Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts.These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
7.30 Report -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

'Cyclone Brian' continues to hit Govt, Opposition

'Cyclone Brian' continues to hit Govt, Opposition

Reporter: Michael Brissenden

KERRY O'BRIEN: But first, Cyclone Brian - a political storm from out of the West that has hit both
Government and Opposition in Canberra, a salutary story of the poisonous reach of disgraced premier
turned WA lobbyist Brian Burke. You could say it's a morality play in which both leading players
try to claim the moral high ground. But the bottom line is that the Prime Minister has felt it
necessary to sack a minister for having a 20 minute meeting with Mr Burke and the Opposition Leader
has been on the defensive trying to explain a breakfast, a coffee and a dinner with the now deeply
tainted former premier. I'll talk with Kevin Rudd in a few moments but, first, the background from
Political Editor Michael Brissenden.

REPORTER (TO KEVIN RUDD): How do you explain the fact that Brian Burke's email suggested that you
were going to be the key speaker?

REPORTER (TO JOHN HOWARD): Have you brokered a deal with Senator Campbell to reinstate him after
the next election?

INTERVIEWER (TO PAUL KEATING): Shouldn't Kevin Rudd have been clever enough to try and avoid
contact with Brian Burke, knowing his reputation?

REPORTER (TO PETER COSTELLO): Treasurer, why is it that, after the Brian Burke meetings were first
made public back in November, the Government didn't raise the matter then?

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Yes, it's a media frenzy and, as is always the case when politics takes these
wild right angles, there's always a lot of questions. The truth in politics is often a conceptual
challenge. Probity is rarely black and white. Politics asks the public often to take a leap of
faith. It's a moving feast of impressions. Who do you trust? Was there a deal? Was Kevin Rudd
touting for support? Was Ian Campbell's 20 minute meeting with Brian Burke a sackable offence? Yes,
there are many questions. How is it, for instance, that a convicted criminal and disgraced former
premier with such bad fashion sense could have so much influence on politics and business in Perth
for so long?

PROFESSOR GREG CRAVEN, CURTIN UNIVERSITY: Perth is in many ways a political village, and in a
political village people talk to each other.

PAUL KEATING, FORMER PRIME MINISTER: Brian Burke and Julian Grill, they're the Arthur Daley and
Terry of the West Australian Labor Party. They're like the wallpaper over there. You can't visit
Perth without running into them.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: And he should know. Brian Burke has been a complicating figure for Labor
politicians, both State and Federal, for nearly two decades now. Some have deliberately chosen to
give him a wide berth. Others have had too much contact for their own good. The question is, why
didn't Kevin Rudd stay clear of him, too? The now famous Panama hat is a flashing neon warning
sign. But, as long term observers like Greg Craven point out, Mr Burke has held a strange and
dangerous attraction for many in the business and political worlds out West, and not just members
of the Labor Party.

GREG CRAVEN: It's certainly the case that I think that Brian Burke would have done a reasonable
amount of negotiation and discussion quite across political parties and that would include elements
of the Liberal Party. The question isn't really whether they spoke to Mr Burke, but what was the
subject of the conversation, what were they talking about, and whether that was appropriate.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: And that's the nub of it, really. With Brian Burke's name in scandal, any
association that comes to light now is a sensation. That's why the Government jumped in so hard
last week when it became clear Kevin Rudd had met Brian Burke on three separate occasions, at a
time when Kim Beazley's leadership of the party was under pressure.

PETER COSTELLO, TREASURER: I think Mr Kevin Rudd has got a lot of explaining to do. He ought to
come out and he ought to come clean with the Australian public, because they've got to know just
what kind of a hold Brian Burke has on Kevin Rudd.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The question is, what were the nature of their discussions, questions the
Government was still asking today.

PETER COSTELLO: This is now a character issue for Kevin Rudd. His explanation doesn't wash. He said
he just turned up at a restaurant and found Brian Burke there. We now know Brian Burke had invited
everybody there to meet him, Mr Rudd was the guest of honour and he gave the speech.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Yes, this is now a character test. That's the point the Government wants it to
be just that, and the whole affair has certainly dragged Kevin Rudd back to the pack. His honeymoon
is over. He is no longer as squeaky clean as some may have thought. Since this storm broke, he's
appeared defensive. The meetings with Burke, he says, were not initiated with him and he says he
didn't even know he was the star attraction at the dinner with some of Perth's most powerful
business leaders, even though Mr Burke had been using him as the big draw card for some days before
the event.

