<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2019-02-27" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="2745" />
  <endPage num="2794" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Freedom of Information</name>
      <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000269">
        <heading>Freedom of Information</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3130" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. M.C. PARNELL</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2019-02-27">
            <name>Freedom of Information</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2019-02-27T15:37:04" />
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000270">
          <timeStamp time="2019-02-27T15:37:04" />
          <by role="member" id="3130">The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:37):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer, as Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, a question about access to cabinet documents.</text>
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000271">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3130" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. M.C. PARNELL</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <page num="2762" />
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000272">
          <by role="member" id="3130">The Hon. M.C. PARNELL:</by>  On pages 1 and 2 of this morning's <term>Advertiser</term> an article by Adam Langenberg refers to the Auditor-General being denied access to cabinet documents relating to the Adelaide Oval hotel development. The article describes how he was denied access to those documents, and goes on to quote Premier Steven Marshall saying he was 'committed to much greater transparency than the former Labor government who were addicted to secrecy and cover-ups'.</text>
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000273">The Premier is quoted as saying that he would release the documents if requested, although the Auditor-General would not be provided with legal advice about whether the hotel meets the Adelaide Oval and Parklands laws, even if the Auditor-General requested those documents. The article explains that:</text>
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000274">
          <inserted>Former premier Jay Weatherill changed rules around access to cabinet documents so that Mr Richardson and other inquiry agencies, including the Independent Commission Against Corruption, no longer had automatic access to them.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000275">My questions to the Treasurer are:</text>
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000276">1.&amp;#x9;Given the Marshall government's election promise and commitment to greater transparency and openness, will the government be changing the rules around access to cabinet documents to reverse the former premier's rule change and allow automatic access to cabinet documents by inquiry agencies?</text>
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000277">2.&amp;#x9;While they are at it, will the government consider providing increased access to cabinet documents through legislative changes to the Freedom of Information Act that the Attorney-General is apparently still working on?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <startTime time="2019-02-27T15:38:59" />
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000278">
          <timeStamp time="2019-02-27T15:38:59" />
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:38):</by>  In relation to the second question, that is ultimately an issue for the Attorney-General. In relation to the first question, I think the Premier has, in the morning media, made it quite clear what his and the government's position is; that is, if the Auditor-General requests cabinet documents, unlike the former Labor premier he will provide access. I will take advice on this, but I would imagine, if there are current rules which actually prevent that, for him to enact it he would need to change those rules.</text>
        <text id="20190227fed7cf248520494d80000279">So I think the answer to the question is—but let me take advice and bring back an answer—if there are existing rules, rather than just a decision that the former premier and the former Labor cabinet took without any rules, that would prevent what the Premier has indicated that he intends to do, I am sure a natural corollary of what he has said would mean that he would need to change those particular rules. But I am happy to take the first part of the question on notice and bring back a reply.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>