Attorney-General's Department, $93,884,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $76,968,000

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Chapman, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Mr A. Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms T. Brooks, Principal Accountant, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Corcoran, Manager, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: Attorney, once again I will ask you if you have any opening statements. At the very least, could you introduce your advisers, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that. Firstly, may I place on the record my appreciation of those who were here representing the Courts Administration Authority and for their attendance this afternoon. In respect of the Attorney-General's Department, I introduce to my right the Chief Executive, Caroline Mealor, the new government's first appointment for the Attorney-General's Department and a very impressive appointment, we feel. To my left is Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Swanson, whose appointment is no less impressive, but we did not appoint him. Behind me, of course, are other advisers who may be able to assist from time to time.

Can I say, in relation to the Attorney-General's Department, that I am very proud to be here in estimates as the new Attorney-General and that I have found the tasks associated with this new job to be both exhilarating and tiring from time to time. Of course, that is something that is part of a new job and I am very pleased to have it.

I also want to say that I am very proud of the government's appointment of Ms Bronwyn Killmier as the new Commissioner for Victims' Rights at the conclusion of Mr O'Connell's appointment. Ms Killmier has been appointed, and I report to the committee that she is now active in that role and giving us advice in relation to how we might particularly deal with victims of domestic violence in regional areas and in South Australia, both areas in which she has had extraordinary exposure and experience in her career in the police force.

I also want to acknowledge the very hard work of the Crown Solicitor's Office, the Solicitor-General and the Legislative Services, in particular, for their work. Immediately upon our coming into government, they were given jobs including the appointment of a special investigator, which had to be done in seven days, across to the preparation and support of 22 pieces of legislation to implement commitments of the new government. This has been a large call on a number of the agencies of the Attorney-General's Department, and I place on the record my appreciation of the same. It does not mean that it is going to get any easier for them, because we have a long list of things that still need to be done, but I just wish to record my appreciation of the same.

The CHAIR: Does the lead speaker for the opposition wish to make a statement?

Mr PICTON: No.

The CHAIR: Then I invite questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 13, ministerial office resources. Does the Attorney-General operate a private email account?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you sent any emails on a private email account since being sworn in as Attorney-General?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To a private email account?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, from a private email account.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. To be clear, I have an Attorney-General's email and I have a Bragg email account for the parliamentary office. I do not think I have another one. I will just check.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would have thought you knew.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not use it, but I will just make sure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. If one exists, I take your word for it that you have not used it since being sworn in as Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you explain to the committee why you needed to make the payment to Henry Keogh in the previous financial year?

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: as I understand it, the member for West Torrens is at page 13 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1; is that correct?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Page 12, then, ministerial responsibilities.

The CHAIR: Alright. I have that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why did you need to make the payment to Henry Keogh in the last financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I think I have answered these questions. I am still struggling to see on page 12 or 13 where there is reference to the payment by the Attorney-General's Department to Mr Keogh or anyone else.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did not make a payment to Mr Keogh: the Treasurer did. I am asking you why you advised SAicorp to have it made in the previous financial year.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that is not the subject of this committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When you issued a direction to the Solicitor-General and your chief executive before you made comments to the parliament, what section of the Public Sector Management Act did you rely on to issue that direction?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: I am not at all clear to which budget item the Member for West Torrens is referring.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ministerial responsibilities. The Attorney-General issued a written direction to her chief executive and the Solicitor-General. Under what provisions of the Public Sector Management Act does she feel she had the legal ability to do so?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have indicated my position on this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is just a repeat of questions—

The CHAIR: Yes. Honestly, member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we cannot ask questions about a payment made using budgeted moneys by the Attorney-General, then what is the use of the estimates, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have asked a number of questions about this today in the previous portfolio.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Now we are in the Attorney-General's portfolio. We have evidence from SAicorp and the Treasurer that they were instructed by the Attorney-General to make the payment. It is a very simple question: under what provisions of the Public Sector Management Act did you issue a lawful direction to the Solicitor-General?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my answers in the Hansard in the parliament on this matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, what is the answer?

The CHAIR: The Attorney is referring to her answers in the house, I understand—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To which answer is that, sir? On which day did you answer—

The CHAIR: —which she has done already today.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you seek any independent advice on SAicorp before instructing SAicorp to issue a payment to Mr Keogh?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: further to my earlier point of order, it is not at all clear to me to which—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 'These are uncomfortable questions. Please stop asking them.' Is that your point of order?

Mr CREGAN: —budget item the member for West Torrens is referring.

The CHAIR: Could you repeat the point of order, please, member for Kavel, so I can hear you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is it debate? Is it relevance? What is it?

