Speaker 1: Once a high flying minister, now a broken man. It
Speaker 1: was a significant error of judgment on my part, but
Speaker 1: it was an honester.
Speaker 2: In two thousand and nine he was found guilty of
Speaker 2: corruptly receiving secret commissions and jailed for seven years. In
Speaker 2: twenty ten, he was found guilty on five charges of
Speaker 2: official corruption and five charges of perjury and jailed for
Speaker 2: an additional seven years.
Speaker 1: This is my challenge to the government of the day.
Speaker 1: Do you bring an independent person up from Ministate, not
Speaker 1: from Queensland, but someone from Ministate. My name is Gordon
Speaker 1: Nuttle and this is my story.
Speaker 2: The man behind the Rose Episode five. Hello, my name's
Speaker 2: Patrick Condred. In this penultimate chapter, Gordon Nuttle says he'd
Speaker 2: like to have his case investigated by an independent interstate jurist.
Speaker 2: It's clearly a sensitive issue for the state government. A
Speaker 2: spokesman for the Attorney General of It DAF said in
Speaker 2: a statement the Attorney doesn't want to comment on this.
Speaker 2: Gordon Nuttle's life has had some strange intersections. He first
Speaker 2: ran for Parliament on the Sunshine Coast and twenty five
Speaker 2: years later a land deal for the Sunshine Coast University
Speaker 2: Hospital brought him undone when the corruption watchdog uncovered the
Speaker 2: unrelated Talbot and Shanned payments, is.
Speaker 1: There an allegation? I don't know what is the allegation.
Speaker 1: I don't know who is being investigated.
Speaker 3: I don't know the CMC finds adversely in relation to
Speaker 3: Gordon and I will take whatever appropriate action is necessary.
Speaker 2: He was Health Minister when wrote doctor Jay and Patel
Speaker 2: worked at the Bunderberg Hospital. Now Nuttle is being treated
Speaker 2: for stage four cancer at a hospital in Bunderberg.
Speaker 1: The letter you at table clearly shows that there are
Speaker 1: difficulties and problems to that hospital.
Speaker 2: A fact acknowledged by the Premier, who says he'll personally
Speaker 2: visit patients and families left permanently scarred by their experience
Speaker 2: with Queensland's doctor death.
Speaker 4: Question is the baby now adjourned? Does that opinion say? I?
Speaker 2: And it was in the Queensland Parliament where Nuttle first
Speaker 2: spoke about Ken Talbot, not to praise but to criticize.
Speaker 2: And it was the Queensland Parliament where Gordon Nuttele became
Speaker 2: the first criminal to appear to address MPs about taking
Speaker 2: three hundred thousand dollars from Ken Talbot and not declaring it.
Speaker 4: I will shortly call mister Gordon Nuttle to appear in
Speaker 4: person at the Bar of the House to address the
Speaker 4: House in relation to the specific charges of contempt set
Speaker 4: out in the Order dated seventh of April twenty eleven.
Speaker 2: As a political editor covering the momentous event, it was
Speaker 2: an extraordinary thing to witness the Sergeant at Arms, carrying
Speaker 2: the massive gold mace, walked out of the chamber and
Speaker 2: through the door of an adjoining room. Meanwhile, another attendant
Speaker 2: carried a lecturn into place for Nuttle to use during
Speaker 2: his address. Once the parliamentary stage was set, a grim
Speaker 2: faced Sergeant at arms emerged from the office where Nuttle
Speaker 2: had been held.
Speaker 4: Sergeant at Arms, please bring mister Nuttle to the Bar
Speaker 4: of the House.
Speaker 2: It's a day no one who was there is likely
Speaker 2: to ever forget a convicted criminal, one of their own,
Speaker 2: fronting the Bar of Parliament to appeal to his former
Speaker 2: colleagues not to find him eighty two thousand dollars in
Speaker 2: relation to contempt charges arising from his dealings with Ken
Speaker 2: Talbot and Harold Sheen. We are one of Richard Nuddle's
Speaker 2: labor MP John mckel was the Speaker of Parliament at
Speaker 2: the time.
Speaker 4: The charges are that, on forty one occasions you failed
Speaker 4: to declare matters on your Register of interests that you
Speaker 4: were required to declare. Mister Nuttle, do you agree to
Speaker 4: waive my reading of each of the charges? Has stated
Speaker 4: in my letter to you, dated the eleventh of April
Speaker 4: twenty eleven, which is hand delivered to you on the
Speaker 4: fifteenth of April twenty eleven. You are acquired in your
Speaker 4: address to observe strict and direct relevance to the contempt
Speaker 4: charges and the recommended penalty. Mister Nuttle, if your address
Speaker 4: becomes irrelevant, I will be compelled to take appropriate action.
Speaker 4: Your appearance before the bar of the House does not
Speaker 4: carry with it a right to ask any question. There
Speaker 4: is no right for you to table documents without the
Speaker 4: leave of the House, and you should not assume such.
Speaker 5: Leave will be granted.
Speaker 4: You must direct your address to the House only through me,
Speaker 4: as the Speaker. Mister Nuttle, I expect that you will
Speaker 4: respect the courtesy shown you today by giving you this
Speaker 4: opportunity to address the House, and in return respect the
Speaker 4: dignity of this house. The House has resolved that the
Speaker 4: time for your address shall not exceed forty five minutes.
Speaker 5: Mister Nuttle, you may now proceed with your address.
Speaker 2: While Speaker Mackel outlined the rules for this extraordinary proceeding,
Speaker 2: a gaunt Nuttle shuffled his speech notes and looked around
Speaker 2: the room where he was once a senior lawmaker. None
Speaker 2: would meet his eye. His suit hung loosely on his frame.
Speaker 2: There was no red rose in malapel.
Speaker 1: Mister Speaker, honorable Members and the people of Queensland. I
Speaker 1: have considered long and hard how today's events my unfold.
Speaker 5: I remember it very clearly. It was history, but it's
Speaker 5: not history.
Speaker 2: I wanted to make history in what way?
Speaker 3: Well, he was the first convicted MP who had chosen
Speaker 3: to rather appear before the Bar of Parliament, and so
Speaker 3: there was a lot to that occasion in terms of.
Speaker 5: When you think of criminals, you think, oh, it's somebody
Speaker 5: out there.
Speaker 3: But this was somebody whom most of the members that
Speaker 3: either had a coffee with an interaction with may be
Speaker 3: seen at lunch.
Speaker 5: So it was somebody who was known to.
Speaker 3: Somebody who'd arrived in a paddy wagon, somebody who had
Speaker 3: to be escorted by the Queensland Custodial Service and then
Speaker 3: given over to the Sergeant at arms.
Speaker 5: There was a.
Speaker 3: Massive human dimension to it, as I recall in that
Speaker 3: his family had requested of me that they'd be allowed
Speaker 3: to meet with him, a request that I granted. There
Speaker 3: was understandably not just statewide media focus, as I recall,
Speaker 3: it was national media focus on it.
Speaker 1: I feel as though perhaps I might have the same
Speaker 1: result as the Christians in the days of the Roman
Speaker 1: Empire when they fed to the lions in the Colisseum.
Speaker 1: I hope that is not the case today.
Speaker 2: There's Nuttle paused. You could hear a pin drop in
Speaker 2: the Parliament. The normal verbal rgi bargie MPs normally could
Speaker 2: be heard shouting at opponents across the chamber had fallen silent.
Speaker 1: If we have a look at the sentence that I
Speaker 1: have been given, it is greater than anyone. I have
Speaker 1: served more time in jail than anyone in the Watergate
Speaker 1: scandal ol Capone and he got eleven years. I've got
Speaker 1: a greater sentence than that. I stand here today and
Speaker 1: ask and employ you, in the interest of justice, to
Speaker 1: hold an independent judicial inquiry into the conduct and behavior
Speaker 1: of both the CMC.
Speaker 4: Mister Nuttle, I've asked you already to get back to
Speaker 4: the charges.
Speaker 1: Well, as I said, mister Speaker, I'm endeavoring to do
Speaker 1: that or.
Speaker 4: To the penalty. I would ask you to a vide
Speaker 4: by my ruling. I know this is emotional for you,
Speaker 4: it's emotional for all of us. There are forty one
Speaker 4: charges of contempt and there is a penalty. I am
Speaker 4: not trying to intrude onto your address today that you
Speaker 4: would understand from your experience here that there are other
Speaker 4: avenues open to you to well to prosecute an issue
Speaker 4: against the c.
Speaker 1: Well, mister Speaker, Honorable Members, the question I suppose I
Speaker 1: have is how did it all come to this? Trials
Speaker 1: convictions at any costs, parliamentary reports, today's appearance at the bar,
Speaker 1: the tarnishing of reputations. If the House chooses not to
Speaker 1: accept my defense, then to accept my sincere, my sincere
Speaker 1: and unqualified apology to the House for the non disclosure
Speaker 1: of all matters raised in the reports one five and
Speaker 1: one one four by the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee,
Speaker 1: and that this unqualified apology be accepted by the House
Speaker 1: as a suitable penalty. Mister Speaker, I simply do not
Speaker 1: have the financial capacity to pay a fine. I've indicated
Speaker 1: to the House what has happened in terms of my assets,
Speaker 1: and I simply am not in a position, in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form to be able to pay such a fine.
Speaker 1: So I do ask the House to consider.
Speaker 5: What I have just said.
Speaker 1: Speak of honorable members. I'll conclude by thanking you for
Speaker 1: having the courage to hear me today and for listening
Speaker 1: to what I've had to say. Some members of this Parliament,
Speaker 1: and in particular some who were once my close friends
Speaker 1: and colleagues, have chosen to judge me from afar. When
Speaker 1: I needed you most, you chose to desert me. Not
Speaker 1: one phone call, not one visit, not one voice of support.
Speaker 1: In the movie Break a Moriunt, prior to his execution,
Speaker 1: Mornt left his colleagues this message. And a man's enemies
Speaker 1: will be those of his own household. Mister speaker, how
Speaker 1: sad but true. Some of you have chosen to publicly
Speaker 1: condemn me, and some have even sought to use my
Speaker 1: downfall to their advantage. In politics, most of us experience
Speaker 1: highs and layers, and as members of our respective political
Speaker 1: parties or even as independent members, we share those times together.
