House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Gillman Land Sale Gillman Land Sale Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Gillman Land Sale Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): Given that in 1991 when maladministration was rife at the State Bank of South Australia, the then premier, John Bannon, resigned stating that, 'The buck stops with me,' why shouldn't the Treasurer equally accept ultimate responsibility like premier Bannon did? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Gillman Land Sale The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:13): Well, that's not the test for ministerial responsibility. The test for ministerial responsibility, which I think was elegantly set out in the Debelle report, is the personal responsibility of ministers for behaviour that they are either directly responsible for or of which they have notice. There is no finding here in relation to the Ombudsman's report that there was any particular culpability of the minister in respect of the decisions or advice of the maladministration that occurred. But let's remember here that we never sought to hide behind the advice of the agency. We always accepted that this was a cabinet decision, and a cabinet decision was made in respect of this matter, and there was no finding of maladministration in relation to the cabinet decision or of any of the ministers who actually participated in the cabinet decision process. We were let down in some respects during some of the process which led to this, but it does not affect, in my view, the nature of the decision that cabinet took. Every time we were seeking to promote this transaction and defend it against criticism in the lead-up to the election, we made it absolutely clear that this was a cabinet decision and that we weren't seeking to hide behind the resolution that was made by the Renewal SA board. Cabinet specifically took responsibility for making the decision off the Renewal SA board. The first cabinet decision had a recommendation that it would go back to Renewal SA for a decision and we took it off them and made that decision ourselves because we viewed it as our responsibility. When the minister went to the board to talk to them—because they had great reservations about the matter and we now know with the benefit of hindsight were treated quite poorly by Renewal SA staff—he made it absolutely clear to them that it was a state government set of imperatives that we were seeking to advance, and he was prepared to listen most certainly to whatever they had to say and, if they had any concerns with the process, they should contact him directly and he would put to cabinet precisely what their concerns were.