Attorney-General's Department, $109,678,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $98,533,000

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

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Soulio, Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Liquor and Gambling, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr A. Thompson, Special Counsel, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Corcoran, Senior Financial Consultant, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms T. Blight, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr J. Lai, Financial Consultant, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements in Volume 1. I call on the minister to introduce his advisers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not advised by anybody presently.

The CHAIR: You are on your own? That will make it a lot easier for everybody. Is the minister going to make an opening statement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, would you like to make an opening statement?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: No opening statement. Can I just have an indication if there are any questions on my right?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On my right is Mr Persse, who is the chief executive, and on my left is Mr Swanson, who knows all about numbers. He is the chief financial officer.

The CHAIR: Who is behind you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have an array of other people.

The CHAIR: The list can be sent up to the table. Deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 19, which relates to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. I had not heard any announcement, Attorney, as to whether they were going to have some nuclear-powered courts in South Australia, although it is an initiative I am sure that the Hon. Mr Scarce is considering. My first question is: why is this in the Attorney-General's budget? Why is $6 million over two years coming out of what is already a fairly cash-strapped agency?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of things. First of all, my understanding is that because the royal commission is obviously established under the Royal Commissions Act, and that is an act which is committed to the Attorney, it therefore lands in the AGD portfolio, as does, I think, the Nyland royal commission and so on, even though the subject matter of those particular inquiries may have nothing specifically to do with the Attorney-General's Department.

The second point is that the money which is appearing here in the budget is actually new money. It is not money which is being consumed from other AGD priorities; it is money which is specifically allocated to the provision of resources to this particular royal commission. Because of the fact that the Royal Commissions Act is committed to the Attorney, it lands in the AGD portfolio.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did your Attorney-General's Department or your predecessor as the Attorney-General have responsibility similarly for the Mullighan royal commission and the Debelle royal commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is the case, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I should also say that, whilst I note that there is a provision for a royal commission of the state's child protection system, I note that you are the Minister for Child Protection Reform, so I did not have any issue with that in any event being in your area of responsibility.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just to make it clear, the Nyland royal commission sits within AGD—

Ms CHAPMAN: Only because of the Royal Commissions Act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —only because of the act. It has nothing to do with my role in respect of child protection, which is, I think as I have explained before, really a policy formulation role rather than a line ministerial role.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was going to ask you about that because there does not appear to be any provision in the budget for an allocation for you for that ministerial role.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. Just to make it clear, as I understand it, there is no line allocation in respect of that particular portfolio. It is—

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you have any staff?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, not as such. Let me be more particular: I have within my office a facility for the appointment of a person to provide me with assistance in terms of liaison with the Department for Education and Child Development. From time to time, I ask people within the Attorney-General's Department to provide me with advice in relation to issues which are pertinent to that. I have had Mr Persse and others provide me with some sort of support and a liaison-type function between the Attorney-General's Department and the Department for Education and Child Development.

There is no department for child protection reform, as such; that does not exist and never has existed. There is no line responsibility for that particular role. So, minister Close is responsible, as minister Rankine was before her, for the day-to-day administration of all matters relating to that. My role is to be of assistance in terms of policy formulation and some sort of across-government coordination of the initiatives to improve and respond to some of the problems that have been popping up from time to time in that area.

Ms CHAPMAN: So if $6 million is not enough for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, do you, being responsible for the administration of this commission, make an application to Treasury for extra money? Is that how that works?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. If it turned out that we were running into a time issue, as indeed has happened, I think, with Commissioner Nyland, for instance—our expectation, or at least hope, was that Commissioner Nyland's work would be completed shortly; she has advised me that that is not going to be the case and that she would be unlikely to be completed until the first half of next year—

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, first half of next year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. And for that reason, I went back to cabinet and advised them that that was the case. I sought additional funding—

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it proposed that Ms Nyland is going to provide an interim report, or do we just have to wait until sometime between January and June next year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I come to her in just a moment because I want to finish answering your question about the nuclear one.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will be coming back to that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I just want to add, for the record, that the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy has also written to the federal Minister for Industry and Science (the Hon. Ian Macfarlane) seeking a commonwealth contribution towards the operating costs associated with the commission. Whether or not the commonwealth wishes to be of assistance in that respect, we will have to wait and see. I can say, again, that although it is not my specific portfolio area I have been personally quite encouraged by the degree of cooperation and positive messaging that has been coming from the commonwealth in respect of that commission, and I think that has been quite encouraging.

Ms CHAPMAN: I noticed it was not in the ALP conference agenda this weekend, but in any event we will see how encouraging that is. I will come back to the Minister for Mineral Resources' submission to the commonwealth shortly, but just back to Ms Nyland: if the expectation now is that her report is unlikely to be received until the first half of next year, is it intended that she will provide an interim report in respect of any of the other issues that she is looking at?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have meetings with Commissioner Nyland, quite frequently, and I have made it clear to her (and I am confident she shares this opinion) that, if she gets to the point that she has something that she wishes to convey to the government at any point between now and whenever it is she finally finishes, she is welcome to come to me with any suggestion. In fact, I think—and, again, I am pretty sure I have said this in so many words to the commissioner—if she gets to the point where she is so settled on a matter that she knows it is going to inevitably be part of her final report, and she gets settled on it next week, I would welcome her coming to me and saying, 'There are a number of things still floating around but this one I am absolutely certain of.'

If she gets to that point, and you can call that an interim report, if you wish, I would welcome that because that would enable me to start work on that immediately and that would mean there would be less for me to do at the end when she produces her final report because I could get started on it earlier. So, I welcome it.

Ms CHAPMAN: That may be so, Attorney. I did not ask whether or not you welcomed it: I am asking whether she has given any indication to you about whether she intends to provide an interim report?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not really. I do not think she has made a decision yet as to whether she will provide interim reports, or not. I think she is thinking about it and, from my point of view, that is good.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any explanation as to why it has now moved from mid-September this year to the first half of next year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think she has probably encountered a lot more feedback than she might have anticipated originally. When we first established this commission, we were really guessing, I suppose, as to exactly how much material would come into the commission, how many people would come forward and give evidence. We took a stab at it and thought it might take until August. As it has turned out, she is still working her way through things. There was also the matter of a certain criminal proceeding which had to be completed and, given the fact that that matter is still on foot, I probably do not need to say too much more about that.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, the money that is allocated on page 19 as operating expenses and investing payments, is that extra for last year and continuing on?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is new money.

Ms CHAPMAN: So it is now going to take another, in round figures, $9 million extra. How much has been allocated so far to the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is for the whole royal commission.

Ms CHAPMAN: So it is not all new money?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Again, as a result of the delay and, presumably, the extra unintended level of response to this commission, is there any expectation that there will be any extra money provided?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I get back to you on that? I do not know the answer to that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose the difference would be that last year's budget was only $6 million for the royal commission and this year's budget suggests that it is more.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but whether or not there is any more above and beyond what is in the budget, which is what I understood your question to be—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —I do not know the answer to that but I will get back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you can come back to us on that because, whilst you are administering this, this has been a royal commission that has been ongoing and would have had a budget allocation in the 2014 budget and, on the face of it, looking at this document, this is extra.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I take that one on notice and we will get back to you?

Ms CHAPMAN: Going back to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, you are administering this and, if they need more money, you will be responsible for putting a submission to cabinet to present that argument if that is necessary?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the meantime, the Minister for Mineral Resources, you say, has written to the commonwealth and there is reference there to seeking an invitation to contribute?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the basis upon which you say that there seems to have been some positive response in that regard? Has there been a letter back?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did not say specifically in respect of the request for money. I just said that, in general terms, the cooperation from the commonwealth and the messaging that has been coming back to the state from the commonwealth has been quite positive, I thought.

Ms CHAPMAN: What, that you are having a commission of inquiry on the matter?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let us just get back to the money, though, because this is something that you are in charge of.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am a glass half full kind of guy, so I was trying to pick out the really good stuff.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, well, at this stage I would just like to see what is in the glass, if I might, Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, fair enough.

