Attorney-General's Department, $97,446,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $125,951,000

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance, People and Performance, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms C. Mealor, Deputy Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr J. Ovenstone, Director, Fines Enforcement and Recovery, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr T. Anastasiou, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms T. Brooks, Principal Accountant, Treasury and Parliamentary Reporting, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination, and I ask the Attorney to introduce his new line-up of advisers, before making his opening statement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a range of different issues in the Justice space provided by the budget. These include:

The Disability Justice Plan—an additional $3.2 million over four years to enable the criminal justice system to be more responsive to the needs of people with a disability. This funding will cover specialist training for police and other interviewers working with vulnerable witnesses, a communication assistant scheme to support people in the police interview and court processes, and resources to deliver a community awareness and information program.

The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT)—an additional $3.1 million over four years to provide for the expansion of SACAT to include adjudication of consumer disputes. Previously, a consumer who wished to have a dispute with a trader adjudicated had to commence proceedings in the relevant court.

CCTV grant program—an additional $2 million over four years to provide grant payments of $500,000 per annum to local councils to install CCTV systems, security lighting and other technologies to improve safety. This commitment is in addition to the Safe City Policy which is creating a safe pedestrian corridor through the city and improving the live monitoring of cameras.

Intervention program for young offenders—an additional $1 million over two years for the trial of an intensive intervention program for young offenders. This program will be an intense learning experience that will build positive life skills and encourage alternatives to a life of crime.

Additional support for the Ombudsman—an additional $830,000 over four years to ensure the Ombudsman is properly resourced to investigate matters related to education and related complaints.

Victims of Crime compensation—an additional $9.7 million over three years to provide increased payments for victims of crime with the maximum compensation payable to victims of crime increasing from $50,000 to $100,000 from 2015-16. Payments for grief and funeral expenses will also increase.

So that is an overview.

The CHAIR: Deputy, do you have an opening statement?

Ms CHAPMAN: No.

The CHAIR: With the indulgence of the committee, I would like to defer to the Speaker, who just has some questions to put on notice.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My question to the Attorney is: has the state government obtained cost orders in court against the Cheltenham Park Residents Association or the Save St Clair Recreation Park Association that have not been paid partly or in full and what is the sum unpaid, if any?

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the line in the budget?

The CHAIR: I am sure he will bring it to our attention in just a moment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Is the state government represented in the judicial review proceedings brought by the Save St Clair Recreation Park Association and what is the estimated cost of that representation and solicitor work?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will take that on notice.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Has the state government sought security for costs against the Save St Clair Recreation Park Association and, if not, why not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Thank you, Attorney.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: I am just wondering, given your ruling that budget lines may be provided later, is that going to be something that we are able to—

The CHAIR: I will defer that to the Speaker and I am sure he will get back to all of us later. Deputy, do you have questions?

Mr GARDNER: A fine ruling.

The CHAIR: The deputy leader has the call and she has questions, I am sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do, Madam Chair, but I am not sure how a cost order that has not yet been recovered on is going to show up in the budget papers, but nevertheless we will see.

The CHAIR: It will all be made clear to all of us I am sure at a later date.

Ms CHAPMAN: While we are on the Courts Precinct Urban Renewal Project, I note that your agency in this area of responsibility provides the legal services to it. That is its continued intention. This is at page 19. I noticed also on page 18, I think it might be, that there is a new billing model that you now have through your Crown Solicitor's Office, which is to send out to all the departments—they get higher bills. I think the Premier has just told me in one of his divisions he has got an extra $35,000 that he has to pay in legal fees for part of his area of responsibility. So, what is the new model? What are you charging more of or are now charging for that you did not before, or both?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an interesting point, actually. It, I guess, proceeds from the truism, in my observation, that if something is free people tend to use it a lot, whether they need to or not. In 2012 there was a PricewaterhouseCoopers review of the Crown Solicitor's Office operations which in turn was commissioned in response to the Sustainable Budget Commission's earlier analysis. The review generally found the Crown Solicitor's Office to be doing quite well, but it did actually recommend the development of a new billing model which defines categories or types of legal services which are billable irrespective of the agency requesting the service.

