Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $94,361,000

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Mr T. Pearce, Acting Director, Corporate Services, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms M. Garreffa, Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr C. Black, Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are relatively informal procedures and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions, although I do remind members that normal standing orders for conduct in the chamber remain in place. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that today's timetable, previously distributed, is accurate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Subject to improved times, yes.

The CHAIR: Which you will both be happy to make.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

The CHAIR: 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 30 October 2015. This year, estimate committee responses will be published during the 17 November sitting week in corrected daily Hansard over a three-day period.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced at the beginning of each question.

Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of 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 into 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 and not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for responses.

During the committee's examination, television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. I now call on the minister to make a statement if he wishes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I indicate to members, that those to my left, unless they really urgently require to do so, do not need to ask me any questions either, if they are happy with that. Can I indicate the Chief Justice has advised me that he will be here but will be a little delayed, so it is just to let members know, who might be asking questions. Obviously members are asking me the questions, not him anyway, but he wanted the members of the committee to know that he would be delayed a little while. That's really all I have to say in opening.

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

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I do not have an opening statement, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: In that case, I call on you for questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I indicate to the committee that, in addition to the budget portfolio Agency Statement 4, Volume 1, which provides for Courts Administration Authority on page 163 thereafter and Attorney-General's Department, page 9 thereafter, I will be referring to those, as you have indicated, but also the Budget Measures Statement (Budget Paper 5) in particular, for Courts Administration Authority at pages 25, 26, and 27 and also under Attorney-General's, which is to follow, pages 17 and 18 of that same document. In this session, the Electoral Commission matter is also dealt with. Another member of my committee, who is momentarily absent, will be dealing with that matter on behalf of those in this part of the committee, and, doubtless, he will outline the actual specific provision.

If I can move to the Agency Statement, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, firstly at page 166, there is provision under this area, under the Courts Administration Authority, in particular to improve court facilities as one of the objectives of this independent statutory body. Given the announcement on 13 March 2015, when the Attorney announced the Activate 408 proposal for the new courts precinct was 'not value for money' and, further, by letter of that date to the South Australian Bar Association indicated that it would be considered again in the 'regular budget deliberations', my first question is: what is the current state of the precinct proposal?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a number of things I would probably need to say in response to that question. First of all, can I say, as I have said here before on more than one occasion, there is no question that the physical infrastructure of the courts, in particular the Supreme and District courts, requires considerable investment, and doing nothing is not an option. There are various time lines that are in play and they basically mean that over the next several years decisions are going to have to be made about medium and longer term solutions to future accommodation, particularly of those two courts. At the present time, we have in the current budget a small allocation for works to be done on the Sir Samuel Way Building. I think it is in the order of $900,000, or something of that nature. They are urgent, but in the nature of remedial works. They do not add anything to the serviceability of the premises; they simply are directed towards maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The intention I have is to continue through the budget process to agitate for a substantial investment in the courts. However, as everyone would appreciate, I hope, I am but one of a number of ministers, all of whom have their own priorities, all of whom regard their priorities quite reasonably as being significant, and I have to take my turn and take my chances in the budget process. I will continue to try to do that but, obviously, we live in an environment where there are finite resources and not quite infinite but very much larger potential ways of using those resources.

I continue to be keen on advocating for a medium and longer term significant investment in the physical infrastructure of particularly the superior courts. As I said, doing nothing in the medium term and certainly in the longer term is not an option.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, obviously one of those competing ministers is yourself as the Minister for Urban Development, including the announcement that you made two weeks later that there would be a $90 million investment in the Festival Plaza precinct. Was that a priority that was greater to you than the courts precinct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It comes down to this, doesn't it: these things are ultimately a cabinet decision, and my individual preferences in these matters are not really of any significance. I should make the point that the investment in the plaza precinct was a project or a process which significantly predates the initiation of the process in respect of the courts precinct project. If I am not mistaken, I think it was under the reign of minister Conlon when the original process for the car park redevelopment was initiated.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not mean to interrupt to be rude, but I indicate that I was not actually specifically referring to the car park component but to the $90 million which is to go into the Festival Centre.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand. You are separating a piece out, and I am just making the point that, once the car park project began, it was all but inevitable that something had to be done to the Festival Centre complex because the car park proposal will result, in effect, in the southern entrance to the Festival Centre becoming unusable, and the current configuration of the Festival Centre in terms of its access at ground level will be completely changed.