Speaker 1: There's a popular old song from a band called the Hollies,
Speaker 1: with lyrics which talk about the long and winding road
Speaker 1: and of just being there to support one another in
Speaker 1: times of need. I have reflected on this song because
Speaker 1: I've always believed that, as part of the labor family,
Speaker 1: when the difficult times arose, the bonds of our beliefs
Speaker 1: and values would bring us together. Sadly, though, when the
Speaker 1: storm clouds loomed all around me and I looked for
Speaker 1: your help and support, there was no one there. Instead,
Speaker 1: you chose to cast me adrift and join in the
Speaker 1: feeding frenzy when there was blood in the water. In
Speaker 1: living my life, I have made many mistakes along the way,
Speaker 1: but I have never knowingly or wrongfully set out to
Speaker 1: do wrong. And it grieves me greatly to think that
Speaker 1: there are those who have a different view. Many of
Speaker 1: you here to day know me well. You know the
Speaker 1: type of person I am, the values I have tried
Speaker 1: to live by such vailues as justice, mercy, and compassion,
Speaker 1: and to always treat others as you yourself would wish
Speaker 1: to be treated. This has been my creed in life.
Speaker 1: The attacks on me have been so vicious and vindictive,
Speaker 1: and I too have lashed out today all of us
Speaker 1: have the opportunity to cease and to forgive. To my
Speaker 1: family who are here and to those of my family
Speaker 1: who cannot be here, thank you for your love and support.
Speaker 1: I also thank my true friends for their loyalty and
Speaker 1: their belief in me. I am bowed, but I am
Speaker 1: not beaten. I am bloodied, but I am not broken.
Speaker 1: I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race,
Speaker 1: and I have kept the faith. May God bless you
Speaker 1: all and keep you all safe from harm.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Miss Nettle. You are now discharged from the
Speaker 4: order of the House. Sergeant at Arms, please escort mister
Speaker 4: Nuddle from the chamber and deliver him to the custody
Speaker 4: of the Corrective Services officers. It was hard because you
Speaker 4: wanted to give the God a chance, but I also
Speaker 4: had to keep well, I know, as speaker on other things.
Speaker 4: The moment you give a bit of leniency, well you gave,
Speaker 4: and so it's far better to just stick to the
Speaker 4: topic at hand.
Speaker 5: That's what he was there for. Use your forty five.
Speaker 3: Minutes for that, and then we're all up and away.
Speaker 2: And there were concerns from your own party, the Labor
Speaker 2: Party MPs, that he might stray and enter into an
Speaker 2: area of defamation possibly or start to spill some of
Speaker 2: their secrets.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, I don't know what they'll possibly worried about.
Speaker 3: I know what I was going to enforce, and I
Speaker 3: was going to enforce the fact that he was there
Speaker 3: to answer two charges the moment the second he straight
Speaker 3: away from that, I was going to pull that up,
Speaker 3: not to defend them, because don't forget this, the other
Speaker 3: members of Parliament who could get up and in fact,
Speaker 3: I think one did get up on many occasions to
Speaker 3: allege all manner of things, and if there is that
Speaker 3: element of corruption, there's an entire independent royal commission there
Speaker 3: that mister Nuttle could have referred any matter of things to.
Speaker 3: So for me it was quite plain what was going
Speaker 3: to happen. He was going to answer those two things,
Speaker 3: and that's why he was pulled into line with that.
Speaker 3: But I will say I was quite gentle with it,
Speaker 3: because you get I overcome with the emotion of it.
Speaker 3: I mean, here is somebody who has been one of everything.
Speaker 3: If you were there that day, there was a certain
Speaker 3: poignancy in the house. It was gut wrenching for everyone
Speaker 3: that here is one of your own and gut wrenching,
Speaker 3: and that in a sense of almost g I really
Speaker 3: don't want to be here, and people looking down was
Speaker 3: my recollection of boy, this, give me somewhere else. I
Speaker 3: didn't get elected to do this.
Speaker 2: And having spoken to him about this, or about the
Speaker 2: time that he addressed the parliament, that's his enduring memory
Speaker 2: as well. None of the MPs on the floor would
Speaker 2: meet his eye.
Speaker 3: That's correct because of that. If you're on a jury,
Speaker 3: you don't know the person who excluded if you do.
Speaker 5: But here we knew. Everyone knew.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you asked the past judgment, you knew
Speaker 3: where you'd come from that morning. It was home, breakfast, beautiful.
Speaker 3: He hadn't He got up at whatever time in maximum security,
Speaker 3: no less, escorted in handcuffs, in handcuffs in a paddy
Speaker 3: wagon and the moment it was all over.
Speaker 5: Thank you, missus nuple.
Speaker 4: You are now discharged from the order of the House.
Speaker 3: If you read the words, you will the sergeant at
Speaker 3: arms take mister Nuttle.
Speaker 4: Sergeant Arms, please, ys called mister Nettle from the chamber.
Speaker 3: When I read it now, it's not my words, but
Speaker 3: the sense of occasion is very powerful.
Speaker 5: Take mister Nuttle. Back to the custodial offices.
Speaker 4: And deliver him to the custody of the corrective services officers.
Speaker 5: Back to maximum security.
Speaker 2: For heaven's sake, I'm the subject of maximum security. He
Speaker 2: spent five and a bit years in maximum security. Do
Speaker 2: you think that was fair?
Speaker 3: The prison officers, I would say, look, it was maximum security,
Speaker 3: probably to protect a high profile prisoner.
Speaker 5: I guess that's what they'd say.
Speaker 3: When I look at it, I think, Look, couldn't we've
Speaker 3: as taxpayer has got better use of of.
Speaker 5: That money by.
Speaker 3: Sometime in maximum because of the offense he was going
Speaker 3: to do eleven years or whatever the number was. Wouldn't
Speaker 3: they be able to go out into a farm somewhere,
Speaker 3: or a school or vincent the pool and help the homeless,
Speaker 3: or help prepare the meals and go back to jail.
Speaker 3: I mean, as I recall Don Lane spent some of
Speaker 3: the time like that.
Speaker 2: I believe in Scott Driscoll in more recent times the LMP,
Speaker 2: he didn't spend a great deal of time in prison
Speaker 2: for his offenses.
Speaker 5: They made an example of him.
Speaker 2: Can I take you to another issue that Nuttle has
Speaker 2: spoken to at length to me about, and that's this
Speaker 2: issue of the pecuniary interest Register. His view is that
Speaker 2: if he'd filled out the pecuniary interest register with the
Speaker 2: Talbot money, none of the other bad stuff would have followed.
Speaker 2: He would have not escaped punishment, but he would have
Speaker 2: not had to endure five and a bit years in
Speaker 2: maximum security, another twelve months at a prison farm, and
Speaker 2: then eight years on parole. None of that would have
Speaker 2: happened if he'd just filled out his pecuniary interest register.
Speaker 3: Well, the problem was is that he said there was
Speaker 3: no secrecy. If you look at his statement, Well there was.
Speaker 3: He'd been given money and had not declared it. Now,
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 5: How you get around that.
Speaker 3: It was a case at the time I thought it's
Speaker 3: pretty plain what the rules are.
Speaker 5: And even if.
Speaker 3: You're unsure because an accountant's arranged your affairs in such
Speaker 3: a way, see the clerk and say, look.
Speaker 5: This is the situation.
Speaker 3: If I had to do that, most members have to
Speaker 3: do it, because sometimes you're in situations that are not
Speaker 3: clear cut. For example, a relative dies, you're left with money,
Speaker 3: where does that fit? And that's what the clerk is
Speaker 3: there for. He's not there to sort of say our
Speaker 3: conjun was in today. I guess what now. They provide
Speaker 3: my experience of it, they provide professional advice. If you
Speaker 3: entered into that arrangement. There is no situation that I
Speaker 3: could see that you couldn't and should not have declared
Speaker 3: that that's what those things are there for.
Speaker 2: And so if he had declared it, do you think
Speaker 2: any of the other stuff would have happened.
Speaker 3: Oh, he would not have been fined for the contempt.
Speaker 3: The contempt arose out of non declaration forty one times. Now,
Speaker 3: I didn't sit on the coming, but they would have
Speaker 3: had a look at that. And don't forget it's an
Speaker 3: all party committee and it's not, oh well, we'll use
Speaker 3: the labor majority or something.
Speaker 5: Don't forget we're using a labor majority. That's your argument
Speaker 5: to convict a former labor minister.
Speaker 3: My experience on those committees was that your work done
Speaker 3: hard to get everybody on board. Now forty was it?
Speaker 3: Forty one charges? And the committee said there was a
Speaker 3: case to answer. Now I know he argued there was
Speaker 3: double jeopardy. No no, no, no no.
Speaker 1: There was a.
Speaker 3: Criminal element for which he was imprisoned, and then there
Speaker 3: was a parliamentary element and he was to answer to
Speaker 3: the parliament when you.
Speaker 2: First saw him? Did you see him before he arrived
Speaker 2: at the bar? You were sitting in the Speaker's chair.
Speaker 2: He was delivered to the Bar of Parliament. What did
Speaker 2: you think when you first saw it?
Speaker 5: Am I going to be able to speak?
Speaker 3: Because there's the enormity of it. Up and up until
Speaker 3: Lanta had been Channel seven news and you know he's.
Speaker 5: Going to appear, and Cory a mile.
Speaker 3: That day and then suddenly there it is. There's an
Speaker 3: enormity of it. How is this going to go? But
Speaker 3: how is my voice? Am I going to be able
Speaker 3: to say?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 5: I had just set script to read out.
Speaker 2: So is an emotional time?
Speaker 3: Yes, it was hugely emotional, hugely emotional. This is somebody
Speaker 3: I had known at school. It wasn't you know Al
Speaker 3: Capone or somebody who I had was splendidly indifferent. This
Speaker 3: was somebody I'd been in the cabinet with, somebody we'd
Speaker 3: had a yarn with, somebody i'd seen before I got
Speaker 3: elected to parliament.
Speaker 5: He was in the bank and I know what I
Speaker 5: was doing.
Speaker 3: So it was hugely emotional for me and thinking how
Speaker 3: are we going to get through this?
Speaker 5: Well, we're going.
Speaker 3: To get through this the best way we can, because
Speaker 3: there's no president that I could see. There was no
Speaker 3: other jurisdiction where a prisoner who had been a member
Speaker 3: of Parliament was going to appear before the.
Speaker 5: Bar of Parliament.
Speaker 3: Hugely emotional and you'd have to be an extraordinarily dispassionate
Speaker 3: person if you didn't feel the weight of that emotion,
Speaker 3: I would have thought.
Speaker 2: And he looked he was quite good, and his memory
Speaker 2: from that time was that he had been ill. Yes,
Speaker 2: he cut a very forlorn fingure, didn't he Yes, I
Speaker 2: was aware.
Speaker 3: From one of the attendants, who was a friend of his,
Speaker 3: that he had been suffering an illness in prison.
Speaker 2: And that just added to the weight of emotion.
Speaker 5: It added to the pathos of the of the morning. Yes,
Speaker 5: it did.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 3: It was hugely, hugely emotional, and going back to the
Speaker 3: it wasn't just me who felt that it was everybody's
Speaker 3: gaze was averted, the feeling of I wish I didn't
Speaker 3: have to do this.
