Attorney-General's Department, $162,125,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $49,552,000

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.

Mr A. Kilvert, Executive Director, Policy and Community, Attorney-General's Department.

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

Mr T. Brumfield, General Manager, Business and Client Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

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

Ms J. Carney, Chief of Staff.

Mr J. Lai, Principal Adviser, Budgeting, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: Attorney, you can make a short statement if you wish; otherwise, please introduce your advisers and we will begin questions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the committee. May I introduce to you the Chief Executive, Caroline Mealor, to my right. To my left is the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Andrew Swanson, and to my far left is the Executive Director of Policy and Community, Mr Adam Kilvert. Behind me, of course, are further advisers who may assist from time to time.

I would like to make a brief opening statement to tell you that not only am I proud to be the Attorney-General but I am pleased to have advanced this year some 97 pieces of legislation for consideration by the parliament. The transparency agenda has been perpetuated, of course, through the passage of legislation such as the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Act. We continue to fight for ICAC to be able to hold public hearings.

The government's swift announcement in support of the National Redress Scheme and the Premier's commitment to the advance of this scheme is a moment of which I am immensely proud and I appreciate his personal involvement and support of that. The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, I think, was a highlight during the last year. In this budget, we have provided further funding for that to continue its important work.

The removal of limitation of actions for compensation claims for child sexual abuse is also something of which I am immensely proud, to have been part of a government that has advanced that. These are just some of the commitments we have delivered, and we will continue to focus on the delivering of legal services of the government, our legislative program and the administration of an effective, efficient and fair judicial system.

I am pleased to announce that I recently released South Australia's justice agenda, which highlights the progress made on the government's agenda to date and lays the foundation for work yet to come. Six key priorities inform the initiatives and reforms over the next three years: (1) protecting South Australians; (2) stronger penalties and effective solutions; (3) a court system built to last; (4) modern liquor and gambling laws; (5) supporting consumers; and (6) keeping the law and our policies current and relevant. I would like now to invite any members of the committee to ask any questions in relation to the budget.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney; that is actually my job. Anyway, I appreciate your help. Member for Kaurna, do you have a question?

Mr PICTON: I do, thank you. One day I think the Attorney would like us all to work for her; sadly, that is not the case. On Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 13, how much of her ministerial office budget has the Attorney-General allocated towards using government resources for personal legal matters—for example, the letter on government letterhead she sent to the member for Lee?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated previously, that is a matter I have answered questions on in the parliament and I do not think there is anything further I can add.

Mr PICTON: I have checked Hansard. You have not answered in terms of how much of your government ministerial office budget you have allocated towards personal legal matters. I am wondering if you can outline that for the budget estimates committee?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, in relation to the correspondence you have referred to, that is a letter that was sent and that has been acknowledged. Further questions were asked either by you or one of your colleagues as to the other work done or whether there was any use of government taxpayer-funded personnel to provide legal advice, all of which was not the case, as I dictated the letter in question.

Mr PICTON: Has any of your budget been allocated towards personal legal matters?

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

Mr PICTON: Do you believe that this letter to the member for Lee was an appropriate use of your ministerial office budget?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have answered those questions and there is nothing further I can add.

Mr PICTON: Do you agree with your chief executive, who spoke about the use of ministerial office resources to send correspondence of a legal nature, and I quote: 'I would say that, in my opinion, it shouldn't have been sent on AGD letterhead'?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I have answered questions in relation to those matters.

Mr PICTON: So you cannot say whether you agree with your chief executive on that matter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have already answered those matters. There is nothing further I can add.

Mr PICTON: Does the Attorney-General agree with her former director of public prosecutions, Mr Adam Kimber, who said about the use of ministerial office resources to send that correspondence, and I quote, that 'they could be the subject of disciplinary proceedings'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, there is nothing further I can add to assist the committee in that regard.

Mr PICTON: You do or you do not agree with that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I think I have made those contributions and there is nothing further I can add.

Mr PICTON: Did any staff member in your office proofread the letter sent to the member for Lee?

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

Mr PICTON: Who printed the letter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not recall.

