![\"Peter](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i.imgur.com\/aI21R.jpg?resize=565%2C352\")
<\/p>\nBy Margo Kingston and Mike Seccombe
\nSource: Webdiary SMH
\nDate: October 22nd, 2000<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
DAY ONE<\/p>\n
Tuesday, October 10<\/p>\n
The Canberra Times reveals a Federal Police investigation into Peter
\nReith’s $50,000 phone bill after he gave his number and PIN to son Paul
\nfor private calls. Howard says Reith revealed the fraud to him in May,
\nnine months after Reith was told, and that he accepted legal advice
\nfrom Attorney-General Daryl Williams to send the file to police. Howard
\nsays he wouldn’t give his Telecard to a family member but “I certainly
\ndon’t regard that as a hanging offence”.<\/p>\n
Howard says he doesn’t know how the fraud went on for five years and
\nthat it doesn’t matter because “I don’t think people use Telecards any
\nmore”. (Special Minister of State Chris Ellison – the man in charge of
\npolitician’s perks – later reveals that 210 of the 224 MPs have
\nTelecards.) Howard kept the fraud secret because it was only “an
\nallegation”. He pre-empts a decision by the Commonwealth Director of
\nPublic Prosecutions, Damian Bugg, QC, whether to prosecute, saying
\nReith’s delivery of his Telecard details to Paul was not fraud.<\/p>\n
Reith says he “personally stopped using the card in about 1994”.
\n(Finance sent Reith a new card in a double-sealed envelope for security
\non September 9, 1993.)<\/p>\n
Reith tells Parliament his son was interviewed by police in July
\nand “strongly denied” passing on the Telecard details. He admits that
\nhe breached a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal that Telecards
\nmust only be used “personally, to make telephone calls on parliamentary
\nor electorate business”. He confessed this “quite openly to the PM”. He
\ntells Parliament that in 1994 he told his son that “if you have some
\nparticular reason to contact me, this is a means that you can use to do
\nso”.<\/p>\n
He says the Finance Department told him of the fraud on August 30 last
\nyear, and he asked for a departmental investigation. When that was
\ncomplete in May, “I was the one who wrote to the PM and suggested that
\n[the police] be brought in.”<\/p>\n
He claims to have been unaware his son had made personal calls worth
\n$950 over five years, and immediately repaid that sum when told about
\nit. Asked how others got the number, he says, “I don’t know. My
\nimpression is, from talking to the police, that this card ended up like
\na telephone booth on the local street corner with the whole
\nneighbourhood knowing they could make free phone calls. I mean, there
\nare 11,000 phone calls from about 900 different locations.” He refuses
\nto repay the $50,000 because, “I don’t believe that I can be held
\nresponsible for the payment of moneys for which I had absolutely
\nnothing to do with.”<\/p>\n
DAY TWO<\/p>\n
Wednesday, October 11
\nDamian Bugg reports he will prosecute no-one. As taxpayer anger mounts,
\nHoward commissions legal advice from Solicitor-General David Bennett,
\nQC, on whether Reith and son or anyone else has a civil liability to
\npay, and Howard tells Reith to do so if Bennett so finds. Howard says
\nReith made a mere “error of judgement” and denies the Government
\npressured the DPP for an early verdict. Reith says, “I am sorry that my
\ncard has fallen into the hands of people unknown to me.”<\/p>\n
Reith admits staffers also used his card in breach of the law, but says
\nFinance forgave him because they were work-related calls. (Ellison
\nrefuses to confirm or deny Reith’s claim.)<\/p>\n
DAY THREE<\/p>\n
Thursday, October 12<\/p>\n
Bugg says he cleared Reith because he gave the Telecard numbers to his
\nson to ring only his father, and only when Peter Reith was not at home
\nor in the office. Bugg says this is an “emergency” exemption to the law
\nof fraud, a claim attacked by other lawyers as an invention. Bugg’s
\nfinding contradicts Reith’s claims in a series of interviews that he
\ngave his son the card to call home and family.<\/p>\n
Bugg exonerates Paul Reith because he thought his calls “would be
\ndebited to the.personal component of his father’s telephone account”.<\/p>\n
Labor accuses Bugg of risking a collapse in public confidence in the
\nlegal system after he refuses, without reasons, to release his full
\nreport.<\/p>\n
Reith claims that police and his son have told him “the card was
\nstolen”. He blasts his Government’s administration of Telecard
\npayments, claiming Finance told him it would have paid a $1 million
\nbill with no questions asked. (Ellison refuses to comment.)<\/p>\n
The Herald Sun reports that Telstra warned the Government of the high
\nvolume of calls on Reith’s Telecard before August last year. Finance
\nMinister John Fahey tells Parliament there are no records of previous
\nwarnings. Howard effectively admits he would have kept the scandal
\nunder wraps in the absence of prosecutions. Howard says, “I as a
\ntaxpayer am angry about it and I understand why Australians are angry
\nthat $50,000 one way or another should have been racked up and they’re
\nleft with the bill. I’m trying to get to the bottom of what has
\noccurred.”<\/p>\n
DAY FOUR<\/p>\n
Friday, October 13
\nReith tells Sydney radio, “I think everybody is entitled to know,
\nincluding me, exactly what has happened and what is the legal advice.”
