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) (16:06): When Tom Easling was arrested in 31 July 2004 he was employed by the Office of Youth, and the public announcement by the government in the days after his arrest was that he would be suspended on full pay. Immediately after his arrest and in the ensuing months, the Chief Executive of the Department for Families and Communities made a decision to suspend him not on pay. This matter went to the Promotion and Grievance Tribunal, which found in Mr Easling's favour—that he should be reinstated on pay, that is, still on suspension but getting paid. The department then decided to go to the Supreme Court, and the matter went to court in 2007. The reason I have raised this matter is that this goes to show the level of incompetence within the government in relation to this issue. Just after the matter went to court, the government had to admit that, unbeknown to the Chief Executive of the Department for Families and Communities, the Office for Youth, for which Mr Easling was working, had been transferred to a totally different department some 10 months earlier. So, the Chief Executive of the Department for Families and Communities did not know that the Office for Youth, with 30 staff and a budget of $2 million, had been transferred. The chief executive, who had an executive officer attending her chief executive meetings on a regular basis as part of the management team, did not notice that that person was missing for 10 months. So, the department went to the Supreme Court arguing about Mr Easling's pay only to discover that the department that was arguing the matter did not employ Mr Easling, because 10 months earlier, unbeknown to the chief executive who was defending this case, he had been transferred to another department: DFEEST. That was a surprise to DFEEST, because DFEEST has told in writing that it was not notified that Mr Easling had been transferred to it. So, it was quite a surprise to everyone that, when the case reached court, the Department for Families and Communities said, 'We have lost the Office for Youth. It is only 30 people and $2 million a year. Where have they gone?' The chief executive did not know that the Office for Youth was not in her agency and was not even reporting to her minister. That went over to DFEEST. We know this because the government wrote to Easling's lawyers and advised them as follows: The Office for Youth—in which Mr Easling was previously employed—was transferred (along with its employees) from the Department for Families and Communities to the Department for Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology by way of Proclamation in the Government Gazette on 23 March 2006. At the time Mr Easling was suspended from duty. There is then a great quote. The letter goes on: Due to a series of administrative oversights— commonly known as 'stuff-ups' in the real world— DFC was not made aware of the transfer of the Office for Youth to DFEEST. Further, DFEEST was not made aware that Mr Easling was amongst the employees transferred. That just goes to show the level of incompetence in relation to the handling of Mr Easling's case, and is another reason why there should be a royal commission type inquiry into the Easling affair. How can a chief executive go to the Supreme Court arguing a case about an employee she does not even have? The waste of resources on behalf of the government and Mr Easling is a disgrace, and the questions for the minister are: has the government apologised to the court for misleading it about Mr Easling's employment in the totally wrong agency, and did it apologise to Mr Easling or refund his costs? This is another example of the total incompetence of the handling of the Tom Easling matter, and I hope the government will give us an answer on the question about a royal commission sooner rather than later.