HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Pearce, Ms D.A.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (14:39): My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier assure the house that a statement given to the media by the government last night was actually a statement from the family of Debbie Pearce? With your leave and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Ms COOK: The government last night released a statement to the media that it claims was from the family of Debbie Pearce, which stated, and I quote:

We are grateful for the care that our sister received. We have no concerns with staff at the home and do not want them to be blamed for her death. We do not wish for this to be a matter of media interest.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:40): I thank the member for this question because she has raised a very important matter in this whole sorry saga commenced by her yesterday. As the member would know, if I can just deal with this very specifically, information that might be given to the media which they choose to publish obviously is a matter for them to confirm about their source. We have special laws, actually, in South Australia, the member might be aware, that protect journalists in relation to that.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Nevertheless, it was brought to the attention of the parliament yesterday, purportedly 16 days after what the member for Hurtle Vale considered to be shocking revelations of serious allegations from her own material that she published in her press release with attached emails that she received on 1 June. She saw these as so shocking, as so serious, that she would wait 16 days to even raise it in parliament—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am listening to the Attorney-General.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Primary Industries, please!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —let alone take up those matters. So it didn't surprise me at all that in fact the media released a statement by the family, which has been read out. I don't need to repeat it, but what I will say is this: I think the member for Hurtle Vale does need to account to this parliament for why she would take 16 days in relation to alleged shocking revelations that she found.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it's timely that we all be reminded, as members of parliament, that we are public officers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We have legal obligations to report matters to various authorities, including but not limited to the Office for Public Integrity.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Say that outside, Vickie.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It's a timely reminder. The member decided to do nothing about this for 16 days—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is on two warnings.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —in asking a question in the parliament, for that to occur. So I think she does need to account to this parliament, whether there was anyone—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —who had decided that this was a lower priority than bus routes and the like, and that be considered.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: But I did indicate to the parliament yesterday that I would make an inquiry of my own department about whether the person in question had been the recipient of services of agencies under my responsibility. I can confirm that she was not under the guardianship of the state, which, as the member and I am sure others would be aware, is an area of responsibility for the Office of the Public Advocate. She was, apparently, a client of the Public Trustee; I am not sure in what form. She may have had her will done there or she may have had an account. I don't have the detail of that at this point.

I don't have any particulars as to whether the Coroner has or is still to be seized of any inquiry other than the fact that, under the Coroners Act, the Coroner is obliged to consider certain matters, including if someone dies in a hospital and in certain other circumstances but, for the purposes of this issue, in that circumstance. What I am aware of, and I think this issue was outlined in detail in the Legislative Council yesterday by the minister, is that there is a critical incident process, and it has been undertaken and it is still continuing.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT