House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Cabinet Process Cabinet Process Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Cabinet Process Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): Supplementary to the Premier: the Premier, having read the report of Mr Lander and having told the parliament that he accepts the findings of Mr Lander, is he satisfied that his Treasurer does understand the issues in relation to cabinet submissions? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Cabinet Process The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:22): The report actually canvasses a number of issues about the way in which cabinet operates and, indeed, a range of statutory authorities. We are reviewing the report very carefully and we will be considering it as a cabinet, and there will be some consequential matters that will flow from that. It is worth pointing out, though, and this is something that I think ministers do need to be aware of—and it is something perhaps, at least over my time as being a cabinet minister—there has been an increasing tendency of various statutory authorities to, if you like, narrow the scope of what might otherwise be regarded as the area of cabinet confidentiality. What is happening now is that documents which had previously not been within the public province are now actually being routinely referred to in Auditor-General reports and now we see in Ombudsman reports. One of the challenges that provides for us is that I certainly, and I know my cabinet colleagues, have always treated the cabinet submission as part of the cabinet process—so an input, if you like, to the cabinet process, not necessarily containing everything, but desirably containing as much as possible to assist in a proper decision to be made. However, now we see the evaluation retrospectively of our decisions in this way, I think it does make it incumbent that each and every consideration that cabinet has apparently considered is contained in those documents. Suffice to say that the cabinet submissions are not pleadings. They are not pleadings in a court case which define all of the issues in questions that come before cabinet. Indeed, some ministers come to cabinet with perspectives which have not been canvassed at all in any of the cabinet documents, and that's as it should be. Ministers should be able to bring to the table their own experience, the conversations they might have with their chief executive, or a perspective of their agency which might not otherwise find its representation in a cabinet document; all of those things are proper to be brought to the table. I think that given the way in which this matter has progressed it has caused us, to some degree, to consider how much material should be documented even if other material is not necessarily in writing but has been canvassed during the course of the discussion. So, we certainly are reflecting on all those matters, and I know cabinet will be dealing with the implications of a range of the helpful guidance that has come from the commissioner in due course.