There was a certain inevitability about elements of the Festival Centre complex being upgraded and, once you touch one piece of the fabric of that building, the idea that you can upgrade one element of the building and leave the rest of it in its pristine 1970s condition is a little bit unrealistic. Whilst I appreciate the point the deputy leader is making, it really is the case that there is a domino effect here. Once the car park progress became a matter of commitment, it was inevitable that something had to be done to accommodate the impact of that on the Festival Centre.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not sure that I entirely understand the suggestion that your individual contribution is apparently of no moment and these cabinet decisions are made, given that you are the Deputy Premier and you do hold ministerial roles, a number of them around the table; nevertheless, the position is that at present there is no provision in the forward estimates for further progressing other than I think you mentioned there is a small amount of current work for the facade work on the Sir Samuel Way building, which is an existing facility. In respect of the development of the courts precinct proposal and its at least temporary abandonment, I think, for several years on what you have just said—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I did not say that at all. I said that I will continue to be agitating for a substantial investment in that precinct as part and parcel of each budget process. If I am fortunate enough to persuade my cabinet colleagues within the next 12 months, the button could be pressed then; if I have to keep arguing with them beyond that time, it might take longer.

My point was that ultimately it is not that many years into the future when something must be done. That is all I am saying. There is a period of time, whether it is five years, eight years or whatever, during which a decision will have to be made. I would like that decision to be made sooner rather than later, but that ultimately is a cabinet decision, not my personal decision. That is the only point I am making.

Ms CHAPMAN: From 2012 up until March, when there had been the announcement of the proposal that had been developed through various processes of invitation of expressions of interest and the like, how much money had been spent by the Courts Administration Authority in respect of the development of the precinct proposal and including the moneys to prepare a functional design brief? I refer particularly to the Chief Justice's 2014 annual report, where he says:

First, the Authority committed substantial resources to work with the Department of Public Transport and Infrastructure, and external consultants, to prepare a functional design brief to solicit expressions of interest for developers of a new higher courts building. The 'Request for Proposal' documentation, including a 'Functional Design Brief', was released on 7 April 2014.

He went on to give his expectation, but obviously there had been some allocated funds out of the CAA since 2012. If you do not have the information with you, I would ask that you take it on notice and provide in each of those financial years how much money has been spent to date.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to take that on notice, but I suspect the answer to that question is that by and large the contribution made by the Courts Administration Authority was an allocation of existing personnel resources as support, if you like, or team workers in respect of the formulation of the design brief and preparation of the specifications required by the courts to provide that to DPTI.

It might be helpful if I just explain that the way in which this project was to proceed was essentially that the project manager, if you like—I am not sure if that is the correct terminology, but it is what I call it anyway—was to be DPTI. That is quite normal within government. The client, if you like, was in effect the Courts Administration Authority and the Attorney-General's Department working together as a team, I suppose you would say. There was a steering committee, which was chaired by the head of my department, Mr Persse.

The work that was done on the courts admin side and the AGD side was essentially in the nature of assisting in the preparation of design specifications, the provision of information and so forth, so that the design brief could be presented to the prospective developer consortia. I will take on notice the question, and if there is any further particularity I can give to that for those years, I am happy to do that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I am seeking the—

The CHAIR: Before you continue, are there any questions on my right?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Good morning, Chief Justice. When I am referring to the costs of the CAA, its allocation of resources and the like, as I have identified in this report, that is only for one part of that year, since the announcement in May 2012 of the scoping study for $300,000 that you as Attorney-General had made. In addition to whatever personnel had been allocated to, and the cost thereof, from the CAA, could we have the costs, similarly, to your A-G's Department. I am assuming that scoping study came out of your A-G's budget? I may be wrong; I can ask DPTI the same questions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will check up on all of that for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: You obviously, in another different role, have ministerial responsibility in respect of that department as well, but what I am seeking is the cost to date of the scoping studies, preparations, tender processes—the lot. I am accepting that the CAA and your department directly may have been more effective in its contribution by resources rather than monetary allocation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Can I just make the point that, to the extent that the contributions made by the Courts Administration Authority and the Attorney-General's Department were contributions in kind (namely, the allocation of staff to prepare, promote or advance these projects), it might be difficult, if not impossible, to be able to say, 'Look, X percentage of X number of salaries was devoted over a period of time to this project.' But, if there are specific expenditures which are identifiable as being relevant to this project, then yes, obviously, I am happy to provide that information.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Persse has already given evidence in February this year to the Budget and Finance Committee and detailed a number of the processes that have occurred to date, and confirmed the—I am just trying to find Mr Persse's response to the Budget and Finance Committee—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am sure it was very good; he is usually very good.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes—in respect of the interim leasing and generally on the project. But certainly, the Chief Justice has previously given evidence to this committee, last year and the year before, as did his predecessor, in respect of moneys and resources that have been allocated, so I will look forward to receiving that.