Mr PICTON: Who transmitted the letter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I do not recall.

Mr PICTON: Who paid for the stamp?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, assuming it was even stamped.

Mr PICTON: But who paid for it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not recall.

Mr PICTON: Was the letter added to the office document management system?

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

Mr PICTON: Can you take those questions on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take that question on notice.

Mr PICTON: And in terms of whether a staff member proofread the letter and who printed the letter and who transmitted the letter?

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: standing order 268, subparagraph 2. We are here conducting estimates on proposed spending. The three questions the member for Kaurna has referred to as a subsequent bundle, apart from capturing the cross-examination—

Mr PICTON: Is this a point of order or a speech?

Mr TEAGUE: —do not seem to me to relate to any particular line item.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has raised standing order 268. I did allow the questions. The Attorney or any minister appearing is at liberty to answer them or not in a way they see fit or otherwise. The Attorney appeared to me to be writing something down. She is probably going to take them on notice. The member for Kaurna now has canvassed this. He has been wanting to. We can move on to the next budget line.

Mr PICTON: I am just seeking clarification that the Attorney is taking them on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I think there was a question of a stamp in there somewhere and I indicated that I would take that on notice.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Member for Kaurna, budget line please.

Mr PICTON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 13, ministerial office resources and the expenditure of $2.601 million on her ministerial office. Does the Attorney-General think it is fair that her ministerial staff member Ms Madeleine Church received a pay rise of 22.9 per cent or $24,980 extra while at the same time public servants cannot secure a pay rise of a small 1.5 per cent?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I did read recently that there had been an assertion of some major increase in salaries of certain employees of the government. To the best of my knowledge, the salary increases reflected a change of position they undertook. From memory, there were several in the Premier's office, but they all relate to changes of position that were granted to those personnel; that is, they had moved from one position of office to another which had a different salary structure.

Mr PICTON: But your staff member Ms Church, who received the 22.9 per cent pay increase, did not move from office to office. She stayed within your office. What was the basis of that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: She moved from one position in my office to another, which was paid at a higher rate.

Mr PICTON: It was a new position—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr PICTON: —that was created.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. She moved to another position in my office, which she filled. After commencing in my office in one position, she was then promoted to another position.

Mr PICTON: What duties does she have in the new position that she did not have in the previous position?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: A lot.

Mr PICTON: What are they?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think it is necessary to go into that, but I can assure you she took on a different position as a senior adviser, as distinct from being one of the advisers.

Mr PICTON: Was there any work value assessment conducted to determine her new pay increase?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Nobody works for me in any position without working hard.

Mr PICTON: That may be the truth, but I was asking if a work value assessment was conducted in terms of her new pay increase.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure what the question really relates to, as to whether that is an assessment of any particular kind. I can indicate to you that from my assessment, as she works for me as the minister, I have to be satisfied that she or anyone else who takes those positions is competent to undertake duties and higher duties and more duties and different duties in relation to different positions before I recommend their appointment. That is what I have done in this case, as I have for other members of my staff.

Mr PICTON: Did the Attorney-General previously have a senior adviser position in her office, or is this a newly created position?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. There was a senior adviser position. It was vacant until that point.

Mr PICTON: Vacant from the election until that point?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr PICTON: For how long was it vacant?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I could take that on notice, but it was whatever time it was between the time of the election until the time she was elevated to the position.

Mr PICTON: Given that you said there were so many significant duties responsible to the senior adviser position, how did your office cope without that senior adviser position for potentially up to a year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: With difficulty, as one does. One of the advantages I have as minister, which I have learned, is that I can call upon extra support from the chief executive's office to find people in the department to provide advice. I am fortunate that there is a department under her responsibility that not only is the biggest law firm in Adelaide but also is populated with lots of very smart people who can assist me when I require advice.

Mr PICTON: On what day did Ms Church start the new position as the senior adviser in your office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would have to take that on notice, but it was some months after we had come to office.

Mr PICTON: Last year at some stage, was it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I would have to check exactly when it was.

