Courts Administration Authority, $92,158,000

Membership:

Mr Tarzia substituted for Mr Speirs.

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr C. Kourakis, Chief Justice, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms J. Burgess, State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr S. Matters, Director, Corporate Services, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr T. Pearce, Manager Finance, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr M. Church, Management Accountant, Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate a change of departmental advisers. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on a timetable for these proceedings in the next hour. Is that correct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GARDNER: We have not agreed; we have been told.

The CHAIR: Well, all I am trying to establish, so that we do not have any problems, is that we have an hour for the Courts Administration Authority. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 September 2014 for inclusion in the Hansard supplement.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side, and supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. Can I just establish from the government, will there be any questions in this section?

The Hon. S.W. KEY: No.

The CHAIR: A member who is not part of a committee may, at the discretion of the Chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced at the beginning of the question. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response.

I also advise that for the purposes of the committees television coverage will be allowed for filming from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I ask the minister to introduce his advisers, before I call him to make an opening statement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you very much, and good morning. I will make a few very brief remarks, and then, obviously, go to questions. Can I say a particular welcome to the new members of parliament, who are enjoying their first day of estimates. I am sure that you will remember it for a long, long time, and I hope that your paper is coming along nicely.

First of all, I acknowledge Mr Gary Thompson, who retired from his position during the last year. Gary spent a great deal of time as the state court's administrator, and he provided a great service to the Courts Administration Authority, and I would like to place that on the public record.

I will also touch on a few things. The report on government services in 2014 highlights that, although some jurisdictions recorded decreases in criminal lodgements for the 2012-13 financial year, the District Court had an increase of 15 per cent from 2011-12 to 2012-13; similarly, civil lodgements increased overall. It shows that our court system remains under pressure from demand perspectives.

The courts precinct urban renewal project, which is aimed at reducing that pressure, represents the largest justice precinct redevelopment in South Australia and provides a significant opportunity to assist in creating a more sustainable courts system. The project will provide courtrooms and associated facilities for the Supreme Court, the District Court, the ERD Court and the Coroner's Court.

The government has also implemented the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012, which increases the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court in order to reduce the backlog of criminal cases in the District Court and delays in the finalisation of criminal matters, with the goal of improved court efficiency.

The pressures facing, and the performance of, South Australia's court system is also a major focus of the justice reform portfolio. I have to say that, in the few months since the election, there have been some very positive meetings of the Criminal Justice Reform Council, which includes the Chief Justice, the senior judge of the District Court, the head of the Magistrates Court, the head of Corrections, the Commissioner of Police, legal services and so on. So, all of the main institutional players in the criminal justice system are participating in that project, and I have high expectations that it will produce some very good outcomes in terms of improved service delivery and efficiency in the justice system over the next year or so. That is probably all I need to say by way of an opening comment.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not have an opening statement, Madam Chair, but I indicate that the member for Morialta has some penetrating general questions to place on the record if he may.

The CHAIR: On record? You want to place on record—

Mr GARDNER: In lieu of the opening statement being waived by the deputy leader, perhaps we could do the omnibus questions quickly now and get through them so that they are on the record for all of your departments and agencies.

The CHAIR: That is a complete departure from the norm, but you go ahead.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just for those who are new, this is unusual; it normally happens at the end, but why not?

Mr GARDNER: Hansard has expressed some interest in having this sheet, and we have only one copy.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2013-14 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Does he really have to read this out; can't he just give it to you?

Mr GARDNER: We have established in previous years that that unfortunately is a necessity.

The CHAIR: Unfortunately, he must read it out, as I must read the opening remarks to you at each session.

Mr GARDNER: I will go back to make sure that that the Deputy Premier did not trickily ensure that not all of the question was asked.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2013-14 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2013-14, please provide the number of public servants (broken down into heads and FTEs) that are tenured and on contract and for each category provide a breakdown of the number of executives and non-executives.

3. In the financial year 2013-14, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs was and was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2014-15?

4. Between 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position (with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more) which has been abolished and which has been created?

5. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and the budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, and for 2013-14 provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grants, and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement, as required by Treasurer's Instruction No. 15?

6. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, what is the budget for target voluntary separation packages (TVSPs) for financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office, as at 30 June 2014, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The member for Bragg, I think, has more questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Good morning, Attorney, Chief Justice and senior personnel. I will be referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, and Budget Paper 6 today. I will start at page 164 of the Agency Statement. At about point 3 on page 164 is reference that one of the objectives of the Courts Administration Authority (CAA) is to improve court facilities. My first question is in relation to the courts precinct urban renewal project. Can the Attorney first outline what involvement the CAA has had in relation to the development of that project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will invite the Chief Justice to say a few words about this in a moment, because he has had more direct involvement in the matter than me. Essentially, the courts have been intimately involved in the formulation of the design parameters in terms of functionality and the requirements of the courts. Obviously, if they are going to have a new facility, it needs to be able to deliver the sorts of outcomes that they require and see themselves as hoping to have into the future.

So, there has been a very intensive involvement of the courts. They are, if you like, the customer and there has been, I believe, a pretty good system developed whereby they as the customer, working through the Attorney-General's Department, have been involved all along the way in the formulation of what you might call the design brief in that sense. I do not know if the Chief Justice wishes to add anything further, or something along those lines, if that would be of assistance.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Soon after the announcement was made that expressions of interest would be sought, the courts established internal user groups, ranging from judicial support staff who work with judges in chambers, registry staff, through to judges, to consider the functionality that we would want. Those groups were formalised under a process that worked towards the development of a brief to provide to developers so that they could respond with expressions of interest. That led to the selection of three developers who just in this week have provided presentations on their concepts as to design, functionality and financing. Their proposals will be evaluated by an evaluation panel, which includes the State Courts Administrator and judges.

Before reaching that point, as I say, there was a formal process, and the court established an executive user group with senior administrative staff and the heads of the jurisdictions involved—that is, the courts that will move into the building—and that group in fact sought and obtained feedback from many judges and administrative staff on what was required. It led to the production of a brief which was described by some of the respondents to that brief as the best brief they had ever encountered in a project like this, and it enabled them to very quickly obtain a solid understanding of what was required. I think that is probably reflected in the responses that have now been given.

Ms CHAPMAN: Chief Justice, I think you have given a fair indication that the CAA has actually been quite involved in the consultation and development process of the brief as it has gone out for tender. Deputy Premier, who in the department is in charge of this project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe my chief executive is the person who is the responsible person within the Attorney-General's Department.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there a representative from DPTI who is managing this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That, I am not sure. I do not know if the Chief Justice knows who it is.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It is a DPTI project.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, that is why I am asking who is actually in charge of it.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, it is a DPTI project. It will be a leaseback arrangement. At this stage, what is proposed is that the land, which is crown land, will be leased to the developer to develop and then leased back—or at least that is one of the proposals, and I suspect that is the one that is going to go forward.

Essentially, it will be privately built with private finance and leased back. It is a DPTI project, and it is Amanda Thomas with whom we liaise generally, but she no doubt reports to someone more senior in the department. It was essentially Mr Hook before the election, but I do not know what the position is now.

Ms CHAPMAN: Prior to the demise of Mr Hook, a sketch of the new court precinct was published in The Advertiser, and on the information we had, when we were briefed on it, this was just something drawn up by the department at the time to show an option. Was that drawing put before the CAA administration for consideration?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I need to make something clear. There is no design as such that has been settled upon at the present time. As the Chief Justice has explained, there are still three contending bids, if that is the way to put it. I have not even seen what those three bids are proposing; the Chief Justice has, I believe, as have some of my departmental officers, but I have not. However, I suspect that each of them is quite different and none of them necessarily would have anything in common with what I think you would have to describe as an artist's impression of what a building might look like on the site, which is basically the status of the image that was published.

Ms CHAPMAN: I accept, Attorney, that really was just what it was—an artist's impression—and that it had not been presented as any sort of option that was being presented under this process.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not to my knowledge, no. As I said, my understanding of the process is that there was an original call for expressions of interest from the marketplace; that elicited a number of bids or people expressing interest. That was then honed down to a final three who were invited to take their proposal to a further stage. Those final three have very recently presented to the Chief Justice and other people who are intimately involved in the process and, at some point, that will then be, as the Chief Justice explained, evaluated through a process. At the end of that process, we will have a preferred business model, a preferred design and a preferred builder. At that point, I assume there will be something that can be put in the public domain that will show what the building will ultimately look like, but we have not reached that point.

I am absolutely confident in saying that if anything that was appearing in the paper as a 'might be' for that site does have any resemblance to the ultimate winner is more a matter of accident or anything else other than planning.

Ms CHAPMAN: Your announcement, Attorney, during the period prior to the March election that you anticipate that process to be concluded by the end of the year, commence build in the first quarter of next year, to be completed in 2017, is that still the case?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is my understanding, yes; that is what we are all hoping for.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The presentations we saw yesterday were premised on that sort of time line, which is a tight one but one which they say they can meet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are we still talking about the site on King William Street behind the old Supreme Court building?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. You say 'behind the old Supreme Court building', I think again this is subject to what each of the proponents may or may not have put up, and I have to put a caveat there, that I have not seen them. Aside from the heritage buildings on that whole city block, my understanding is that any and all of that block might potentially be used as part of this project. The existing heritage buildings will obviously be retained inasmuch as they have their heritage features, but they may undertake some form of alternative re-use or they may be reincorporated back into whatever it is that the final redevelopment looks like. Again, that is a matter which I guess would be one of the moving parts in the various bids.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that it is going to be on that site and that a whole part of the old Supreme Court building may be demolished in that process, why is there no provision in the forthcoming budget for the continuation of Supreme Court and administrative services on that site, given that it is anticipated that the build will commence in this forthcoming financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure I understand exactly what that question is. Could you just repeat it?

Ms CHAPMAN: If the time line you have proposed, and hope still to achieve, involves the commencement of the development of this project halfway through this current financial year, why is there no provision in the budget for the costs of ongoing provision of services either in temporary courts or facilities for that to occur?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure that the budget addresses that particular topic.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is why I am asking you—because it does not seem to be evident that there is any provision for that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know whether the Courts Administration Authority can enlighten us on that; if not, we will take that on notice and get back to you.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Whether or not there will be what has been called a 'decanting' of the judges is one of the issues that the developers have to address, and there are different proposals with respect to that. If the judges do have to move, then that will be a cost. It is likely to be a cost perhaps at the end of this financial year or perhaps just after it. Of course, it is not clear whether it is necessary at all; it just depends on which developer is chosen and what that proposes in terms of where the building will be placed.

I know, and I can say, that for the judges of the Supreme Court noise is a really important factor because of the capacity to interfere with hearings, so it is a matter the judges will obviously be very concerned about. As I say, until a particular developer is chosen and their proposed construction is considered, we will not know whether we have to move out or not, but we might have to and we have started thinking about a number of options, and some of those options or just about any option will require an additional cost.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question back to the Attorney: why is there no provision in this forthcoming year's budget for the cost of relocation, not just of the judges, but obviously leasing of other courtroom/administrative staff space, people who are in the records department or people who are in the probate office. I appreciate the judges are responsible in the courtroom, and of course their own chambers are in this building, but there are many people who occupy the buildings on that site at present.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand, but I think, as the Chief Justice has said, exactly what needs to be done and in what order is at present unclear and therefore it is very difficult to budget for something which is at this point an unknown. For example, depending on the order in which things are done there may be opportunities in the Riverside building or there might be opportunities in the Sir Samuel Way Building for temporary accommodation of people. These are all matters that need to be looked at and will be looked at.

Ms CHAPMAN: The reason I ask, Attorney, is simply that it is your time frame which suggests that, as of the commencement of next year, one of these projects will be selected and underway, which means that in the first half of next year one or more of the functions and personnel will need to at least temporarily leave that site. There is absolutely no provision for that to occur, and clearly I think you and I would agree that nobody can start doing anything, especially demolitions, until the people are out, and that does mean Riverside or other courts buildings or else the Samuel Way having the area scheduled or leased for occupancy and fit-out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I have just been provided with some advice that might assist us a little further. What I am advised here is that it is only anticipated in this financial year that there will be early works. We would expect the budget to be probably therefore in next year and the year after, and one would expect it to be found in DPTI, I am advised, not in A-G's.