In respect of the applicants, if I can put them in that general description, I think there were some 11 or 12 originally for those who responded to a request for a proposal, and then, ultimately, three selected, from which Activate 408 was selected. As a result of the government determining that the Activate 408 proposal is not value for money, has there been any payment made to any of the other applicants by way of compensation in respect of the submissions that they have presented?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In respect of that, I think you would probably need to direct those questions to my colleague minister Mullighan because the management of the tender process and all matters associated with that fell within the purview of his department. That would be a matter which I believe minister Mullighan and/or Mr Deegan would probably be best placed to assist you with, because that was their bailiwick. Our bailiwick was not that aspect of the matter.

Ms CHAPMAN: But if, in the last four months, there had been any request for compensation or approval for compensation to be paid, would that not be a cabinet decision, of which you would then be made aware?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know. I do not have any recollection of anything of that nature in the last few months, or generally, really. But, then again, because it is not specifically my business, if you understand what I mean, I have not had myself tuned into those matters in any particular way. So, again, I think I can do nothing better than suggest you inquire of minister Mullighan about those matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that but, consistent with your indication that you wanted to continue to press for the advancement of this project, would it not be reasonable, if there was going to be any extra cost as a result of abandoning a project or compensation had to be paid out that might help you in presenting a submission to cabinet, to advance or at least put back on the table this project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That may or may not be the case. The point is that there is no current budget process underway. We have just completed—indeed, we are here in estimates as a consequence of having recently completed—a budget, so there is no active budget round process being undertaken presently. Can I come back to what I said before? It is—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry to interrupt but, on that point, it is not showing as being back for consideration in this year's budget, having announced that it would be cancelled. Would that not be relevant to your consideration in the submissions you put for this year's budget, that is, to in some way reinstate this project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have made it plain. My view is that this project is necessary, unavoidable, and it will be pursued by me. Ultimately, the allocation of budget priorities amongst many competing claims is a matter for cabinet and I do not have the capacity to determine what cabinet will do, certainly in advance, and I do not think I can take it any further than that.

Ms CHAPMAN: The annual report at page 3 also refers to the budget measures from last year, and I quote from the Chief Justice's contribution in that. He said:

The budget reduction in 2013-14 was met primarily by the executive not making appointments to replace retiring judicial officers. In the Supreme Court, 1.5 judicial officers had not been filled, two District Court judicial officers remained vacant and 2 magistrates were not replaced. There have been associated reductions in the judicial support staff of the Authority.

My question is, firstly: what is the situation with the current vacancies as described at present?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe the numbers have changed from the numbers that you refer to in that report, unless I am mistaken.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The numbers referred to in my report are the permanent, if you like, or long-term reductions so that we could not reduce our operating budget. They remain. There are two vacancies still in the District Court that are not part of that which have not been filled for some time. That is not because they have been permanently or long-term abolished: they just have not been filled. I know from discussions with the Chief Judge that that is causing some strain. I understand there is one magistrate's position, too, which is yet to be filled but is not part of that operating budget offset.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, is there any budget allocation for those to be filled in the forthcoming 12 months?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think they sit within the existing budget parameters of the authority and could be filled.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have you received any request for them to be filled?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have regular discussions, particularly with the senior judge of the District Court, and I think it is fair to say that he would welcome additional troops on the ground. However, I need to make it clear, too, that there are a number of pieces on this chessboard that are presently in play, and it is my view that we need to know where they settle before I am comfortable in making any decisions of that nature.

