House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege MATTER OF PRIVILEGE The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:31): I rise on a matter of privilege. On 30 October 2008, in answering the question about the Easling matter, minister Rankine told this house: We had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed. The answer continued: If you want me to go into detail, I can. It's very unsavoury. Mr Easling was overseas at the time and upon his return, his lawyers immediately wrote to the minister on 12 November 2008. In that letter, Mr Easling's lawyers state: As you are aware, our client was acquitted by a Supreme Court jury in December 2007 of all charges of having allegedly interfered sexually with youths placed in his care. That trial followed an extensive investigation by the Special Investigations Unit of the Department for Families and Communities. That investigation was the subject of intense scrutiny in the trial. Prior to the trial, via applications under the Freedom of Information Act, through disclosure by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and by production in answer to subpoenae issued by the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court, every record kept by the Special Investigation Unit and the South Australia police in connection with that investigation was produced and examined by us. Nowhere within it can be found any reference to any suggestion by any person ever that semi-naked boys were found in our client's bed. Needless to say, our client vehemently denies that this ever happened. The letter continues: When you made your remarks about our client in parliament, you were prepared to give detail of the alleged circumstances you described. We invite you to do so now. Please identify the boys claimed to have been found in our client's bed in a semi-naked state, the occasions when they were found and by whom. You might also care to explain why these allegations were never put to our client during the years in which he was a registered foster carer; why, despite these allegations, he was permitted to remain a registered foster carer and why the evidence upon which you rely was apparently withheld and not disclosed in answer to subpoenae issued by the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court in the criminal proceedings. The minister was quoted in The IndependentWeekly on 14 November 2008 as saying that, when making the above remarks to the house, she 'had relied on documentation provided by the department's special investigations unit'. On 14 November 2008, Easling's lawyers wrote another letter to the minister requesting the documentation relied upon by the minister in making these comments. To this day, I understand that neither of these letters has received response from the minister. On 26 November 2008, the minister was asked a series of questions in this place, giving her a chance to correct the record: The Hon. I.F. EVANS:	My question is to the Minister for Families and Communities. Given the minister's statement to the house regarding Tom Easling that 'we had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed' and a statement to The Independent Weekly that in making those comments 'she relied on documentation provided by the department's special investigations unit', can the minister explain how no document provided to Mr Easling or his representatives by the government has any reference to any suggestion by any person ever that semi-naked boys were found in Mr Easling's bed? The minister responded: I thank the member for Davenport for his question. In response to a barrage of interjections whilst the member for Davenport asked the question to which he refers, I used my own words to summarise information that was in my possession in relation to the allegations. A second question states: My question is again to the Minister for Families and Communities. Given the minister's statement to the house regarding Tom Easling that 'we had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed'...will the minister immediately release to Mr Easling the document she claims she relied upon in making the comments, as requested in a letter to the minister of 14 November; and, if not, why not? The minister said: I have a letter that I have received from Mr Easling's solicitors and I am giving that consideration. The next day, on 27 November, I asked this question: My question is to the Minister for Families and Communities. In answering a question about Tom Easling on 30 October, where she claimed that 'we had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed', did she accurately summarise the information in her possession? The then attorney-general answered the question, and in part of his answer said: The member for Davenport would know exactly the incident in the trial and the summing up to which the minister was referring. I then asked as a supplementary question: Will the minister explain to the house why she will not stand by her earlier statement that 'we had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed'? Again, the then attorney-general answered the question. You will note that the then attorney-general suggested that I would know exactly the incident in the trial and the summing up to which the minister was referring. I assumed that the attorney-general stated this as, in the letters written to minster Rankine by Mr Easling's lawyers, they set out why she could not be referring to a visit to Mr Easling's home by Mr Craig Reed, a public servant, on 22 December 1992 and, if the minister was referring to that visit, why she was wrong. As Mr Easling's local MP, I submitted a number of FOI applications for documents relating to the minister's claim. For the purposes of this speech, I have left out Mr Easling's address, but they were on the FOI applications. The FOI applications I raised were these. I asked for all documents relating to any report by Craig Reed on his attendance at the residence of Tom Easling, [address], on 22 December 1992. One record was found. Access was denied due to confidentiality. I also FOI'd documents relating to any report by Craig Reed that he attended the residence of Tom Easling [address] and found semi-naked boys in his bed. One record was found, and access was denied due to confidentiality. I also FOI'd all documents relating to any report of a public servant that they attended the residence of Mr Easling and found semi-naked boys in his bed. Six pages were found, and access was denied due to confidentiality. These FOI requests cover any public servants, not just Mr Reed. I also FOI'd all documents concerning the minister's statement to parliament regarding Thomas Frank Easling on 30 October 2008 that 'we had people going into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed', and, 'If you want me to go into detail I can. It is very unsavoury.' Seventeen pages were found. One public media article was released. Access was denied to the other 16 pages due to confidentiality. If the minister's claims were true, the documents would exist. If a public servant attended the home of a male foster carer and found semi-naked boys in his bed, a report would exist in the department. If it was 'very unsavoury', as the minister claims, a report would