Ms CHAPMAN: So I can ask in DPTI whether they have any provision for this, which would be the relocation and refitting for temporary facilities for CAA.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is what I am advised, but I think you may find—you may find; you ask them by all means—that they do not have anything for this year because they are only anticipating early works, but by all means ask them. I am advised they are the people who would have it in their budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am assuming, and perhaps the Chief Justice may be more familiar with this, as he has seen the proposals to date, that there is no proposal in the brief that the party who is going to progress this PPP will be making provision for that cost. It will be a government cost, whether it is in your department or DPTI's, for the relocation of current personnel.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I do not know whether they have made provision for it or not. That would be dependent on the financial arrangements. I suppose it would be possible for the cost to be included and paid later as part of the rental down the track.

Ms CHAPMAN: But it has not been part of the brief to date. In the brief that you have supervised or been participatory in, it has not been a requisite for the party who is successful to present a proposal as to how they are going to relocate you somewhere pending their build.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I do not know anything about the financial arrangements. Treasury, the Attorney's and DPTI do all that.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I meant was that in the specifications you have presented for consideration by anyone bidding for this there has not been a requirement in it that they provide for the temporary facilities of the judges and staff from that site.

Ms BURGESS: The briefing has outlined that if decanting is required the consortia turn their mind to that, so there may be some proposals that are not proposing to decant buildings.

Ms CHAPMAN: Isn’t that the exercise of the logistics, that they have to turn their mind to the fact that their build may interfere with various current activity and therefore they need to think about who needs to be out and who needs to be in, and what buildings they might demolish, not the cost of putting judges in a hotel or somewhere else.

Ms BURGESS: That is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct, okay. If I just go back to the Attorney: in relation to that, I am happy to follow it up with Department of Transport to consider what provision they have got. You have set the time frame, which you are aiming to be successful at, and if in fact there is no physical decanting of the site in preparation to be clear for the purposes of the build until the 2015-16 year, it raises the question of how this is possibly going to be finished by 2017.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think there are a couple of things to say: the first one is, as I have indicated before, I am advised there would only be early works anyway in this current year; secondly, in any event, it would appear in the DPTI budget, not in ours, so that is the place to pursue the question. Third point is that—again, I have not seen all of these, or in fact any of these proposals—but if you turn your mind to that site, hypothetically you could have a build on the corner of Wright Street and King William Street which proceeded without any physical disruption to the existing site. You could then complete that, move everybody out of the existing site, and put them in there.

That may or may not be desirable from a noise point of view, and a whole bunch of other points of view, but you should not necessarily assume that every proposal requires the immediate evacuation of all personnel from the existing buildings, and then a period where those buildings are totally vacated. That is the only point I make.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think you said there are three concept plans that have been presented this week. What is the time frame for the approval—or selection, I should say—of those?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the evaluation is intended to be completed by the end of August.

Ms CHAPMAN: And from there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not have the next dates here, but we will get them for you. I think the evaluation leads then to the selection of the final partner in the process, and then there are a series of dates that I cannot presently bring to mind, but they end up with a completion date in 2017. But, I will get those for the honourable member and have them provided.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the brief to date, the one that's the 'best they've ever encountered', I think your words were, Chief Justice, which courts does it include?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: For housing in the new building?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The Supreme Court, the District Court, and the Coroner’s Court—sorry, and the ERD Court.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The Environment, Resources and Development Court. The Youth Court was considered for inclusion but is not now.

Ms CHAPMAN: Any reason?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The suitability of having within the one building youths and children as well as adults, and the extra circulation flow in terms of maintaining some separation and the cost of that. There are a couple of other reasons, but that is the primary reason.

Ms CHAPMAN: And boards to be included?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Boards?