Speaker 2: It was in this parliament that Nattele originally criticized Ken Talbot,
Speaker 2: the man who would eventually loan him three hundred thousand
Speaker 2: dollars that would see the MP CENTI jo there's a
Speaker 2: very famous exchange where you criticized Ken Talbot in parliament
Speaker 2: and then some years later he's lending you three hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: I criticized Ken parliament. I was given some information that
Speaker 1: I probably didn't research properly enough. I then found out
Speaker 1: about that. At a subsequent one of the big law
Speaker 1: firms had a board lunch. Ken was there. I was,
Speaker 1: and I went up and I apologized to Ken. I offered.
Speaker 1: I offered Ken to stand up in parliament apologize. He
Speaker 1: said no, I didn't. He didn't want that, And I think,
Speaker 1: ironically that's kind of how the makeshift evolved, because he
Speaker 1: thought that took a lot of character for me to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that I was wrong and or to apologize to
Speaker 1: him and then to offer or apologize publicly. So kind
Speaker 1: of that's where we kind of became mate.
Speaker 2: In his book Rum and Cole, which Canvas is the
Speaker 2: Life and the Legacy of Ken Talbot, author Chris Wright
Speaker 2: looks at the relationship between Talbot and Nattle.
Speaker 6: So Ken Talbot's relationship with Gordon Nuttle really starts in
Speaker 6: nineteen ninety eight, when Gordon must All spoke about him
Speaker 6: in parliament in quite negative terms about his business dealings.
Speaker 6: It was a matter that's really quite obsessed and Talbot
Speaker 6: at the time, but over time it faded, it came
Speaker 6: and went. It was just one of those things being
Speaker 6: discussed in Parliament as things are. Then they met in
Speaker 6: person for the first time in July two thousand and
Speaker 6: one at a lunch. At that lunch, Golden not All
Speaker 6: apologized to Ken, apparently told him that he'd be misinformed
Speaker 6: and what he'd said in parliament, and the two became friends,
Speaker 6: I guess, not for very long. I don't think. I
Speaker 6: think they only met about four or five times in
Speaker 6: the subsequent year. But it culminated in June two thousand
Speaker 6: and two when Gordon not All came to Ken Talbot's
Speaker 6: office and, among other things, asked for a loan, supposedly
Speaker 6: to help set up his children, who he was concerned
Speaker 6: about being able to back with real estate investments. That
Speaker 6: request was agreed. He agreed to land one hundred thousand
Speaker 6: dollars over the next year, but ended up becoming three
Speaker 6: hundred thousand dollars over three years, and the rest I
Speaker 6: think is history. But that was the beginning of the relationship.
Speaker 2: And is your sense that Ken Telbot was a generous
Speaker 2: person that he did regularly lend people money for these
Speaker 2: sorts of matters.
Speaker 6: He certainly had an extraordinary track record of generosity. And
Speaker 6: when it came to trial, this is one of several things,
Speaker 6: and I'll point to some of the others too, that
Speaker 6: it would have been essential for them to get across.
Speaker 6: Proving can Talbot's generosity would have been the easiest. You
Speaker 6: could have lined up one hundred people he'd had some
Speaker 6: sort of donation from them, whether it was the guy
Speaker 6: across the street trying to start a new business, or
Speaker 6: it was Wayne Bennett, or it was the Australian Ballet.
Speaker 6: Huge contributions to all sorts of different things, rugby clubs, individuals,
Speaker 6: loans to people who just needed a bit of tithing
Speaker 6: over before they had to repay a tax bill or something.
Speaker 6: There were plenty and plenty of illustrations of that. The
Speaker 6: key question with Gordon Nott all would have been what
Speaker 6: would can have got for granting that loan? What was expected?
Speaker 6: Was anything expected? In what circumstances do you lend to people?
Speaker 6: And that would have been a vital thing to explain
Speaker 6: at trial. I might speak to that for a second
Speaker 6: because it's quite crucial like them. Certainly in the committal
Speaker 6: hearings it was very clear that the prosecutors could not,
Speaker 6: for the life of them, understand why someone who had
Speaker 6: known someone else for such a short amount of time
Speaker 6: would commit so much money to it. So what was
Speaker 6: going on there? And I think part of this was
Speaker 6: a psychological question ken Tell that had grown up in
Speaker 6: modest means in the dialing down so you referred to
Speaker 6: himself all the time as a self made coal miner.
Speaker 6: He was very proud of what he'd achieved. But I
Speaker 6: think there was still a little bit of imposter syndrome,
Speaker 6: a little bit of an inferiority com likes going on there.
Speaker 6: And I think there was in some sense a delight
Speaker 6: in being at a position where one could be asked
Speaker 6: by a member of government to help out. But he
Speaker 6: took I think some pride in that. Look at me,
Speaker 6: I've arrived. Now, I've arrived down here in this place
Speaker 6: where I help up my mates, and one of them,
Speaker 6: one of them works in government. Now, that of course
Speaker 6: was problematic because that those payments were deemed by law
Speaker 6: to be illegal and Gordon Muttles on trial. But I
Speaker 6: think some of that was going on as well. But
Speaker 6: one other thing is the question of what he could
Speaker 6: have got for this, and they're the crucial thing that
Speaker 6: the defense would have pointed out was that Gordon Muttle
Speaker 6: never had a portfolio which can Telbert could have benefited from.