\nIn the morning he maintains his refusal to pay up and Howard starts
\ndistancing himself from Reith. After talks with Howard, Reith says
\nhe’ll repay the $50,000 because the furore is undermining the
\nGovernment’s “reputation”. Howard says Reith “behaved in a commendable
\nfashion” and “retains my full confidence”.<\/p>\n
DAY FIVE<\/p>\n
Saturday, October 14<\/p>\n
Howard’s office announces that Bennett has found neither Peter or Paul
\nReith civilly liable to repay the bill.<\/p>\n
DAY SIX<\/p>\n
Sunday, October 15<\/p>\n
Attorney-General Williams releases Bennett’s advice, revealing that
\nMiss X lived with Paul in a house owned and frequented by Peter in
\n1994, when Paul was using the card. She says Paul gave her the details.
\nShe then lived with Mr Y, who says she gave him the Telecard details in
\nlieu of rent. She denies it. Bennett believes Paul, not Miss X. He says
\nReith and son are liable for Paul’s calls, but nothing else. He
\nreserves his decision on whether Miss X or Mr Y are civilly liable.<\/p>\n
Reith ignores Bennett’s finding of civil liability for Paul’s calls,
\nsaying Bennett “completely clears me of any civil liability”. He says
\nthat “from my point of view all along it’s been just as equally likely
\nshe got it from me” and claims X and Y “have set out to illegally use
\nthe card … knowing that it was the wrong thing to do”. He admits he
\nknew X. “I was in and out of the house but I think I met her but, I
\nmean, if I met her again I wouldn’t know where she was, I wouldn’t know
\nif I saw her again.”<\/p>\n
DAY SEVEN<\/p>\n
Monday, October 16:<\/p>\n
Reith refuses to rule out claiming a tax deduction for his $50,000
\npayment as a work expense.<\/p>\n
Howard tries to put the scandal to bed. “He’s repaying the money and I
\nsort of think we’ve gone over and over it ad nauseam and there’s
\nprobably nothing more to be said.” But Reith has more to say. Although
\nBugg has let everyone off the hook criminally at this point, Reith
\naccuses Miss X and Mr Y of fraud, claiming it was obvious to him from
\nthe beginning that Miss X started the cycle of fraud.<\/p>\n
DAY EIGHT<\/p>\n
Tuesday, October 17:<\/p>\n
Howard says Reith will not claim a tax break for the $50,000. Miss X
\nidentifies herself as Ingrid Odgers, says she lived with Paul from
\nApril to August 1994, and exposes errors and omissions in Bennett’s
\nopinion and the police investigation. She says she was warned off using
\nthe card by a government official about October 1994 – a statement not
\nincluded in the police report.<\/p>\n
She says if investigators looked at her bank records, they would show
\nshe paid rent to Mr Y, rather than paying him with the Telecard number,
\nas alleged by Bennett. She claims Paul Reith gave her the Telecard
\nnumbers and “insisted” she use them, and says she told this to family
\nmembers who would corroborate her version if police bothered to
\ninterview them.<\/p>\n
The Government asks Bennett for a new report.<\/p>\n
Reith admits Finance asked him to pay the $50,000 a year before, and
\nagain takes credit for insisting the police be called in, a claim
\nHoward corroborates.<\/p>\n
DAY NINE<\/p>\n
Wednesday, October 18: Bennett’s new advice is released. He
\nacknowledges errors by him and investigation failures by police but
\nsays they do not change his view that Paul is more credible than Miss
\nX. He says Mr Y is Dr Song Lim.<\/p>\n
Reith says after giving his son the Telecard details he “never thought
\nabout it again” until details of its misuse were brought to his
\nattention five years later.<\/p>\n
DAY TEN<\/p>\n
Thursday, October 19: The AFP reopens its investigation and the DPP re-
\nexamines its report in the light of new evidence. The Federal
\nOpposition calls for a full judicial inquiry. The Herald obtains
\nconfidential briefing notes from Finance to Ellison showing the
\nGovernment was alerted to likely fraud on Reith’s Telecard in July
\n1998, more than a year before any investigation was begun.<\/p>\n
It reveals a 1998 alert from Telstra to Finance on Reith’s Telecard,
\ncontradicting Fahey’s contrary assurances to Parliament. It crushes
\nHoward and Reith claims that they insisted the police be called in,
\nrevealing that Ellison was told last September that police action was
\nlikely – and much sooner than actually occurred.<\/p>\n
The confidential documents reveal that at least two unauthorised users
\nof the Reith Telecard were “former staff of Mr Reith”.<\/p>\n
Howard again refuses to stand Reith down, in spite of the fresh police
\ninvestigation, saying he still has his full confidence. Labor demands a
\njudicial inquiry.<\/p>\n
DAY ELEVEN<\/p>\n
Friday, October 20: The Democrats back Labor’s call. Neither Fahey or
\nEllison will comment, Deputy Opposition Leader Simon Crean accuses
\nFahey of misleading Parliament.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Margo Kingston and Mike Seccombe Source: Webdiary SMH Date: October 22nd, 2000 DAY ONE Tuesday, October 10 The Canberra Times reveals a Federal Police investigation into Peter Reith’s $50,000 phone bill after he gave his number and PIN to son Paul for private calls. Howard says Reith revealed the fraud to him in May, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[3434,3402,9,26,46,822],"tags":[96,269,2565,366,462],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3t0mw-3B","jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.nofibs.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}