Mr PICTON: Who determined the salary package for that position?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From memory, they were all set before we came to office. I had advice from the Premier's office. I am pretty sure it was the Premier's office; it may have been from the Cabinet Office. It was one or the other, I am advised.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 18 and 'initiates and conducts criminal prosecutions'. On what date did the Hon. Michael David QC accept the brief to provide advice to the DPP in regard to the Attorney-General's breach of the ICAC Act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea. I can take it on notice if it is something—

Mr PICTON: Is that something your advisers have information on?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If it is something I am able to provide, I will take it on notice.

Mr PICTON: Why did the DPP believe that they needed to seek external counsel?

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

Mr PICTON: Do any of your advisers, including from the DPP's office, have information on that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that would be a matter for the DPP's office. It may or may not be able to be available anyway, but if it is available I will inquire.

Mr PICTON: Did you bring advisers from the DPP's office to the estimates hearing today?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have a number of advisers here.

Mr PICTON: From the DPP's office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I have a number of advisers here.

Mr PICTON: I understand that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So what is your question?

Mr PICTON: Did you bring any advisers today from the Office of the DPP?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I am not going to identify every person sitting behind me, but I am happy to answer any questions.

Mr PICTON: Usually the ministers do that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know how often the member has been sitting in these committees, but there is usually quite an entourage of people who come and make themselves available to advise and assist me in relation to supporting information to the committee. I am happy to do that, so I am happy to answer your next question.

Mr PICTON: Excellent. Are any of the people sitting behind you from the Office of the DPP?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I am not going to go into that.

The CHAIR: To be fair, member for Kaurna, any minister appearing can bring advisers that he or she feels are appropriate for the committee.

Mr PICTON: I understand, Chair, but it is pretty unprecedented for a very significant office such as the DPP not to have a representative here at the parliament's estimates committee.

The CHAIR: That may or may not be so, but it is up to the Attorney what advisers she brings.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney-General is not even answering whether there is somebody here from the DPP's office or not.

The CHAIR: Mr Chairman, it may assist the committee to know that in the many years I sat in the member for Kaurna's spot at these estimate committees neither the DPP nor members from that office attended estimates, and probably for good reason.

It is a statutory body that is independent and has a role in relation to the investigation and prosecution of matters. That has not been the case in the past but, as I said, there is still a provision on page 18 in relation to the financing of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am happy to consider any questions and, if we do not have the information available, I am happy to take them on notice.

Mr PICTON: Was there any discussion with the Office of the DPP about appearing here at estimates today?

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

Mr PICTON: You can confirm, though, that none of the people sitting behind you are from the office of the DPP?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I said, I think I have said all I can to assist the committee in that regard. It is not usual practice that they attend for estimates committee attendances.

Mr PICTON: On what date did Mr David QC deliver the advice in relation to the Attorney-General's breach of the ICAC Act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Alleged breach—I have no idea.

Mr PICTON: How much was Mr David QC paid to provide that advice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that information.

Mr PICTON: How often are external lawyers used by the DPP in such circumstances?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I do not have that information.

Mr PICTON: Did you or anyone in your office sight the advice provided by Mr David QC?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Are you aware of the content of that advice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 13, regarding ministerial office resources, and also Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 16, regarding the investing expenditure summary and the GPO tower fit-out of 10 Franklin Street. On what floor will your ministerial office be located at the new GPO office tower?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The 19^th floor.

Mr PICTON: The 19^th floor; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I think BHP is the other main tenant of the building. That has been announced publicly. They are taking the bottom nine floors. I think minister Wingard has some space in the top half and there is some vacant space still available.

Mr PICTON: Did you request to have your ministerial office at the new GPO office tower moved from level 11 to level 19?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I recall. I think it was always proposed to be on level 19. I had asked whether they would consider whether minister Wingard, as the other minister, could be located on the same floor as me.

Mr PICTON: So you are not aware of any previous proposal that would have had your office on level 11 of that building?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I am getting shaking heads here from others.

Mr PICTON: Is it correct that there were estimates by Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) that the location of your office on level 19, as opposed to level 11, would cost in the vicinity of $500,000?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the best of my knowledge, I appreciate the GPO proposal was something that was announced and pursued by the previous government to relocate the whole of the Attorney-General's Department and the ministerial office to this new facility. That was before my time, most of it. By the time there was a change of government, there had been at least one or two estimates when I had been sitting in your spot asking questions about the then government's proposal. But at the time I came in, there had been significant advances as to where each of the units of the A-G's Department and ministerial office would be accommodated.

In fact, there had even been designs as to closed offices, some open facilities for desks for personnel and the like, so it was quite advanced. There were certainly some matters which had discussion and were consulted on, but at no time was there ever any proposal to change my office from level 11 to level 19. To the best of my knowledge, it had never been identified as being on level 11.

Mr PICTON: Did your chief of staff ever make a request to move your ministerial office in the tower from level 11 to level 19?

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

Mr PICTON: Will your new office comply with standardised government policy around office space?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is the same size as I was shown Mr Rau was going to occupy. I would have to say that Mr Rau did have a number of other portfolios when he was deputy premier and attorney-general, which I do not have responsibility for, so there may certainly have been some modification around that. I think I have the same area as the previous attorney was proposed to have, which I have to say is a lot bigger than I currently have at 45 Pirie Street, which is accommodation I quite enjoy being in, actually.

Mr PICTON: Was a request made to move your office from the south-eastern corner to the southern facade?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It certainly moved. I cannot recall what direction that was.

Mr PICTON: Was that a request made by your office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: By me.

Mr PICTON: Why did you make that request?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely, in relation to the whole of the site, it was to consider who else would be on the floor, and there were some changes made to that, as to what other agencies would be on that floor. As best I can recall at the moment, that floor now will accommodate me, the Solicitor-General and all the staff that goes with those, and the chief executive and a number of her personal staff. From memory, finally, Legislative Services personnel will also be on that floor, all of whom I have almost daily interaction with.

Mr PICTON: Just set me straight: why would the make-up of other people on the floor necessitate you moving from the south-eastern facade to the southern facade of the building?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think there was a question of where we could best be accommodated, and that is what I sought to occur. Some of those things were accommodated and some were not. I think I will ask Mr Swanson because he was in charge of some of the development of that and the accommodation. So, yes, there were significant changes in relation to who else could fit on that floor and how we could best utilise that to ensure that particularly those we have the most interaction with are able to be accommodated.

In a general way, there was also discussion about ensuring that the other ministerial office in the building, which was to be that of the Minister for Police, for obvious security reasons, and the person in that position should also be accommodated in an area of security. The issue largely there was the question of who might otherwise take the remaining part of that floor on which he operates. These are all matters of general security to make sure that there is no possibility of any breach by unacceptable tenants being next to them, for example. But, as it turned out in the end, BHP were the final tenants of the other half of the building, and we are very pleased to have them as our neighbours.

Mr PICTON: Did you or your office make any request for minister Wingard to also move to level 19 of the building?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I certainly asked that that be considered because at that stage there was a period of vacant space adjacent to a proposed area for him and I was a little concerned about the security in relation to that. But within the budget that had been allocated for this, that was not something that was achievable. I will ask Mr Swanson to add to that if there is anything else.

Mr SWANSON: Only to say that there were a number of combinations considered in terms of who would be on what floor. We are talking a move of around 700 people, so things to consider were both the size of the areas in question plus the connectivity and how those areas really worked with each other. There were ongoing discussions on that for some time.

Mr PICTON: Was there any cost estimate associated with the proposal to move minister Wingard to the 19^th floor?

Mr SWANSON: I would have to confirm that.

Mr PICTON: Is the floor space for the Attorney's office on the southern facade the same or different from what it was going to be on the south-eastern edge of the building?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can answer that. As best I recall, it is exactly the same size, even though I had indicated that I did not think I needed such a big area.

Mr PICTON: Is the cost of that proposal the same as the original proposal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is the same area.

Mr PICTON: That is not what I asked. Is the cost the same?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take that on notice, but it is the same area because I remember suggesting that it be reduced.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, I will come back to you. I note that the member for King has a question. I will come straight back to you, member for Kaurna.

Ms LUETHEN: In the north and north-east, there has been particular interest in the government's approach to domestic violence initiatives. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 27. Attorney, can you outline achievements in 2018-19 in relation to domestic violence initiatives?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for her question and her ongoing interest in this important area. I am very proud of her contribution to the parliament and to this committee on this matter. The government has effected a whole-of-government approach to the domestic violence reform package and prioritised this very vital area. The dedicated Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention was an important initiative of the government. I thank the Premier for it.

As Attorney-General, I have worked closely with the Minister for Human Services to pass integral law reform and implement election commitments to break the cycle of domestic and family violence. As detailed in the budget and highlighted, the 2018-19 year saw the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2018, which creates a standalone offence for non-fatal strangulation and toughens penalties for abusers who repeatedly breach conditions of court orders that protect victims. It has now passed and has part commenced. Further, the changes include:

increasing penalties for repeated breaches of intervention orders;

creating a new offence of non-fatal strangulation;

allowing video evidence recorded by police to be used in court domestic violence offences, which has not yet commenced but which has been passed in the parliament;

allowing for interim variations to be made to final intervention orders, which has also not yet commenced;

expanding the definition of aggravated domestic abuse to include more types of relationships, such as grandchild, sibling, carer and person related according to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship rules; and

expanding the definition of abuse in state intervention order laws to include forced marriage, preventing a person from entering their own home, and taking invasive photographs or videos of someone without their permission and threatening to share them.

The act commenced on 31 January 2019 except for sections 7, 11 and 12. These sections will commence at a later date, as supporting regulations, rule form and IT changes are required. This act was a major step in preventing family violence by targeting indicators, like non-fatal strangulation, to stop the cycle before it takes another life. Early intervention is a key to targeting domestic violence.

A 12-month statewide trial of a domestic violence disclosure scheme commenced on 2 October 2018. The scheme allows a person at risk of domestic abuse to seek information from SAPOL about a current or former partner's violent offending history, enabling them to make more informed decisions about their relationships. Police will assess the safety of the applicant and fast-track information disclosure to applicants deemed to be at high risk. A specialist women's domestic violence support worker will be present at all disclosures, whether information is disclosed or not, which will be conducted face to face in order to ensure that the person is provided with appropriate levels of support and safety planning.

In the first six months of operation (2 October 2018 to 31 March 2019), 114 applications have been received; 69 of these applications were accepted for further consideration and 40 disclosure meetings have been held. The work to prevent domestic violence and educate our community never ends, and I will continue to work with the minister in this area. I again thank the member for her question.

Ms MICHAELS: Can I take the Attorney to page 17 of Budget Paper 5 to continue with the theme of domestic violence. In the budget, there is a cut of $150,000 per annum in 2019-20 for the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service grant.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, page 17, did you say?

Ms MICHAELS: Of Budget Paper 5. This is in relation to the cut to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service grant. Can you explain how that might improve the services to victims of domestic violence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the question. The Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service had been funded from the Victims of Crime Fund since its inception in 2015 and was operated by the Victim Support Service until 30 June 2019. It had been contract managed by the Office for Women during that time. The WDVCAS provides support to victims of domestic and family violence by assisting women in navigating the court system. It operates on a statewide basis at no cost to clients.

The 2018 decision was made to reposition this service, as it is a legal service, and for the contract management functions to be taken over by the Attorney-General's Department at the conclusion of the agreement, which ended on 30 June 2019. We undertook a competitive procurement process to ascertain the most appropriate service provider. I just remind the member that whilst this was operated by the Victim Support Service, which is a counselling service provider in the state, providing legal services was not their core business.

At the conclusion of the procurement process, the Legal Services Commission, which was one of the applicants, was announced on 28 May as the preferred supplier. The Legal Services Commission offered a comprehensive service with high levels of expertise and experience, the ability to draw on existing resources to supplement this program and a competitive budget commensurate with the demand for service.