Ms CHAPMAN: If we go back to this explanatory note that there is an olive branch invitation being presented to the commonwealth to say that it should contribute, and you are administering this royal commission, I am assuming that someone in your department is keeping an on eye how that negotiation is going?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe so, yes. Mr Persse, in fact. I think that the best way of answering it, and I will be corrected here in a minute by one of these gentlemen if I am wrong, is that, if that royal commission gets to the point where it requires further funding and the commonwealth does not decide to contribute anything to help us out, then I will have to go back to cabinet and seek further funding.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will you not have to go back to cabinet to explain if you do not even get the half that it has asked?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry?

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, the contribution that it has asked. The explanatory note here in the papers suggests that there has been this approach:

A contribution to the additional costs associated with operating the expenditure of the royal commission is being sought from the commonwealth government.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, there is $6 million there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much is being sought?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I get back to you on that? It is not me that has written to the commonwealth.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I understand, but you are in charge of supervising this project.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I will get back to you and find out. The gist of it is, just to make it clear, that, whatever the numbers are, the equation is something like this: if the commonwealth does not want to chip in, then the state will ultimately be responsible and, as the minister who has to accommodate this royal commission, I will have to take to cabinet a request for further funds.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, is the $6 million that is referred to there over two years the gross estimated cost of the royal commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not want to fly by the seat of my pants in here on answering these questions about the dollars. I will find out specifically what the answer on the dollar point is. I can only say this, that the allocation here is for $6 million. If that turns out to be less than is required in total, and it may well do, then we will either get the balance from the commonwealth or I will have to go back to cabinet and ask for whatever that balance is.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, is the request from the commonwealth that it contribute over and above the $6 million?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My understanding is yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the gist of the letter is, 'We're allocating $6 million to this. We're going to invite you to make a contribution to what may be extra costs.'

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So at this stage it is a sort of 'maybe' at this point, because you have estimated the cost of this project to be at $6 million.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. Can I be clear: Treasury has provided in the budget an allocation of $6 million over those two years for this royal commission. That may or may not be what ultimately the commission costs.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that but somewhere there is a document which suggests how much has been allocated—not just here, but what estimate there would be of the cost of having this royal commission. At this point only $6 million out of state Treasury has been allocated; I understand that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I am saying is: what is the estimate so far, or has it just been on the basis that Treasury said, 'Well, we're going to approve $6 million. It might end up costing $20 million. You come back to us if you think you need more.' Is that the way it is operating?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not wish to be seen to sign up for the 20 number, but the proposition you have just advanced is basically it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay. At this point, your understanding is that whether it is within the six or above the six or whatever the total amount is that is being sought, in any event the inquiry to the commonwealth minister has gone. Do you know when that went?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. We will get back to you about that.

Ms CHAPMAN: And has there been any response?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I do not know.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you could inquire as to whether there has been any response at all. It may be that it was only written two days before the budget was announced, I do not know from here, but if it was written—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised by Mr Persse that it was probably a couple of months ago. That is about as particular as I can be about that presently, but we will get back to you about that.

Ms CHAPMAN: And if there has been any response, what the detail of that response is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has there been any request by the commissioner to expand the terms of reference that you are aware of?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I am aware of. To be honest, I think they are pretty broad. I think the terms of reference—

Ms CHAPMAN: They are referred to in the papers in summary form, so I appreciate—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I cannot imagine how you would need to expand that; it seems pretty all-encompassing to me. However, I think the answer is no.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well one situation, of course, may be that if there is going to be an invitation to the commonwealth to make a contribution to this, other than putting in a submission, to come up with money, they might to look at something more broadly outside of South Australia, for example.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, maybe.

