HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINON

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (14:12): Will the Minister for Transport advise the house of the nature of the documents relied upon by the opposition to make allegations about members of the government, and what are the consequences of relying on such documents and the allegations that flowed from them?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:12): It is my hope to be heard in relative silence, because this is an extremely—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There we go; can't get the first sentence out. They do have a lot to hide. In short, the documents relied upon by the Leader of the Opposition in this place yesterday—and in relying upon them he trampled on the reputation of people not in this place and also used them to accuse the Premier of what bordered on corrupt activity—were completely and utterly false. They were forgeries; they were fabrications. They were deliberate—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Just nice and quiet. They were deliberate fabrications by a third party. Not only were they that but the least—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They will not want to hear this, Mr Speaker. The least inquiry by the opposition would have exposed this. Let me explain how we know they are false and why the Leader of the Opposition should have been alert to make inquiries.

Can I refer first to the emails relied upon. Those emails were never made by the people purported to make them and were never received by the people whom the Leader of the Opposition purported to receive them. But let us just run through what they say three senior members of the Labor Party—a former senator, a secretary and a treasurer—were prepared, according to them, to do for $20,000 from the Church of Scientology. I mean, likely, isn't it? I know that they do have a little trouble fundraising and there might be things they are prepared to do for $20,000. Firstly, this is what they say:

Nick, Tom tells me that you mentioned to him that you knew someone who was interested in prison education. He said they were Melbourne based. Mike has asked me if there is anyone worth visiting while he is in Melbourne next week. Are they worth special treatment?

The answer:

As discussed, they were very happy with their discussion with Mike. Worth the trip. Happy to give up to 20K as a start but want to do it under the radar—

Like to flout the law—under the radar. Then, apparently Michael sends to the Treasurer:

Can you send four $5K invoices to these guys…Use the ALP account and not PB.

Obviously to get around disclosure laws. What the Leader of the Opposition would believe himself is that, for $20,000, three people were prepared not just to break the law but to leave a paper trail of it just in case anyone wanted to prosecute them later. Don't you think that would make you a little nervous?

Don't you think you should say, 'Well, you know, crikey, that doesn't look right to me'? Because I can say that, when I was sitting listening to this nonsense yesterday, I thought I will bet that these are fake. That is the first thing that came into my mind. If it came into my mind, I should think someone in the Liberal Party should have done that. He then relied on four invoices from the Labor Party to someone called Applied Scholastics.

Those four invoices have been examined by the Labor Party. They look like a Labor Party invoice, which is not hard to get because they invoice lots of people and they use a series of invoice numbers. Regrettably for the Leader of the Opposition, those invoices have been used by the Labor Party, not in these invoices but in October last year to invoice in three different cases three completely different recipients. In other words, someone has faked invoices of the Labor Party. The fourth invoice number was never used.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, apparently it wasn't them now, it was someone else. We will come to that in a moment. Someone has been prepared to mock up four false invoices and, of course, if you break it up into four invoices, the Electoral Commission will not notice that it is four times $5,000 to the same person. It is just amateur hour, complete amateur hour. When I say that the least of inquiries would have led the opposition leader to make the slightest inquiry to know that these were fake, of course, one of the things he could have done without alerting us is contacted the people who were alleged to have made the donations. Of course, I have a statement here from Applied Scholastics Australia which says—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Which particular branch?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I note today that, despite trampling over innocent people's reputations, outside of the house he has continued to maintain the truth of the allegations he has made. I will come back to that in a moment. The statement from Applied Scholastics Australia is as follows:

This statement is being issued to correct the false claims that Applied Scholastics Australia has been involved in financially supporting the Labor Party. No individual or representative of Applied Scholastics (APS) has approached any officials from the South Australian Government regarding any Applied Scholastics educational program—or for any other reason on behalf of Applied Scholastics, secret or otherwise. Applied Scholastics has no program regarding education in prisons and has not approached any prisons in South Australia…Allegations of receipts made to Applied Scholastics are patently untrue as no donations or payments have ever been made to the Labor Party.

Apparently, the Church of Scientology is as fond of us as we are of them. I can also say, the next time someone over there decides to mock up a document, that we were also—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —advised by Applied Scholastics that the address on the purported invoice has not been used since 2005, which would make it pretty hard. They have really checked it out! I think that, on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who, let us face it, is going to have a good day today, and so is the former leader going to have a good day today, because I notice she was not saying anything yesterday—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: What's the test that she's got at the moment?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: A major mistake. This looks remarkably like a major mistake. The Leader of the Opposition has been prepared not just to use this place with false documents to trample over the reputations of innocent third parties—