The Legal Services Commission will receive just over $2 million over the next four years to provide this service; indeed, it commenced that service on 1 July 2019. As the member may appreciate, they already have a quite sophisticated administrative structure and were therefore able to apply these funds to the provision of service. I expect and I understand, this service having taken place over nearly the past month, that that is underway and continuing to provide a valuable service through that agency, with less money.

Ms MICHAELS: Does the Attorney expect that exactly the same level of service or better service will be provided to victims of crime through the Legal Services Commission with $150,000 less?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct, yes.

Ms MICHAELS: In respect of the Victim Support Service, its core funding was cut at the same time as funding for the service grant was cut. Is that an issue? Have you spoken to them?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have had a number of meetings and correspondence in relation to this matter. The Victim Support Service is a valuable service; in fact, it was established by the Liberal Tonkin government decades ago. It is a community-based provider of services. What was clear when we came into government was that there had been some duplication between the services delivered by VSS and other services funded from the Victims of Crime Fund, including the Homicide Victim Support Group, the Road Trauma Support Team and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights.

We committed to ensuring that the Victims of Crime Fund was most efficiently and best used for the outcomes for victims. This year's budget included a measure to focus on the primary grant paid from the VOC Fund for core counselling services from 1 July 2020. Consequently, the amount of the grant will reduce to $1.2 million from 2021. I had also sought advice from the commissioner around the most appropriate mix of counselling services funded from the Victims of Crime Fund. This advice will then inform the scope of the procurement process for the delivery of counselling services for victims of crime from 1 July 2020.

It is my view that a competitive tender process will ensure that the counselling services provided are the most efficient and the highest quality available. In short, having identified a significant area of overlap in the provision of services, the core funding in relation to VSS will be for the provision of counselling services. Education, information services, referrals and the like, which are also undertaken by the Office of the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, can be streamlined.

In the correspondence I have had on the matter, I am satisfied that the Victim Support Service is continuing to provide a valuable service to victims. Indeed, it played a very significant role in the provision of counselling services to victims of child institutional sexual abuse identified particularly during the Mullighan inquiry. I expect that it will continue to provide support and counselling under the National Redress Scheme, which has now been initiated and which South Australia has signed up to.

Where South Australians are successful in receiving an amount for redress in those circumstances, they are also eligible for, I think, up to $3,000 for counselling. I expect that the Victim Support Service will be an impressive and continuing provider of services to them. Some of those victims will be the same people who had availed themselves of funding or support by way of redress under the state scheme.

On all the information we have from the national commission, I think it is fair to say that the retelling of their stories, presenting to give a further submission, may well be something for which they are ultimately able to receive some extra funding under the new national scheme, which of course is at a higher level. That has the potential detriment of re-evoking emotional distress for which they would need extra counselling, and they would be eligible for funding to avail themselves of that service. I am confident that the VSS will continue to have a role in that regard particularly.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 12 and the objective 'to promote justice through protecting rights and holding people to account according to the law'. Did the Attorney-General seek advice from the Crown Solicitor on whether the Liberal Party broke the law with their 6am push polling?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry, could you start that again? I have just got to page 12. The title is Objective; is that right?

Mr PICTON: Yes, 'protecting rights and holding people to account according to the law'. Did the Attorney-General seek advice from the Crown Solicitor on whether the Liberal Party broke the law with their 6am push polling?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I am not responsible either for providing or to provide advice to the Liberal Party.

Mr PICTON: That is not what I asked. I asked whether you sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on whether there was a breach of the law.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just letting you know that, no, I am not responsible to provide services from the Crown Solicitor's Office to the Liberal Party.

Mr PICTON: No, but in terms of the upholding of the law did you as Attorney-General seek advice on whether a breach of the law had occurred in this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer to that is no again.

Mr PICTON: Is the Attorney-General aware of whether the Liberal Party sought advice from anyone at all?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea. You would have to ask them.

Mr PICTON: Does the Attorney-General agree that the Liberal Party breached the Telecommunications (Telemarketing and Research Calls) Industry Standard 2017 with its push polling?