A working group comprising of Treasury, AGD and the Crown Solicitor's Office developed that new billing model. The model was approved, as I understand it, on 3 February this year, with an effective date of 1 February, which is interesting, but there you are.

Ms CHAPMAN: Approved by—cabinet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Cabinet, yes. Budget adjustments to reflect the estimated cost to agencies under the billing model have been made by Treasury. The estimated costs were based on agencies' previous legal services usage. The budget provided to pay for CSO legal services cannot be used for other purposes. The billing model encourages agencies to ration and prioritise their use of legal services.

The billing model does not vary the very longstanding policy that legal services must be obtained from the Crown Solicitor's Office unless otherwise approved under Treasurer’s Instruction No. 10. A preliminary review of the implementation of the model will need to occur at the end of the first part of financial year 2013-14. Following that analysis, any issues or adjustments arising can be discussed between the CSO, the agencies and Treasury.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, in the provision of legal services for the renewal project, DPTI, which is in charge of this project, unless it gets the Treasurer’s approval, has to use the Crown Solicitor's Office to prepare its documents and all of the legal documents surrounding the development of that project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the Deputy Crown Solicitor is actually on the steering committee, and through him the Crown is providing legal assistance presently.

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent; but, in any event, as you say, the Treasurer’s Instruction No. 10 requires your Crown Solicitor's Office to be used, rather than external legal advisers, for preparing all of these contracts and things which are clearly going to happen over the next 12 months. That is my understanding. You have not asked for any exemption on that? The Department of Transport, to the best of your knowledge of this court, have not asked for any exemptions on that, and they are using your Crown Solicitor's Office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I am aware of.

Ms CHAPMAN: It says also on page 19 that one of the targets of 2014-15 is to ‘provide legal services to the Courts Precinct Urban Renewal Project’. Given that the Treasurer’s direction is there, and there is not really any opportunity to go outside the Crown Solicitor's Office, and you are making, I think, just on this year an extra $3.9 million in extra billings as a result of this new model, can I ask the question: is the model that you say that you operate now commercially competitive with other legal costs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a number of elements to that. The first element is that I need to make it clear that there is no reason why any government agency cannot request to be exempted from TI 10, and such a request would be considered and dealt with. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no request in respect of this particular matter for an exemption from TI 10 to be offered. As to the broader question, I think—and I am sure Mr Swanson will correct me if I am wrong—the effect of the billing model is not so much to create a stream of income for the Attorney-General’s Department or the Crown Solicitor's Office; it is to reveal exactly what the value of work performed by the Crown Solicitor's Office on behalf of other agencies is, so as to provide an opportunity for everyone to see, in a transparent fashion, what is going on.

The work was always being done—it was not being notionally accounted for anywhere other than being consumed within the overall budget of the Crown Solicitor's Office. So, basically this is as much as anything—and I do not mean to say this in a disparaging way—an accounting exercise, whereby what was opaque becomes transparent. The actual value of work delivered by the CSO to other agencies is revealed by means of what we are calling a ‘billing method’, but as much as anything it is an accounting exercise.

Ms CHAPMAN: But, Attorney, it is not a question of transparency: it is a question of full cost recovery, which is already in the obligations in relation to the other departments using your Crown Solicitor's Office services. That is not new; that is already to be done. You say that PWC have identified that there are some areas, basically, that are not being charged or charged enough, and that they could be and should be, and that is another $3.9 million in the last year that has been added on because of introducing that new, transparent model that you talk about. The reality is that that is there in any event. My question though is: given that it is not as simple as a department saying, 'Look, I will go and use someone else'—they have got to get permission to be able to do that—are the fees that are charged for these other departments commercially competitive?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe they are. Another point is, of course, that there was no actual change in the rates by reason of this thing being made transparent: it was just that it became transparent as opposed to something that was lost.

The other thing, too, is that there are some pieces of work which could possibly be very easily done outside of government, and quite often they are. For example, the member for Bragg would no doubt be aware that it is quite routine for public servants who are involved in Coroner's Court matters or other things to be independently represented outside of the Crown where there is a perception of a conflict of interest or whatever else might exist. There is no reason in the world why private sector lawyers cannot deliver those types of services quite well.

On the other hand, there are a number of particular services where the government is actually the biggest repository of a skill set. Those things are around administrative matters, around constitutional matters and around some of the government's commercial activities. Of course, there is the question of the security of information that might be around the place. There are many considerations, but I do not believe that there is anything to suggest that the Crown Solicitor's Office is not delivering a good service at a reasonable rate to government customers.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 18, you have provided as one of your highlights for 2013-14 the provision of legal services to government agencies in relation to the Royal Commission into the Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. How much was that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The unit incurred costs, I am told, of $893,000 in 2013-14, and an amount of $800,000 has been allocated for 2014-15—that is the unit itself. It is not just legal. It is probably worth saying that the actual resourcing of the unit, in total, is five FTEs. Two part-time FTEs are engaged for the purpose of coordinating all royal commission matters on behalf of the state and responding to summonses in accordance with royal commission practice directions.

Resourcing includes a project director and two outposted lawyers from the CSO, and funding also covers costs of representation of government or ex-government employees called as witnesses to give evidence before the first royal commission public hearing in Adelaide (case study No. 9), which was provided through the CSO Crown Counsel section.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the work to participate in partnership with agencies on major projects such as the Riverbank Precinct, health and medical precinct and Casino redevelopment, how much money has been spent on the Riverbank Precinct legal advice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will try to get that. We do not have anything broken down by reference to projects like that, but we will see what we can do.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 60, Expenses—accommodation costs. What is the total cost per year to the Attorney-General's Department of leasing 45 Pirie Street?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, we do not have it, but we will try to get it for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: When does the lease expire?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is probably in the latter part of 2017, but we will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you could provide the lease details and expiry date for each of your agencies, in particular the Crown Solicitor's Office and the DPP, and—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are all in the same place.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, but if there are any outposts. I think the Parole Board sits in another premises.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is not under me; that is under Corrections, I believe.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are all your agencies currently at 45 Pirie Street?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, there are things like PT and whatnot that are elsewhere.

Ms CHAPMAN: They are in rented premises, aren't they?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: If there are other agencies for which you are responsible, could I have the current lease and expiry of those, please?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The victims of crime levy, page 70, the inflows during 2013-14 year, was any money recovered from the perpetrators of the victims of crime fraud that was revealed in August 2012?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, I did not get that. What was the—

Ms CHAPMAN: Did you get any money out of those who were charged and some convicted of the victims of crime fraud from 2012?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Recoveries from offenders, in other words.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, this is the fraud in the department, not general offenders, a different issue. In 2012, you will recall that there were employees in the department who were charged with fraud.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is: during that 2013-14 year that had been dealt with, was any money recovered from the perpetrators of that victims of crime fraud?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the question now. I am advised that a claim has been made to the South Australia Government Financing Authority insurance in respect of the loss to the VOC Fund resulting from the fraud. The insurance arrangement requires AGD to pay a maximum of $10,000 in respect of each claim. As the prosecution has yet to be finalised, only $17,000 has been recovered to date. However, assets owned by the accused have been restrained.

Ms CHAPMAN: So that I am clear about this, $17,000 has been recovered from SAFA?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: No. It is from—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The accused.

Ms CHAPMAN: From those who have already been dealt with.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, one of them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have you actually received any money out of the SAFA insurance?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A claim has been made, I am advised, but not settled. Can I make this point again: when the prosecution in this matter is finalised, I am advised it is our expectation that there will be assets which may be realised to recover moneys.

Ms CHAPMAN: As to the resolution of the male party to the fraud, has it not yet been concluded or are there others?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am of the understanding that there are a number of people and there are matters in contests which will not be resolved until a trial is concluded.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has there been only one plea entered from which you got the $17,000?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that at the moment the DPP is prosecuting eight people on a total of 57 charges. The former CSO employee and four other persons have pleaded guilty to a total of 44 charges and are awaiting sentence presently. Their submissions have been adjourned pending the trial of the accused who have pleaded not guilty. Three accused are awaiting trial on a total of 13 charges. The trial is listed to commence on 15 September this year and estimated to last between six and eight weeks. Seven of those charged were interviewed or arrested by police in August or September 2012, with the court issuing restraining orders sought by the DPP between September and November 2012. An eighth person, who resides interstate, was arrested in February 2013.

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose it shows, Attorney, how concerning the trial list is, that it is a two-year wait for trial.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but I have discovered that the deeper you peer into what appear to be concerning matters the more interesting they become, because some of these delays have nothing to do with the court system and often have to do with a whole bunch of other things.

Ms CHAPMAN: I accept that. In any event, in the PwC investigation in relation to the victims of crime fraud that was initiated after they had been detected, was there any uncovering of any other fraudulent activity?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; I am advised, no.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the hours of legal services in Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, on activity indicators, this is identifying those who are outposted lawyers; some are in-house, some are out in departments. In terms of the outposted lawyers, which is estimated to be 52,800 hours' worth in 2012-13, which agencies received assistance for these personnel? I think the Debelle inquiry tells us fairly clearly that some were posted to the Department for Education. I would like to know about others.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that as at 30 June 2014 the following agencies hosted the Crown Solicitor's Office's outposted solicitors. These solicitors have practising certificates and are employed and managed by the Crown Solicitor. The Attorney-General's Department, Consumer and Business Services, have two outposted solicitors; Defence SA and Renewal SA share one solicitor; Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, one; Department of State Development, nine, four of whom also provide legal services to TAFE SA; Department of Planning and Infrastructure, nine; Department for Education and Child Development, four; Environment Protection Authority, two; Department for Health and Ageing, five, and two outposted investigators; Department of Primary Industries, two; Public Trustee, four; South Australian Government Financing Authority, seven; and Super SA, one.

These solicitors are outposted to agencies for different periods of time. In the case of some senior solicitors, outposting can be for a number of years. All the solicitors are part of the Crown Solicitor's Office's outposted lawyer section, which is managed by an assistant crown solicitor, who is responsible for ensuring efficient, accurate and timely provision of legal advice to the host agencies. Solicitors from the Crown Solicitor's head office are rotated with outposted solicitors on a regular basis to ensure that as many of the Crown Solicitor's legal staff as possible have an opportunity of being outposted.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, can you explain why there is a projected significant reduction in the number of hours' work done by the Crown Solicitor's Office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You are talking about—

Ms CHAPMAN: Last year, it was projected at about 182,000 hours—this is just for the in-house lawyers—and it ended up 219,000, and the projection for this year is 157,000. It is even fewer than what you projected last year, which was way out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: The other aspect, in relation to the activity indicated, is the number of files opened and closed. Consistent with last year, you have estimated that 7,000 will be opened this year, which does raise the question of the previous question, of course. Underneath, it refers to a massive number of cases that are going to be closed. It states:

…the Crown Solicitor's Office intends to close a large number of inactive files during 2014-15.