Ms CHAPMAN: You will get back to me if that is the case?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would now like to turn to the Victims of Crime Fund. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 73, refers to the moneys expected to be generated over the forward estimates for revenue into this fund (this is at the top of page 73). What is the current balance of the Victims of Crime Fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that as at 30 June the balance was $203 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: We understand, of course, that there is some legislation before the parliament to be considered, which will expand the opportunity for some potential recipients to have larger payments. In the budget for this year I am making the assumption, from public statements that you have made, that it is expected that the application of that reform will be retrospective to 1 July this year.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Therefore, I am assuming some budgeted fund receipts and expenditure will take that reform into account.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So in this current financial year, what is the anticipated expenditure from the fund for the 2015-16 year, bearing in mind that there is apparently going to be another $2.695 million into it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that in the current financial year, the 2015-16 financial year, the amount is $3.156 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of what will be expended?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Additional.

Ms CHAPMAN: Additional, alright. Can we just clarify then how much is budgeted to go into the fund in total and how much is budgeted to go out? I am not asking for a breakdown of what it is going to be spent on, because I appreciate that there are a number of programs that it funds.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would just like to make one point. The budgeted number for additional expenditure in the 2015-16 year was, necessarily, to some degree a guesstimate because we do not actually have that new scheme operational. It has not even passed the parliament presently, and we do not know exactly what that will look like in terms of the way it rolls out.

For example, the present arrangements provide for a very, one might say, inadequate payment for solicitors providing assistance to claimants. It has been suggested to me, and I think it is probably impossible to actually verify the accuracy of this, that the relatively poor remuneration provided to solicitors assisting individuals to make claims under the present scheme has contributed to a depression in the number of people making claims. It is certainly the case that part and parcel of the proposal that we are putting forward in the measures before the parliament includes an increase in the payment to legal representation.

Ms CHAPMAN: Not much, I think.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but we are looking at increasing the amount of legal fees paid. That, for example, may mean that the number of applications made increases; we do not know. So, whilst we have a guesstimate in there, it is very hard to be absolutely accurate about it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that but I just want to know what the guesstimate is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The guesstimate is that the total budget impact from the proposed changes to the VOC payments arrangement before the parliament is 3.156, but I emphasise that is a number that is not one that I have absolute confidence will be correct; it may be more.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, but my next question was: what is the total moneys expected to be received into the fund in this financial year and what is the total amount budgeted to be paid out in this financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Total in and total out, including the amendment being successfully passed by the parliament?

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My advice is that the estimate for total moneys in in the 2015-16 year is $68.709 million and the estimate for expenditures in the 2015-16 year is $28.219 million, and I believe that is inclusive of and assuming the passage of the legislation that is before the parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, your expectation then is that unless there is some unexplained event there will be another $40 million in this fund as at 30 June 2016?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: More or less, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: You may not have it in front of you but if you do I invite you to advise the committee as to what the estimated income and expenditure is over the forward estimates for each of those years.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, over the forward estimates the income for the fund is more or less stable at between $68 million and $69 million, or thereabouts.

Ms CHAPMAN: Over 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. In fact, to give you the particular numbers that I am advised, they are: in 2016-17, 68.934; in 2017-18, 69.282; and in 2018-19, 69.594.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I have the corresponding—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In terms of the outgoings: in 2016-17, 28.899; in 2017-18, 29.651; and in 2018-19, 30.419.

Ms CHAPMAN: So again, we are looking at about a $40 million accumulation in that fund, unless there is any other extraordinary expense per year.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Approximately.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the government have any intention of dealing with that money in any other way or presenting any proposal as to how that accumulated money, which will be well up over $300 million within a few years—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, I repeat the point I made before that the exact drawdown on the fund is difficult to be certain about, so there is some uncertainty about that. Whatever that uncertainty is, I accept that it is unlikely to be anything like $40 million of uncertainty, but I make the point that there is uncertainty about the exact drawdown.