BURKE EMAIL: "Julian Grill and I would be delighted if you would be our guest at dinner with Kevin
Rudd, the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs in the Federal Parliament, at 7pm on Monday
August 1st at Perugino Restaurant...it should be an interesting evening."

KEVIN RUDD: I had no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of that email or what it said. I was
there at the invitation of Graham Edwards, a long standing personal friend of mine.

JOHN HOWARD: Mr Rudd wants the most important and most powerful position in the country and,
therefore, he must expect this level of scrutiny. He obviously went to that dinner hoping to get
political advantage.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: For both sides, this is high stakes politics. In an effort to take the shine
off his opponent, Mr Howard has called into question his honesty but, in doing so, he leaves the
door wide open for the Labor Party to take some easy shots of their own.

PAUL KEATING: Howard has lied to the country about the reasons for going to war - going to war, for
God's sake - and now he wants us to believe it's a major problem if Kevin Rudd meets Brian Burke.
Brian who?

WAYNE SWAN, OPPOSITION TREASURY SPOKESMAN: I'll tell you what, a lot of people have commented on
the Prime Minister and his relationship to the truth, and the one that I remember most vividly was
the Treasurer only a year and a bit ago, where he went out and said the Prime Minister was a liar.
You might all recall it. It was at the height of the leadership challenge. The Treasurer
deliberately challenged the Prime Minister's approach to the truth.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: No, few could forget that. But the Government isn't taking a backward step.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister rearranged his Cabinet after forcing the resignation over the
weekend of Ian Campbell. Mr Howard described Senator Campbell's meeting with Brian Burke as bad
judgment. Given Mr Howard's robust defence of his ministers under fire over the past 10 years or
so, it was remarkably swift judgment. Here's a reminder of just a few. Warwick Parer breached the
ministerial code of conduct with his share dealings. So did John Moore. Peter Reith survived after
lending his taxpayer-funded phone card to his son. He eventually had to repay a bill of $50,000.
Philip Ruddock and Amanda Vanstone both survived Immigration Department scandals. And, most
recently, Alexander Downer and Mark Vaile surfaced unscathed by the AWB Iraqi bribes affair. On the
other hand, Ian Campbell was forced to resign over a 20 minute meeting with Brian Burke that even
the Government describes as benign. The Campbell resignation has drawn a new line of ministerial
accountability, at least until the next election. Bad judgment will be a sackable offence, and any
links to Brian Burke of any sort will be political death.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Political Editor Michael Brissenden.

Interview with Kevin Rudd

Interview with Kevin Rudd

Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

KERRY O'BRIEN: Labor leader Kevin Rudd joins me now. Kevin Rudd, if, as a general proposition,
there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's definitely no such thing as a free dinner with Brian
Burke, is there?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, as I said quite some time ago now, last week, Kerry, I made an error of judgment
when it came to those meetings and that dinner with Mr Burke back then and, with the benefit of
20/20 hindsight, I wouldn't have done it. I've accepted responsibility for that and said I made a
mistake. It would be interesting if the Prime Minister would accept responsibility for some of the
mistakes he's made over the years as well.

KERRY O'BRIEN: If you are as experienced and as ethical as you would like us to accept, how did you
allow yourself to be in this man's company, let alone to be seen in his company?