also be in the department on that issue. The four applications were then internally reviewed, and access was denied on the same basis as the original application. All four applications were then sent on appeal to the Ombudsman for review. On 18 March 2010, I received a fax of the Ombudsman's response and determination. I received the original of the response and determination on 19 March 2010, the day before the state election. The Ombudsman's determination required the department to release further documents to me and changed two determinations. What do these documents show, and what do the two new determinations show? The documents released are part of a transcript of an interview between public servant Craig Reed and the investigator from the Special Investigations Unit of the Department of Families and Communities. The investigators questioned Mr Reed about his visit to Easling's home on 22 December 1992. When asked what the boy was wearing, the public servant states as follows: OATS:	So did you see X getting dressed? REED:	No I didn't. I couldn't even tell you what X was wearing, because when I observed X he actually had bed covers pulled up over the top of him so I can't make any comment as to whether...he was clothed or unclothed, I don't know. The public servant who went to Easling's home could not confirm the boy's state of dress. The minister has, in my view, no factual basis to make her claim that semi-naked boys were found in Mr Easling's bed. One boy, not boys, was present at the time. The public servant told the investigators that: ...he actually had bedcovers pulled over the top of him so I can't make any comment as to whether...he was clothed or unclothed, I don't know. The documents also show that the public servant told the investigators that the boy 'was happy, smiling, talkative' and that it was the same comment he would make about Mr Easling. He also told the investigators that, when he entered Mr Easling's home, Mr Easling was in the kitchen, fully dressed, doing up his shoes. The minister claimed of course to the parliament that it was very unsavoury. The minister's statement that 'we had people go into that house and finding semi-naked boys in his bed' and that it was 'very unsavoury' totally contradicts the interview given to the Special Investigations Unit by the public servant who went to Mr Easling's house. The minister is now in a position that her department has confirmed in writing that there are no documents held by the department that relate to any report by Craig Reed that he attended the residence of Tom Easling and found semi-naked boys in his bed; or related to any report of any public servant that they attended the residence of Tom Easling and found semi-naked boys in his bed. We know this from a letter sent to me on 25 March 2010 by Jill Francis, Director of Legal Services for the Department of Families and Communities. The letter states: Mr Evans, I refer to the recent External Review of the following Freedom of Information applications: Application 2-DFC/07077-F01012 Access to all documents relating to any report by Craig Reed that he attended the residence of Mr Easling...[address] and found semi-naked boys in his bed. Application 3-DFC/07079-F01010 Access to all documents relating to any report of a public servant that he attended the residence of Mr Tom Easling address, and found semi-naked boys in his bed. As you are aware, the Ombudsman has varied the above two determinations made by the Department on 31 August 2009 and 28 August 2009 respectively. The Department accepts the variation of the said determinations. Such variation resulted from a strict interpretation of the particular words used in the applications, and consequential assessment of whether documents held by the Department fit within the narrow and specific description provided by way of applications. It is therefore determined that no documents are held by the Department based on a strict and narrow interpretation of the particular wording contained in the applications both dated 19 August 2009. Yours faithfully, Jill Francis On these two freedom of information applications and the department's response, the Ombudsman varied 'the Department's determinations to conclude that the Department holds no records within the scope of the application'. The Ombudsman found that there were no documents to support the minister's statement. There has been no appeal against the Ombudsman's determination by the department. The department has confirmed that there are no documents that contain the allegations made by the minister. In the full knowledge that Mr Easling had been cleared of 18 counts of sexual abuse and a further two counts had not even been proceeded with by the court, Mr Easling believes minister Rankine has effectively reaccused him in full view of the public and the parliament under parliamentary privilege. It remains on the public record today through Hansard; it has remained on the public record for nearly two years. The documents released on the Ombudsman's instructions indicate that the minister's claim is not supported by any departmental document—not one. I believe the minister has deliberately misled the house. I believe she has recklessly attacked Mr Easling's reputation and breached the ministerial code of conduct. Mr Easling, having been cleared by a court, should not have to accept being reaccused through unsubstantiated allegations by a minister in the parliament. In my view, it is a most serious misleading. This minister has had 20 months, almost two years, to correct this record. Easling's lawyers wrote to her twice about the false and malicious claims. She was questioned in parliament numerous times. She was aware that her department had received a number of freedom of information applications and these applications were reviewed. She was aware the documents were released as a result of the external review by the Ombudsman. She has made no attempt to correct the record. I therefore ask you to consider the above and rule whether prima facie the matter relates to a matter of privilege and should therefore be accorded precedence for a motion to enable the house to determine if there has been a breach of privilege. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The matters raised by the member are very serious and voluminous. I would hate to make a judgement now. I would certainly be wanting to spend some time looking through the material that I would ask you to give to me. I want to defer my decision. I will report back to the house at the first opportunity on whether I consider the matter prima facie to be a matter of privilege. Unfortunately, we are now going into recess, and there is no way that I could make a decision tonight, so I would expect to bring back my decision in the first week of the sitting when we return to parliament. I would remind members, however, that this is a matter of privilege and that they need to be extremely careful and not make any public statements in relation to this, because it could be a matter of privilege. So, I would warn you to be very careful about that. I would ask that the member for Davenport pass on to me any material that he wishes, and I have something like six or eight weeks to carefully consider my decision.