Mr CREGAN: It is not at all clear to which budget item the member for West Torrens is referring.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Page 12, ministerial responsibilities.

Mr CREGAN: That is an index.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is right. Every page can be cross-examined.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my previous answer.

The CHAIR: The Attorney is referring you to her earlier answers, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. So that is no answer. In public evidence given by SAicorp they say:

Following a receipt of the Attorney-General's instructions, SAicorp sought and obtained an authority from the Treasurer to negotiate settlement with Mr Keogh.

What was the nature of that instruction to SAicorp?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On this matter, I note that SAicorp is the responsibility of the Treasurer. The member presented questions to them last week on this matter so I do not intend to add to that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Under what legal authority did you issue an instruction to SAicorp?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you issue an instruction to SAicorp?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What triggered your involvement in the Keogh settlement?

Mr CREGAN: Mr Chairman, that question is clearly out of order.

The CHAIR: I do declare that out of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On what basis, sir?

Mr PICTON: Point of order: budget estimates is an opportunity for parliament to examine the government's use of taxpayers' funds. It is totally appropriate for the opposition to ask the Attorney-General about the process by which $2.57 million was given to an accused murderer.

The CHAIR: And we have spent a lot of time on this today, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: And there is going to be a lot more time on this, because this is a very important point that the public of South Australia want to know about, and the Attorney-General deserves to provide answers to this parliament about it.

The CHAIR: She has provided answers.

Mr PICTON: No, she has not and she is getting protection from the government.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, order! She has provided answers today to this committee and also to the parliament previously. I suggest that you carefully consider the questions you ask for the remainder of the committee time and refer particularly to budget lines relating to the Attorney-General's Department.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, the government is covering up and will not allow any questions of an Attorney-General who has gone on a folly and paid an accused murderer $2.57 million—

Mr CREGAN: Point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and she does not even have the courage to defend the decision in the parliament.

The CHAIR: Point of order, member for Kavel.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that how it is?

Mr CREGAN: They are statements of opinions from the—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, there is a point of order. Point of order, member for Kavel.

Mr CREGAN: Well, it is argument, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: It is. As I said earlier today—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We cannot have argument in the parliament.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, as I said earlier today, this is not the opportunity to provide commentary or to make a speech for that matter. You may ask your question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, it is obviously not an opportunity to ask questions because we cannot get any answers.

The CHAIR: You can ask a question; you have the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much. Was the only legal opinion relied upon by the Attorney-General to pay accused murderer Henry Keogh the one written by Jonathan Wells QC and Mr Doyle?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have answered these questions in the parliament; I do not wish to add to them.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why did you need to instruct the Solicitor-General not to waive legal professional privilege?

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: Mr Chairman, you have already ruled, on a number—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That these are uncomfortable questions, please stop asking them. Yes, we understand your point of order.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrents, there is a point of order. I will hear the point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order begins to relate to standing order 272. In my view, Mr Chairman, the member for West Torrens is disrupting the business of the committee and, were it to continue, it might be described fairly as persistent disruption.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is the consequence of that?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I will respond to the point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is the consequence?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That I will be named?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, you can be.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is the consequence?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, order! I take the point of order, member for Heysen. The point of order is 272. I do not believe that we have got to that point yet, but I take your point of order. Now, where were we? Attorney.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: She will not answer any questions. Has the Attorney-General issued any other instructions to any employees being called before any of the integrity agencies of the government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my answers as I previously advised the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Will you cooperate with any Ombudsman's inquiry?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, these are not questions necessarily relating to the budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is $2.57 million.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, that previous question was not related to the budget at all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it was. Sir, I respectfully disagree. The idea that the Attorney-General can come into the estimates and say, 'Don't blame me. I just work here,' is ridiculous. The Attorney-General issued a payment of $2.57 million to an accused murderer—

The CHAIR: Your question—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —a murderer the Criminal Court of Appeal ordered a retrial into. Why did you pay him $2.57 million?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you are warned.

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Wait, member for Kaurna; I am going to talk to the member for West Torrens. Your question was: would the Attorney cooperate with an Ombudsman's inquiry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is right, yes.

The CHAIR: That is not related to a budget line.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It certainly is, sir.

The CHAIR: It is not related to a budget line.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of course it is, sir. The Ombudsman answers to the Attorney-General. She runs his portfolio, sir; of course it is. Has she issued any instructions to any public servants about what evidence they may or may not give? The Ombudsman has the ability to see the legal advice that the Attorney-General is keeping secret from the people of South Australia. So does the ICAC Commissioner. I would like to know if she has issued any instructions to any public officers—

The CHAIR: Order, member for West Torrens! As I have said earlier, this is not the opportunity to make a speech or provide commentary.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, answer the question.