The second point is that I have been turning my mind to whether it is within scope, given the statutory confines of the matters for which that money can be expended, for other services to be funded. I have been turning my mind to things which include, but are not limited to, things like the victims of domestic violence and matters of that type. At the moment, the categories of existing grants and compensation under the scheme include compensation and ex gratia payments to victims, legal fees, victim compensation section of the Crown Solicitor's Office, grief payments and reimbursement of funeral expenses, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights salary and related costs to the commissioner, rape and sexual assault services, Victim Support Service, road trauma support, and victims of crime to help them deal with the effects of crime and advance their interests.

As you would appreciate perhaps, if you look at the provision—I think it is section 31 of the Victims of Crime Act—it is a relatively tight provision. However, I have been looking and I have been discussing with officers of my department whether there is an opportunity for some additional moneys to be used, and the thing that has been exercising my mind is domestic violence in particular. That is because we appear to be in a situation presently where, whether it is because of an increase in the actual domestic violence problem in our community or whether it is because there is an increase in the reporting of it due to changes in people's attitudes or the coverage by our friends in the media of various cases, I do not know.

However, undoubtedly the amount of reporting of domestic violence is clearly increasing. Whether or not that reporting is indicative of a fundamentally increasing problem or whether it is revealing a longstanding problem in a more full fashion, I am not able to say, but whatever the event is, it is clearly a matter that concerns me and it concerns the government.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it your intention that you will move an amendment to the victims of crime bill that is currently before the parliament to accommodate that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not think that is really where it probably sits. There could be a range of things. There are many ways in which you could tackle domestic violence and I have given some thought to this. One of the ways which is often advanced is to have better perpetrator programs.

Ms CHAPMAN: Any would be a good start.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the courts are doing some work in that space, and I commend them for that. It is something that I have been thinking about and I really do need to get detailed legal advice about whether or not the current configuration of section 31 would enable us to do something like, for instance, funding some sort of perpetrator management or behaviour modification program.

Whilst I am personally satisfied that that would be a very appropriate use to which one might put some of those funds, whether or not it is a matter of law within the scope of the current wording of section 31 is a moot point. That, for example, is one of the things we are looking at. It comes down to this: is an expenditure, which has the effect of reducing the number of victims, an appropriate expenditure from the Victims of Crime Fund, as opposed to an expenditure directly on a victim?

Ms CHAPMAN: The question is: does money allocated to the reform of perpetrators have sufficient nexus with victims—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: —to actually justify the application of the funds from a Victims of Crime Fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Whilst I am not making an adverse suggestion that perpetrator programs are not meritorious (I think there is a lack of them, in any event), ultimately there is accumulating fund here. My next question is: has there been any consideration of reducing the levy, which was massively increased a few years ago, which has resulted in this fund blossoming in its bottom line?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to that, I really think it is appropriate for me to suggest that you refer that question to my colleague the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will be asking the Treasurer some questions about this. In relation to that aspect—because you are in charge of this fund—have you put any recommendation or are you proposing yourself that there be a reduction in the levy as a result of this burgeoning balance?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not recall having put forward such a proposal. There are two perspectives on this fund: one is mine and one is the Treasurer's. I would invite you to canvass your thoughts on this topic with the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that; but in relation to your position on it, as the Attorney-General, who is in charge of the fund, whilst I accept that you are giving some thought as to how you might also spend the money on some other programs, have you given any consideration to recommending that there be a reduction in the levy or at the very least some capacity to suspend the operation of the levy, for example with juvenile offenders?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe that I have taken such a matter up. Can I say, to be perfectly frank with the deputy leader, that were I to take such a proposal forward it would be a proposal that I would need to take forward in the context of budget conversations, and from the point of view of the Attorney-General's Department it would be in no way materially different from me seeking new money.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it not surely materially different? Here you are supervising a fund, which is accumulating, and we will come in a moment to how that might benefit the Treasurer's bottom line. But you are in charge of this fund, you are responsible for its operation and, obviously, its application. As Attorney-General, if you felt that the levy was at such a level now that it far outstripped its responsibility in annual payments out, you could recommend that it go back to, or at least be reduced, or relief be given, for example to youth offenders, who, as I am sure the Attorney is aware, frequently cannot pay the levy and are obliged by law to pay the levy on every offence on which they are convicted.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A couple of points: the first one is that I do not know, and I do not know whether there is any material held anywhere within government which can provide any information about the extent to which the increase in the levy has contributed to a reduction in criminal behaviour. I guess that is a function of the extent to which any fine or monetary penalty is a deterrent. To the extent that there has been a deterrent effect by increasing penalties, I guess the existence of the levy in its higher manifestation also is a contributor to a deterrent effect in the criminal justice area.

The second point I need to make is that, so far as the budget is concerned, this fund is treated as being on budget; therefore, any adjustment to the fund, either in terms of moneys in or moneys out, would be a matter which would be reflected in the bottom line in the budget, and it would therefore require me to take that matter through the budget process in order for me to have permission from cabinet to make any such adjustment.

Ms CHAPMAN: And that, in short, means that, if you put up a proposal, cabinet have to consider what Treasury's view is, and its implication, on your recommendation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Amongst other things, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you aware, Attorney, of the problem I am talking about, that is, of youth offenders frequently not being able to pay?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of your other portfolio responsibilities here under A-G's of course is the fines unit, which is now across in your department, and you collect all the money.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As much as we can, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And that includes the levy?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did you say that there has been some work done on the question of whether there has been any deterrent benefit effect identified on paying the levy as distinct from fines?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. All I say is that, at a conceptual level, the imposition of a fine as a penalty, amongst other things, is presumed to have, I guess, according to the criminologists, some form of deterrent value. My only point was, if you add an increment onto that fine and call it a levy, and it has the effect of increasing the fine, there is some related incremental increase in the deterrent value of the package, that is all. I do not know what that value is.

Ms CHAPMAN: As to the position of the fund, of course it provides a balance in the assets, I suppose, of the government at any one time of these funds.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, unsurprisingly, treasurers like to keep them flush. I do not think there is anything unusual about that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That has been my experience.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, I take it that the process that you have just described, for example, in presenting your legislation following through on the election promise on the increase in the fund, also required Treasury approval as such—

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

Ms CHAPMAN: —to the extent of it actually being able to progress as a bill.

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

Ms CHAPMAN: In consideration of that, it sits on the balance sheet. Is there interest from that fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Interest?

Ms CHAPMAN: Accumulated on the investment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Is it invested, in other words?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe so.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who gets the interest?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The fund and, I suppose, that means my colleague the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright. Perhaps we will deal with that later in the legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I check that though just to make absolutely certain? Those who are advising me are telling me, yes, there are earnings on the fund. My assumption is those earnings accumulate within the fund, but I will check it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, thank you. Just in relation to your other areas of responsibility, I mentioned ex gratia payments before.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that these can be for various things.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: My first question is: did you approve any ex gratia payments in the last financial year, 2014-15?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Numerous.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you do not have it in front of you, the total payment?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Beg your pardon?

Ms CHAPMAN: If you do not have it in front of you, can you take on notice the total payment?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Total payment?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, that you approved.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just make a point here: I think I can give you much more helpful information if you can be a little more particular in your question. Let me explain: I have a whole range of applications for ex gratia payment. To give a hypothetical, if somebody is the victim of a home invasion and the victims of crime commissioner determines that it would be of assistance to that individual to put a security door on the front of their house, for instance, and the victims of crime commissioner says, 'I would like $800 (or whatever it might be) to put a security door on Mrs Smith's house,' that is one type of thing that might happen.

Or, a person is killed in tragic circumstances and it comes to the attention of the victims of crime commissioner that there is a request that the body be repatriated from Adelaide to wherever, and perhaps even that relatives fly to Adelaide to collect the body and take the body to wherever it is, again, that might be a matter that the victims of crime commissioner thinks is appropriate to provide some support towards. That is one class, and there can be almost anything in that class.

