Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $109,489,000

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Mr T. Pearce, Chief Financial Officer, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr M. Church, Manager, Financial Services, Courts Administration Authority.

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

Ms J. Carney, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: Welcome, everybody, to the Attorney-General's session. The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and as such there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the Attorney undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the answers to questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2019.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each should they wish. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as it applies in the house. All questions are to be directed to the Attorney, not the Attorney's advisers. The Attorney may refer questions to advisers for a response.

The portfolio this afternoon is the Courts Administration Authority, and the minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Attorney to make a statement if she wishes and introduce her advisers. Attorney, you have the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon, Mr Chair, and members of the committee. It is with pleasure that I introduce the Chief Justice, to my left, the Hon. Chris Kourakis SC; the State Courts Administrator, to my right, Ms Julie-Anne Burgess; and, to my far left, the Chief Financial Adviser, Mr Trevor Pearce. There are some other advisers also present, who may provide assistance from time to time for questions of the committee. I will not be making an opening statement.

The CHAIR: Thanks, Attorney. I need to follow my own advice here and advise the committee that the following members have requested to be discharged: the members for Morphett, Davenport, Finniss, Light, Reynell and Torrens. They have been replaced by the members for Heysen, King, Newland, Kaurna, Cheltenham and Enfield. Member for Kaurna, do you have an opening statement?

Mr PICTON: I am happy to swing straight into questions.

The CHAIR: Straight into questions? I am happy if you are.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 116, which references the exercise of judicial power. Has the Chief Justice exercised his judicial power conferred on him by the Constitution Act and appointed the Chair of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission and, if so, who has been appointed the chair?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the question. I think the gazettal of this announcement was last Friday, from memory, but I will no doubt check on that. I understand that it is Her Honour Justice Trish Kelly.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, I might remind you to please direct your questions to the Attorney.

Mr PICTON: I did.

The CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, has the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission been convened and has the redistribution process commenced?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The first stage of the establishment of the commission is the identification and nomination, of course, by the Chief Justice. As I said, that was gazetted last week. My understanding from there is that in due course the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Mick Sherry, and the Surveyor General, Mr Michael Barrett, together with the nominated justice, as I have indicated, will meet to progress the usual process in relation to those matters.

Mr PICTON: Have you been given a time frame for when that is expected to occur?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not, but I have discussed the matter with the Chief Justice. I will just ask whether he has anything else that he can add at this point.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It will be for the commission to organise its time line for that, and they will finalise it in accordance with the Constitution Act.

Mr PICTON: Given that Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 28, shows an increase of $50,000 in cash outflows for the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission, is it safe for the committee to assume that the process will at least commence during this 2019-20 financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I expect the process to commence this year. It is proposed that counsel assisting will be appointed, as it was on the last occasion. As I said, it will be a matter for the commission and counsel assisting to work through that.

Mr PICTON: Does the Attorney-General agree that the redistribution process should commence as early as possible, considering the previous process finished so close to the last election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would expect the process to be undertaken as is required under the constitution.

Mr PICTON: Considering the change to remove the fairness clause for the act, will the commissioner ensure that suitable time is made available for the process to include future challenges to the boundaries commission?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I think that is a matter for the commission to determine. In due course, if the member would like to put any representations to the commission once it convenes, then it will be a matter for you to do so, or of course your representative for the Australian Labor Party.

Mr PICTON: Have you been given any advice as to when the commission is likely to complete its review?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: When determining the boundaries, who will actually be putting the data together and is it in fact DPTI that is providing the population projection data for 18-plus population at a census collection district level?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I think matters such as that really are matters for the commission. Obviously, it will convene. I think you will recall from previous practice that it will have a website and call for submissions and the like. The compilation of data and who that relies on is really a matter for the commission.

Mr PICTON: Will the commission review how the population projections are calculated, considering that the final population figures were noticeably different from the projections, with a number of seats' populations falling outside the 10 per cent variance and tolerance under the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, those matters are better directed to the commission once it has convened.

Mr PICTON: Are you aware of how DPTI will be compiling their data, how much is actual survey results and how much is a projection?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Who is doing it, who is compiling it and who is providing it? No, I do not.

Mr PICTON: Do you think that the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission will have the skills to properly interpret the data, and what makes you think that is the case?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not offer any view in relation to that. Again, these are matters for the commission.

Mr PICTON: Do you think that the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission has used data previously in the way that it was intended?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not really think my view on those matters is entirely relevant to the issues before the committee.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 1, Volume 1, page 116, key agency outputs, the proper administration of justice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry, we are on the top somewhere?