The CHAIR: Yes. We might just go to the member for Kaurna for a moment. Take a breath, member for West Torrens.

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Chairman. This is an opportunity to ask about the expenditure of public finance in this state. The opposition has very serious questions, as do the people of South Australia, about how $2.57 million was acquitted from taxpayers' funds in the budget to go to an accused murderer. Asking questions about that is a fundamental part of the premise of budget estimates, whereby the parliament should be able to ask the government about the acquittal of public finances. Asking connected questions about that, about how it was acquitted, the process by which it was acquitted, is absolutely the role of this parliament and—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

Mr PICTON: —sir, I object to you trying to stonewall questions from the opposition about these important matters of public finance.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, the member for Heysen has a point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order, Mr Chairman, proceedings of the estimates committee, pursuant to standing order 271, are to follow as far as possible the procedure observed in the Committee of the Whole House. Honourable members have been drawn to the requirement to draw attention to a particular budget line item in relation to which a question is posed. Mr Chairman, there is a persistent failure to draw attention to any line item.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I have called to order the member for Kaurna and I have warned the member for West Torrens. As the Chair, I am going to declare that we take a break for five minutes—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The government is hiding and covering up again.

The CHAIR: No, seriously—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Everybody needs to take a breath and calm down.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Tell that to the Cheney family, sir.

The CHAIR: We will adjourn until 2.52. I will see you in five minutes.

Sitting suspended from 14:47 to 14:53.

The CHAIR: We have reached 2.53pm. I call for questions to the Attorney. Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14, Crown Solicitor's Office, expenditure of $9.7 million. When the Attorney-General issued a direction to the Solicitor-General, was that on his advice or was it her initiative?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to what?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To the Keogh matter.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have answered those questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Does the Attorney-General accept that the government made a payment of $2.57 million to Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, could you just repeat the question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Does the government accept that the Attorney-General authorised a payment of $2.57 million to Henry Keogh in the last financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you please point out to me in the Attorney-General's Agency Statement where that payment is referenced?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not because, as the member knows, it was a payment made by SAicorp, which is an agency under the responsibility of the Treasurer, which as a former treasurer I am sure you would know.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you. On whose instruction did SAicorp issue that payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Technically, under the Treasurer's instruction.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you explain to the committee why SAicorp said in evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee that they were directed by the Attorney-General to make the payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer to that question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why are you trying to cover this up?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I do not know—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a payment. Not you, Attorney—

The CHAIR: Point of order, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: The honourable member's question asked the Attorney to opine on matters that cannot be within the Attorney's knowledge.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, according to SAicorp, she instructed them.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I am going to suggest that that question is within the bounds of this committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. What was the nature of the instruction from the Attorney-General to SAicorp?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not had any direct discussions with SAicorp in relation to this matter. The matter, as I think was evident in last week's estimates with the Treasurer, was that he instructed SAicorp to make the payment after receiving advice from the Attorney-General's Department.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So when SAicorp told the Budget and Finance Committee, 'Following receipt of the Attorney-General's instructions, SAicorp sought and obtained an authority from the Treasurer to negotiate settlement with Mr Keogh,' they are incorrect in telling the select Budget and Finance Committee that it was your instruction that settlement be made; that was a decision of the Treasurer's, not yours?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I repeat, I have not had any discussions with SAicorp in relation to this matter—or at all, for that matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Alright, so I will report that to the Budget and Finance Committee, that that statement is incorrect and that your advice to the committee is that you had no role in that. Can I ask you: did you receive any advice from the Solicitor-General or any agency within government advising against making a payment to Mr Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I have answered that question in the parliament, and I refer you to Hansard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did SAicorp advise against the payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have any communication with SAicorp at all. It is not an agency—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did the Solicitor-General advise against the payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that is a question I have answered in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did your chief executive advise against the payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have answered these questions in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did anyone in your agency advise you against making a payment to Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I have answered these questions in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is it normal practice to pay a settlement without a formulated claim being lodged?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, several times I answered this question in the parliament.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Enfield.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —the situation, as I understand it—this is a point of order, by the way—is we are in the committee stage of the bill, albeit a particular bill that has a certain amount of theatre attached to it; nonetheless, it is just a bill like any other. In the committee stage of each bill that I have been involved in, and there have been a couple over the years, the committee has invariably allowed all manner of questions to be asked—sometimes, I have to say, in the Attorney's former guise, tangential to the topic would be an understatement—yet they were never the subject of being called up or indeed a refusal to answer, although sometimes it was difficult to understand what the question was. We are in the same situation here. There is a failure to answer quite simple questions, and I think that is disorderly.

