Grievance Debate

Pearce, Ms D.A.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (15:19): Last night, the government released a statement to the media, and they purported that this statement was from a grieving family relating to the death of a family member. The government released this statement in an attempt to change the media coverage of that death. We have serious questions to ask the government about who authored this statement. Was the statement issued with the consent and knowledge of the family who the government claimed it was from?

Just imagine that we have a government—with all its resources, all its departments—issue a statement to a media outlet, and then we understand that today, after the statement had been read out on news services, a government representative called the family asking for retrospective approval of that statement. There are words for this behaviour. Most of them can be found in the criminal code: fraud and deceptively dealing with documents, let alone misconduct by a public officer, maladministration and potentially corruption.

No media adviser works for their ministers. They have contracts with the Premier. They answer to the Premier. This starts at the top. The Premier is responsible for all media statements that go out. The Premier is responsible for all actions of his government. If a subordinate is told to issue a statement, it is not the subordinate whose name is on that statement; it is the government's. If the government rings up a media outlet, the free press, and says, 'This is from the family, this statement is from the family and this is what the family's wishes are,' and it is a forgery, or it is fraud, or they did not call the family, or they did not seek approval and consent and give the family knowledge that the statement would be issued, well, heads should roll.

If they do not roll, there are other independent bodies that look at this type of behaviour. One I will not name. The one I will name is South Australia Police. The idea that anyone in government would issue a statement, see it on TV and see the statement read—of course, you cannot blame the journalist for this because a journalist in their wildest dreams would not believe that the government would issue a statement from a third party without their consent and knowledge, because that would put everyone in jeopardy.

No doubt, we will get to the bottom of this one way or another. The very idea that the first law officer of the land was not horrified by the accusation but immediately launched into a tirade against the person daring to ask the question is behaviour does not belong in democracies. The first thing the first law officer should have said was, 'I will investigate and, if that is true, it is entirely inappropriate.' We did not get that at all. What we got were accusations.

This is not the first time this modern Liberal Party has used false documents, and I know that firsthand. I have to say that if it does develop that, last night, a journalist and media outlets were given documents that were not with the consent and knowledge of the family they were purported to be from and the government sought retrospective approval from the family for those statements, what does that say about what kind of government we have in place now? A government that is simply trying to manage media by any means necessary, and the truth is not part of it.

Misrepresenting people about what they think and what they feel is an abuse of public office, and anyone, any member of the government or any public officer who does that, should immediately resign and should be subject to an independent investigation. Let's see if responsibility stops at the department door or the minister's desk. Let's see if the government will put words into actions. Let's see if the Premier meant what he said when he was opposition leader about a different standard. Let's see if this government holds itself to real account and, if it will not, independent bodies will.