Ms CHAPMAN: The Parole Board, or anyone like that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a different matter. The court building, again, as I understand it—I have not seen the brief that the Chief Justice has prepared, but my understanding was that the court building itself is a dedicated court building; it is not intended to be a multifunction building. Again, I have not seen the proposals, but that does not mean there could not be another building, as part of this redevelopment, which perhaps did contain some other functions. But, that is a matter that is not, I think, a settled matter at the present time.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I say, having seen the presentations, we are still bound by commercial confidentiality, and that is one of the reasons why we—

Ms CHAPMAN: All I am asking at this point, Chief Justice, so I am clear about it, is: what are the terms of reference you have put out there, not necessarily what they have come back with?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I can tell you that and more on this question of buildings. There will be a dedicated court building housing courts that I just mentioned. There is a separate building which is being referred to as the Attorney-General's building, which—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, the John Rau memorial building. Is this what we are talking about?

Mr GARDNER: Not memorial yet.

Ms CHAPMAN: It will be by the time it is done.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That will obviously hold the Attorney's officers, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the like. It might also hold a number of other bodies and boards, but that is just a matter for government.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. So, in your presentation to date, you have said we need a court building which will have the four jurisdictions you have referred to, and the separate administration building, if I can call it that, which may have a number of government departments and boards or anything of that nature. Have you got a view as to what should or should not be in that building?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With all due respect, I am not sure how the Chief Justice's view about what sort of neighbours he would like fits within the parameters of estimates.

Ms CHAPMAN: Because he is in charge of improving court facilities.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, he is, and I think he has explained it. He has spent a lot of time preparing a very detailed brief, for which he has received plaudits, and that brief talks all about what the courts want. I can say for my part that, obviously, we would be intending to discuss with the Chief Justice in due course what sort of government agencies would be accommodated there but, ultimately, that will be a decision for government.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sure. Let us separate this. Your department, the DPP and the Crown Solicitor's Office are a matter for government to decide whether to throw them in the package or not. In relation to other tribunals and boards, going back to the administration of justice for the courts, I am interested to know what the Chief Justice's terms of reference are there. Are they just the four core jurisdictions he has referred to as being requisite to be accommodated? In which case, I will ask you in a minute the number of court rooms and prison cells, etc., you see as a requisite, or whether you have a view about whether any other judicial functions or roles are appropriate to be in there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure how much the Chief Justice is able to say about some of these things, having regard to the commercial aspect of it, but I am happy to invite him to say whatever he can say about the basic requirements that he has set forth—

Ms CHAPMAN: That is what I am asking, yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —to the various people who are bidding.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I just say generally that the court is concerned about the general environment and what other buildings are around, but there is no reason to think that anything in the AG's tower is not going to fit with the court precinct that we are establishing. I am just trying to get the number of courtrooms for you, Ms Chapman.

In the first build, there will be 39 courtrooms, but there will be a capacity for five additional courtrooms because, initially, the courts building will house the Courts Administration Authority, but the provision for expansion really is to then move those officers out and have a building designed to be capable of a refit for the construction of another five courts.

In coming to those numbers we looked at projected population increases and we were helped by figures from Treasury on that. We also looked at the growth in lodgements over time in South Australia and effectively balanced those considerations. It is not easy to predict, because the other trend over the last decade or so has been to increase the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, which affects the work of the superior courts, District and Supreme, which will be housed.

As I say, having tried to draw a line through all that data, that is what we came up with. You will find that the 39 courtrooms are not a very large increase over the total number of courtrooms available to the Supreme Court and the District Court at the moment.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is currently how many there are, including plus one for the coroner.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes. I did a rough count, and I had about 37 or so. I have a jot of that now on this paper that I am looking at. What you have to remember is that there are a number of civil courts included in the number I have just given you which are not used and are underutilised. Our pressure point at the moment is in criminal courts, and we have increased substantially the number of criminal courts that will be available within that total number that I mentioned.

Ms CHAPMAN: In presenting the brief of availability of courtrooms and what you require to provide your services, did you look at the Victorian model where the chief justice every morning works out which courtrooms they will lease for the day?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, we did look at that, and that building and that model was often discussed. I do not think that would work here, because of the numbers. They had mediations; there are a large number of mediations and commercial arbitrations that occur on the eastern seaboard which we basically do not get because we do not have the head offices here in Adelaide, so much of the use is taken up there, so that allows it as a viable economic model. I personally turned my mind to having private mediation suites and perhaps renting them out commercially as a way of futureproofing, if you like, but in the end after discussion that was not really viable.