Speaker 6: Not of the time anyway, that's another crucial points. You know,
Speaker 6: Gordon muscles physicians were chiefly in health. They had nothing
Speaker 6: to do with mining and resources. And the Teilber Group MCCA,
Speaker 6: those guys were so connected in Queensland at that time
Speaker 6: that they could have gone straight to Peter Betty, the
Speaker 6: Premier of a time. In fact, bet even testified in
Speaker 6: that pre trial materials that deed always have picked up
Speaker 6: the phone to Ken Talbot. So at the time there
Speaker 6: was nothing really to gain from a friendship or from
Speaker 6: payment to Gordon Nuttle, although the prosecution would have ordered
Speaker 6: well maybe not today but perhaps some stage in the future.
Speaker 6: So there's a lot of different dynamics coming on here,
Speaker 6: all of which would have been thrashed out of trial.
Speaker 2: Do you get a sense that Talbot, who was also
Speaker 2: facing trial at the time of his death, do you
Speaker 2: get a sense that Telbot ever regretted giving the money
Speaker 2: to Nattle.
Speaker 6: Well, certainly given the consequences it had to his life. Yes, absolutely,
Speaker 6: I mean there was a very real chance that Ken
Speaker 6: Talbot could have faced jail time as a consequence of
Speaker 6: those commissions. Logically, you would think if one side of
Speaker 6: a payment is considered to be corrupt and leads to jail,
Speaker 6: then the other side of it might do so too.
Speaker 6: He was adamant he could beat it, and you know,
Speaker 6: the members of his legal team I spoke to were
Speaker 6: adamant that they had a very good defense. But nobody
Speaker 6: was naive enough to think that there wasn't a realistic
Speaker 6: possibility of prosecution and jail time.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 6: Certainly, without question, can tell that he believed he was
Speaker 6: innocent intent at least, which is not the entirety of
Speaker 6: it when it comes to law, of course, but there
Speaker 6: it is. But certainly he would have regretted what this
Speaker 6: situation had got it into. I don't think there's any
Speaker 6: question about that.
Speaker 2: Do you think, given your extensive research, that it has
Speaker 2: put a cloud over Tilbot's legacy?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think clearly it did. He was extraordinarily proud
Speaker 6: of what he had achieved in life, and again, those
Speaker 6: modest beginnings were rather central to that pride, and the
Speaker 6: idea that that reputation might be tarnished by this bothered
Speaker 6: him enormously, and I think he did hope that a
Speaker 6: trial there was a whole side of him he could
Speaker 6: get across which would explain some of the way that
Speaker 6: he behaved, and some of the witnesses would have been
Speaker 6: absolutely crucial on that, and Wayne Bennett is by a
Speaker 6: distance the most significance of them. When Bennett told me
Speaker 6: a number of times that he would happily have gone
Speaker 6: on trial and spoke into Ken's character. You know, this
Speaker 6: is twenty ten. You know, his reputation Wayne Bennett in
Speaker 6: Queenland at the time was absolutely immense. I don't doubt
Speaker 6: it would have been significantly reported and may have had
Speaker 6: an impact. So in some sense he believed trial was
Speaker 6: an opportunity to redress a tarnished reputation, and of course
Speaker 6: that never happened, and we'll never know what would have happened.
Speaker 6: Would the jury of being convinced by this, would they
Speaker 6: have decided was another example of the corruptions that the
Speaker 6: Muscle was sentenced for. We'll just never know, but clearly
Speaker 6: a proud reputation was damaged by this.
Speaker 2: Yet no question Nuttle says he's not trying to retrial
Speaker 2: his case, or he's not trying to he's not trying
Speaker 2: to rewrite history, and that also describes that the whole
Speaker 2: saga is an error of judgment. Do you think it's
Speaker 2: that easy?
Speaker 6: I can't speak to Gordon Muscle's motivations. All that I
Speaker 6: can say as it relates specifically to Ken Talbert is
Speaker 6: the one thing that really makes you wonder about this
Speaker 6: idea of a corrupt series of MPs is that, for
Speaker 6: the life of me and no one else I know
Speaker 6: can quite see the obvious point of benefit too. I've
Speaker 6: a party in that beyond the fact that you know,
Speaker 6: Gordon Muscle received money. So this again is the point
Speaker 6: of what Gordon Muttle could have done for Ken Talbert.
Speaker 6: But there was no obvious favor that he was ever
Speaker 6: in a position to grant in government. So that perhaps
Speaker 6: points to that's the side of the argument that would say, Okay,
Speaker 6: this was a matter between two people rather than something
Speaker 6: with obviously corrupt intent, but clearly neither side should have
Speaker 6: done it. I mean, I believe the law is reasonably
Speaker 6: clear on this point. In fact, this question of legal commissions,
Speaker 6: I think is one of the only instances in all
Speaker 6: of Australian law where the burden of proof is on
Speaker 6: the defense not the prosecution, which gives a sense of
Speaker 6: how seriously it's taken in Queensland law and brought me
Speaker 6: an Australian law. You know, you're not supposed to have
Speaker 6: payment between the private sector and government figures, and I
Speaker 6: was supposed to accept them. So error of judgment certainly,
Speaker 6: intent behind us I can only guess a ken side
Speaker 6: of it, golden muscles. I can't really speak to it.
Speaker 1: Took about four or five months of discussion and note
Speaker 1: taking between his office and my lawyer. There's an exchange
Speaker 1: of letters, so I'd say it's hardly secret when you're
Speaker 1: doing it like that. So the deal, the agreement was
Speaker 1: that he would lend me one hundred thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: year over three years.
Speaker 2: What year was this?
Speaker 1: That was back in probably two thousand and two, somewhere
Speaker 1: around there, somewhere around that time in the early two thousands,
Speaker 1: you know. So the deal was that one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: a year divided by twelve was eight thousand whatever it
Speaker 1: is that went in to my account to monthly installments
Speaker 1: from him. Yeah, and it went into my account in
Speaker 1: my name. Wasn't it a hidden trust? It wasn't it
Speaker 1: some sort of dummy company or anything like that?
Speaker 7: Why not the kids' names if it was for the
Speaker 7: kid because it was easy to put in into one
Speaker 7: account and then it went from me into the three accounts, gotcha,
Speaker 7: rather than get him to say.
Speaker 1: Look, I need you to put one there and one
Speaker 1: there and one there. Sure, So the kids all bought
Speaker 1: a home or modest times. The three homes ranged between
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty and one hundred and eighty thousand.
Speaker 2: And what did Ken get in return?
Speaker 1: Ken got nothing. He never asked for anything, and I
Speaker 1: never offered anything, and so Ken and I never put
Speaker 1: a time moment on it. There was never a time
Speaker 1: moment on it. And that's what the CMC grappled that.
Speaker 1: I think their view basically was he's a businessman, he's
Speaker 1: a politician, money changed hands, they're all crooks, without really
Speaker 1: getting into the nitty gritty.
Speaker 2: But there was another from Shan.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 2: So what happened then?
Speaker 1: In between getting your money from Ken? I overstretched a
Speaker 1: little bit with my lines and I was having a
Speaker 1: bit of trouble there and they offered it.
Speaker 2: Harold, how did you know, Harold?
Speaker 1: I knew Harold and Jim through an assotiate. I met them.
Speaker 1: Who's Jim Gorman. They were miners as well, so I
Speaker 1: knew them. Harold was a barrister, Jim was a geologist
Speaker 1: by profession, and they were involved with a coal mine
Speaker 1: up in the basin of the bow and basement. So
Speaker 1: they lent me the sexty gree just just to tide
Speaker 1: me over un till I got sorted out. But when
Speaker 1: you've got a body like the CMC every now and then,
Speaker 1: they got to get a scalp to justify themselves. And
Speaker 1: I was a big one. So they came for me.
Speaker 1: And when they started this investigation like a bunch of
Speaker 1: storm troopers running around town, it was it was kind
Speaker 1: of like a an avalanche and you just couldn't stop it.
Speaker 1: And if we've got open and accountable government and people
Speaker 1: are willing to be open and accountable, this is my
Speaker 1: challenge to the government of the day. Do you bring
Speaker 1: an independent person up from Inni State, not from Queensland,
Speaker 1: but someone from Inni State and sit down and have
Speaker 1: a look at the conduct of the CMC at the time,
Speaker 1: the conduct of the DPP and how this whole whole
Speaker 1: investigation panned out, and have a look and just analyze
Speaker 1: the evidence as it is, because this is an injustice.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not crying poor, but if it's happened to me,
Speaker 1: who else has that happened to this sort of behavior?
Speaker 1: So I just say to the government of the day.
Speaker 1: You talk about your own credibility, you talk about upholding
Speaker 1: high standards, Well here's your chance, sunshine. Bring someone independent up.
Speaker 1: If you're not frightened of what supposedly has happened, bring
Speaker 1: someone up. Let's see what happens.
Speaker 2: Are you trying to retry your case?
Speaker 1: No, not at all. I don't. I have no faith
Speaker 1: whatsoever in our legal system, and coins that none at
Speaker 1: all after what I've been through, I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: retry it. All I want is people to be held
Speaker 1: accountable for their behavior, their behavior.
Speaker 2: Why not just let it go. You've served your time
Speaker 2: fourteen years, why not just let it go.
Speaker 1: Because it's a wrong that needs to be righted, and
Speaker 1: it's and it's a blight on our legal system and
Speaker 1: the behavior of the Crime Commission, and it's a blight
Speaker 1: on a DPP. Maybe nothing will come of it. Nothing.
Speaker 1: But I've had my say. I've had the opportunity to
Speaker 1: have my say. I've had the opportunity here to tell
Speaker 1: people my side of the story. If the government chooses
Speaker 1: not to do anything, or so be it, and they
Speaker 1: have to live with those consequences of choosing to do nothing.
Speaker 2: Your family, you had a family meeting when you were
Speaker 2: first charged.
Speaker 1: Yes, tell me about that. Yes, So the deal was
Speaker 1: offered to me. I've you played guilty five years to
Speaker 1: serve eighteen months. So I said to my barrister at
Speaker 1: the time, Look, I need to go home. I want
Speaker 1: to talk to the kids about this. I'm running out
Speaker 1: of money to defend myself from trials. What do I do?
Speaker 1: I didn't have enough money to go to the High
Speaker 1: Court in the end anyway, so I couldn't do that.
Speaker 1: So I go home and I sit down with the kids, Lisa, Kim,
Speaker 1: and Andrew and my son in law Harley at the time,
Speaker 1: and I said, this is the deal. It's been offered.
Speaker 1: I want your dad to plead guilty. But Dad, we
Speaker 1: haven't done anything. You know, all the lanes are in
Speaker 1: our name, the line you've got your own lane. We've
Speaker 1: all got our lane. I haven't done anything that, so
Speaker 1: we took the view that we would put our faith
Speaker 1: in the legal system, put our faith in the in
Speaker 1: the processes. So we rejected the deal.
Speaker 2: Do you wish you'd taken it now?
Speaker 1: No? No, not at all.
Speaker 2: So the fourteen years of as you've been through, it
Speaker 2: was worth it.
Speaker 1: Well, well, it's worth it to the extent that I've
Speaker 1: always maintained and that I didn't do anything wrong, and
Speaker 1: I've paid a really heavy price for maintain. The easy
Speaker 1: option would have been to take to deal, but I
Speaker 1: would have had to live with that, so were the kids,
Speaker 1: and I couldn't do that. I just couldn't do it.
Speaker 2: So effectively, you're saying you're innocent of any wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: The only wrongdoing idea was an error of judgment with
Speaker 1: Ken and I, but that's not criminal.
Speaker 2: In terms of the specifics around the lane, did Ken
Speaker 2: ever ask you for any favors? Never did you offer
Speaker 2: any favors?
Speaker 1: No, and none was given. None, And my portfolio didn't
Speaker 1: cover any of that anyway, any of the areas that
Speaker 1: he worked in government, And there is a process within
Speaker 1: government that if a minister of the Crown contacts a
Speaker 1: department head looking for favors like that. They have an
Speaker 1: obligation to report that, so there's some checks and balances
Speaker 1: within the system. Anyway, the ministers that were in charge
Speaker 1: of those departments of mining and all those sort of things,
Speaker 1: we're all bought at the committal hearing and my trial,
Speaker 1: and all of them said no, Gordon had no contact.
Speaker 1: There was nothing asked for, nothing given. And that's why
Speaker 1: we thought I'd be right at the end of the
Speaker 1: first trial. I would not have been charged with the
Speaker 1: second trial. If I'd went on the first trial. I
Speaker 1: don't believe for one minute I'd have been charged with
Speaker 1: the stuff. The other stuff was robbery at the best.
Speaker 1: At the best. But they were cranky because I wouldn't
Speaker 1: take the deal. They were livered that I wouldn't take
Speaker 1: the deal.
Speaker 2: Are you aware of any other ministers or MPs at
Speaker 2: that time that were involved in dodgy dealings?
Speaker 1: No, I can't say. I am no, not at all.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: And now to the story of the roads. Throughout his
Speaker 2: political career, Gordon Nattel wore a red row bud in
Speaker 2: the lapel of his jacket every day. I'd always been
Speaker 2: curious about why now the name of the podcast is
Speaker 2: the man behind the Rose tell us about the roads,
Speaker 2: because that's what you're famous for, wearing a rose.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I I always like to dress well.
Speaker 8: I've always felt today's the exception. I thought, too bad.
Speaker 8: We're at the beach. You know, there's an old saying
Speaker 8: that clothes maketh the man. I always pride of myself
Speaker 8: in dressing well and having shiny shoes. A lot of
Speaker 8: people didn't notice how shine my shoes were. But anyway,
Speaker 8: so we get into parliament. I decided I'm going to
Speaker 8: wear I'm going to wear a rose. Actually the first
Speaker 8: it started out as a little carnation, but I want
Speaker 8: to a raise. So some of the boys decided to
Speaker 8: play a trick on me.
Speaker 1: I'm sitting in Parliament one day and I see this
Speaker 1: little green grub on my cat lapel. What the hell's that?
Speaker 1: And I picked it off, throw it away. About fifteen
Speaker 1: minutes later, another one. So this went on for about
Speaker 1: two or three days. So I went to the florist
Speaker 1: that I get my rose from every day. Oh she's
Speaker 1: all apologetic, also sorry, terrible. The next day I go
Speaker 1: to it, I've changed the whole sale. I'm getting my
Speaker 1: roses now for you from another whole statement. Oh that's nice,
Speaker 1: So I go another grub, so Henry believe it on.
Speaker 1: Henry Palache, he was the member of Parliament at the time,
Speaker 1: came up to me and he said, Gordon, do you
Speaker 1: not realize what's going on? And I said, what are
Speaker 1: you talking about? He said, your colleague Gary Fenlin has
Speaker 1: got a match box full of these little grubs. He's
Speaker 1: getting out of the garden and he's dropping in them
Speaker 1: on your coat. So I had to go to the florist,
Speaker 1: Maya Kupa until her I'm terribly sorry I was, and
Speaker 1: told her this story. She couldn't stop laughing. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: I never paid Gary Fenlon back for that. I never.
Speaker 2: And that's the story of the Man behind the Rose.
Speaker 2: Next time, for the final chapter, I'll be sitting down
Speaker 2: with Gordon and his kids, Lisa and Andrew to see
Speaker 2: what the future holts and how his cancer treatment is going.
Speaker 2: Do you care what people think?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 1: I don't, because in my heart of hearts, I know
Speaker 1: who I am and I know that what I've told
Speaker 1: you today and over the last few days, that that
Speaker 1: that's exactly what happened. So if people choose not to
Speaker 1: believe that that's up to them, But I have to
Speaker 1: say that's not the experience I've had from the wide
Speaker 1: in general public. They've been outstanding, outstanding.
Speaker 2: The Man Behind the Rose podcast writer, producer and host
Speaker 2: Patrick Condren. Sound design and editing Mark Wright. Graphics by
Speaker 2: Jason Blandford. The Man Behind the Rose is a seven
Speaker 2: years production