means as Minister's with a step away. So
10:43
Speaker 3: during that period of time we can't be involved and in
10:45
Speaker 3: the conversations we can't talk about the grandstand, we can't
10:48
Speaker 3: get involved in the process. So for twelve months ministers
10:51
Speaker 3: stood out of the process. That is, in hindsight, an
10:54
Speaker 3: error that can't happen again. We've made those changes so
10:56
Speaker 3: that that's what that's what occurred, and the I can't
11:00
Speaker 3: report goes quite extensibly into that.
11:02
Speaker 1: The leader of the opposition, Leafinocchio, says, it is absolutely
11:05
Speaker 1: mind blowing that you, as the chief minister, think you've
11:08
Speaker 1: dodged a bullet following the release of the report when
11:11
Speaker 1: the report ties you directly to corrupt behavior in your office.
11:15
Speaker 1: She says, for three years, your chief of staff was
11:18
Speaker 1: involved in backroom dealings to set up this twelve million
11:21
Speaker 1: dollar tax payer funded project. So it is entirely implausible
11:25
Speaker 1: that throughout those three years you had absolutely no knowledge
11:29
Speaker 1: of any of the workings of the deal.
11:35
Speaker 2: Is that entirely implausible?
11:37
Speaker 3: Well, that would mean that you disagree with an eighteen
11:39
Speaker 3: month investigation, fifteen thousand documents, hours of witness testimony that
11:44
Speaker 3: shows the misconduct and shows the deceit.
11:47
Speaker 4: Unfortunately that happened. We have a system in place to
11:49
Speaker 4: try and.
11:49
Speaker 3: Make sure good decisions occur, and this is across a
11:51
Speaker 3: whole range of things in life and government. But we've
11:54
Speaker 3: also got systems in place to make sure if that
11:56
Speaker 3: ever does happen, that it's caught. And that's what's happened
11:59
Speaker 3: here in the i CAAC to make sure it could
12:01
Speaker 3: catch and find behavior like this.
12:03
Speaker 1: So if that is the case, why not release the
12:05
Speaker 1: cabinet documents so people understand exactly why this decision was
12:09
Speaker 1: made and the information behind it.
12:11
Speaker 4: But that's that's the ICACK investigate.
12:12
Speaker 1: But the ICAC couldn't go into the ICAC, into the
12:16
Speaker 1: cabinet documents and into the decision the cabinet made in
12:20
Speaker 1: terms of what happened in that cabinet meeting, could they?
12:23
Speaker 3: I think that shows a misunderstanding of what the ICAC
12:25
Speaker 3: report does. The iac report shows everything that occurred that
12:28
Speaker 3: led to the information going in the cabinet room, or
12:30
Speaker 3: that happened there was a cabinet decision, and then we
12:32
Speaker 3: see everything that happen as a result of that decision.
12:34
Speaker 3: The ICAC report gives you all the information that is
12:37
Speaker 3: relevant anything.
12:38
Speaker 1: I mean, does that demonstrate though, that ministers aren't doing
12:41
Speaker 1: their homework? Who knows what other decisions been made where
12:44
Speaker 1: the homework hasn't been done properly and you guys just sign.
12:47
Speaker 2: Off on it.
12:48
Speaker 3: No, I think this is absolutely an outlier. There were
12:51
Speaker 3: flags on this. We saw the flags when Jtech's got
12:53
Speaker 3: the tender. We tried intervene at that point in time,
12:56
Speaker 3: so this obviously had concerns. I sent documents myself down
12:59
Speaker 3: to the i CAC on this when I saw some
13:02
Speaker 3: of the outcomes of the Freedom Information search from a
13:05
Speaker 3: journalist a different, different entity, so this had flags on it.
13:10
Speaker 1: There was a soon as it had flags on it,
13:12
Speaker 1: well before Jano Gibson at the ABC ran that story
13:15
Speaker 1: like it had flags on it right from the get go.
13:18
Speaker 1: I think for many of us, you know, the week
13:19
Speaker 1: that this announcement was made, many of us were questioning
13:22
Speaker 1: whether we were going to end up in a situation
13:25
Speaker 1: where twelve million dollars had been announced for the Turf
13:28
Speaker 1: Club and that the chairman's company was going to get
13:31
Speaker 1: that tender.