Mr PICTON: Yes. Attorney-General, have you apologised to the ICAC commissioner for making public the workings of an investigation without Commissioner Lander's approval?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think that is either before the committee or relevant to the statement you just raised.

Mr PICTON: You do not think that it is appropriate for the proper administration of justice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: These are matters that were canvassed in last year's estimates and in the parliament and I do not have anything further to add.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, have you apologised to the former Murray-Darling Basin royal commissioner, Bret Walker?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that is a matter that has been raised in the parliament. I do not have anything further to add.

Mr PICTON: What about the equal opportunity commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The equal opportunity commissioner is employed by the government and her agency is responsible to me. She continues to undertake her work as the equal opportunity commissioner.

Mr PICTON: Or the former victims' rights commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In what way?

Mr PICTON: Have you apologised for the way that he was treated?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I think the member misunderstands the purpose of today's committee meeting—that is, to raise matters in relation to the budget. I am happy to do that if there are any matters. I do not see anything in the budget that is relevant to the former commissioner for victims' rights, who concluded his term of office with the government.

Mr PICTON: Are there any other statutory authorities that you have recently had a dispute with?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I find that question quite offensive, frankly, but the answer is no.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 24, the Courts Administration Authority, purchase of the Sir Samuel Way Building. Can you confirm that the early purchase of the Sir Samuel Way Building was for a total purchase price of $43.5 million, which included prepayment of rent for the remainder of the lease term?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is referring to the explanatory note, which says, 'This measure provides for a payment of $43.5 million for the early termination of the finance lease associated with the Sir Samuel Way Building.'

The CHAIR: Is that the reference, member for Kaurna?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Is that the reference?

Mr PICTON: Yes. Is that—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could you just repeat the question?

Mr PICTON: The question is: can you confirm that the early purchase of the Sir Samuel Way Building was for a total purchase price of $43.5 million, which included prepayment of rent for the remainder of the lease term?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. That figure represents the present calculated site value of $21.6 million, as determined by the Valuer-General, and the remaining lease payments to June 2023 really as per the explanatory note that is in the budget papers.

Mr PICTON: Can you confirm, Attorney-General, that the Courts Administration Authority also received a corresponding reduction in funding?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In respect of the reduced funding relevant to the $6 million that it would no longer be paying in rent?

Mr PICTON: Correct.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: What was the annual rent on the Sir Samuel Way Building?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have just answered that.

Mr PICTON: So it is $6 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thereabouts.

Mr PICTON: Do you have an exact figure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is approximately $6.1 million, but it has varied, obviously, depending on the adjustments.

Mr PICTON: Is that consistent over the forward estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have just said, it varies. It would have varied had we not acquired it.

Mr PICTON: Would that have varied by a set increase per year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I think it is based on the adjustment of the value of the property as per the lease. Can I ask Mr Trevor Pearce to explain the formula.

Mr PEARCE: In the Courts Administration Authority budget base, there were future lease requirements of about $6 million per year. Effectively, those figures are reflected as being taken out of the budget, and the accounting adjustments will get done within the budget papers this year and last year.

Mr PICTON: The Chief Justice has described the rent as uncommercial. Would you agree with that statement, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I said similar words when I was sitting in your position a few years ago and urging the then attorney-general to do something about it.

Mr PICTON: How much rent, Attorney-General, would you expect to pay for a similar building at a commercial rate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know, nor am I qualified to give advice on commercial leasing.

Mr PICTON: No advice has been provided on what a commercial basis for that rent would be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: These matters were all under consideration when the presentation was submitted to government to consider acquiring the property, including the high level of rental that continued to be paid for the property. It is one of a number of factors. The government has now supported the Chief Justice's submission on behalf of the Courts Administration Authority to purchase the property and secure it for the future requirements of the courts.

Mr PICTON: Would any of your advisers know what the commercial basis would be for a property of that scope?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure that any of them have qualified as commercial advisers, but I think that—

Mr PICTON: That is not what I asked.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —I adequately covered the matter.

Mr PICTON: They might have received some advice on the matter.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I rely on the answers that we have given.

Mr PICTON: Given that you have said that you yourself raised concerns about the uncommercial basis of this, did you seek independent advice before the budget decision was made to reduce the payments to the Courts Administration Authority by that amount?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. My comment in relation to this matter preceded our government coming into office, and I was of that view and I expressed it. Since coming into office, the Courts Administration Authority has presented to the government a significant proposal, including this one particularly, and I have presented it for the government's consideration and it is now in the budget.

Mr PICTON: So this was the proposal that was given by the Courts Administration Authority, including the reduction in payments?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The proposal in relation to the acquisition of the property was presented for consideration in the budget.

