📣Margo Kingston💧🔥 · @margokingston1
13th Jul 2013 from TwitLonger
FINANCE STATEMENT ON SLIPPER SUMMONS: Pyne wrong on Lateline
In the light of a media report this week which contradicted my report that someone other than the Finance Department referred the 2010 travel claim by Slipper to the AFP which resulted in his prosecution I emailed the Finance Department for clarification.
This is their reply:
UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Margo,
No, the Department of Finance and Deregulation did not refer this matter to the Australian Federal Police.
The matter was separately referred to the Australian Federal Police by a third party.
Regards,
Tameena | Communications and Public Affairs
Background:
On last night's Lateline, Mr Pyne stated that the Department of Finance had referred Mr Slipper to the police for the alleged 2010 travel rort which resulted in his prosecution for $900 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3802373.htm
EMMA ALBERICI: Still on Mr Slipper, there appears to have been a disparity in treatment between Peter Slipper and Tony Abbott with regards to misclaimed expenses. Is it clear to you why Mr Abbott was able to simply pay back his $9,400 that he mistakenly claimed and yet Mr Slipper is being pursued through the courts for $900, which is less than 10 times that?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I think the point is there that the department makes those decisions about which mistakes should be pursued and which ones shouldn't. I mean, sometimes there is an inadvertent error and over the years people have been asked to pay that back. It's happened on hundreds of occasions where someone's overpaid $180 or $9,000 and the department follows them up. In the case of Mr Slipper, the department has made a decision, which is a matter for them not for me, that there might be some intent involved rather than a mistaken error of judgment and that's probably why they're pursuing him in the courts, but that's a matter that they'll explain in the courts.
From where did Mr Pyne get his information? It flatly contradicts written statements to Mr Slipper by Finance and published in my piece http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/04/a-familiar-afp-smell-over-slipper-and-ashby/
On 16 November 2012, Mr Slipper wrote:
'I understand the department may have some queries about my travel in Canberra suburbs on 20 January, 19 April 2010 and 27 June 2010 (the issue he was later charged with in January). I seek advice on any outstanding concerns by the department in relation to travel on the dates noted above or any other use of entitlement.'
The Finance Department's Mr David Tune replied on 17 December 2012:
'Prior to the AFP investigation, Finance had no concerns with your travel paid under entitlement on those days... To the extent that Finance has received any further information about travel on those days, it would only be from assistance provided in response to AFP queries during the course of the AFP's investigation...'
My understanding is therefore, as detailed this piece, that the Finance Department's Minchin Protocol, under which it asked Mr Abbott to repay $9,400 charged to the taxpayer for his book tour without further consequences, did not apply in the Slipper case because the 2010 travel claims were referred directly to police by someone outside Finance.