13:32
Speaker 4: And the chairman's company shouldn't have got the tender, So
13:35
Speaker 4: all of us.
13:35
Speaker 1: In the public could see that right from the word go.
13:37
Speaker 1: That's why I guess plenty of us can't understand how
13:40
Speaker 1: we've ended up in this situation where the government thought
13:43
Speaker 1: it was a good idea to hand over twelve million
13:45
Speaker 1: dollars to the Turf Club.
13:48
Speaker 3: We genuinely supported the idea of expanding the Cup carnival
13:52
Speaker 3: and creating jobs. We obviously at that point in time
13:56
Speaker 3: had a significant body of work.
13:58
Speaker 4: In around trying to protect territory jobs.
14:00
Speaker 3: We're obviously coming off the back of the Impacts construction cliff,
14:02
Speaker 3: so different serf circumstances now where the economy is currently positioned.
14:06
Speaker 3: But at that point in time, we were very interested
14:08
Speaker 3: in investing in direct short term construction jobs and that
14:11
Speaker 3: would hopefully have a long term economic impact, which the
14:14
Speaker 3: grandstand would do. We felt there been a felt thought
14:17
Speaker 3: there'd been a twelve month process where it's been worked
14:20
Speaker 3: on extensively. It turns out, and the KAC report goes
14:23
Speaker 3: into this in great detail, that there essentially being a
14:26
Speaker 3: bit of misconduct and deceit that it occurred and that
14:29
Speaker 3: is a result of ministers having a stand aside. Were
14:31
Speaker 3: now fixed that so the ministers do not stand aside
14:34
Speaker 3: during market le proposal processes.
14:36
Speaker 2: Would you still do this again?
14:38
Speaker 1: Would you still give the Darwin Turf Club that twelve
14:40
Speaker 1: million dollar grant?
14:43
Speaker 3: No, We've got like CAAC report that I think shows
14:45
Speaker 3: that it was a decision made off bad information.
14:48
Speaker 1: Now, I do know that the day that this report
14:50
Speaker 1: was handed down, you said the government was planning to
14:52
Speaker 1: take civil action against any private entity or individual who
14:55
Speaker 1: may have benefited from the grant on the basis of
14:58
Speaker 1: undisclosed conflicts of interest or misconduct.
15:01
Speaker 2: Where's that civil action at?
15:03
Speaker 4: So that's with partner Attorney, Journal and Justice.
15:05
Speaker 3: They're working through how they best go about that that
15:09
Speaker 3: will happen, but that won't.
15:10
Speaker 4: Be a quick body body of work.
15:13
Speaker 1: Okay, what is what's the current situation or what do
15:16
Speaker 1: you think is going to happen with the Darwin Cup
15:18
Speaker 1: Carnival this year? Are you concerned that, given the current situation,
15:22
Speaker 1: it may not happen in the same way that it
15:24
Speaker 1: usually would.
15:25
Speaker 3: I'm very comfortable in the CEO and the staff that
15:28
Speaker 3: are out there. Obviously we can provide them support that
15:31
Speaker 3: they need to make sure the carnival doesn't fall over.
15:33
Speaker 3: That no requests come in for that kind of support,
15:35
Speaker 3: but if they need some assistance. I believe that the
15:39
Speaker 3: carnival is important. I believe that the carnival drives a
15:43
Speaker 3: lot of economic investment and growth through the territory. Is
15:45
Speaker 3: great adversement for the territory. I don't want to put
15:48
Speaker 3: the carnival at risk. I don't think we are putting
15:49
Speaker 3: the carnival at risk with the actions that we're taking
15:51
Speaker 3: asking the daal And Turf Club board to resign. But
15:54
Speaker 3: we're very clear to the CEO of the Turf Club
15:57
Speaker 3: out there that if they need support to make sure
15:58
Speaker 3: the carnival doesn't fall over.
15:59
Speaker 4: Will open.
16:00
Speaker 2: Are you going to go? No, You're not going to go.
16:03
Speaker 3: No.
16:04
Speaker 1: So even despite the board, you know, despite basically the
16:07
Speaker 1: board now moving to the side, as I understand it,
16:09
Speaker 1: there is going to be a general meeting for them
16:12
Speaker 1: to elect new board members. So despite everything that's happened,
16:15
Speaker 1: you won't be attending the Darwin Cup Carnival.
16:17
Speaker 3: Right now as it stands, and it's in my electorate.
16:21
Speaker 3: I support, I support the carnival, but I can't go.
16:24
Speaker 3: I'm extremely unhappy with this series of events. I'm very
16:29
Speaker 3: angry about it all and I won't be going to
16:30
Speaker 3: the Cup Carnival this year.
16:31
Speaker 4: It's not the horse's fault.
16:33
Speaker 3: I get that, it's not the fault of the people
16:34
Speaker 3: who are going to go the carnival have a great time,
16:36
Speaker 3: but I personally can't stomach the.
16:38
Speaker 4: Carnival this year.
16:39
Speaker 2: Who are you angry at?
16:41
Speaker 4: The whole thing? The whole the whole thing? All right?
16:47
Speaker 1: I do want to ask some more questions about the
16:49
Speaker 1: ikak because this morning the Northern Territory News is reporting
16:53
Speaker 1: that the Eye Caak is set to be referred to
16:55
Speaker 1: the Privileges Committee following allegations Commissioner Ken Fleming misled the.
16:59
Speaker 2: Budd estimates last month.
17:02
Speaker 1: Is the former IKAC commissioner now set to be referred
17:05
Speaker 1: to privileges?
17:06
Speaker 3: I think I need you put some clarifying comments around
17:09
Speaker 3: this because the article today didn't have had the full
17:11
Speaker 3: quote from me. It's about seeing the entire matter m
17:15
Speaker 3: to the Privileges Committee. So we had obviously evidence testimony
17:19
Speaker 3: from Ken Flemming and it's the former ICAK at the
17:21
Speaker 3: time now former IKAK and when then we had evident
17:23
Speaker 3: witness testimony from mister Lawrence representing witness Bose. Those two
17:28
Speaker 3: evidence testimonies conflict. So essentially who's misled the house? What
17:33
Speaker 3: is the misleading? Is it the miss speaking? What's the issue?
17:35
Speaker 3: So obviously something's happened here. So we're referred to conflicting
17:39
Speaker 3: stories off to the privilege Well we haven't referred We
17:42
Speaker 3: can't can't do that to August, but we'll seek to
17:44
Speaker 3: refer the matter to Privileges Committee for the Privilege Committee
17:46
Speaker 3: have a look.
17:46
Speaker 2: At so the matter will be referred. Not so much
17:49
Speaker 2: the ICA commissioner.
17:50
Speaker 3: Well he's part of the matter, so he's within that.
17:53
Speaker 3: But I just want to be it's not like we're
17:55
Speaker 3: targeting the former i CAAC it's it's the whole thing.
17:59
Speaker 4: What's happened here?
18:00
Speaker 3: Two witnesses have given evidence those those stories conflict what
18:04
Speaker 3: what's actually happening here. Misleading the house is not a
18:05
Speaker 3: good thing that we can't support. Misleading the house has
18:08
Speaker 3: that occurred by either party? Is the case of misspeaking?
18:11
Speaker 3: Is it saying that needs to be clarified? What's actually
18:13
Speaker 3: gone down here? And it's obviously Ken Fleming's part of that,
18:16
Speaker 3: But I'm not We're not targeting the former i CAACK.
18:20
Speaker 3: I want to be very careful here. I don't believe.
18:24
Speaker 3: I believe politicians have to be extremely careful in how
18:27
Speaker 3: they approach the IQAQ, inter bening the IQAC, engage the IAC.
18:30
Speaker 3: The IQAQ has a critical job in scrutinizing us. I
18:34
Speaker 3: don't want to create any precedent that allow us for
18:35
Speaker 3: the targeting O the IIC.
18:36
Speaker 1: What are you hoping then that this referral to the
18:39
Speaker 1: privileges will do.
18:41
Speaker 3: Work it out? I don't know if someone mislad the
18:42
Speaker 3: house or not. And then if they did mislead the house,
18:45
Speaker 3: how do we clean that up? And what do we
18:46
Speaker 3: do about it? So there is a bit, there is
18:48
Speaker 3: a bit to this we have two people come and
18:50
Speaker 3: give evidence, collecting evidence to the Estimates Committee. I also
18:54
Speaker 3: don't think this is the this is the forum where
18:56
Speaker 3: we should allow this kind of behavior by different parties
19:00
Speaker 3: where they just you know, essentially Ken spoke, then witness
19:03
Speaker 3: Beek got right a reply which conflicted with Ken. Technically
19:06
Speaker 3: does that can then get right of reply to witness
19:09
Speaker 3: B And do we have this tennis court match going
19:10
Speaker 3: on in Parliament? It's not where we want to be.
