Grievance Debate

Malinauskas Labor Government

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:13): Well, who would have thought after just two years the Malinauskas Labor government is running for cover, ducking for cover, in this very chamber? Just two years have passed and it is ducking for cover. It is a sign of the times. Not only has there been this catastrophic failure on ramping—just a catastrophic failure—two years, and the worst record we have ever seen on the primary single commitment of Malinauskas Labor.

Not only have they failed so catastrophically on that central election commitment, we see them now ducking for cover in this chamber on matters of public interest that are put to the Premier and senior ministers about matters of fact that have come before this parliament in recent days concerning what are legitimate probity questions to be put that are at the core of the business of this place. To see the conduct of the Premier in this place—ducking for cover, not answering questions—just shows that not only is he having to duck for cover out there on the streets of Dunstan but he is having to duck for cover right here in the House of Assembly as well.

Let's just look at the facts that we are faced with today. What has come to attention is a matter of significant public interest, a matter of probity—an email that has been written by a private company to an employee of a member of this place, who happens to be the spouse of the author, the director of the company. The email, I might say, was not written to the employee, Cressida O'Hanlon, in her capacity as an employee to her employer's email address but written to her private email address, and says in plain terms that this is a matter of talking points with a proposal to seek the opportunity to put a matter to a minister or a minister's Chief of Staff.

Rather than be up-front about it, the government has made a whole lot of noise, has raised points of order and has refused to answer matters of legitimate concern in this house. That stands in stark contrast to what we saw within hours of the matter coming to light yesterday: two key statements attributed to an anonymous Labor source. We have heard the government say, 'Labor source? That's not us. We're the government. That's a Labor source, so we know nothing about it.'

What did that Labor source say? What was that Labor source able to say without attribution at no notice? Two things. The first thing it was able to say was, 'This company, Citadel, is not engaged in lobbying activities.' It was a categorical statement of fact by the unnamed Labor source. In what circumstances is a Labor source in a position to speak on behalf of a private company? Who provides that authority? We are left to wonder. What is the circumstance in which the anonymous Labor source is able to speak for and on behalf of this private company? That is statement number one.

Statement number two is that the anonymous Labor source, within minutes and hours, is saying categorically that this company is not in receipt of a cent of government money. How do they know that? How are they possibly going to know that? The government does not know anything, but there is an anonymous Labor source, who seems to be quicker off the mark than the company itself, knowing that this is a company that does not conduct lobbying activities, it does not need to be registered and has not received any government money categorically. Then we see the Treasurer hop up in this place and say, 'Oh, well, I did actually have a meeting with the company.'

Among the tens of questions it begs are: who arranged the meeting? Who attended? How about notes? There is a specialty of the government. Are there any notes that might have been kept? Are you happy to share those? Presumably, the result of that meeting might have been that the Treasurer might have been in a position to know whether or not this company was in the business of lobbying and whether or not this company was receiving government money, let alone whether any of the clients of the company, multiple and various that seem to be familiar to government members, were in receipt of government money as well.

The result of the question time is that, rather than taking the opportunity to put clearly on the record what the government knows about this matter, the government has run and ducked for cover. It is an abomination, and more questions must be asked.

The SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is called to order.