For instance, I do not think it would be letting any cats out of the bag to say that, post the federal initiatives which were sitting under the umbrella of that word 'WorkChoices', a number of things changed in respect of the role of the commonwealth vis-a-vis the states in the industrial arena. There are presently a number of people who hold commissions as District Court judges who occupy positions substantially in what is now the industrial court. Those people—two of them—for some time have been providing assistance to the District Court.

In particular, I think that Senior Judge Jennings and Judge Gilchrist have been providing assistance to the District Court in respect of dust diseases and liquor licensing, which I believe has been very well received by both the District Court and the profession, as I understand it. I am considering at the moment, in light of the advent of the return-to-work legislation and the advent of the South Australian employment tribunal, what form of judicial or arbitral function is appropriate in that industrial/employment arena. That is a matter that I am considering presently.

I do not yet have any settled opinion about that, but clearly that potentially has some implications for what goes on and what resources are available for the District Court; likewise, the future of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), particularly in the context of the Environment, Resources and Development Court, which occupies presently, I think, 1½ or two (I think it is technically now 1.75, or thereabouts) judges—again, District Court judges, both of them potentially—it is possible that that current work might move elsewhere. Again, I do not have a settled—

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, I am not wanting to pre-empt what decision you might make as to what jurisdictions you might change, although you have indicated to the parliament that you have some future considerations as to what you will do with the industrial court in light of other legislation that has been passed, or whether you are going to transfer current District Court duties to the SACAT

These are all matters about which I will accept your determination, but irrespective of where they sit—whether they are sitting in the District Court or whether they are sitting in SACAT or they are sitting in a separate industrial court—someone has to hear these cases. Whilst I appreciate that you might be giving some consideration as to where you might move these chess pieces, there is no indication in the proposed applications that are referred to in your budget—there is no reduction—that is going to suggest that somehow or other we do not need any of these judges.

I do not want to ask you questions about prior announcements about what you might do to reorganise; I am really asking about whether there is anything in this forthcoming year that is going to make provision for the filling of those two current District Court and one Magistrates Court positions about which the Chief Justice has just said, if I can use his words, is 'causing some strain' in the current circumstances.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I am looking at those matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: You may be looking at them; I am asking if there is any money in the budget for them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The money is there. Perhaps I can just explain: as I understand it (and I stand to be corrected by those to the left and right of me) the position, as far as budget savings for the Courts Administration Authority goes, when viewed from the perspective of the Treasury, is that they only get credit for 1.5 Supreme Court judges and the two District Court judges—and they are the ones reported in the Chief Justice's report to which you referred a little while ago.

So far as the Treasury is concerned, it is my understanding that Treasury has said that those reductions will, in effect, constitute a budget saving for the CAA. As I understand it, further reductions, at the present time, do not. Therefore, the budget impact of whether or not there are appointments above and beyond those 1.5 Supreme Court justice positions and the two District Court positions not made, has no budget implication at all. In other words, to not appoint them at the present time does not save the courts any money, if that makes sense.

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose that raises the question then that if it does not save any money why haven't they been appointed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thought I was trying to explain that before.

Ms CHAPMAN: I know that you want to do some changing of the chess board as to where they sit and what jurisdictions they might have, but if there is no budgetary impediment as a result of whether these vacancies are filled or not, and the head of the CAA is saying quite clearly to the committee that it is creating some strain, why haven't they been filled, unless there has been some request that they not be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I said, I am not making any bones about the fact Judge Muecke and I have had discussions about these matters on more than one occasion, and I am sure he would be pleased if I would fill one or both of those positions sooner rather than later. My point is that I think it is part of my job to be as responsible as I possibly can be with very expensive public resources—for instance, judges. I need to be satisfied that there is a need for those appointments and I need to be satisfied that all the people who are appointed to that very senior and very expensive—from the public purse perspective—position around the place are being fully utilised.

At the moment I am considering a number of matters, to which I have already referred, which do have workload implications for people—not so much at the Supreme Court level but definitely the District Court level. I think it is appropriate for me to be settled on where that is going and also to be crystal clear about what the workload demands are within the District Court as it presently stands. So there are two elements, and I am saying the same thing different ways, I hope.

There is a question in my mind about exactly where the demand is within the District Court as presently constituted. That is question one. Some of the initiatives that we are looking at undertaking—for example, the reform of the criminal justice project, which is underway—potentially have significant positive implications for workload within the District Court. I might say that they would also probably have implications for increasing the workload within the Magistrates Court. Indeed, there is no doubt that the courts efficiency measures which were introduced into the parliament in 2012—and which, amongst other things, changed jurisdictional limits—have had the effect of moving what previously were a number of matters, particularly civil matters, from the District Court to the Magistrates Court. The Magistrates Court has, over time, without any question, become a busier place. I do believe the Magistrates Court can objectively demonstrate beyond any question of a doubt the fact that it has had an increased workload.

The District Court, as I said, there are many features at work. There is the question about exactly what the demand profile is within that court presently. There is a question as to whether legislative initiatives—whether they be practice and procedure-orientated initiatives or structural initiatives such as those that might affect the industrial court and commission and/or SACAT and/or SAET—will have implications for the distribution of work between that court and other agencies. So, I just need to be clear in my own mind about where all that is going to land.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is just that the activity indicators at page 171 suggest that whilst there had been a projection of a major increase in Magistrates Court application finalisations, in fact it went down. In any event, all of those matters are existing. In the existing circumstances, even though you might have a criminal justice reform agenda which you might hope will bring about some other efficiencies, we already know that the provision for the consultation and development of that reform has been funded but there is no funding in this budget for any implementation of those reforms, whatever might come of them, yet. That is a matter for the future. At present—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The not too distant future, I hope.

Ms CHAPMAN: That may be so, but at the moment if there are industrial court judges sitting around twiddling their thumbs then surely, given the circumstances, is it not appropriate that you either fill those vacancies or make some arrangements for transfer? If that is the case. I am not suggesting it is, but it seems to be a matter of consideration weighing on your mind—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is.

Ms CHAPMAN: —which is holding up the filling of those vacancies.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just make this point: but for exceptional circumstances which none of us would wish to see, the appointment of a judge is an irrevocable decision, at least until they turn 70, so one does not enter into those decisions lightly because it is committing the public purse to an expenditure, a very expensive expenditure, over a period of time. If I am satisfied that there are requirements to appoint people and that those requirements are ongoing then I will set about doing it. I am just trying to explain to you—

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, just let me clarify then: I thought I understood from your statement to the committee before that there is no negative budget implication in not filling these vacancies. So, whilst once you have appointed them they might be there for a significant time, there is no downside financially in you not doing that right now.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a downside in the global sense. If—can I write the word 'if' in very large letters in red crayon here—if there are expensive resources which are not being fully utilised is it not my responsibility to make sure that I have them distributed as efficiently as possible—

Ms CHAPMAN: Nobody is doubting that, Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —in order to make sure the public is getting value for money?

Ms CHAPMAN: What are you relying on then, other than the advice from the council or the chief judge as to whether in fact there has been either an underutilisation of resources in another court, or indeed in the District Court, that would cause you some hesitation in not filling those appointments? Is there some other source or inquiry that you are undertaking that gives reason or ground for you to think that the current structure is not giving, as has been determined under the management by this statutory authority, that suggests that they are wrong and that they need to reassign their resources?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: How they allocate their resources within the Courts Administration Authority, as I think I have made very clear on many occasions, is not something over which I have any control; that is a matter exclusively for the Courts Administration Authority. How they allocate their priorities is again a matter for them. All I am saying is nothing more or less than that the only matter in relation to the Courts Administration Authority over which I have any control is the appointment or otherwise of staff—

Ms CHAPMAN: But your delay in doing it—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —and judicial staff only. All I am saying is that it is incumbent on me to exercise what in my mind passes for due diligence about the appropriate need for the appointment of such people, and particularly, as I have been trying to explain to you, in the context of a number of different initiatives being in play at the present time and in a position where hard data about the existing structure is difficult for me to get my head around. I think I just need to be satisfied.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that you are saying that you are doing this due diligence and you are having some difficulty getting your head around it, so there is no apparent refusal or failure to provide the data that you have sought, I am assuming from what you have said, but you are thinking about it. I am just at a complete loss at this point, Attorney, as to the basis upon which you are suggesting that the recommendations of the council and the Chief Judge that these vacancies be filled should be ignored or should be not proceeded with—on the basis of some other data or information that you have.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have not said that anything is being ignored. I think I have acknowledged here more than once that Judge Muecke and I have regular meetings. He has on a number of occasions expressed the desire to me that one or more of those positions be filled; I am not pretending that has not happened because it has, and I am giving it due consideration. All I am trying to convey to the committee is that you just appreciate again, please, the number of different chess pieces which are moving presently in this space. There is SAET and everything to do with that. There is SACAT and everything to do with that. There is the Industrial Relations Court and Commission and everything to do with that. There is the justice reform project and everything to do with that.