Ms CHAPMAN: If, under your design, the CAA was part of the courts tower—if I can describe that first—with a view of ultimately moving across to the administration tower, is it proposed that the judges' chambers would remain in the courts tower?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Irrespective of the administration side of it moving across?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just add something? I have been provided with some advice in relation to those dates that the member for Bragg was asking about. As I understand it, the evaluation panel assessment should be completed on or about 15 August. The steering committee is expected to make a decision about the panel's recommendation on or about 19 August. It should be possible for the matter then to go to be considered by cabinet in early September. Assuming that proceeds according to plan, then the next stage is called the early developer involvement (EDI) phase which would occur between September of this year and the middle of February next year, with the final approval and agreement to be settled in early March of next year. So at that point it is basically ready to go.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the site in question actually owned by the Attorney-General's Department?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whether it is the Attorney-General's Department, I am not—

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It is the state. The Courts Administration Council; it is Crown, but I am not sure—

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the courts administration council, whatever that is—I am not sure what it is—actually own property?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand that there is a number of different titles. It was with the courts department. The Minister for Infrastructure, I think, did have some, and now the Courts Administration Authority is on the title, as I understand it. The titles are in different ministers' names, but they are on the balance sheet of the CAA, but it is government land.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, but it is a question of whether I ask you questions, Attorney, or whether I ask minister Mullighan, because he has got infrastructure, and his department is really running the show as far as the development of this goes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: True.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that there is the professional contribution from your department and from the Chief Justice, but I just want to know who is doing the work other than that, and, if that is being done, I will ask you to make it clear whether you or your department or the CAA are doing any work for the preparation of the site of that property—remediation of soil, cleaning up contamination, and so on.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The council is responsible for any of that. There have been cores taken but no remediation work.

Ms CHAPMAN: Which department has been doing that soil testing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I assume that is DPTI again.

Ms CHAPMAN: DPTI?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you; I will deal with them on that.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: It is alright; I do not mean that disrespectfully.

The CHAIR: It is a bit scary.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just want to know who owns what and who is actually in charge. In relation to the premises, when is it expected that the successful tenderer for the project—which on all accounts is still to be a PPP model—is going to be disclosed to the extent of going through public works, on the books of account, or is it going to be like the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it disappears off the balance sheet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice, because I suspect the answer to that depends very much on the final form of the relationship between the developer and the government that is settled upon, but I will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the Courts Precinct Urban Renewal Project title—I appreciate this might be some urban renewal because it is covering metropolitan courts; I accept that—the title that is going to continue?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I think it is as good a title as any for what we are doing. If the member for Bragg has another title she thinks would be better, I am happy to—

Ms CHAPMAN: At this stage, Attorney, I have got indication, I think from you and your public statements and the Chief Justice, that it is going to be a courts tower and/or an administration tower, which obviously is going to have a number of government departments or agencies in it. I appreciate the details are to be determined yet, depending on what prospective investors want to have on a rental payment, no doubt. In any event, it is clearly more than just a courts renewal as such, or a courts rebuild.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are sort of moving out of Attorney-General's or even CAA here—we are really in the planning portfolio—

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I understand that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —but I am happy to answer it. There is no doubt in my mind that the construction of a new model court building and associated government administrative offices, and perhaps some private concerns—who knows; I do not know who else might be involved—will bring a total refreshing change to the south-western edge of Victoria Square. It will reinvigorate the southern aspect of King William Street as it heads south from Victoria Square. There are a number of other substantial landholders in that immediate vicinity, including, for example, the Adelaide City Council, which is the owner of significant parcels of land in that area.

