Hello Ms Wild, I note your email and your questions. 1. I will not be providing you or anyone with on-camera or taped commentary. 2. I will not be accused of lies in any context, especially in relation to any suggested or claimed financial relationship between the Company and the CLP. 3. No money or assistance has been provided at all to any participant in the Casuarina by-election. An amount of $7000 was paid to the CLP for a conference event at the time of the Blain by-election, and some research information was also made available at that time. These matters have been fully disclosed as required. Money received on a commercial basis by the Company in 2012 was utilised by the Company in research for the formulation of public policy some of which may have been utilised in the run-up to the 2012 and 2013 elections and following the CLP's return to Government. No money ever was paid to the CLP, and there was no "financial relationship." McGrath was paid by the Company for minor outgoings prior to being appointed as campaign Director during which time he assisted in the workings and research being conducted by the Company. As far as I know, once he was appointed, all payments to him for his services were made directly to him by the CLP. As you are very well aware, the NT Electoral Commission is currently enquiring as to whether the Company should be or should have been categorised as an associated entity. The Company has co-operated fully with the NTEC and all disclosures have been made. NTEC will make its decision in due course. I have to hope you will present this information provided by me with the same emphasis as you will present the leaked Earley email. I know very well that any 30 second grab that I gave you could not cover all the material provided herein, and I fully expect that in any case you will present it all in the same biased manner seen previously in this matter. Further, I do not intend to see my professional reputation smeared by accusations or even imputations such as "Have you lied...?" You refer to my "views." My views are that constant descriptions of the Company as a "slush fund" are derogatory and probably defamatory. The Company did business for many years as a conservative research organisation working for the future benefit and economic development of the Northern Territory for all Territorians. Its conservative workings have been dragged into the mud and its brand trashed by political opponents, especially Earley and Anderson - people who have certainly benefitted from good government in the NT, and who now have no regard for sound conservative Government either in the NT or Australia generally. This media campaign has resulted in the termination of the Company's business activities, and one day someone will pay. No doubt there is too much here to balance your intended attack, but I will be interested to review your reports. Graeme Lewis