Then there is another group of people who are the children in state care people, and they are still working their way through the system. As at 30 June 2015, I am advised that there was a total of 177 applications for ex gratia compensation and, as at 30 June, a total of 97 had been approved. Offers were made to these and, of the 97 approved, 87 of those people had accepted offers, and I gather there had been payment to those 87. As at 30 June, the total ex gratia compensation offers had been an amount of $1.3145 million and the total number of payments had been $1.2185 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, $1.218 million?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: $1,218,500 has so far gone out to those people. Of the 14 applications received in 2014-15, nine applicants had not given evidence or made a submission to commissioner Mullighan. As at 30 June, 10 applications are on hold because the allegations of abuse have been referred to the police and the applicant is seeking compensation first from another institution for other reasons.

In addition to that, from time to time, completely separate to this, I might get an instance where a person has made an allegation against a person that, for one reason or another, has not successfully gone through the courts. That could be, for instance, because the alleged perpetrator has died before the matter could proceed to trial and therefore that person is technically not a victim of crime because there has been no conviction, or a key witness has failed to bob up, and in some instances I think it has even been the case that the alleged victim themselves has failed to give evidence for some good reason. Again, in those circumstances, occasionally those matters come to me as well. I am just trying to make the point that there is an enormous diversity of—

Ms CHAPMAN: Sure, and perhaps we are a little bit cross purposes, because these all relate to sort of harsh, unconscionable circumstances arising around a victim of a crime, and I understand that. Do you need the Treasurer's approval to pay out these ex gratia payments, either out of the Victims of Crime Fund or generally?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They come to me personally, and I personally exercise a discretion in relation to these matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: But we are talking a few million a year.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: $1.3 million or thereabouts. That was children in state care, I beg your pardon. Altogether do you mean? That was only state care kids.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, the victims of crime ones—the first ones you referred to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to get it for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you can just get that, but in any event, they come to you personally and you do not require the Treasurer's approval?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: But are we talking about an amount which is less than $5 million a year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I assume so, but I do not know.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you currently pay it out of your budget, somewhere else in the Attorney-General's, or does it come out of the Victims of Crime Fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised it comes out of special purpose funds

Ms CHAPMAN: Special purpose funds?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is that including—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an administered item under AGD, and it can include the fund.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It can include the Victims of Crime Fund.

Ms CHAPMAN: But you do not need the Treasurer's permission on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will go to other ex gratia payments, which, as Attorney-General, you have for the court matters. The most recent I can think of is the Constable Hoy case, where there had been an unsuccessful prosecution against the police officer. Has there been a request for an ex gratia payment for his legal costs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would need to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: You are aware of the media around that, and the indication that he was seeking a substantial payment—I think over $100,000—towards legal costs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: One reads many things; whether the truth is amongst them is difficult to say.

Ms CHAPMAN: Matters of that nature, did you pay out ex gratia payments in the last financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, can I have that one again?

Ms CHAPMAN: Matters of that nature—that is, when you are giving ex gratia payments in respect of litigation, where there may be some unsuccessful—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I would have to check. I think that would be an uncommon event, but I would have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: At this stage, then, if we could just clarify that you will identify whether there have been any applications by Mr Hoy or any representative of him—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I cannot tell you off the top of my head.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and his case in particular as to what the outcome is of that; secondly, what the total amount of ex gratia payments, as uncommon as they may be, for 2014-15, and again the source of where those funds come from; and, finally, whether you require the Treasurer's approval to allocate that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take those all on notice. Can I make the point though that there is another completely separate—well, I think it is a completely separate proposition, and I just want to clarify that for the purposes of helping those who are going to be getting this information to be clear in their own minds what you are asking for. From time to time, the state is involved in litigation, as you would appreciate. Sometimes, that litigation is in respect of personal injuries claims or various other claims by individuals against the state.

