House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Adjournment Debate Adjournment Debate Easling, Mr T. EASLING, MR T. The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:24): I will take the opportunity to speak on the adjournment and, in doing so, I wish to speak about Tom Easling. Today, I wish to concentrate on just one aspect of this particular case. Those in the house who are following this matter would know that I have spoken on a different aspect each time I have addressed the matter. Today, I want to concentrate on the aspect of the media tip-off of Tom Easling's arrest and, for those who are unfamiliar with the case, I will give some details. Mr Easling was arrested on 31 July 2004, a Saturday morning at 6.30, and when the police rolled up, the media (that is, TV cameras) were in tow, so someone had obviously told them. If Mr Easling had got up earlier than 6.30 and read The Advertiser, he would have read of his own arrest. This matter, we know, is of concern to the government because the Attorney-General has stated publicly that one of his great concerns about this case is the media tip-off. During the process of his defence, Mr Easling, or his lawyers on his behalf, made inquiries of the government in regard to the media tip-off and received a letter back from the then minister for police, Kevin Foley, and the letter states: The South Australia Police (SAPOL) have reiterated to me that: no media release was issued by SAPOL in relation to the imminent arrest of Mr Easling; no member of the Premier's Department was informed of the date and time of Mr Easling's arrest prior to the event; no media representatives were given prior notice of the apprehension of Mr Easling. However, the Acting Commissioner informs me that members of the Department for Families and Communities were advised of the intended arrest date and time to facilitate a necessary response within their department. SAPOL is not prepared to supply the name and title of South Australia Police personnel or the particulars of those persons within the Department for Families and Communities who were aware of the date and time of Mr Easling's arrest. The reason I raise this particular aspect is that it is actually an offence under the act for anyone to reveal the name of those who have been accused or abused—that is, accused of the abuse or alleged to have been abused. So, the release of Mr Easling's details is actually an offence under the act. Given that the media were there and given that it was referred to in The Advertiser, it is clear that someone has breached that provision of the act. The question I put to members of the government is: when they woke up on that Saturday morning and when they thought about it on the Sunday morning, what action did they take to discover the source of the leak? Interestingly enough, about two weeks after Mr Easling's arrest, on 13 August 2004, Grant Stevens from SAPOL gave a media interview on ABC Radio, and it is an interesting read. He was talking to Matthew Abraham and David Bevan and they discussed the paedophile task force of which Mr Stevens is one of the senior officers. Matthew Abraham is talking about the paedophile issue in South Australia becoming a bit of a show trial, and he says: What about the element of this as a show trial, however? We, the media, have been well tipped off by the police in advance, both of the arrest of the senior public servant a couple of weeks ago flagged the day before in the 'Tiser, and these arrests all done en masse. What's the strategy there? And Stevens, in his defence, says: Well, I need to clarify something here. There is certainly no tip-off from the police to the media. The Advertiser article concerning the arrest of the public servant was something that was discovered by The Advertiser themselves. Abraham says: Well, where would they have got that information? I mean, something must be—the operation must be leaking somewhere. Mr Stevens stated: My understanding is that the information that was reported by The Advertiser actually came from people who had an involvement with the investigation from outside of the police—people associated with victims, family members of the victims. Abraham, in another quote on the same interview, says: Like this mass arrest, a six o'clock raid in the morning, again the media was well aware of that. I had an email in my box letting us know about it. So, two weeks after the arrest we know that Matthew Abraham claims to have had an email. We know that Grant Stevens from the Paedophile Task Force has information to the effect that the leak, he believed, came from people associated with the victims, family members of the victims. There is obviously a bit of discussion among the police about how The Advertiser found out. Who in government said to the police, 'Hang on, where did you get that information? Who told you the victims or family members of the victims leaked this information?' Who followed that up? It is a breach of the act. I say to the government that I bet my bottom dollar that no-one followed up that line of inquiry. We then go to the question of the police in their letter, as I quoted from Foley's letter, saying they would not reveal who they told in the Department for Families and Communities. They would not reveal that to Mr Easling. That is interesting, because clearly there is a list within government of who knew of the arrest. The Department for Families and Communities itself could have asked those people who they told about knowledge of the arrest, or was it that the information was leaked and therefore the judgment was made by some in the department that, because it was to the department's benefit, it did not warrant an investigation? The police can also investigate the breach of that act. Given that the police had already been told that it was people associated with the victims or family members of victims, what action did the police take to investigate that particular matter? I know this is of great concern to the government because the Attorney-General has said so publicly about the leaking of the information on Mr Easling. The other issue I raise is the one answer I have from the minister in relation to the Easling matter. Although she did not go anywhere near the question I asked her on the day, in giving a response on the Easling matter on 24 September the Minister for Families and Communities, Jennifer Rankine, I having raised the issue of the diary note, talked of a media strategy for Tom Easling's arrest and said: The investigation diary dated 30 July 2004 states: Discussion with Steve Edgington. He stated he had received a phone call from Grant Stevens who informed him the arrest would occur tomorrow morning and that a media release had been prepared. Kevin Foley wrote to us saying that there was no media release issue. The minister told the house that a media release had been prepared by the police. This is another group of reasons why we need an investigation. If the police knew or were told that victims or family members of victims were involved in the leak, what investigation did they conduct? When officers of the Department for Family and Communities heard it on radio, what investigation did they do? Indeed, when the Attorney-General's government investigators heard it, what investigation did they do? The reality is that it does not matter which way you look at the issue—it is a distasteful topic, I know—at the end of the day there is so much doubt about it that there has to be an inquiry to justify or clarify what happened to Mr Easling. The investigation in my view warrants an investigation, and this whole issue of the media tip-off is another reason why it needs to be investigated.