There is even a discussion about the possibility of whether the existing configuration of the three tiers of the court structure in South Australia is the best configuration. If that, for example, were to change—and I am not saying it is going to, but I am saying if that were to change—that also would have implications. All I am saying is that there are many variables that are presently there. I need to consider all of those and I need to be satisfied that, notwithstanding all of those variables, there is a present requirement for an appointment and I am giving that consideration. I have not said I am not going to do it, I am just thinking about it.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Chief Judge, I think, is due to retire as well, isn't he, in the forthcoming 18 months or so?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think in the next two years or 18 months or something of that nature. December next year I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it the intention that you are going to replace him?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Subject to—

Ms CHAPMAN: Either with yourself or someone else?

The Hon. P. CAICA: With you, Vickie.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, you won't get rid of me that easily.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Obviously, if the current court structure does not change, there must be a presiding judge in the District Court, so of course when Judge Muecke moves on there would be a presiding judge.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that, Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The only caveat to that is that, were it to be the case that there were to be some new configuration of the superior courts—and I am not saying that is going to be the case, I am saying if that were to be the case—it is conceivable that that would have some impact on that role going forward, but that is hypothetical.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just going back to the state of the courts that we referred to, last year I asked questions about the mattress at the end of the stairway, and the Chief Justice was not able to recall any knowledge of whether that was the case. That has now been filmed and televised on one of the programs—Today Tonight, or one of those other programs.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am reliably informed that is not a mattress.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; whether it is a plastic covered foam structure, or whatever you want to call it, I think you are aware of what I am talking about. It has been identified as apparently necessary to minimise the harm of someone who might slide down the stairs. Have there been any accidents on that stairway in the last 12 months, and has SafeWork SA, or anyone else in the approving of workplace safety, inspected it in the last 12 months?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Strangely enough, I had a chat to the court's administrator about this only yesterday. I am advised that there has not been any involvement by SafeWork in respect of that matter. If I can return back to my initial comments, I have never come into this place, and I certainly do not come into it now, saying that that building is good: it is not. I certainly would not suggest those facilities are good, because they are not. In fact, we had the embarrassing situation not that long ago where the current Chief Justice's predecessor was unwell and confined to a wheelchair, and, by reason of his degree of disability, was basically unable—

Ms CHAPMAN: To get into his own court.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —to get into his own court. Obviously, that is not okay.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have some questions in relation to the anticipated, apparent wave of appeals that we are to have as a result of the Full Court determination of the Henry Keogh case, about which there has been some publicity. We already have listed a retrial, apparently, for May next year for Mr Keogh's case. Is the allocation of funds or extra funds that might be needed in this budget or is it in the Attorney-General's budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It depends on what you are talking about. First of all, as to that question, I always anticipated that, when that amendment to law was passed by the parliament, it would initially be a group of people who would be interested in agitating that matter. This is the opportunity for people who have otherwise exhausted all of their appeal rights to come forward with fresh and compelling evidence which was not reasonably available to them at the time of their original trial and conviction, which throws serious doubt over the safety of the original verdict. I do not think anybody was surprised that Mr Keogh sought to take advantage of that provision. Mr Keogh, as you mentioned, was able to persuade the court that there was sufficient uncertainty about the basis upon which the original verdict was come to and that he should be afforded the opportunity of a fresh trial.

That is not, as some in the media were suggesting, tantamount to an acquittal of Mr Keogh. It simply means that he gets to face the prosecutor afresh, and we will see what happens. I do not wish to take that any further. It was my expectation that there would be a few people, and I discussed this briefly with a colleague the other day, and they made the point that, if you are sitting in the Yatala for 20 or 30 years, you have got not much else to do but think about perhaps having another role at the dice if you can, and that is fair enough. My expectation is that the law will settle. The case law is already starting to form up around those provisions. The period of lawyers having a view that that provision is still an unknown quantity or is capable of some malleability will pass as the case law becomes more settled, and those appeals will occur infrequently but from time to time; there will not be an avalanche of them.

