House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Easling, Mr T. EASLING, MR T. The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:20): Last sitting week I asked the Minister for Families and Communities a question about whether the Special Investigations Unit had the legal powers to conduct the Easling investigations. In her response, the minister made the following claim: We had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed. The minister continued: If you want me to go into detail I can. It is very unsavoury. I sent this transcript to Mr Easling who happened to be away overseas at the time; he returned only this week. He is vehemently denying these allegations by the minister, to such an extent that his lawyers have written a four-page letter to the minister denying these claims. The letter is telling. The letter to the minister states that, prior to the trial and as part of the disclosure process, in all the documents released through the FOI process, in all the documents disclosed by the DPP's office, in all the documents released in answering the subpoena issued by the Magistrates Court, in all the documents related to answering the subpoena issued by the Supreme Court, in every record kept by the Special Investigations Unit and in every record kept by the police, 'nowhere within can it be found any reference to any suggestion by any person ever that semi-naked boys were found in our client's bed'. I will repeat that. The letter from Mr Easling's lawyers to minister Rankine states: Nowhere within it can it be found any reference to any suggestion by any person ever that semi-naked boys were found in our client's bed. The letter then invites the minister to provide the evidence. And let us not forget that the minister told the house—and it is clearly in Hansard—that she could go into details if we wanted but that it was 'unsavoury'. Clearly, the minister has the details of these allegations. I say to the minister on behalf of Mr Easling: provide the evidence that proves these allegations or do the right thing and resign. Mr Easling went through what was an extraordinary investigation. He went through an extensive trial and he was found not guilty on all counts. The minister knows this and knew this before she made those statements to the house. This minister is the minister in charge of the very agency central to this matter. This minister is in charge of the protection of children and knows the damage that false allegations can do. This minister has now made the statement to the house. This minister has a duty to prove it. No minister can come into the house and get it wrong on this type of issue. This is the most serious form of allegation: people going into his house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed. The minister has made this claim. The minister now needs to prove this claim. This illustrates why we need a royal commission into the investigation of Mr Easling, why we need an investigation into this matter, because, without an investigation, without an inquiry, Mr Easling will continue to be subject to innuendo, rumour, malicious gossip, false statement and false allegations for the rest of his life. The minister needs to prove her statement or do the decent thing and resign. The government needs to establish a royal commission as a matter of urgency. Time expired.