House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Wakefield Electorate WAKEFIELD ELECTORATE The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly Stuart The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (15:15): Mr Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to correct on the record some slanderous and misleading statements that have been circulated around the electorate of Wakefield imputing improper activities by the Liberal member David Fawcett. The first question which needs to be raised in this issue is: who was aware? Who got their fingerprints on this little document which was circulated? Was it the director of the local campaign up there? Was he involved? How much did the member for Light know about this? Was he involved? Who had their fingerprints on it? It is interesting to note that the Labor candidate declined the opportunity to go on the ABC and defend it. Mr Michael Brown did not want to be involved. Did he have his fingerprints on it? Earlier, when the question was raised, this is what Mr Brown had to say, as reported in The Advertiser: Mr Brown, who told The Advertiser the previous day that it wasn't a negative brochure, received a phone call... Well, what was it, if it wasn't a negative brochure? It was a misleading and dishonest brochure, because what it set out to do was— Members interjecting: The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That's right, and Abraham mentioned the member for Napier, that he lived at Springfield. That's right, and so if it is good enough for the goose it is good enough for the gander. Let us just have a look at the facts. This is what David Fawcett said: The photo that they used on the brochure...was a photo taken at a fundraiser at a farm at Mallala, raising funds for the Women and Children's Hospital...the champagne bottle was held by Jenny Irish, who was the wife of the owner of the farm...the other person next to me was a local from Kangaroo Flat...and that was even before the election. It was before the election, and they were using this document to try and make out that a decent, competent, hardworking person was in some way unfit to be a member of parliament. Let me say that David Fawcett has served his country well. He is a hardworking, reliable, competent member of parliament. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: About to depart. The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is obvious that the Attorney-General, Her Majesty's first law officer, supports this sort of material being circulated. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: My word. The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly The Hon. G.M. GUNN: So the Attorney-General of South Australia supports dishonest material. I challenge the Attorney-General to refer this document to the Director of Public Prosecutions, because it is false. It is false and misleading, and it tells untruths. Is that the basis of the Labor Party's campaign in Wakefield? We have not heard anything from the member for Light. I am told that he is involved in the running of the campaign. Was he aware that this pamphlet went out? Was he aware that the pamphlet went out, because surely— The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Fawcett doesn't live in his electorate. That is the only point it is making. The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The point is that this photo that I have in front of me is a doctored photo. It is doctored, it is misleading, it is untrue. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Doctored in what sense? How is it doctored? The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Of course it is doctored. So the Attorney-General of South Australia, Her Majesty's first law officer, believes that this sort of material is the way that one should betray one's opponent. We will remember this. Obviously it must have his fingerprints on it. This is the same sort of material that was circulated in the electorate of Stuart when members were telling untruths about me. They were absolute untruths, and the Attorney did not have the courage to own up that he was the person who went to the library and tried to get the material. He did not have the courage, and he stood behind the librarian. That character, thank God, is no longer with us in the library. So, this is the standard. It is interesting that the leader of the federal opposition called to have the document withdrawn. They should send a letter around the whole electorate and apologise for it. Time expired.