KEVIN RUDD: As I explained the other day, a long standing friend of mine is Graham Edwards. We
entered Parliament together. He's a Vietnam War veteran, when I go to Perth I stay with him. He
asked me to meet for coffee and breakfast with Mr Burke and my view and it's a mistaken view was
simply that any person, a white collar criminal who's done a crime and done their time, they should
be readmitted to society. It was a mistake, I accept that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: This wasn't just the fact that he served time in jail, was it? It was the smelly
history of WA Inc and its lingering aftermath. Questions of judgment, it is a question of your
judgment, isn't it you heard the Prime Minister say again today you aspire to the highest office in
the land, you need sound judgment for that office?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, as I said, I'm old enough and ugly enough to admit when I got something wrong,
and I think it would be good if Mr Howard would do that on other great questions of policy across
the country, the Iraq war, children overboard, the whole question of $300,000,000 worth of bribes
being paid to Saddam Hussein all on Mr Howard's watch, and no one ever having to fall on their
sword. But I need just to say this, Kerry, on the core charge of Mr Howard against me, which is
this, that I asked Mr Burke to support me to remove Kim Beazley from the leadership of the Labor
Party and for me to replace him that is absolutely false. I mean, let's just get real about this.
Mr Burke has been a life long supporter of Mr Beazley, fact one. Fact two, Graham Edwards, my
friend, a continuing life long supporter of Mr Beazley until the very end of last year. If Mr
Howard's thesis is real, let's be honest about this - this is nearly a year and a half before the
ALP leadership ballot at the end of 2006. And, by that stage, I've got to say, if Mr Howard's
argument holds any water, or Mr Costello's, if Mr Burke is so central to all this, why am I not
meeting him regularly during the course of 2006? It doesn't stack up, nor does his allegation that
I owe Mr Burke some debt or some obligation. I mean, for goodness' sake, I didn't ask him for
money. There was no fundraising, no business proposition, nothing of that sort whatsoever. Do I
need a business lobbyist in Perth? I could walk into any business I like in Perth, that wasn't the
case.

KERRY O'BRIEN: He wasn't just a business lobbyist. He was very, very influential within the Labor
Party and the issue of Kim Beazley's leadership was around at that time. I just wonder whether, in
all of these meetings and, particularly, the dinner with Brian Burke and others, you say the
question of leadership, you don't recall the question of leadership being raised. Surely it would
have been a perfectly natural thing for anyone at that dinner, including yourself, to have said,
"How do you think Kim's going?"

KEVIN RUDD: Look, what I said the other day was there was a general conversation about national
politics, right across the table. That's as you would expect on an occasion such as that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But can you rule out that the issue of Kim Beazley's leadership, that is, how he was
travelling as leader, was raised or not?

KEVIN RUDD: What I've said, I can't recall that. But I've also said that it's quite possible that
those sorts of questions were raised. But on Mr Howard's core charge, which is this, you, Kevin
Rudd, were obtaining from Mr Burke his support to remove Kim Beazley as leader of the Labor Party
and for you, Kevin Rudd, to replace him, that is an absolute falsehood, and Mr Howard knows it. And
his other charge, by the way, which is that I've been engaged in some sort of cover up I mean, for
goodness' sake, these questions were asked to me by the 'Australian' newspaper in November last
year, and on the record of the national daily is plainly printed that I've said there that I had
meetings with Mr Burke. Now, if Mr Howard and Mr Costello thought it was such a crushing matter of
national principle, why did they not raise it then? Three weeks after that, I became the leader of
the Labor Party. Why didn't they raise it then? I'll tell you why they're raising it now. It's
because there is a mood for political change in this country. Labor has been up in the polls in
recent times, they are worried and they've decided to use the high office of Prime Minister to run
a personal smear campaign against yours truly to take some paint off us, and I predict they will.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you absolutely rule out, or do you acknowledge, that leadership was an issue at
the time you went to Perth and had that dinner with Brian Burke? And do you totally rule out that
your own ambitions for leadership, whether in the next six months or 12 months, were in your mind?

KEVIN RUDD: I've got to say, this is virtually 18 months later that the leadership ballot for the
Labor Party is called. I mean, the bottom line is this, in those sorts of discussions about general
politics where you've got 20 or 30 people around the table, there's lots of to ing and fro-ing. I
can't recall all of that. I mean, you go to dozens of such meetings, boardroom luncheons around the
country, where national politics is discussed and I can't say to you precisely what occurred in
every part of the conversation.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've got a pretty good memory about most things.

KEVIN RUDD: If I asked you what was discussed at a dinner you attended 18 months ago -

KERRY O'BRIEN: But I'm not you.

KEVIN RUDD: I understand that, but it's just a human element. All I'm saying is, Mr Howard's core
charge is that I have used Mr Burke to get his support to remove Kim Beazley and for me to replace
him and I owe him, therefore, a debt of obligation and that I sought to cover that up, is an
absolutely, rolled gold falsehood and Mr Howard in his conduct of this political smear campaign is
worried about one thing - that is, conducting the next election on the basis of alternative
policies for the future.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Looking at the political mood prevailing around the Labor Party at the time you went
to Perth, on August 1 the 'Age' had a story which raised the question, well, it actually said, "Kim
Beazley appears doomed. The ALP is wondering about Bob Carr." The 'Australian' on July 31,
"Beazley's road looks even rockier." And in fact on August 1, on that same trip to Perth, you
addressed a lunch, according to a story in the 'Sydney Morning Herald', "Labor's ambitious foreign
affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, has set out his economic vision, sought to lay down the values
shaping the party's approach to policy, continuing an image broadening program which could rekindle
speculation of leadership ambitions."