My first question is: if they are inactive, why are they remaining open? How is that going to address that issue?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will take that on notice. The Crown Solicitor's Office, you need to understand, has been in the process of doing a lot of modernising of itself and has been looking at ways of improving its performance, and I have to say that the new Crown Solicitor has taken to that task with some degree of enthusiasm and energy. My suspicion is that what we are seeing there is evidence of good housekeeping. But I will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 18 and 19 are the highlights and targets respectively, and they relate to ex gratia payments for victims of crime from the sexual abuse while in state care, both for the preceding year and anticipated more this year. Can you provide the amount of ex gratia payments that was paid out in the 2014-15 year and what is budgeted to be paid out this year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the amount in 2013-14 was $187,000. As for the budget for this year, there is no specific budget. I am not, off the top of my head, aware of where we are with those, but I would not mind wagering that we are getting towards the end of them. There was quite a large build-up of them, and I think that we are well and truly past the hump in that, and we are really just dealing with the tail, which I do not expect would be very significant.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 69, we have the ICAC and the Office of Public Integrity operating payments. An amount of $4.6 million was spent in 2013-14 on staff of the ICAC and OPI. How many people are employed in these offices now?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: How does the staffing level compare with interstate corruption bodies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did mention before that some of these numbers are a bit unhelpful. We need to appreciate that each state which has an anticorruption body has one which is different. What is the line they say when you get into a plane: each aircraft is subtly different. Well, each ICAC is very different

In Queensland, for example, their ICAC has a completely different range of functions from ours, likewise in New South Wales and Western Australia and, of course, being larger jurisdictions population wise, one would expect their budgets to be larger. I do not know what the budgets are for those agencies; it is not a matter within my knowledge. It was probably available on the web somewhere.

I would make the point that any comparison between the actual budget, or even the budget divided by the population of the jurisdiction of those and our budget, is going to be pretty unhelpful in any respect. One has to have a look at the functions; just because they are called an ICAC or something else, does not mean they are the same thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: I accept that there are distinguishable features as to the function of each of the relevant integrity entities around the country. Nevertheless, I ask if we can have a number of those, both for the Office for Public Integrity and ICAC.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I am not sure that it is within the scope of the estimates committee for me to ask officials in the Attorney-General's Department to go around chasing up figures from interstate about things there. However, I am perfectly happy to chase up the numbers for our office here. Can I point out that I do not think any other state has an OPI for a start, so that underscores the problem.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many complaints were received by OPI in 2013-14?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Complaints? Sorry, where are we?

Ms CHAPMAN: ICAC.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What is the question?

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is: how many complaints were received by OPI in 2013-14?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not quite sure how that fits into this.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 69.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I can see it mentions OPI.

Ms CHAPMAN: You can see it there. You have got what you spent, what you budgeted for last year and what you are budgeting for this year. One of its tasks is to process applications to the OPI. I am asking how many did it do?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am afraid that is a matter that really is within the knowledge of the commissioner and not me. I point out that there is a distinct parliamentary committee which has the capacity to examine his annual report. I assume that this information will be in the annual report published by the commissioner, which will be produced to the parliament. I am not sure I can help the honourable member with that sort of detail.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it is available, I would ask that it be provided to the committee. We might not have the annual report for a long time and the committee that you refer to has not met yet and may not for some time. That is why I am asking now. You spent $3.9 million on it, which was an underspend for last year, and you have $4.72 million provided for this financial year. That is what I see as a payment out. Isn't that what you have?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can say this: I will ask the commissioner if he can assist me with helping the member for Bragg and, if he can, I will help.

Ms CHAPMAN: The second and third part of that question then is: how many resulted in a referral to ICAC and, of those, how many matters have been finalised and referred for prosecution, as at 30 June 2014?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I will have to repeat the same thing: that is not something within my knowledge, but I will raise it with the commissioner and he may choose to assist us.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. Page 20 makes provision for the DPP's services, which are obviously an important part of our management of criminal behaviour in the state. One of the matters that was raised by the DPP in his 2013 report was the view that he should—this is as at 30 October last year. Mr Kimber claimed that it was his view—and, to use his words, 'cannot be questioned' as to why there should not be some change to the prosecution of serious cases (this is major indictable cases) that are currently in regional areas; instead of coming to his office after committal to a superior court, there should be earlier management from his office. He sees it as providing more rapid and efficient outcomes, and claims that there is no longer sufficient reason based on the regional proximity because, of course, there is videoconferencing available. Is there any provision in this year's budget for his division to take over that responsibility?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think there is any specific allocation to the DPP for that purpose but, that said, as I mentioned before when the Chief Justice was here, we do have this Criminal Justice Reform Council. The DPP is a member of that council and the DPP, through one of its senior prosecutors, has been involved in a project called the Early Resolution Pilot. This is one of the pieces of work that the reform council is proceeding with. It was designed to develop a model for early intervention and resolution and it was trialled at Holden Hill. The initial feedback we have had from that project has been very encouraging. We are now looking at whether or not we can roll that model out on a more systemic basis to use the outcomes of that pilot across the system.