Mrs Redmond: Ask your Attorney-General about doing that.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He has not only been prepared to do that but he has done it with utter recklessness as to the truth or the veracity of the documents that he has had. He said on the radio that they did exhaustive research. I think that the exhaustive research—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —was sitting around in their leadership group, saying, 'Do you reckon we can get away with this?' That was the exhaustive research, because one phone call would have brought it undone. It is a pattern of behaviour. We have seen fake websites set up by the Liberals, fake Twitter sites, three members of the Liberal Party encouraging the stacking of polls and, of course—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is right—there in black and white.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And they laugh.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let us not forget the member for Unley—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; they do not want to hear it, but they will—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss will come to order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —because this goes to the character of the Leader of the Opposition and what those opposite are prepared to do. The member for Unley was the first to ask a question. The member for Unley is, of course, the person who raised a complaint from a constituent about a book at his primary school and the Premier's Reading Challenge. However, what he neglected to point out was that the constituent in question was one Craig Clarke, the press secretary for the Leader of the Opposition—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Thank you, Isobel. I think that Craig Clarke would be fully entitled to question what his children were reading, had he any. Thank you—had he any children. But do not forget what the approach of the Leader of the Opposition is. He set it out in May 2006 when he said:

It is much more interesting to be in opposition where you can sit at home on Sundays making Molotov cocktails and deciding who to throw them at on Monday.

That includes being willing to trample over the reputations of innocent third parties, because he likes throwing Molotov cocktails; relying on forged documents, because he likes throwing Molotov cocktails.

Can I advise the Leader of the Opposition that when we were in opposition we did get lots of leaked documents, and we went through them to make sure, because you should see what the Liberals like to say about each other. You should see the sorts of allegations they wanted us to make about serving Liberals. Some of them were disgraceful, and we did not make them because we liked a little due diligence in what we did, and that is why we actually got some of them. We did not invent things. I suspect that we have had a few more inventions today.

But what are the consequences of this? I was astonished to find that, far from being embarrassed by relying on forged documents to blacken reputations, the Leader of the Opposition actually stood by them, even when it was shown to him, manifestly, that they were false. He stood by them and demanded that the named parties produce statutory declarations to prove their innocence. I advise the Leader of the Opposition that I think it is extremely likely he will be receiving legal documents from the people in question, but I do not think they will be statutory declarations, because what he has done is accuse people of, at the very least, seeking to avoid the application of the law or, very likely, breaking it.

The other consequence of this that we have to consider is that someone in the Liberal Party was prepared to supply these false documents.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Come on! You wish.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Okay, I wish. Here is what he said yesterday.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: 'There is someone with firsthand knowledge of the origin of these documents who should be talking to the police', and it is not me, because I have no knowledge of where they came from. I will say this: I believe, to my bootstraps, that it was a member of the Liberal Party. I wish? No, it is up to you, because here is what he said yesterday.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Here is what he said when he was talking about the emails and a reference to a man called Tom. He said, 'Sources from within the Labor Party have advised the opposition that the man called Tom is the Minister for Correctional Services.' One would assume that whoever was talking to this source knows who that source is. Someone in the Liberal Party knows who that source is, otherwise they would not have referred to it. I am assuming they did not meet in an underground car park with him standing in the shade, otherwise, how would they know either he or she was a Labor source?

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: here is your opportunity. Get that Labor person! You have been trying for years and you have never got one. Get that Labor person, because you, allegedly, know who it is. However, that is not going to happen, and the reason it will not happen is that these documents were supplied to the Leader of the Opposition by a member of the Liberal Party.

An honourable member: You wish.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I wish.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition she is having a good day. Let's not try to gild the lily. Sometimes you just have to sit back and say thank you. I wish. I say this: a member of the Liberal Party handed the Leader of the Opposition forged documents. There is only one person who can disprove that, and they sit on that side. So get up and say who it was. We will do something about it if it is one of ours: you have my promise. I say to you: that will not happen, because the forged documents were provided by a member of the Liberal Party.

One has to ask why. There are two consequences that flow from this, can I say? One is that the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated himself, if he actually believed this was true, to be so gullible as not to be fit for high office. Someone will sell him a bridge. A huge number of people come to your doors in government trying to sell you a scheme. This bloke has bought—lock, stock and barrel—the most transparent of forgeries. That is one point. But the second point is: why would a member of the Liberal Party give these documents that anyone with half an ounce of intelligence would know would be driven through in a moment? Why would they do that?

I put to members it is because the enormous divisions in the Liberal Party have not gone away. Not only is the Leader of the Opposition not fit for government, but also this Liberal Party will never be fit for government because all they do is tear each other down. I am prepared to pit my record today on the truth against the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, but if anything I say is not true about the problems of these documents, tell us where they came from. We did not produce them. We did not make them. Tell us where they came from. Mr Speaker, can I say this: the Leader of the Opposition, instead of toughing it out, should be apologising to the parliament. I will make two predictions: he will not apologise to the parliament, and he is not fit—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: How can we take it to the police? We do not know where you got them from; you know, so take it to the police. I insist that the opposition takes it to the police and tell them all it knows; I insist, because they are the ones with the forged documents. Let me make another prediction before I close: he will not apologise to the parliament, but I promise you that, if he is wise, he will very soon be apologising to Michael Brown and Nick Bolkus.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT