House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Child Protection Inquiry CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY Mr PISONI House of Assembly Unley CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:50): Supplementary, sir. In the Premier's answer he said that it is not appropriate for ministerial staff to be involved in such sensitive matters. Can he please advise the house why it is that ministerial staff contacted all the parents to arrange briefings prior to the public release of the Debelle inquiry report? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Minister for State Development Minister for the Public Sector Minister for the Arts CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:50): Of course, we are dealing with very different matters. I will perhaps take the honourable member to what we are talking about here, and this is the evidence that was given by the chief of staff. He makes these points in his evidence, which is set out in full on page 135 of the report: I do think the primary responsibility of those is with the department, and I say that because (a)	there's too much that happens to be farmed up to the minister's office; (b)	there's a range of expertise within the department that ought to be relied upon to deal appropriately with things; (c)	I think people would find it offensive if politicians were involving themselves in the matters which occur within schools, as a general rule. I think creating a culture where ministerial officers are checking to see that the department is acting appropriately creates a bad culture. I think departments ought to be trusted to do the right thing within the province of their remit. There is also a responsibility, I think, on an agency to—where matters are complicated—bring those matters to the attention of senior executives and then form a judgement about whether they ought to be brought to the attention of the minister. That often happens. Briefings are provided about matters that arise. I don't know enough about what occurred here but clearly at some point there were discussions and differences about whether to advise people and, if so, what to advise people. I don't know at what level in the agency that was all determined but, given that there was that controversy, I imagine within the agency, I think that ought to have been brought to the attention of people further up and then a judgement made as to whether that was something that was appropriately brought to the attention of the minister. In respect of that evidence by Mr Blewett, what was found by Mr Debelle is this: In my view, the reasons given by Mr Blewett for believing that the primary responsibility lay with the Department are valid.