First of all, I don't think it's a big problem; it's a matter of judgment. On balance, is it better or not that she write reasons?
If she were to write reasons, those would have to be drafted by others. Those reasons would, however, then become controlling, because everyone would look at those reasons and would say, these are the reasons and this is really the decision; this is the rationale. I don't see why unappointed people, let alone unelected.... They're not even appointed; they're simply advisers. Who are those advisers? What gave them the right to draft those reasons? It's unlike the situation in the Supreme Court of Canada, where they have law clerks and advisers to support them but ultimately the judges themselves decide, and unlike the case of a minister: while speeches and other things are written for you, you could write your own.