19:12
Speaker 3: I think this matter needs to be essentially full stopped.
19:15
Speaker 3: What's gone on here and how.
19:16
Speaker 4: Do we fix it?
19:17
Speaker 1: There is There are so many messages coming through this morning,
19:19
Speaker 1: but I'm keen to, you know, to ask you a
19:21
Speaker 1: couple more questions about this. There is a lot to
19:23
Speaker 1: take in with this story and also the report in
19:26
Speaker 1: the paper this morning that reporter Jason Walls was actually
19:30
Speaker 1: cooled before the IKAK more than a year ago, pushing
19:33
Speaker 1: for him to reveal the source of a story. It's
19:36
Speaker 1: something that we as journalists would never do. Are you
19:39
Speaker 1: concerned about the framework in which the IKAK is operating
19:42
Speaker 1: and some of the concerns which are being raised around
19:46
Speaker 1: reported practices?
19:47
Speaker 3: Yes, so let me let me go back maybe to
19:49
Speaker 3: a broader principal statement. First, so journalists have a very
19:52
Speaker 3: important job to do. They have the right to do
19:55
Speaker 3: that job, and they have to be protected in the
19:57
Speaker 3: doing of their job, noticiables of me that at all.
20:01
Speaker 3: And so the question is do they have the right
20:02
Speaker 3: protections in the QACK Actor allow them to do that.
20:04
Speaker 3: The IQACK also has a very important body of work
20:06
Speaker 3: do right, which is to investigate corruption. That'd be our
20:09
Speaker 3: follow coruption wherever it goes. But how do they do
20:12
Speaker 3: that without impinging on the journalist's right to do their job.
20:15
Speaker 3: I think that's a very important question that needs to
20:17
Speaker 3: be asked, and I've asked Greg Shanahan, former CEO of
20:19
Speaker 3: Department Attorney in General Justice, to include that in part
20:22
Speaker 3: of the work he's doing at the moment.
20:24
Speaker 4: And looking at how the IQACK Act.
20:25
Speaker 1: Works, do you think we're at the point where there
20:27
Speaker 1: should be a full public inquiry into the IKAK.
20:31
Speaker 3: I think there needs to be a review of the
20:32
Speaker 3: IKAK that that review's already fairly well into its stride,
20:37
Speaker 3: if that makes sense, the outcomes of that technical work
20:39
Speaker 3: from because it's a very technical thing, right, we're not
20:41
Speaker 3: asking where they should be. It shouldn't an IRAQC. We're
20:43
Speaker 3: looking at how some of these clauses of the IQACK
20:46
Speaker 3: Act work. Obviously the outcomes that will then go public
20:49
Speaker 3: pill look at that then. Obviously then we'll go through
20:51
Speaker 3: the parliamentary process. So there will be a public section
20:54
Speaker 3: to this work. But we're not at the policy formation
20:57
Speaker 3: point right. We agree there should be an IC. The
21:00
Speaker 3: question really is a technical one about are the protections
21:03
Speaker 3: right for what the protection journalists?
21:05
Speaker 1: You know?
21:06
Speaker 3: Is that worded correctly? So for me, it's a technical
21:09
Speaker 3: review that has to have a public component.
21:11
Speaker 1: But so are you Are you ruling out a full
21:14
Speaker 1: public inquiry once you've had that review take place.
21:18
Speaker 3: Yes, So what I'm saying is we're several months into
21:21
Speaker 3: technical work. Then there'll be a public consultation section to
21:24
Speaker 3: that technical work, and then there'll be the passage all
21:27
Speaker 3: process through the parliament.
21:28
Speaker 1: And you're confident that's going to go far enough? Yes,
21:31
Speaker 1: all right, Chief Minister Michael Gunner, we are going to
21:33
Speaker 1: have to leave it there. Thank you very much for
21:34
Speaker 1: your time this morning.
21:35
Speaker 4: Thank you