Mr PICTON: What was the date that the purchase of the Sir Samuel Way building settled?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The transfer to the Courts Administration Authority? I will just ask Mr Pearce.

Mr PEARCE: It was 25 June 2019.

Mr PICTON: I do not think you had your microphone on. It was 25 June 2019?

Mr PEARCE: Yes.

Mr PICTON: What period of time remained on the lease prior to the purchase?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask Mr Pearce. It was several years.

Mr PEARCE: Basically, the lease payments are, as you pointed out, on page 24. They are the four years of the forward estimates. The lease payments went up to 30 June 2023.

Mr PICTON: Budget Paper 5, page 24, says that there will be a saving of $6.1 million as outlined in lease costs. This is not strictly true, is it? The Courts Administration Authority is having its funding cut by $6.1 million, isn't it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, it is a saving to the government.

Mr PICTON: Yes, but it is a saving to the government of payments that would go to the Courts Administration Authority.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member is asking me whether the government is continuing to pay $6.1 million for an expense that is no longer applicable, the answer is no.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, are you aware of a media release issued by the Hon. Chris Kourakis, titled 'Budget announcement', in which it says:

The CAA had hoped that a significant part of the budget reduction in the 2021/2022 year would be met by the government purchase of the Sir Samuel Way Building from FundsSA. The CCA pays an uncommercially high annual rent of $6 million to FundsSA for that building in return for an option to purchase it at site value in June 2023 at the expiration of the lease.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am aware of that statement.

Mr PICTON: Do you have any reaction to that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Other than the fact that the Courts Administration Authority has already on its plate some budget measures imposed by the previous government. As it turned out, the further budget measures that have been foreshadowed in that statement did not apply.

Mr PICTON: Is the reduction in the Courts Administration Authority budget by the $6.1 million until the end of the rental period, or is it a permanent reduction in the budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: All that is in this budget, of course, is to the forward estimates, but it is not anticipated that it would come back on the balance sheet because obviously the property is now acquired. The future will be, I have no doubt, that the Courts Administration Authority will present in its annual budget any costs of maintaining that property for which it may be obliged. I have not seen a lease document at this stage, or the agreement, in the dedication of the property to the Courts Administration Authority, but I would expect that, although it is not receiving the rental stream, there will be a submission put in due course about any other costs of maintaining the property if it is obliged under the agreement to meet those costs.

Mr PICTON: So there is not a period that you are aware of in which those savings would be relieved in the future: they would continue beyond the forward estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no intention to reinstate a payment to the Courts Administration Authority to meet a rental payment that it does not have to pay for.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 117, key agency outputs, which reads:

The Courts Administration Authority provides participating courts and court users with services and facilities that support the proper administration of justice.

That also follows on from our previous discussion about the Sir Samuel Way Building. In the Chief Justice's statement of 18 June 2019, titled 'Budget announcement', the Chief Justice said that, if the Courts Administration Authority budget reduction to cover the uncommercial rent on the Sir Samuel Way Building was not ameliorated, the CCA would continue to plan and consult over the measures which it may be forced to adopt to meet that target. Attorney, could those measures include court closures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is a matter entirely for the Courts Administration Authority as to how they administer those. I think the indication I have had from the Chief Justice is that he has conducted a consultation around the state, which I have publicly complimented him on doing, and identified the importance of retaining those court facilities. I am not aware of any intention to close any courts.

Mr PICTON: Based on your advice from the Chief Justice, you are confident that no courts will be closed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have any indication to the contrary.

Mr PICTON: There are no plans and no discussions about any court closures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of, unless the Chief Justice is about to make an announcement.

Mr PICTON: Can you rule out court closures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, it is a matter for the Chief Justice, and obviously his council, to consider on behalf of the Courts Administration Authority how he administers those services. To date, there has been no indication of that.

Mr PICTON: Would the Chief Justice like the opportunity to outline his views on court closures?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna—

Mr PICTON: It was a question to the Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot read the mind of the Chief Justice, but I am sure that if the Chief Justice wants to make a public statement on a matter he can. To date, there has not been any indication that there will be a closure of a court.

Mr PICTON: So the community can be assured that courts in Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Coober Pedy, Mount Gambier and Naracoorte will all continue?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy that they will be.

Mr PICTON: You are happy that they will be. So people should be assured that they will be continuing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I think not only will they continue but they will provide a valuable service.

Mr PICTON: What was the result of the consultation the Chief Justice conducted regarding those court closures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On the advice of the Chief Justice, he conducted that and was satisfied that, for a number of reasons that were presented to him on those inquiries, they provided an important service, that they are an important part of the infrastructure of the local towns and regions he visited and that they will be continuing.

Mr PICTON: Did the Chief Justice provide you with a report or a summary based on his consultations that occurred?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He did.

Mr PICTON: Is that something that you can release to the committee?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that would be inappropriate. I will take advice on that and see whether that is something that can be provided. Generally, the correspondence that I receive or reports from the Chief Justice or other heads of jurisdictions are confidential unless I have canvassed that otherwise.

Mr PICTON: What did the Chief Justice say to you was the result of his consultation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just indicating that I am satisfied that on the report there was valuable—in fact, the chief administrator reminds me that there is also feedback in relation to this available on the CAA's website, which is www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/pages/communityconsultation.aspx

Mr PICTON: Was any modelling done on budget savings on particular measures or closures of particular courts?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: No analysis was done on what savings would be made of any court closures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not by us.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I answer? Yes, there was.

Mr PICTON: There was?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Mr PICTON: And what was the outcome of that?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It showed various amounts of savings that could be achieved in different scenarios, reductions. As the Attorney said, we undertook a large consultation. It was clear that it would disrupt local communities. Travelling time from one place to another—Whyalla to Port Augusta, for example—would have been a real problem. People's jobs would have been in jeopardy. Many of the criminal matters that magistrates deal with involve licence disqualifications. There would have been a real problem in getting to places. There are many supporting parents who would have had real problems with making childcare arrangements.

We came away well aware of the difficulties it would cause regional communities. Fortunately, there were not additional budget cuts to what we had anticipated in this year's budget and we have been able to meet them from temporary voluntary separation packages. The statement I made was simply projecting into 2021-22, where we also had a $4 million shortfall. We are primarily hoping that savings from the Electronic Court Management System will help us meet that target, but we cannot know that yet and this will be something that we will constantly review.

Mr PICTON: The Electronic Court Management System will predominantly meet the savings you are expecting at this time?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That is what we are hoping. The IT project has gone well; it is going well. It seems that it will deliver what we hope, but there is much that can go wrong between now and then. Even if everything goes well, I just do not know what the full extent of the savings will be. It was referred to as a lease, but it is actually a finance lease. It was actually a financing arrangement and we had borrowing costs associated with it. We hope that on the determination of that financing lease there might be some relief. Clearly, we would not have the $6 million finance rent bill, but things are always tight in providing these core services.

Mr PICTON: When will the determination have to be made in terms of those 2021-22 budget savings and how they will be met?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Electronic Court Management System will be operational for the civil jurisdiction in February or March next year, 2020, and the criminal part of the system in the first quarter of 2021. We will then have an idea and leading up to that we will have an idea—probably towards the end of next year, beginning of 2021.

Mr PICTON: Was analysis done?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, sorry to be pedantic, but you are directing these questions to the Attorney?

Mr PICTON: Absolutely. Always.

The CHAIR: And the Attorney is deferring to Mr Kourakis.

Mr PICTON: Correct. As part of the analysis that was done, was any analysis done in terms of which were, I guess, the least economic courts?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the Chief Justice has answered the question that some modelling was done.

Mr PICTON: Was any modelling done on the justice implications of closing those courts, in terms of delays for hearings, sentences, transport costs of witnesses to other courts, and so on?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think both the Chief Justice and I have answered that.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 117, key agency outputs, dot points 1 and 3:

provide administrative support to the South Australian courts

[provide] an environment in which judicial officers, staff and volunteers can contribute to effective performance of the court system

What kind of support does the Sheriff's Office provide to the courts and the Courts Administration Authority?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member might be aware that currently there is an inquiry by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee into the Sheriff's Office, the Inquiry into the State Courts Administrative Council: Sheriff's Office. Submissions have been received and that matter is continuing to be undertaken. In respect of the current operations of the Sheriff's Office and the particular services that it provides to the courts, I will invite the Chief Justice to make a comment about its valuable work.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There are about 120 Sheriff's officers. They deal with prisoners in the Sir Samuel Way Building, taking them up to court. The prisoners are delivered to prisons by an outside contractor, G4S, or whatever they are now called. The Sheriff's officers attend on courts, see juries in and out, bring witnesses into the court, deal with the service of civil proceedings and provide general court orderly services throughout our courts.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And protect our judges.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Mr PICTON: How would you describe the morale and culture within the Sheriff's Office at the moment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think they are really matters that are not within the purview of the budget.

Mr PICTON: Why not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, unless there is some aspect in relation to the finances, then I think—

Mr PICTON: The parliament is financing the Sheriff's Office and I think it has every right to know what the culture is. With my other hat on in terms of health, how those organisations are performing, and how that impacts the finances, is a significant point of debate. I would have thought that it was an entirely appropriate question to ask. Are you refusing to answer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think there is anything further I can add to the committee in relation to that.

Mr PICTON: You have no description in terms of what the morale in the Sheriff's Office is like at the moment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I receive and have regular meetings with the heads of jurisdictions and the Chief Justice, and there is nothing that has been brought to my attention that suggests there is anything further I can add.

Mr PICTON: Are you aware of bullying, harassment and misconduct complaints about the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have just indicated that there is a current inquiry in relation to that in this parliament.

Mr PICTON: I am told, in relation to disciplinary matters, that in 2015 there were 21 complaints, in 2016 there were 14 and in 2017 there were 18. That is a significant number of complaints. Is that something you are concerned about?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is nothing that has been brought to my attention that suggests there is any basis upon which there would be concern as to the operation of the Sheriff's Office. In respect to the discrete matter, which has been raised in the form that you have described, that is a matter which is currently being inquired into by a committee of this parliament.

Mr PICTON: Do your advisers have anything to contribute about the bullying and harassment issues that have been raised in terms of the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Nothing further, other than the matters that are the subject of that inquiry.

Mr PICTON: What is the total budget of the Sheriff's Office, and can you provide that for 2018-19, 2019-20 and over the forward estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I may need to take that on notice. For each of the three years?

Mr PICTON: Yes. Do you have any information on the FTE count for the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the Chief Justice just indicated that it is about 120. We will take that on notice and provide the details.

Mr PICTON: And the headcount as well, if you could.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The number of employees as distinct from the full-time equivalents?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, we are happy to take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Can you confirm that the appointment of the Sheriff is by the Chief Justice, the person who can terminate the Sheriff is the Chief Justice and the Sheriff reports to the Chief Justice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the Chief Justice to clarify that, but in relation to termination obviously there are legal processes to go through.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The Sheriff can only be appointed with my consent and removed with my consent, but there is a bifurcated line of authority through to the State Courts Administrator and to me.

Mr PICTON: Has there been any internal investigation in the Courts Administration Authority into the practices of the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I do not think that is a matter that can be usefully added to in this committee. What is occurring in relation to a discrete manner is that it is currently under investigation by a committee here in the parliament.

Mr PICTON: So there is no investigation internally within the Courts Administration Authority or the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I indicated before, there is no matter that I am aware of, and I have regular meetings in relation to the operations about which I have concern.

Mr PICTON: Has the Sheriff ever raised any complaints with the Chief Justice and what has been done about them?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, in relation to the complaints procedure, each of the agencies of the government, including in the Courts Administration Authority, operates one form or another of a complaints process. It has a review process as to how those are dealt with, and there has been nothing brought to my attention that would raise any concern with me as to the general operation of this unit.

Mr PICTON: But I did not ask if anything has been brought to your attention. I asked if anything was brought to the Chief Justice's attention, who is the person who manages the Sheriff's Office.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I can add anything further.

Mr PICTON: Because you do not want to or you do not have the information?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, because I think I have answered it three times. I am satisfied in relation to the reporting on this matter. The only matter that is currently under consideration that may or may not raise some concern is a matter for determination by the parliament's committee that is looking at that matter.

Mr PICTON: Would any of your advisers have information if issues have been brought to the Chief Justice's attention about the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I can add anything further.

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, point of order: I have been focusing on dot points 1 and 3 and listening to what is becoming increasingly cross-examination on matters that are, in my view, departing from budget line items.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Heysen. My opinion, member for Kaurna, is that it is probably time we moved on from this. You are directing questions to the Attorney about what her advisers may or may not think about something, so let's move on to another budget line.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 121, activity indicators, the Youth Court. The Law Society's state budget submission states, and I quote:

The court's workload has increased considerably in the area of child protection matters, particularly since the introduction of child safety legislation last year, has further increased the workload with regards to care and protection matters in the Youth Court. Figures obtained by the Society show that from 1 July 2018 to 28 February 2019, 67 child care and protection trials were listed and 37 had commenced. When compared to the same period in the previous year, 45 care and protection trials were listed and 26 commenced.

Attorney, given the increase in the workload and responsibilities of the Youth Court, why was no additional funding provided in this year's state budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would like to assure the committee that the operations of both the Youth Court and our other courts are matters that provide a very valuable service. The Youth Court has a number of roles in relation to matters of criminal hearings and, of course, in relation to care and protection orders and, although much less frequently these days, adoptions.

A number of the cases that have been lodged in relation to care and protection were expected, as of the commencement of the new law operational from 1 October 2018, to significantly decrease the call upon the court in time and in numbers of cases. The expectation in that regard was largely as a result of the change of onus of proof that was expected to have a significant impact on the number of persons who might want to proceed to seek the return of their child or children, largely because of the significant onus of proof, or the burden of onus of proof, in having to establish the interests of the child being returned to them.

That reverse onus of proof was coupled with an expectation that there would be a reduction. I have taken a personal interest in the number of cases in relation to this during last year, in particular since 1 October last year, and with that a breakdown of a number of important statistics, including the numbers of trial days and the numbers of cases in which the applicant party was not legally represented.

The reason for the interest in the latter was particularly because the extra responsibility placed on any court in dealing with a matter in which one or both of the parties is not legally represented is sometimes seen as quite burdensome, particularly as they are cautious to ensure that parties before them have their fair day in court and are able to have access to the judicial process, both fairly and in a circumstance where they are not prejudiced. I commend the courts for their endeavours to do that.

Interestingly, though, in relation to that data, there has not been any measurable increase in relation to those matters. On the criminal data, the performance, which is the other body of work largely they undertake, the percentage of lodgements pending completion greater than six months old, as expected, was 10 per cent in the last financial year and it is targeted again. The percentage of lodgements pending completion greater than 12 months old was expected to be 2 per cent, and that is the estimated result.

In relation to the number of lodgements, which of itself does not always tell us how lengthy and expensive in time cases are before them, the estimated result actually from 2017-18 was 5,751 in the Youth Court and the estimated result for 2018-19 is a reduced amount, quite significantly, of 5,684. The number of finalisations, similarly from 2017-18, was 5,751. There was a projected increase to 6,200 but, in fact, what happened was that the estimated result was 5,388 and, indeed, the projection for 2019-20 is 5,400.

The material from which you have read, member for Kaurna, has not actually translated in the material that has actually occurred. What I would say, though, is that I would expect, given the commitment of the government to provide and where possible maintain early intervention services for families who might be able to, with support, resume the care of their children, some intensive work be undertaken, which may take further personal and judicial time.

I am advised by the head of the Youth Court, Judge Eldridge, that she has undertaken to supervise a number of cases herself to provide that service, and she reports to me that she considers that to be most effective and, indeed, of benefit to those families. If this is an approach that provides us with many more families being able to resume the care of their children and provide them with a secure and safe upbringing, that is to be applauded. Things like that may need to attract some extra support in the future.

One other matter that is pending in the parliament relates to youth treatment orders and the proposed court to undertake any assessment and determination of a youth treatment order for children who are declared to have an addiction in relation to illicit drugs. If it is passed in the parliament, it may introduce a new level of responsibility to the Youth Court. Again, they are matters we would take up with the Courts Administration Authority and, of course, Judge Eldridge if she is called upon to provide that service.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 116, the administration of justice by the Courts Administration Authority. I wonder if you can outline what your discussions have been with the Chief Justice in terms of the appointment of Justice Hinton as the DPP and what impact that is going to have on the court.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry, I do not have any reference to that. There is a provision for DPP in the next session of the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr PICTON: I understand, but he is currently a justice of the Supreme Court, is he not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: So have you had any discussions with the Chief Justice in terms of what the impact of him leaving the court to become the DPP will be in terms of the court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I have, then of course they would be matters that I would have in confidence. If the member is actually getting to the question of the provision of judicial personnel in the ultimate appointment of Justice Hinton to that position, I can confirm that there are ongoing discussions and that they will ultimately be a matter for cabinet for any replacement. But I assure the committee that the Courts Administration Authority continues to have the income stream for that judge in that position in this financial year and doubtless would consider calling in judges who are auxiliary judges, who are available to support courts when they need to supplement for services to provide.

Mr PICTON: Has the Chief Justice raised any concerns with you in terms of the numbers of judicial officers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, they are matters that I have discussions with the Chief Justice, obviously, as the head of the Courts Administration Authority. He is responsible for making those assessments and conferring with me and me with cabinet. Other than that, I cannot provide any other assistance to you.

Mr PICTON: Does the Chief Justice have any concerns in terms of any delays to cases there might be because of conflicts with the appointment of the new DPP?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of.

Mr PICTON: Does the Chief Justice have any concerns in terms of the number of judges of the District Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, those are matters that he can raise with me. As to any population of the District Court, I do regularly meet with the head of the District Court also. Of course, he and I have had a number of discussions about the appointment of judges. For example, one judge wished to move interstate. She retired and a replacement was provided. I think there have been four appointments in that court since the change of government.

Of course, even positions in relation to the Magistrates Court, whether that is for a new magistrate or a new deputy coroner or the provision of services for the new position of judicial registrar, which of course was a new position that was provided legislatively in the previous parliament under the previous government, are all matters on which I confer with the head of jurisdiction and also the Chief Justice, who is of course the head of the Courts Administration Authority, so yes, we are in regular communication about those matters.

Mr PICTON: How regularly do you communicate with the Chief Justice about these matters?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I meet with the Chief Justice and heads of jurisdiction on a regular monthly basis and otherwise as required. I think I have probably signed more letters to the Chief Justice than to just about anyone else in my division, but that is obviously because, as the head of the jurisdiction and also head of all of the courts via the council, he has an important role, as have, I should say, the other heads of jurisdiction as well that are consulted on legislation. I am proud to say that in the course of this new government we have passed 97 pieces of new legislation and so he gets a letter from me pretty regularly.

Mr PICTON: Does the Chief Justice have concerns about the government's intention to bring back the term 'Queen's Counsel'?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not noticed anywhere here that that is a budget item—

Mr PICTON: It is about the administration of justice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —but I think it is a matter of public record as to those matters. I do not have anything further to add.

Mr PICTON: So it is not something that you have discussed with the Chief Justice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I can add anything further.

Mr PICTON: Do any of your advisers have anything to add on this matter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, we have had this conversation before. It is not an appropriate question to ask the Attorney if any of her advisers have an opinion.

Mr PICTON: Why is that, Chair?

The CHAIR: It really gives me a sense of you asking the advisers more than you asking—

Mr PICTON: It was a question to the Attorney-General as to whether she has advice.

The CHAIR: Could you clarify that it is to the Attorney for my benefit, please?

Mr PICTON: Chair, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Do any of her advisers at the table have anything to add in relation to the Chief Justice's views about the return of the term 'Queen's Counsel'?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have anything further to add.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 117, the net cost of services. Why has the net cost of providing services in 2019-20 decreased by almost $26 million compared against the 2018-19 estimated number?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just refer to the particular items, if you would. Is it program 1 you are referring to?

Mr PICTON: Yes. If you look at the net cost of services—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For program 1 or 2?

Mr PICTON: I think in total.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Total? Yes, I am happy to do that. I will ask the Chief Justice, who might like to contribute on that.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The estimated result for 2018-19 has the extra $17 million for the lease being paid out in advance. That is the finance lease for the Sir Samuel Way Building, so it is artificially inflated. The figure in 2019-20, even taking that into account, is less than the 2018-19 budget because $6 million has been taken from the Courts Administration Authority budget for that rent, so that $6 million comes out. There was special funding for the Coroner in the 2018-19 year of $2 million and that comes out. There is the savings requirement for this year as well, so that is why the 2019-20 budget figure of $84.577 million is about $10 million less than the 2018-19 budget figure.

Mr PICTON: Does the Courts Administration Authority determine its own internal budget following the release of the state budget that outlines how this will be broken down within units within the Courts Administration Authority?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, once the budget has been approved, it is the actual day-to-day operation of that and management, under the supervision of course of the council chaired by the Chief Justice and administered by this remarkable lady to my right. I should not underestimate the value of Mr Pearce and others of her staff.

Mr PICTON: Has that now broken down the savings task for 2019-20 in that internal budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Any savings task in relation to the previous government's obligation? Is that what you are referring to?

Mr PICTON: I think you are in government, are you not, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are, but the savings that are identified—

Mr PICTON: Well, it is your budget.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —as I said to you earlier, that the Chief Justice has referred to, are from the previous government.

Mr PICTON: Has the Courts Administration Authority identified the savings for the 2019-20 financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, we have, and we largely put them in place through targeted voluntary separation packages. There was about $1 million in savings from those. Fifteen persons have already taken it, and there is one more in March.

Mr PICTON: What positions have they been?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: They have been spread across chamber support (that is, direct support to judges), registries, I think our communications office—one of our communications officers—and some people in corporate services. It has been spread across.

Mr PICTON: Does that leave much fat to cut in future years?

The CHAIR: Mr Kourakis, I might just get you to lean forward, please, for the sake of the committee and also for Hansard. Thank you.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The Courts Administration Authority has not had any fat for decades, and we do not have discretionary spends. It is all core services, so it is always a matter of trying to find a cleverer way of doing things, which we have been doing all the time, but it gets harder and harder. As I said earlier, we are hoping that the Electronic Court Management System will give us some ways of reducing expenses without reducing services—certainly changing them, because they will go online.

Mr PICTON: Do you have a full list of those savings and TVSPs that have been made this year?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes. It was $1.2 million. We have a line with which divisions they have come from.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We have a list here somewhere; I am just finding it.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: As I said, there are around 16 positions in total, $1.2 million, but the actual numbers in each division of the courts, I will have to get in a moment. I will take it on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have just found them for you, Chief Justice. It might assist. The TVS payments for 2018-19: 21 staff were offered during 2018-19 and 15 staff accepted and received TVSPs during 2018-19. This is the equivalent of 12.7 FTEs. The annual savings were estimated at $1,061,000.

I think it is also fair to identify that sometimes it is important for the Courts Administration Authority to present to us projects that might require some initial expenditure but overall present a case for the reduction of ongoing costs. One of those that the Chief Justice has referred to is the Electronic Court Management System, which has been established in the probate and civil areas.

For example, this year, the Courts Administration Authority presented to me, and I on their behalf to the government, the acquisition of a Judge View software package, as I understand it, which enables judges to view, annotate and approve court documents. That was acquired and cost $591,000. It is on the basis that, to be able to spend that, it will save considerable time and costs. Sometimes—and you will see this in the budget this year—it is important to spend money to enable those costs to be achieved.

We would certainly trust that the Courts Administration Authority would ultimately be able to enjoy some of the benefits of these extra funds to ensure that it adds to the capacity to be able to save funds in the long term.

Mr PICTON: Are there any other savings for this year apart from the electronic courts and the TVSPs?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just ask Mr Pearce.

Mr PEARCE: We constantly review our budget and we have put in a number of initiatives. We are hoping to achieve efficiencies with electricity and other outlays. We are constantly looking at every position that is vacated and we are looking at how we manage those. It is an ongoing process.

Mr PICTON: For the 2021-22 financial year, how much of the savings task is expected to be met from the electronic courts versus other savings that will need to be made?

Mr PEARCE: For 2021-22, an additional $4.3 million is the target. If that is all met from FTEs, then it is an additional 36 based on our average cost. That is if it is all met from that, but we are looking at every avenue.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: 'Electricity savings measure' does not mean switching off the lights. We have new low-usage lights in the Magistrates Court and we have put up a solar panel in Port Augusta.

Mr PICTON: It was mentioned before that there is an estimate of how much the Courts Administration Authority will get from electronic courts management in the 2021-22 financial year. Is there any estimate of how much of the 2021-22 savings task that is, or not at this stage?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: No. There is a review currently underway on how to consolidate the registry services between the Magistrates Court in Adelaide and in the suburbs and regions and the District and Supreme courts so that they can operate online. Until that review is completed, we will not know what the savings will be in the civil area. We are working on both civil and crime, but we will know mostly about the civil area sooner. That review, as I say, has just started. Consultations have just been held.

Mr PICTON: The idea would be to try to find money either through that or the electronic courts and, if not, then by having to look at further FTE reductions.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That is the same thing. The consolidation of the registry is because registry services will be done online, so we will not need people physically located where they are. They will need to be skilled to deal with both Magistrates Court and Supreme and District court lodgements.

Mr PICTON: It would be early next year when you would have a sense of how much that is saving.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, for civil. It is a good idea for civil, and we will start to get some idea of what that means for the people in our registries who work on criminal matters.

Mr PICTON: If that does not work, then you will have to look at FTE reductions?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That will involve FTE reductions. Whether we need to look at other FTE reductions or other savings measures will depend on how much we can save through the Electronic Court Management System.

Mr PICTON: I think the member for Enfield might ask our omnibus questions now.

The CHAIR: Excellent. I will call the member for Enfield. This is the only time you will need to do this today. You have the call, member for Enfield.

Ms MICHAELS: The burden of responsibility. The omnibus questions are:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2019 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates?

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates?

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

2. Between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has either (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created.

3. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor, and

method of appointment?

4. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2018-19 and budgeted cost for 2019-20.

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019.

6. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2019, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

7. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) What department funded these TVSPs? (except for DTF Estimates)

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded?

(e) What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2018 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2018, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess, and what is the salary of each excess employee?

11. In the 2018-19 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2019-20?

12. In the 2018-19 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2019-20? How was much sought and how much was approved?

13. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(d) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(e) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

(g) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

14. For the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

15. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

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

17. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2018 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2018 and what is their purpose?

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates?

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Enfield. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Courts Administration Authority to be completed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I need to acknowledge the member's questions and indicate that, where possible, I will take all those matters on notice and get back to the committee as soon as practicable.

The CHAIR: Excellent, thank you, Attorney. I am sorry I did not give you the call. The examination has been completed.