The aim of the pilot was basically to encourage early guilty pleas. The objects are to find suitable files to identify them and select them as soon as possible, make sure that accused people get representation at an early stage so that all decisions are made with legal advice, make sure that accused people get details of evidence against them, and make sure that there is encouragement for them to plead guilty, if they are guilty of the offences, as early as possible or, if not, to see whether alternative offences have been committed and can be charged and so forth.

Like many of these things, the critical thing is the early intervention, the early seizing of the matter and somebody putting some attention and effort into it. It requires the cooperation of everybody, not just the DPP.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the Holden Hill court trial continuing pending your decision about whether you are going to expand it or not, or has it just been actioned for last year and is now closed down?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the early resolution thing that I was just talking about is the growth or the development of the Holden Hill project. The Holden Hill project was the initial test pilot, if you like, and the plan is to expand it into a broader system-wide project.

Ms CHAPMAN: But it is continuing as it is at Holden Hill in the meantime.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I see, is it still going as a pilot at Holden Hill?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is not; the pilot itself is not continuing. I am advised that the original project was the DPP just by itself. We are now engaging other parties in the justice system as well. I will give you an example: something as simple as the Legal Services Commission providing an early indication that a person's grant of aid has been forthcoming means that they have a lawyer, which means the prosecutor has a lawyer with whom to have a conversation about the charges; the client has a lawyer who can advise on the merits or otherwise of them pleading guilty and the implications of an early plea of guilty in respect of discounts on penalties and suchlike.

This whole area is highly interactive. To get the best value out of it we have to have all of the elements, so the Legal Services Commission makes sure that the person has a lawyer so that early intervention is possible. It is not much good trying to intervene early, for instance, with someone who does not have a lawyer. It really requires everyone to step up to the plate.

Ms CHAPMAN: It was described as one of your highlights in 2013-14 and it seems rather disappointing that it has closed down pending further expansion.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That was the test tube, the experimental trial. It was very well received and now we are so impressed with it that we have decided we are going to roll it out and wrap all the other agencies around it as well. It was promising from the point of view of showing great promise, but—

Ms CHAPMAN: Not enough to keep it going in the meantime?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, because we have broader ambitions now. We do not wish it to be a little pilot—we would like it to be a much bigger thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: Budget Paper 6, page 16—the efficiency dividend for this part of your portfolio. In this year's budget the department is being asked to find $3.7 million in savings over the forward estimates for efficiency measures. What is the total efficiency saving required over the forward estimates, taking into account previous budgets and mid-year budget reviews?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that is a very good question. The short answer is: quite a bit or, as my chief executive would say, 'Lots'. I am advised that between now and the year 2017-18 the total is the cumulative total.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is from 2014 to 2027?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What year do you want to start at?