KEVIN RUDD: I think for a long, long time, Kerry, many people in the media and elsewhere have
described me as 'ambitious'. I don't think that's something which I'm Robinson Crusoe on in
politics.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But is it so far-fetched that John Howard might speculate you might have been
seeking from Brian Burke some patronage as a kind of godfather of the Labor Party in Western
Australia?

KEVIN RUDD: That's just so far fetched. I mean, for goodness' sake, you get judged in this
business, politics, on how you perform, how you know your policy, how you convey a message
effectively through programs such as this. You're judged on a whole range of things. And, you know,
being judged on the basis of a dinner round table which involved Mr Burke and some businessmen and
that is going to provide you with some automatic legup into the leadership? That's just
cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. Mr Howard has classic negative politics, the politics of personal smear,
to be on radio in this country on five separate radio programs, I'm told, around the country today
rolling into me on the basis of a smear campaign. How about a discussion instead about alternative
policies for the country's future? He knows he's not winning that argument. That's why they've
flipped the switch to personal smear. And I predict that'll take some paint off, a fair bit I'd
imagine, and it will continue right through to the next election.

KERRY O'BRIEN: In terms of your judgment, again, you say when you met Brian Burke over the course
of 2005 you didn't know that the WA Labor Premier had put a ban on State MPs having contact with
Brian Burke. But your friend Graham Edwards, who was the middle man in your meetings with Mr Burke,
must have been aware about that ban, he must have known about that ban. It seems bizarre that he
wouldn't have mentioned the ban to you when he was setting up meetings for you with him?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, he plainly didn't and I think he made that point the other day in his statement
himself, that he didn't alert me to that. On the question of Federal MPs being included in that
ban, the core question

KERRY O'BRIEN: You must think poorly of him for not having told you about the ban?

KEVIN RUDD: I can't make a judgment about Graham. He's a decent bloke.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You can.

KEVIN RUDD: No, he's a decent bloke -

KERRY O'BRIEN: With respect, you can make a judgement. You have to make them all the time as the
leader of your party.

KEVIN RUDD: He's a guy who put his life on the line in Vietnam, he's a good bloke and I took him at
face value. I accept full responsibility for my decisions and, therefore, what I've got wrong, and
accept responsibility for it. Again, I go back to the challenge to Mr Howard. Just once, Mr Howard,
take responsibility for children overboard, for lying about the basis on which we went to war in
Iraq and for other critical things such as how we paid $300,000,000 worth of bribes to Saddam
Hussein. Not one ministerial resignation. You know why? This new standard of accountability was
invented on the run by Mr Howard in Parliament last Thursday afternoon with one objective in mind,
and that was to target yours truly. Well, I'll cop that, that's life. But it's just part of a
continuing campaign of negative politics.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, last question, have you had any phone conversations with Mr Burke
apart from those three meetings?

KEVIN RUDD: I've said the other day in the press conference I gave last Thursday in Parliament,
that in the second half of '05 concerning a possible organisation of a meeting with journalists,
that there was some telephone contact at about that time, and that was a meeting I subsequently or
a gathering I subsequently declined to participate in. And beyond that, I've got no real
recollection of any other telephone contact.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Kevin Rudd, thanks for talking with us.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks for having us on the program, Kerry.

The story of Annabelle Catt

The story of Annabelle Catt

Reporter: Mark Bannerman

KERRY O'BRIEN: It's estimated that across Australia up to 500,000 people, most under 35, have at
some stage tried the illegal drug ecstasy. For many young people, it's the party drug of choice.
Two weeks ago, 20 year old Annabelle Catt took what she thought was ecstasy, and died. The drug
found in her system wasn't ecstasy at all, but paramethoxyamphetamine, or PMA. It's not the first
time this drug has killed in Australia and probably won't be the last. Not only is it highly toxic,
there's no comprehensive early warning system that might tell when this drug is on the street.
Tonight, the parents of Annabelle Catt have agreed to an interview with the 7.30 Report to tell the
story of their daughter's life and death. Mark Bannerman reports.

MARK BANNERMAN: On a sunny morning in a northern suburb of Sydney, Alison and Peter Catt are
watching their daughter Annabelle dance. They are holding onto a memory.

PETER CATT: Oh, she's my precious daughter. The one who was the apple of my eye. I just used to see
her go in the morning and she went out the door to go to work. There was this girl who stepped out
of the house with a bounce.

MARK BANNERMAN: This video of her last dance exam is almost too painful for them to watch. But it
is evidence of a life so full of hope.

ALISON CATT: She just packed so much into each day and each week. So she didn't waste a minute.

MARK BANNERMAN: But two weeks ago this young woman with so much to live for made a fatal error of
judgment. Attending a music festival, Annabelle Catt took what she believed was the illegal drug
ecstasy.

ALISON CATT: Her friends have assured us that she's only ever taken a tablet twice before at these
big festivals and this was just unfortunately something else.

MARK BANNERMAN: Annabelle Catt thought she was taking ecstasy. She was wrong. It now appears the
pill she took contained the deadly drug paramethoxyamphetamine, or PMA.

PETER CATT: I mean, I think if it happened to our family, it can happen to many, many families. I
just don't think anybody's safe from it.

MARK BANNERMAN: Annabelle Catt's bedroom gives just some clue as to what was in store for her and
her friends on 17 February, a music concert in Centennial Park.

ALISON CATT: She was excited about the day and looking forward to it.

PETER CATT: So excited. She just loved the music, because of the dancing and the new bands. She
just loved it all.

MARK BANNERMAN: As these young people travelled to the Good Vibrations concert, they had little
idea of what lay ahead. But we do know they had planned to take ecstasy.

ALISON CATT: They had prearranged to get ecstasy tablets, so they picked them up outside the venue.

MARK BANNERMAN: At 3.30 that afternoon, both Annabelle Catt and one of her friends took an ecstasy
tablet. Then, with the effects of the first tablet wearing off, both decided to take a capsule,
again, believing it was ecstasy. Those capsules were laced with PMA. This drug, often sold as a
substitute for ecstasy, is a true killer. Its toxic qualities are made all the worse because PMA
takes some time to affect the body, up to three to four hours in some cases. Annabelle Catt and her
friends, though, knew none of this as they headed for home.

ALISON CATT: Her friends said she wasn't any different. She wasn't exhibiting any symptoms that
were different to the others.

MARK BANNERMAN: So coming home and initially back at the house where she went to stay with her
friends, everything seemed normal?

ALISON CATT: Had a shower. Her temperature was high, so they showered, or she showered herself. Not
a problem. They said she was a bit agitated, but so were the other girls. Then they thought, "We'll
all go to bed," and Annabelle woke them with she was kicking the chest of drawers and they turned
on the light and realised she was having some difficulty breathing, so they called the ambulance.

MARK BANNERMAN: At this point her friends had no idea how close they, too, had come to death. PMA
is made in backyard laboratories and the doses vary wildly. That night they were lucky. The
ambulance arrived just eight minutes later at Mona Vale Hospital, but the staff there were fighting
a losing battle.

PETER CATT: They administered drugs, they gave her electric shocks to get her heart back into
rhythm. They were ventilating her. They just did everything they possibly could to save her.

ALISON CATT: But it destroyed her whole body, it was a total system breakdown.

MARK BANNERMAN: This very toxic PMA destroyed her from the inside out?

ALISON CATT: Totally.

PETER CATT: Very high temperature.

ALISON CATT: She cooked.

MARK BANNERMAN: The death of Annabelle Catt raises many, many questions. Who made the PMA that
killed her, and how did it get into the marketplace? Well, for now, we simply can't answer those
questions. There is a question we might be able to answer, though, and it is very simple what are
we doing as a community to create a system that would tell us PMA is out there in the marketplace?
Well, the answer to that might shock you. Right now, when authorities want to know what drug is out
there they must rely on the analysis of drugs seized by the police force.

DR DAVID CALDICOTT, ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL: The problem in Australia is that forensic analysis of
drugs is most often used for the purposes of law enforcement.

MARK BANNERMAN: Dr David Caldicott is an emergency department doctor in Adelaide and he has seen
people die from PMA in his own hospital. Affected by the trauma of these deaths, he set out to
study PMA first hand. What he found startled him. PMA had form, and it didn't kill just one person,
it killed in clusters. First in Canada, more in Florida in the United States and 11 in his own
state of South Australia. When it struck, it seemed like an infectious disease.

DAVID CALDICOTT: Look, I think that's a very apt description. There are outbreaks of PMA
intermittently in the community. It's a drug that we've seen quite a lot of in South Australia. In
fact, there have been more deaths from paramethoxyamphetamine in South Australia than anywhere else
in the world.

MARK BANNERMAN: But David Caldicott discovered something that alarmed him even more. Because the
only group permitted to test illicit drugs in this country is the police, the drug intelligence we
have is very narrowly based. That means a drug like PMA can appear and it can kill before anyone
has even detected it.

MARK BANNERMAN: So if you had to give marks out of 10 for our drug early warning intelligence
system that might tell us that PMA is in some kind of ecstasy tablet, what would it get?

DAVID CALDICOTT: Possibly four.

MARK BANNERMAN: Four out of ten?

DAVID CALDICOTT: Yes.

DET. SUPT GREIG NEWBERY, NSW DRUG SQUAD: It would be difficult for me, probably, to disagree with
the doctor.

MARK BANNERMAN: To see just how fatally flawed the system is, you need to go back to Annabelle
Catt's story. She died on 18 February. At that point, there was no indication that PMA was on the
streets. There should have been. What we now know is that in December and January the NSW Police
had seized significant quantities of ecstasy that contained PMA. Samples of those drugs were sent
to the state's analytical laboratories for testing.

GREIG NEWBERY: Until we get them tested, we really are assuming the type of prohibited drug they
are. We don't know until we receive those results.

MARK BANNERMAN: But just to clarify that, when the police seized these drugs they immediately would
have been handed over for testing, is that right?

GREIG NEWBERY: Yes.

MARK BANNERMAN: Detective Superintendent Greig Newbery and his officers waited throughout December
and January and on into February for those results. Finally, they arrived, but only after Annabelle
Catt was dead.

MARK BANNERMAN: What we now know is that drugs that the police had seized in December and January
were tested, but the results were not released until February. Was that too long?

GREIG NEWBERY: I think it's too long, yes.

MARK BANNERMAN: You do?

GREIG NEWBERY: I do, yes.

MARK BANNERMAN: If you had those results much earlier, would you have put out a warning about PMA?

GREIG NEWBERY: If PMA had been detected in any quantity, yes.

MARK BANNERMAN: In fact, PMA was detected in those drugs seized. Had they been tested immediately,
a warning could have been given to the public in December, and again in January. And, of course,
that raises a question. Might Annabelle Catt have been saved?

GREIG NEWBERY: That is a very difficult question, Mark, and we're continually, police are
continually providing the message to the public that prohibited drugs are dangerous. All prohibited
drugs are dangerous. I don't know whether it would have made a difference. It certainly may have
provided a bit more information to the public. Whether it would have made a difference in Annabelle
Catt's case is, again, very difficult to say.

MARK BANNERMAN: So why did this testing take so long? Late this afternoon, the NSW Department of
Health the body responsible for the testing sent this statement, that reads in part: "Routine drug
testing takes 8 to 12 weeks. The NSW police sent a package of seized illicit drugs to the
laboratories in December 2006 for routine testing. Results were finalised on 19 February. PMA was
found." The notification came just one day after Annabelle Catt's death.

GREIG NEWBERY: I think we can always improve what we're doing, yes.

MARK BANNERMAN: No question about that?

GREIG NEWBERY: Yes, we can improve. The system can improve.

MARK BANNERMAN: When the system might be changed, no one can quite tell us. But whatever happens,
it has come too late for one young woman and the family she left behind.

PETER CATT: I know in my heart that Annabelle would never, ever want to cause herself harm, because
her life was so rich and she had such a future.

ALISON CATT: You just wanted to turn the clock back.

PETER CATT: I just want to be with her. I just wanted to hold her, I just wanted my beautiful girl,
my precious darling.

KERRY O'BRIEN: That report from Mark Bannerman, produced by Deb Masters.

That's the program for tonight. We'll be back at the same time tomorrow, but for now, goodnight.?