The CHAIR: Member for Enfield, I appreciate your point of order. My understanding of the Attorney's most recent answers at least has been to refer us, as a committee, to her comments in the parliament. Is that not fair and reasonable?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, I do not think it is responsive. Secondly, in a number of instances that particular response was given to things that have not been the subject of questions in the parliament. In particular, I make the point that the Budget and Finance Committee to which the member for West Torrens has been referring, as I understood it, had its relevant sessions some weeks perhaps after the original questions were being asked in this place during question time, which dealt with a fairly narrow compass of issues and which was the issue of what advice had been in the hands of the Attorney at the point in time and how many sources of advice there had been. Other issues about directions to public servants and suchlike were never the subject of questions during that period.

The CHAIR: Thank you for that commentary, member for Enfield, even though I have ruled against providing commentary. Is there a further question? Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, ministerial responsibilities on page 14 or 12—the Attorney-General can choose. In a response to a question from the member for Enfield, the Treasurer stated to committee B that, in effect, the legal opinion of Mr Jonathan Wells QC and Mr Ben Doyle was that the state was at minimal risk from any action from Mr Henry Keogh. The Treasurer confirmed that to be the case. Does the Attorney-General agree with the Treasurer's point of view?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have read the transcript of the Treasurer from last Friday's estimates and I do not agree with the interpretation of what has just been presented—of what he said.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the Treasurer misled committee B?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No—of your description, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What do you think he said, then?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have the transcript here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Read it out to us.

The CHAIR: Through the Chair.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Through the Chair, of course.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If you want some assistance in that regard, I will just need to find it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How about you give us your opinion? Does the legal opinion of Jonathan Wells QC and Mr Doyle leave you with the impression that the state was at considerable risk of action from Mr Keough?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I have answered questions in the parliament on that matter, but I will just try to find the reference in the transcript I have here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was a response to a question by the member for Enfield.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I will just find it, if you do not mind. There are quite a few pages on this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A great way of wasting time.

Mr PICTON: Any luck?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, not so far.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is getting ridiculous.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Oh well, I was trying to help, but never mind.

The CHAIR: Perhaps, Attorney, you can take that one on notice and come back.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Take on notice my offer to assist the committee questioner to formulate the question?

Mr PICTON: Further, Mr Chairman, in relation to the Treasurer's evidence before committee B, which the Attorney-General was referring to, the Treasurer did invite us to ask you some particular questions that he was unable to answer during his estimates hearing, and to check some particular facts. The first of these was: did the former government communicate to Mr Keogh's representatives that a payment would not be made, based on legal advice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I recall that question, or thereabouts, being put to the Treasurer on Friday. I did not understand it when I read it, nor do I understand it now, but I assume it is an inquiry as to whether the former government had received advice that there was no basis for a claim that was being presented by the solicitors for Mr Keogh at the time—that is, back in May 2017—when they sent a letter outlining a request for consideration of an ex gratia payment. Is that right? Is that what you are getting me to answer?

Mr PICTON: I can ask it again if the Attorney-General would like.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Did the former government communicate to Mr Keogh's representatives that a payment would not be made based on legal advice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know what the former government did, but I did peruse correspondence which went back and forth and, up until March 2018 when there was a change of government, there was continuing correspondence. At no time did I see a letter which said, 'Get lost. See you in court,' or anything like that. In fact, I think the then treasurer, the now member for West Torrens, had approved something like $250,000 in legal costs in relation to the ongoing negotiations in relation to the matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, that was for a defence.

Mr PICTON: If you are not sure—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not seen anything that suggests there had been a refusal to continue discussing matters with the former—

Mr PICTON: If you are not sure, Deputy Premier, you could invite your chief executive, who would—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am not sure about what the former government did. On the material that I have read, I am not aware—

Mr PICTON: You could ask your chief executive, who would have been there, to respond.

The CHAIR: That is not really appropriate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —of any indication; in fact, quite the reverse, that is, continued negotiations.

Mr PICTON: The second question, Attorney-General, was: what legal advice was provided to the South Australian Government Financing Authority (SAFA) by Mr Wells QC and Mr Doyle, and then your agency's own views about the matter—anything else?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not really sure I understand the question, but if the question is, 'What legal advice was given to SAicorp?', I do not know specifically in relation to what they might have sought. I assume that they would have, for the purposes of making their own assessment of the payment—which they do, of course, on a regular basis in relation to ex gratia payments—sought some advice in relation to that, but what advice they received and viewed I do not know.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the Attorney-General played no role in the settlement of the Keogh matter then?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is clear from my statements to the parliament that I did, as the Attorney-General, in relation to the consideration of this matter, and my answers to the parliament still stand. What I had not done was have any role in relation to the instruction or direct advice to SAicorp, which is an agency of Treasury.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Who first brought—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, the member for Heysen has a question.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Budget Paper—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Something relevant.

Mr PICTON: We take up five minutes' time with calling a suspension of proceedings and now another five or 10 minutes on a dixer.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, the reason I called the suspension was the behaviour that was being exhibited within this committee—

Mr PICTON: Because there were not any answers being provided.

The CHAIR: —and every member of the committee has the opportunity to ask a question. The member for Heysen has the call.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 56, at about point 5 on the page. Attorney, could you please detail to the committee the allocation there of $146.4 million to allow for redress for victims of institutional child sexual abuse?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the question because this is a matter of very significant interest to South Australians. In particular, members may be aware that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established by state and federal governments in November 2012 and commenced its hearings in 2013. Reference has been made at point 5 on page 56 of South Australia's contribution to the National Redress Scheme.

However, since 2016, officials from the commonwealth and all state and territory governments worked together to design a scheme that was consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission. In May 2018, the Premier and federal Attorney-General formally opted in to the National Redress Scheme on behalf of South Australia and the commonwealth. The Premier had signed up to the agreement after attorneys-general had met in Perth, and I am proud to say that South Australia was at the table and prepared to resolve this matter.

We were concerned to deal with one final area of unresolved determination, and that was how compensation might be applied, if at all, to persons who were both victims of child sexual abuse and had gone on in their later life—usually adult life—and perpetrated abuse on others. That was a vexing question that was left unresolved when we came into government, but we decided that this was a matter which we did need to contribute to and which we did need to resolve.

Like other states, we agreed that it should be left as a discretionary matter for the Attorney-General of each state, but otherwise we signed up to that. The reference in the budget paper confirms the $146.4 million set aside to support this scheme over the 10-year period of its operation. I confirm that, if not exhausted, there will be a refund of any part thereof of those moneys back to the Victims of Crime Fund from which it was sourced.

In terms of the scheme costs, modelling commissioned by the federal government has estimated that around 3,000 claims might be expected in relation to the South Australian institution, around half of which relate to state government institutions. The redress available is in three forms: access to counselling, which will either be access to services provided directly by a state or territory or a payment of between $1,250 and $5,000 to access services of choice, depending on where the person lives—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order: all these matters are on the public record. I think there was extensive—

The CHAIR: Yes, I take your point of order. Attorney, could you bring your answer to a close.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the other forms, the provision, of course, is for payments and a direct personal response. Importantly, the balance of the Victims of Crime Fund as at 31 August this year was $150.5 million; in 2018-19 budgeted revenue for the fund is around $61.1 million; and budgeted expenditure is around $31 million. The committee can be assured that payment out of the Victims of Crime Fund has not only still left it flush with funds but, additionally, it is receiving a very significant revenue stream outside of its normal commitments.

Membership:

Mr Odenwalder substituted for Hon. A. Koutsantonis.

Mr PICTON: I refer again to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 20, the CSO's accounting. Did the CSO provide the government with advice which you relied on, Attorney-General, to issue instructions to the Treasurer that officers should not answer questions before the Budget and Finance Committee and in other places in relation to the Keogh payment of $2.57 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, could you just repeat the question again?

Mr PICTON: Yes. Did the CSO (Crown Solicitor's Office) provide advice, which you relied on to issue instructions to the Treasurer that officers should not answer questions before the Budget and Finance Committee in relation to the Henry Keogh payment of $2.57 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I did receive advice in relation to waiver of legal professional privilege and cabinet confidentiality. At no time did I receive any advice or give instructions to members who were being invited to attend at the committee that they were not to answer questions.

Mr PICTON: In relation to that payment of $2.57 million, if there are to be investigations by any integrity bodies into that payment will you issue any instructions in relation to public servants, in terms of what they can and cannot say before any integrity bodies?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure what that actually means, but I assume it is: would I at any time give instructions to the public sector as to how they might or might not answer questions? The answer to that is no. I have given notice to some members as to whether the Attorney-General, on behalf of the state, waives legal professional privilege or cabinet confidentiality. I have done that and I would again.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, it seems to me that was a hypothetical question that was put.