Ms CHAPMAN: In this year's budget you are asked to find $3.7 million. I am asking what are each of the total amounts, not only this year but also cumulative from last year and the Mid-Year Budget Review. What is the amount you have to save this year and the next three years for the forward estimates? What is the total amount?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think am going to answer your question correctly if I have understood what it is—I will do my best. I understand that in the year 2014-15, the total savings required are $8.899 million; in 2015-16, $11.596 million (cumulative); in 2016-17, $14.51 million; and in 2017-18, $17.7 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given the size of your total payment, which is less than a billion, there are fairly large amounts of money to be achieved.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Would you mind taking that up with the Treasurer? I would be happy for any help I can get, and so would those who sit behind me.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sure they would minister, but you sit in the cabinet and, given the amount of money that is being asked to be found for the purposes of minimising expense, relatively that is quite a lot of money on anyone's assessment. My question then is: have any of the savings measures been identified for any of those years and, if so, what are they? Like the Chief Justice, I will ask again next year what they were if they have not yet found any when we get to the end of the year.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes—what can I say to you that will be helpful? I have been provided with some examples of things. You would appreciate that, particularly as we go into the outer years, the opportunity to have some flexibility about how you achieve them is still considerable. The closer you get to the present, obviously, the more you have to have concrete plans. Some examples of how the savings will be achieved include the following: 30 TVSPs—this would achieve a saving of around $2.4 million. I am advised that these officers, which is 24.7 FTE, have already separated. Then, there are savings in corporate services of around $1 million, savings in the IR Court and Commission of around $500,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the IR Court?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. There is also a reduction in the allocation of indexation across the department, $337,000; changing funding arrangements between Forensic Science SA and Flinders University, $180,000; reduced expenditure on boards and committees, $126,000; and there are other strategies which are presently being worked through but are not yet finalised.

Ms CHAPMAN: What boards are proposed to go in this area that would have a saving of $126,000?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure if I have even got a list of all of the boards that sit in this area. We are certainly having a look at it. We are looking at it in all portfolios, and each chief executive has been asked by their respective ministers to have that conversation. Fortunately, I think from our point of view, the Guardianship Board and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal have been subsumed or will be very shortly subsumed into SACAT, so that deals with them.

Ms CHAPMAN: But minister, really that does not resolve any extra costs. In fact, obviously costs need to transfer over, but at this point these people will get re-employed or you are still having all these services that are going to be done in the new SACAT model. In fact, they are both staying in the same premises. In fact, I think you are taking more premises to fit in the new judges.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed, but we are getting rid of boards and committees.

Ms CHAPMAN: But the $126,000 would not be getting rid of the Guardianship Board, would it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let me see.

Ms CHAPMAN: That, as I understand it, effectively will be gone in the next month anyway, if the bill goes through, etc. I think you have already advertised and are starting to sign up the new lot.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed, we are trying to—

Ms CHAPMAN: So I am talking about in the 2014-15 year, you have got an $8.899 million saving.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think boards and committees are going to manage the whole of that. We will be looking at the boards and committees presently. I just cannot tell you exactly where we will land with those. The obvious ones are the Guardianship Board and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal but, as you say, and it is quite reasonable, they are being sort of folded in. I guess one thing is the registry multiplicity will be no longer a problem—that is something—and they will have a single registry. We are expecting that over time there will be efficiencies coming out of the SACAT, but maybe I have to just get back to you on where we are up to with that.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, are there any further questions?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do just in relation to the SACAT, which is near the end. The Guardianship Board, as I understand it, will stay at this stage at the ABC building at Collinswood?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For the time being, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: When does their lease expire?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to get back to you on that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. The Residential Tenancies Tribunal has rented premises where I gather they are going to remain in situ with some extra space for the new judges to be accommodated?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are staying in Pirie Street for the time being as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: And could we have an expiry date on their lease, please?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Can I just say to the member for Bragg that, because the SACAT project is intended to have several layers to it, the SACAT will not be in its final form for a little while yet, and it is obviously having regard to the fact that their existing leased premises are fitted out for particular purposes, and that the SACAT is not yet a concluded jurisdiction, it was thought prudent to leave people where they are for the time being whilst we sort out where things are going.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Attorney, and thank you to the members of your staff.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions I declare the examination of the proposed payments, Attorney-General’s Department and administered items for the Attorney-General’s Department, are suspended.