Question Time

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Oakden Inquiry

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Premier. Given that the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption has said that he has been told 'future requests for cabinet documents will be considered on a case-by-case basis', why has the Premier already ruled out providing our commissioner with any documents relating to Oakden?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:08): There was an occasion (I cannot remember exactly, but in the last 12 months) where there was a discussion—more than a discussion; there was a series of questions, if I recall correctly, here during question time, which at that point in time were focused on the particular instance of the Auditor-General. People opposite were asking a number of questions about that, which were answered and clarified.

If one goes back through the Hansard, one would see that it was explained to the parliament at that point in time that there had been a determination that there should be clarity around the position with regard to cabinet documents. The position with regard to cabinet documents, which needed to be clarified because of some muddying of the waters largely by those opposite, was the longstanding tradition—which has actually been dealt with in the courts in varying cases over many years—that cabinet documents are exempt from production. Those documents are confidential documents.

In that context, it was the case and it was mentioned that, if the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption in a particular matter made a particular request pertinent to that matter, it was of course open to the cabinet to consider that request on an ad hoc basis and that obviously if such a request were made it would be considered. We have never indicated that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is warned and the member for Unley is called to order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But I remind members that the context of that particular conversation was that there had been a circumstance of extremely rare nature, as far as I am aware, where documents had been extracted by reason of a Supreme Court order and those documents were in a particular case thereafter the subject of a request. That was a very unusual circumstance. Our position has been, and remains, that cabinet documents are cabinet documents and they remain, as they have always been, confidential.

Let's be clear about this. The particular circumstances in the case that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to were circumstances where there had been an order of the Supreme Court. Over the objection, I might add, of the government, which maintained its position that as a matter of law these things would not be volunteered, there was an order made by the Supreme Court. So, that is the context of those remarks.

The position is very clear. There are many legal decisions about the nature of cabinet documents. This is not something new. This is not something that has been invented in the last few days, the last 12 months, the last decade, probably the last couple of centuries. This is a longstanding proposition.