Mr PICTON: I think the question is: is the government's approach consistent, in terms of you have given advice to public servants, in terms of what you can and cannot say before the Budget and Finance Committee of this parliament.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let me be absolutely clear, member for Kaurna. At no time have I given instructions to public servants about what they can and cannot say

Mr PICTON: You have given advice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have advised them that as Attorney-General I do not waive legal professional privilege of the state, which is on behalf of the people of South Australia, and furthermore I do not give consent to cabinet confidentiality being breached. Those are the two things that I have informed persons, but I have not given instruction as to what they can or cannot say before a committee, and I do not intend to.

Mr PICTON: In terms of integrity bodies, public servants would be free to provide evidence to integrity bodies, if required.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At this stage, there has only been a request on behalf of a committee of the parliament, which has been respected, as best I understand it, of people who have been asked to come and give information to that committee. I am not aware of any other request of any other body.

The CHAIR: As I said earlier, member for Kaurna, that seemed to be a hypothetical question, so back to the budget.

Mr PICTON: Moving on to Budget Paper 5, page 15, in relation to crime prevention grants being completely cut from the budget, why did the Attorney-General approve cutting this program?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The crime prevention grants are being discontinued, as is the CCTV grants program, which I think you have referred to. The measure is proposed to save $1.1 million per annum through discontinuing the crime prevention and CCTV grants. I note that there is some concern about discontinuing any service. I think that is a matter where meritorious programs sometimes are sacrificed when we are left with having to clean up the mess of previous governments.

What is important to note is that, firstly, the previous government left several hundred thousand dollars in unallocated grants money in relation to CCTV. One of my first jobs as Attorney-General was to identify and distribute as much of that money as we possibly could to ensure that it was not lost.

Mr PICTON: There is no more now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know what the priorities of the previous government were in this regard, but nevertheless—

Mr PICTON: We had a program.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —we did what we could to make sure that those funds were allocated for the purpose for which they were originally identified. Secondly, although I think any crime prevention projects can assist, fortunately CCTV in very significant areas of the City of Adelaide and parts of North Adelaide, in their entertainment precincts, have been installed and this program was to assist in the continued maintenance of those—

Mr PICTON: That is a separate one. That is a different one. Check your budget.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I should have actually checked.

Mr PICTON: There are so many cuts.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I said, it was two: one was the crime prevention grants program and the other was the CCTV grants program, so I hope you were listening.

Mr PICTON: There is a third one: the CCTV maintenance program.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Adelaide city council continue to play a role in this regard as well. Over the weekend, for example, two very serious incidents occurred that were made public involving assaults on people who were visiting the precincts—one in Pulteney Street, I think, and one in Hindley Street, both areas that are under CCTV surveillance, I am advised.

As has been pointed out, unfortunately, if CCTV is observed by a person who is about to inflict an assault on somebody, they might be minded to curb their behaviour if they were to see that they were under surveillance.

Mr PICTON: And you might catch them afterwards.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You would like to think so. CCTV is most valuable not necessarily because the prospective offender is intimidated or is modifying their behaviour after seeing a camera, but in at least assisting our authorities to gather evidence to identify persons who inflict an assault on someone else and, indeed, the detail of the assault. They play an important role and I would hope that they would do so in relation to the two incidents on the weekend.

The government's priority in this budget has been to focus on making sure that the public have access to police via police stations, and the member would be—

Mr PICTON: You are cutting police, too.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —familiar with that, and to add extra police—

Mr PICTON: No, you are cutting the cadet course.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to be able to provide security and safety for people on the street. They are the priorities that we have identified to work with. By the same token, there are some programs in this budget that have been cut. That is regrettable, because if one were to simply look at the $300 million that was overspent this year in central and northern health—

Mr PICTON: That is not true. That is not actually true.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the extraordinary amount of money we are now spending on trying to settle unresolved legal disputes—

Mr PICTON: Like Henry Keogh—$2.57 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —over the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, these are tens of millions of dollars in litigation—

Mr PICTON: You could have saved those grants if you did not pay Henry Keogh.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you have asked the question and the Attorney is answering.

Mr PICTON: We are having a very lengthy response.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Unfortunately, we do need to resolve these matters. We will—

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Chair. The minister has gone completely off track and is talking about lines of the budget other than her own now.

The CHAIR: Is the Attorney winding up or finished?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. I am happy to say that this budget is committed to doing exactly that, that is, resolving those messes and honouring our commitments. Sadly, some things have had to be sacrificed along the way. As I indicated earlier to the committee, we would look to draw a line in the sand as a new government and make sure that other meritorious proposals that have been put to us, either to keep or to undertake, will be given due consideration.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you. Where will the Adelaide city council now look to fund the continuing maintenance and enhancement of their CCTV network?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure, as has been indicated by the Adelaide city council, they will continue to provide—

Mr ODENWALDER: By a mayoral candidate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The program concludes in 2020. Am I right on that?

Mr SWANSON: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Safe Cities does; that is right.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Our expert man on money has confirmed that. I think it is like other matters that have been raised. We are keen, obviously, to consider if there is any uptake in demand or other alternate programs that need to be revisited in relation to other efficiences that we have done. This program will continue until 2020, and if no other alternate programs are put in place or alternate measures that would assist in crime prevention, then these will all be matters that we will consider revisiting as a new government.

The CHAIR: The member for Kavel has the call.

Mr PICTON: Of course. Take up the time.

Mr CREGAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I take the Attorney to Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1 at page 28, a page to which my colleague the member for Heysen took the Attorney. Can the Attorney inform this committee about measures in the budget that have been taken to restore access to justice in regional communities?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for this question because it is a very important measure. The Riverland community legal centre is, for members' benefit, in a region that has a high level of poverty and a high level of welfare demand. Just like certain regions of our metropolitan area, it is fair to say that, whilst the Riverland is rich in resources of fruit, horticulture and vineyards that feed the world and we should be proud of it, clearly it also has a community that needs a high level of support.

Consistent with that is the fact that they also have a court facility at Berri in the Riverland. Until recently, under the previous government, they had a community legal service. A full-time community legal service will be returning to the Riverland under the new government, along with associated outreach services, because of the $600,000 in funding that we have announced as part of this year's budget. After providing free legal advice and expertise for almost 20 years, the Riverland Community Legal Service did not have its funding renewed, as I said, by the former government, and it closed its doors in June last year. Prior to the closure—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That was by the commonwealth.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Enfield interjects to say that it was by the commonwealth. Let's have clearly on the record that the commonwealth also announced some cuts, but they were, perhaps, under pressure; nevertheless, they backflipped. They reinstated their money. Let's just go back to where we are at. Prior to the closure, the Riverland community centre at the Legal Services Commission had classified the Riverland in the category of 'most disadvantaged', with many of the people using these services needing in-person assistance.

Vulnerable people should be able to access legal services in person regardless of where they live. Prior to the election, the Marshall Liberal team committed to reinstating the service, which was strongly supported by the Riverland community. The new government is delivering on its election promise, and we are proud to do so. We are cleaning up a lot of mess and returning the budget to a sustainable position. This funding will ensure that there is a permanent presence in Berri, while ensuring that outreach services to Waikerie, Morgan, Cadell and the Mallee can also continue.

I remind members of the committee that the Riverland and surrounding regions face a number of ongoing social challenges, so reinstating a full-time community legal service based in the Riverland is a service that most disadvantaged South Australians need. We are currently working on the establishment of the full-time Riverland office as soon as possible. It is anticipated that a permanent service can begin operations before the end of the year.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Can I remind the committee that all committee members are entitled to ask a question about the budget, particularly government backbenchers who do not always have that opportunity. This committee gives them that chance. I propose to extend the time for a further five minutes given that this committee was suspended for that period of time. I call for questions.

Mr PICTON: In relation to Budget Paper 5, page 15, the crime prevention grants cut from the Attorney, on Seven News on 16 September 2018, it was reported that 'the government says it will be reinvesting the money into a heightened police presence'. Does the Attorney agree with that characterisation, and can she demonstrate anywhere in this budget where the reinvestment of these funds is outlined?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would ask the member to perhaps raise those matters with the Minister for Police for the detail of the programs funded under his budget, not under this budget.

Mr PICTON: So you are not aware of anywhere where this funding from this cut is being reinvested elsewhere? So that was wrong, that characterisation of this cut?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I think that the member for Kaurna is perhaps confusing the statement, which relates to a cut in relation to the CCTV grants program, and assuming that the money saved from those, which I have just referred to, directly goes somehow into the police budget. The way it works—

Mr PICTON: It is just going into consolidated revenue, isn't it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —is that if the Attorney-General's Department has a saving—

Mr PICTON: It is just a cut.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —it does not mean that that money is somehow earmarked through some transfer to the police department. It means that the allocation from Treasury to the police department will still need to be made if in fact SAPOL's budget needs further funds for that purpose. There is no automatic transfer of a cut in one portfolio to the application of funds for an extended or new program in another portfolio. I am not sure what day the Minister for Police is presenting to the committee, but I am happy to find out for you and let you know so that you can ask him some questions.

Mr PICTON: So if an adviser from the government had said that to the media on 16 September, that would have been inaccurate because, essentially, this is just going into consolidated revenue and other budgets are worked out independently of this cut?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that you are misinterpreting the statement made.

The CHAIR: The member for Enfield has a question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, as just a slight change of topic, I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 18. The grant to SANTS has been cut. I am just interested in what you can tell the committee about the other resources that are available, in particular to the native title unit to continue its work, and whether there will be any restriction, cut or diminution of resources available to the native title unit within the budget parameters?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for his question, and I indicate that the South Australian native title unit within the Attorney-General's Department has already given valuable services to me and I am sure to the member when he was attorney-general. In fact, I was very pleased very shortly after coming into the position—I think that very next week—to have an opportunity to attend at the Federal Court precinct to witness the settlement of a very substantial claim. I think it had been running for 19 years or close to 20 years—but in any event a very long time.

Clearly, these are cases that do require and deserve to continue to be able to have sufficient support to resolve a number of disputes, including native title claims. The measure will save $550,000 per annum from 2018-19 by ceasing the grant paid to the SA Native Title Services (SANTS) to participate in the native title negotiations. These changes will still leave SANTS able to prosecute native title claims.

The native title representative body for South Australia—that is, the SANTSL, often known as SANTS—represents either directly or by engaging external solicitors most native title claimants and holders in South Australia, and it is funded to do that by the commonwealth and allocates funds between claims.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, if I can just save the Attorney going on further on that, I am interested in the native title unit within the Crown. I understand what the policy is about SANTS; I get that. What I am interested in knowing is whether, for the people within the Crown whose job it is to keep this work happening, there is going to be any reduction in their FTE numbers, any reduction in the resources available to them, anything of that nature.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am sorry, I misunderstood the question in that regard. I am advised that the Crown Solicitor, Mr Wait, is the person who determines how to make the savings; I am unaware at this stage that that will include a reduction in staffing in the unit within the CSO. They will be matters, of course, for which he will be responsible.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna has a question.

Mr PICTON: One more question, Chairman.

The CHAIR: A quick question and a quick answer.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 14, the discontinuation of the communication partner grant. Can the Attorney outline whether she has had any advice from the Principal Community Visitor, Maurice Corcoran, about this, whether she has had any correspondence, or whether she consulted him before deciding to go ahead with cutting this program.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The communication partner program, together with another program in relation to the development of training for professional persons within the departments, are both initiatives undertaken or announced under the previous government to support the new vulnerable persons legislation, which enabled persons with a vulnerability, usually a cognitive impairment or someone under a certain age, to give evidence. They were there to support adults and children post probably the most significant profile case of the St Ann's child sexual abuse matters.

The training program for professionals has trained up some 150 via Griffiths University under a previous contract. The communication partner was to be a support person to enable them to provide extra support to the person either in an interview with the police or while giving evidence in court and things of that nature. I am advised that the Uniting Communities have their funding up until 29 February 2020 under this announcement. It will cease at that time. They have trained up some 20-odd people to provide this service. In fact, I recently met with parents of one of the victims in the St Ann's matter and was interested to hear—

Mr PICTON: My question was about Maurice Corcoran, the community visitor.

The CHAIR: I might bring the Attorney to a close.

Mr PICTON: It was a specific question, Chairman, about the community visitor and whether there had been consultation.

The CHAIR: And I asked that there be a quick question and a quick answer. Attorney, can you close in 30 seconds?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not only have I met with parents of a victim in that situation but I am scheduled this week to meet the head of Uniting Communities to discuss with him whether I have met with Mr Corcoran, who I assumed—

Mr PICTON: Have you met or received correspondence or consulted with Mr Corcoran?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not received any correspondence from him that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: Did you consult with him about it before you cut it?

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Yes, point of order. Member for Kaurna, you have already asked your question; the Attorney is responding. I am asking the Attorney—

Mr PICTON: She is answering everything else except the question that I asked.

The CHAIR: Has the Attorney finished?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As best as I can recall, there has been no consultation with Mr Corcoran, but since the budget has been published I certainly have not received any correspondence or communicated with him that I am aware of.

The CHAIR: Having gone past the allotted time by eight minutes, in fact, we will now take afternoon tea. I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of the Attorney-General's Department to be completed. In accordance with the amended timetable, the committee stands suspended until 15.50pm. The bells will ring for just two minutes. I understand that all those present here are invited to afternoon tea in the members' lounge.

Sitting suspended from 15:38 to 15:50.