Question Time

CRIMINON

Ms BREUER (Giles) (14:18): My question is to the Leader of Government Business. Can the minister advise whether he has been able to determine if it was a Labor source who provided information on forged documents referred to in this house by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:18): I thank the member for Giles—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is unsurprising that, despite their enthusiasm for the subject on Tuesday, they do not wish to hear any more about it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There's nothing to see here, folks; move along. But, regrettably, while the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr Goldsworthy: You didn't do a very good job yesterday.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, the Leader of the Opposition—you are quite correct—did not do a very good job yesterday.

Mr Goldsworthy: No; I'm talking about you, Patrick.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That hasn't been the consensus viewpoint, can I say. The Leader of the Opposition has come back to the house to apologise for the use of, basically, fabricated documents. However, he did put on Hansard a most serious allegation on Tuesday, on which he has remained deafeningly silent since then. On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition in reference to what we now know as the notorious forged emails—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Isn't that hollow laughter? Please, do that again for me. In reference to that, he refers to these emails. He said:

Mr Brown refers Mr Bolkus to a conversation he had with a man called Tom regarding prison education programs.

He then goes on to make what I consider to be a most serious allegation. He said:

Sources from within the Labor Party have advised the opposition that the man called Tom is the Minister for Correctional Services.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Right, let's test that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Okay. What that means is that the Leader of the Opposition has alleged that a member of the Labor Party (or a Labor source) has explained the contents of forged documents to him. Therefore, that Labor source must have known that they were forged; could not explain them otherwise. We have called upon the Leader of the Opposition several times today to identify this source. His evasive answer on media this morning was that he has to protect his sources. He has to protect a source—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, this is not a laughing matter.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The Leader of the Opposition exhibits no shame. He refers to the leaked documents I used to get—yes, I did pursue, when I was in opposition, some documents. As a consequence their premier lost his job. I am not embarrassed by that at all.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will if you wish.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let me make clear the difference between that and the allegation. The source that the Leader of the Opposition says he is—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will come to order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The source that the Leader of the Opposition says he is protecting is not a whistleblower, helping him to find the truth. It is a person who has been dishonest to him explaining forged documents. That is not a source; that is someone who has done you a wrong. That someone is, allegedly, a Labor source. So the incredible thing the Leader of the Opposition would have you believe is that he is so enamoured of this source who misled him that he is going to protect him, or her.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: If there is a source.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The truth is that we, in the Labor Party, do not believe there is or has ever been a Labor source who explained forged documents. I invite the Leader of the Opposition—and I say this seriously—his claim on Tuesday is simply not credible. He has two options for this house: to identify this person who has wronged him—who has wronged him, by his account—or correct the statement he made to the house.

Does he stand by the statement he made on Tuesday that a Labor source explained these documents to the opposition? If he does, stand by it; if he does not, correct it—he has no other choice. If he does stand by it, someone in the world please explain to me why he would not identify the Labor source. He has been quite happy to smear—

Mrs REDMOND: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, the member for Heysen.

Mrs REDMOND: The member seems to have strayed into debate, sir. It hardly seems to be on the topic of the question that was asked.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: No; I think it is on the topic.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The question asked was: have I been able to identify a source? There is only one person who could help me with that. I would love to identify the source. The only one person who could help me with that sits on the other side. I say this to the Leader of the Opposition—and I invite him to listen carefully to what I say because I do wish to offer him the opportunity to correct the record. He has already had to do it in regard to the documents being false. I invite him to correct the record about the statement he made on Tuesday. It is simply incredible that the Leader of the Opposition would be prepared to smear the reputations of five known members of the Labor Party, who have done nothing wrong, but protect someone in the Labor Party who has wronged him enormously, who has destroyed his credibility and who has destroyed his reputation. If he cannot name the source he should correct it, but he is not going to get away with leaving that comment on Hansard.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!