My expectation is that, with the advent of the new courts and the associated administrative functions, and the fact that that will bring some hundreds, if not more, new people to that part of the city on a daily basis, as employees or whatever, it is reasonable to anticipate that there would be some private sector knock-on effects, so to speak, in terms of perhaps private investment in development in that area, with the opening of restaurants, cafes, retail outlets and so on. The fact undoubtedly is that, if you transport a substantial number of people to that precinct, you are going to change the daytime and probably the night-time economy of that part of the city, and I think that will be a very positive change for what is already a fairly active, vibrant part of the city of Adelaide.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I say that we received presentations from town planners associated with each of the respondent developers, and they were conscious of the impetus that this building might have on the development of not just the south-western square but the south of Adelaide and have thought about that in designing a court building, that is, thought about designs which will fit in and encourage development along that southern end. So, that was certainly a feature of the town planners’ presentations. The other thing to remember, of course, is that this project involves the District Court leaving the Sir Samuel Way Building, and the question will arise as to the future use of that building, which might also have an effect.

Ms CHAPMAN: It reminded me, Chief Justice, of the similar sentiment expressed at the time that Mr Solomon Lew (Myer) said when he missed out on the Sir Samuel Way Building and that development. Nevertheless, it does raise the next question of what is to happen with the Sir Samuel Way Building. Is it the government's intention that, once there is a relocated, dedicated precinct, that property will be sold?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Sir Samuel Way Building, once it is no longer required for the courts, is obviously then available for alternative use of some description. The government is actually not the owner of that building as such; I think it is the state superannuation fund if I am correct. Presently, the government is occupying that building by reason of a lease arrangement between, I believe, the Court Administration Authority and Super SA or state super or whatever they are called. It would be a matter for the owner of the building to determine what future the building should have, but it clearly does offer the potential for some additional new function to be added into Victoria Square, subject to its being satisfactory from the owner's point of view.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have covered most of the other matters. In relation to the backlog indicated on page 168 for the District Court, Magistrates Court and Youth Court, it shows that targets have been missed by a long way; for instance, the target of the Magistrates Court lodgements pending greater than 12 months, the goal was zero, an estimated result of 12 per cent. Are the FTE reductions and efficiency dividend requirements impacting on the processing of matters in these courts?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that is not easy to give because everyone looking at these numbers can speculate as to what the actual cause of any particular figure might be. I think that the Chief Justice has already indicated that many of the courts efficiency matters that have been basically passed through the parliament in the last year or two have impacted on the number of matters being heard in the Magistrates Court. I do not have any reason to believe that the Magistrates Court is not capable of managing those matters and improving its management of those matters, but it is something that we have to keep an eye on.

One of the important roles of the Criminal Justice Reform Council is actually to look at each of the levels of the courts in South Australia, but in particular, obviously, the Magistrates Court and the District Court, to see what we can do to improve the efficiency of those courts and to relieve pressure on the lists. That is work we are progressing with presently. There have been some encouraging signs in relation to what I think we would probably call 'early intervention' or triaging-type models, which essentially identify those matters which are most likely to be resolved by way of a plea of guilty and to pull them out of the list by way of resolution, by way of a plea earlier rather than later. Every one of those that occurs is a saving to the system at all levels and a good outcome for victims.

We have to keep our eye on these numbers, and they are some of a number of indicators we have of the ongoing performance of the courts. I can say that the Criminal Justice Reform Council at its most recent meeting spent some time on the vexed topic of statistics. I think we have all come to the conclusion that, particularly when you are looking at something as complex as the justice system, the simple quotation of a statistic is usually not very helpful and occasionally quite misleading.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 6, page 34, the efficiency dividend. According to the 2012-13 Mid-Year Budget Review, the 2013-14 state budget and this year's state budget, the courts are required to achieve a million dollars in savings over the forward estimates to meet efficiency dividends. How will this million dollars be cut?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The situation with the Courts Administration Authority is that, unlike other government agencies, the Courts Administration Authority is its own boss in that sense. It is a matter for the CAA over the course of the year to work out how they wish to prioritise matters; that is entirely a matter for them. I am not in a position to dictate to the Chief Justice or the Courts Administration Authority where and how they should be making—

Ms CHAPMAN: Last year, he was obviously presented with this obligation, as I have referred to in those other two documents identified, and that was going to be attended to. I am happy to ask again: how was it attended to in 2013-14, and has there been some determination yet about how it is going to be in the future year?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I am sorry, I am not—

Ms CHAPMAN: What did you cut last year and what are you going to cut next year?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: What we started to cut for this year I can tell you. These are budget cuts which really come down from the state budget, ultimately. It is, as the Attorney said, for the council to determine these things. We have been very open about the ways in which we propose that the budget cuts might be met. We have had discussions with the Attorney about what we proposed and invited suggestions about alternative ways of meeting the budget cuts.

In essence, the main way in which it has been met in the Supreme Court and District Court is by judicial reduction. For this coming year, Justice Parker was appointed to the Supreme Court, both as a judge of that court and as president of the SACAT. In effect, he will spend half his time in each of those offices, and that is a cut of a half a judge for the Supreme Court. Judge Cole, the senior judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court, has also been appointed to SACAT. That will take some 25 per cent of her time.

In the Supreme Court and District Court, that is a major source of budget saving. That means there will be some pressure on dealing with the case lists. As the Attorney has said, there are a number of measures we always look at to try to make up for that, but there is no doubt, though, that it is a pressure we have to face.

There have been some other reductions. The Supreme Court no longer has tipstaves. The last two tipstaves took packages a few months ago, and so that is a saving. There are constant reductions in library services for the higher courts, such that hard copies are not being continued, hard copy law reports; we are moving to electronic versions, and judges are tooling up and skilling up very quickly to cope with that.

In the Magistrates Court, there have been reductions in the Drug Court program to meet the cuts. There has been a variety of cuts throughout all other areas, including our corporate division, Sheriff's officers and court transcription services.

The CHAIR: There being no further time—

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just ask one more question?

The CHAIR: Is this your final question on this line?

Ms CHAPMAN: I will make it my final question. This is particularly pertinent now that the Attorney-General has taken over SafeWork SA; I see that the Premier has flicked that to him. I would like to know about the current accommodation at the old Supreme Court house. The information given to me just this winter is that there are multiple buckets catching water in the building. We have heard in many previous estimates hearings that there have been multiple assessments by SafeWork SA to identify areas of occupational health and safety and risk. More concerning, recently I heard that there is a mattress in a stairwell in the old building which is to make sure that somebody, if they slip on the stairs, does not injure themselves. It is a foam mattress to make sure that they are cushioned.

These are the sorts of things that may be either legendary or are, unfortunately, annual circumstances that cause concern not only for those who occupy it as workplace but for those who visit as a litigant, witness or member of the public. Is there any urgent work that needs to be done on that building which has not been provided for, pending the fact that we are a few years away from a new facility?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To take it at its worst, I do not believe there are any current orders or improvement requirements attached to that building. That said, I have never run away from the fact, and I am sure the Chief Justice would not, that a building as old as that one requires a great deal of maintenance and, indeed, so does Samuel Way for that matter, and there is ongoing maintenance occurring. There are budgets for ongoing maintenance. If I recall correctly, I think Samuel Way was the subject of funding in the last budget for some—

Ms CHAPMAN: The facade, yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —facade work.

Ms CHAPMAN: But I am talking about strictly occupational health and safety. Could you look into that, Attorney, and provide a list of what SafeWork SA assessments there have been on this building and, indeed, on the Sir Samuel Way; there may well be some there. I appreciate there are no housing improvement orders/building improvement orders issued by the government or by Adelaide City Council, but I am interested to know the notices that have been given in respect of unsafe areas in the premises and also—when you can, having accepted that we are a few years away—what program is going to be put in place to remedy that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have just been advised that there are no such orders in respect of either of those buildings. The other thing I can say is that obviously in the context of the redevelopment my expectation is—and, again, I have not seen those things—that those buildings would be brought to contemporary standards for a whole range of things, whether it is fire, access or whatever it might be, and that they would be then usable, whether it be as a court function or some other function again, whilst retaining their heritage. So, they are going to be repaired. The member for Bragg may be disappointed to hear, though, that it is my expectation that the library building will not be retained and—

Ms CHAPMAN: It might be something we agree on for a change.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —and that magnificent testimony to 1960s and 1950s architecture will be a loss to the Adelaide skyline.

The CHAIR: Perhaps on that note of unanimity, we might call the examination of the proposed payments concluded and thank the advisers for their attendance here today.