Those trials, as and when they come up, will be few and far between, but I do accept that individual ones, particularly early on, might go on for a period of time, both because of the complexity of the evidence that might be called but also because of the fact that the law, perhaps in some regards, remains to be fully settled about exactly how the court will interpret these things.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that, Attorney, but what about the money? Is there any money allocated in this budget—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The money situation is this: the court—

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just say—

The CHAIR: I ask you to wait for the Attorney to finish his answer before you ask your next or supplementary question.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I am asking as part of my questions.

The CHAIR: No, I need to insist that he be allowed to finish his answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Inasmuch as there is a workload for the courts, it is contemplated by me that these matters will be picked up in the ordinary course during the ordinary discharge of the courts' duties, just as other changes to the law from time to time have affected the burden on the courts. Take, for example, the decision made by this place some time ago to remove the statute of limitations on very old sexual offences. That has had a serious implication, particularly for the District Court, over time. The place where it might show up is in the Legal Services Commission budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will come to that after 11 o'clock because that is in your next budget allocation, but again the projection from 2014-15 was 250 finalisations in the Supreme Court. The projection for 2015-16 is 220. So, even with some extras that might occur as a result of these fresh retrials occurring, there does not seem to be, on the face of it, any provision for that like, for example, we did with the Snowtown murder case where extra money had to be allocated to meet the costs of the prosecution and the hearing of the trials that were involved in that case.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If we got to the point where there was a particular problem, a particular case or a particular issue which was causing that degree of difficulty, which Snowtown did because it went on forever pretty much, and if the Chief Justice, for example, lost one or two of his judges in effect for years or a year or something, of course I would expect that there would be a conversation between the Chief Justice and me.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. So, if that arises, you would consider it on a one-off basis?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Of course, just as we do with auxiliaries. From time to time, the court has special needs and a request is made for the appointment of an auxiliary, which is dealt with in the ordinary course.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. In relation to ex gratia payments that you approve in respect of whether they are prosecution costs or anything else, is that in this portfolio or is it in your Attorney-General's portfolio?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is in the Attorney-General's portfolio.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will ask you in three minutes then. My next question is—

The CHAIR: Do we have omnibus questions you have to table?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do, in the next 1½ minutes.

The CHAIR: Okay, I am just reminding you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. In respect of the other initiative for this year's budget, which is to increase the probate filing fees, which is at Budget Paper 5, page 25, and the provision of some extra $9 million revenue to result as a result of this new graduated initiative or tiered arrangement, I think it has been described as, can I ask whether that was an initiative that came from you or from the authority?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it was our friends in Treasury, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Our friends in Treasury, I believe.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. Was there any consultation with the authority about that proposal?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that information was sought from the authority and provided to Treasury.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it correct that the current revenue from these fees is about $6 million a year and the cost of running the probate unit is about $2 million a year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is about right.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there proposed to be any extra resource allocated to the probate office or is this going to be sort of $9 million net profit as is what, on the face of it, is suggested by this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that will be considered after the regulations have come in. They will work out how it is actually going to be implemented on the ground.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am assuming there is not any anticipated increase in deaths or application for probate, and all the money that is listed in the forward estimates in the budget papers totalling about $9 million is all net increased funds available.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There may be a need for more resources in the probate office depending on how the estates are valued and checked and whether gross value or net value is used. All that might require more administrative resources and, hopefully, if it does, there might be a discussion about funds for that.

Ms CHAPMAN: The raw data that is in the published budget papers then is without any consideration of that at this point; is that your understanding, Attorney?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would defer to the Chief Justice in relation to these matters.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I do not know how the amounts were estimated and whether any allowance was made. I do not even know whether they are gross value or net value. I do not know whether any allowance has been made for extra costs and assessments.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the face of it, it is a net value, because that is what the budget measures papers are supposed to tell the parliament, as to what increase or decrease, positive or negative effect, it is going to have on the budget. I wonder if you could take that on notice, Attorney, and get back to us.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I am happy to do that.

The CHAIR: This could be an appropriate time to finish off this line. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments completed.