All the questionswe sent to the ICAC about the final Darwin Turf Club report

In the last day, we sent a series of questions to the ICAC regarding the final Darwin Turf Club report. Here’s what we asked.

On Tuesday, we sent a series of questions to the ICAC regarding the final Darwin Turf Club report. Here’s what we asked.

I have obtained information that appears to indicate sections of the final report into the Darwin Turf Club relating to a “senior media figure” were inserted at the last minute before the report’s publication.

Of particular concern is section 416 of the final report which details a text message sent by the “senior media figure” to Darwin Turf Club chairman Brett Dixon.

I have seen a copy of the original text message and it does not reflect the message that has been published in the final report. In fact, 12 words appear to have been edited out of the original message, changing the meaning the message conveyed. This concern has also been raised by Mr Dixon in his statement released on July 26.

■ Why did the ICAC publish an edited version of this message rather than publishing the message in full?

■ Was there an error in the way the ICAC captured the message, or was the message deliberately edited to change its meaning?

■ Subsequent to the release of the ICAC report, the NT Independent published a story naming former NT News editor Matt Williams as the senior media figure. The NT Independent wrote that it had sighted an “original copy” of the message which had been confirmed by “various sources”. Yet the message the NT Independent has published appears to be the same one published by the ICAC, and not the full message sent between Mr Williams and Mr Dixon.

Both Mr Williams and Mr Dixon say they did not show the message to the NT Independent, and the only other people with access to the message (the same edited version published by the NT Independent) work for the OICAC. Who provided the NT Independent with the “original copy” of this message? Was it an OICAC employee?

MORE RELATED NEWS

‘This is a disaster’: Lia slams Gunner following Brett Dixon statement

‘I DID NOT ASK FOR ANY FAVOURS’: Dixon calls on govt to clear the air about grant decision making process

READ THE FULL STATEMENT: Brett Dixon responds to ICAC’s grandstand investigation

■ Also, section 416 appears to have been doubled up in the final report. The section 416 relating to the “senior media figure” is followed by another section 416 which relates to another matter. This appears to indicate the section 416 relating to the senior media figure was inserted late in the piece and the proof reader has failed to change the numbering on the final report. Was the section relating to the “senior media figure” included in the draft report that was sent to affected parties in May?

■ Could you please provide us with a copy of the draft report so we can check?

■ When was the section relating to the senior media figure inserted into the final report and by whom?

■ On May 25 the ICAC released a report into misconduct within the City of Darwin that it was subsequently forced to withdraw as it had failed to afford affected parties natural justice.

In a media release sent on May 26, ICAC Ken Fleming QC said he had directed that three things happen immediately. One of those things was as follows: “Before a report is released, any person the subject of adverse comment will be followed up about their responses if any, to ensure that the process is complete.” Did anyone from the OICAC make contact with the senior media figure (Mr Williams) or anyone associated with the senior media figure about the text message between him and Mr Dixon before the final report was published? If not, why not?

■ Why was the senior media figure not named in the report?

■ Does the OICAC concede its failure to follow up with the senior media figure (Mr Williams) before publishing an adverse comment relating to him denied him natural justice?

■ Does the OICAC concede that if had followed its own processes – set out by Mr Fleming QC in his media release of May 26 – it would not have made the error of publishing an incomplete text message?

■ Will the OICAC withdraw the Darwin Turf Club report, given it has failed to afford natural justice to a person who was the subject of adverse comment?

■ In a story published in the NT Independent on June 18, ICAC Ken Fleming QC said he would respond to the “onslaught of criticism in the NT News” at the appropriate time and that he trusted the NT News was pursuing the matter with “legitimate journalistic purpose”.

■ Did the NT Independent obtain these comments from Mr Fleming QC via the standard practice of contacting the ICAC’s communications department and requesting comment?

■ Was the section about the senior media figure published in the ICAC’s final report Mr Fleming’s response to the “onslaught of criticism” in the NT News?

■ Was the section inserted in retaliation to the stories run by the NT News about alleged misconduct within the Office of the ICAC?