There are certain levels of authority required, depending on the amount of money that is involved in the resolution of that claim, if it is resolved by way of settlement. There are certain tiers, if I am not mistaken, and those tiers require different levels of authority before they can be approved, and that depends on the quantum. I think, at the most extreme instance, they need to go to cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Could you come back with the levels of approval?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I make it clear that these are quite diverse. They could be a personal injuries claim, for instance, or they could be a native title claim, for instance, where we are talking a substantial amount of money. The different levels of delegated authority exist, and relatively low-level matters can be resolved by officers of the Attorney-General's Department within their delegated authority. You get to a certain point where that authority has to be cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, if I could have the threshold as to whether you need to have authority of any other minister (namely, the Treasurer, more likely), and/or cabinet, that would be fine. In the meantime, you are giving me that helpful information to identify that the claim in the Hoy case is for $200,000, and so that in itself, if it has been applied for—and you are going to make some inquiries about that—as to whether that requires the Treasurer's approval, if you are to accede to a contribution of that order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will find out. To the best of my knowledge, I was not aware that Constable Hoy was a victim of crime. I thought the allegation was that—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not suggesting he was.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —Constable Hoy was an alleged perpetrator of a crime, for which he was acquitted.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, that is right. As I was saying to you—quite separate from victims of crime—I am now talking about ex gratia payments that you might be called upon to make a contribution to as a result of cases of that nature. As you well know, there are situations where people will say, 'I was charged with murder, I shouldn't have ever been charged with murder, there's no chance to get a costs order,' and from time to time applications can be made to the Attorney-General to say, 'Fair crack of the whip: I need to have some compensation for this.'

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand, but can I just say again that it would be my expectation that the circumstances in which the state would be compensating an alleged perpetrator who was not ultimately convicted would be very uncommon.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the state litigation, that is, where the state, a department or a minister is involved in litigation in which the services in your Crown Solicitor's Office and/or the DPP, potentially, and/or the Solicitor-General may be active, could you identify to the committee, and take on notice if necessary, the number of cases that currently (and at 30 June if it is easier to identify) are active in which the state and/or department and/or minister is a party, either as a plaintiff or defendant or applicant or respondent?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will attempt to find that out, but can I just make it clear to the committee that it is not uncommon, though not necessarily correct, for ministers of the Crown to be frequently named or cited as parties to litigation.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sometimes that is not even correct: it is inappropriate for that to happen. Unfortunately, I am regularly mentioned in court proceedings.

Ms CHAPMAN: That could be because of your conduct, Attorney. It could be because you just happen to have that role allocated to you. Freedom of information jumps to mind.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is frequently incorrect. The point I make is that, obviously, members of the cabinet who are holders of executive office are, by reason of their office, often cited in court proceedings.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, and I also want to be clear—because there is one well-known case in which a member of the government is a party—I am not looking for where the state is a party in respect of criminal proceedings. I am looking in relation to civil proceedings.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take it on notice, but I just make it clear to the members of the committee that this particular net will catch a lot of fish, and I am not quite sure how that is going to be of assistance to the deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: In fairness, to the extent that we have a Crown Solicitor's Office and a Solicitor-General and a DPP, for that matter, although they are not likely to be captured in what we are talking about here necessarily, although his advice may be sought from time to time, in the cases which are being pursued or defended by the state or its ministers, there is a whole division of support.

I am not being critical of that, but I just make the point that a lot of your budget under the Attorney-General's Department is allocated, for example, to the Crown Solicitor's Office which is the in-house counsel to deal with a lot of advice in relation to the conduct of the government, not all of which culminates in litigation, thankfully, but I would like to have some idea of the number of cases pending as at 30 June. It can be as at present, if it is easier to obtain the data, but at a consistent point. I have no other questions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It might be of assistance to those who are going to be helping the deputy leader if we could have clarified whether we are talking about cases where proceedings have been filed or issued?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: We are looking at the member for Hartley for omnibus questions.

Mr TARZIA: The omnibus questions are:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2014-15 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 2014-15, please provide the number of public servants broken down into heads and FTEs that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

3. In the financial year 2014-15, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2015-16?

4. Between 30 June 2014 and 30 June 2015, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

5. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

6. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister and, for 2014-15, 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 grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

7. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

8. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

9. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, what is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for the financial years included in the forward estimates by year and how are these packages to be funded?

10. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2015, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments adjourned until later today.