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

Mr PICTON: Has the Attorney-General sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on whether any other acts were breached as a result of the push polling?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order, Chair: standing order 268, subparagraph 2. I do not detect any relationship to a line item in this line of questioning.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, this line of questioning is certainly a stretch. You have canvassed it on two or three occasions and the Attorney has answered. It might be a good time to move to another line.

Mr PICTON: On 25 July, it was reported that the government is looking at electoral changes, including how-to-vote cards and corflutes. Have there been any changes under consideration, and have you received advice from the Crown Solicitor about such changes?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What I can confirm is that I received an extensive report, as did the member for Kaurna as a member of the parliament, from the Electoral Commissioner post the 2018 state election where he made a number of recommendations for consideration of reform—that is, an amendment to the Electoral Act principally. That is quite a comprehensive piece of work. Later this week, we are due to receive his further report in relation to funding and disclosure obligations of political parties. He had indicated in his previous report, which I referred to, that he would be providing that by the end of this month, and I understand we are still expecting to receive that.

There is quite a lot of work that has been undertaken, as usually occurs post state and local government elections. We get a report in the parliament. There are recommendations for law reform, and certainly in stage 1 of that, in the first report, a body of work is being looked at for the purposes of considering those reforms. In the course of that, questions about posters have been raised. During the last federal election, a few months ago again there was some public discussion about that. Certainly, that is something we can consider.

I come from Kangaroo Island. We have never had posters on Kangaroo Island, ever. By a local decision of the local people there, they decided that when we moved from banners to posters at political elections (and quite possibly the member is a little bit too young to remember) there was a change, and this practice of putting up corflutes or posters—canvass banners as they were initially—was something that the local people on Kangaroo Island decided they did not want to have.

It was just agreed between everyone there that anyone who wanted to stand for office or for whatever political party would not put up posters. They have managed to successfully vote and to elect the local member over the years without having a poster.

Mr PICTON: You have a good one at the moment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It seems as though democracy is able to prevail without posters.

Mr PICTON: Are you undertaking work on that, or the only work that has been undertaken is by the Electoral Commissioner and their report?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At the moment, there are a number of other areas I am personally looking at, and whatever ultimately becomes part of government policy will progress, but they are ultimately a matter for decisions yet to be made. However, I can say the work that has commenced relates to the first report of the Electoral Commissioner, which was tabled some months ago, earlier this year.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 40, the Equal Opportunity Commission.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Page 40?

Mr PICTON: Correct, and the program net cost of services. Why has the budget for the Equal Opportunity Commission for 2019 decreased by almost $275,000 compared with the 2018-19 estimated figure of $1.6 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could you just repeat that? I am just trying to find the actual item here. At about point 5; is that where you are referring to it?

Mr PICTON: The net cost of services is what I was referring to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At point 5, yes. What was the question again?

Mr PICTON: The question is: why has the budget decreased by almost $275,000 compared with the 2018-19 estimated number of $1.6 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask Mr Swanson to answer that.

Mr SWANSON: The shift is mainly in relation to a reduction in expenses. The reduction in expenses relates to an increase in savings in 2019-20 of $55,000. There is some once-off funding provided in 2018-19 of $87,000. There are also changes that the commission has with funding agreements for dedicated parties for certain projects of $63,000. There has also been a change in supplies and services from the 2018-19 estimated result to the 2019-20 budget, which is mainly due to some one-off items, including some one-off costs in 2018-19 for reaccreditation costs for White Ribbon Australia of $100,000 and some once-off funding in 2018-19 for the Chiefs for Gender Equity program of $75,000.

Mr PICTON: How can the reduction of FTEs between those years only be 0.7 but the reduction in funding for employee benefit expenses be $230,000 approximately?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just while Mr Swanson is getting that, I will indicate that the $55,000 increase in savings for 2019-20 was the savings that were allocated to my department in particular and this unit from the previous government.

Mr SWANSON: The decrease in FTEs is mainly in relation to those savings the Attorney just mentioned, to give an estimate of that. There are some other estimates with regard to the EOC budget for 2019-20. That will be updated in due course. The commissioner provided a revised staffing structure after the budget had been published, which we will update in the next budget process.

Mr PICTON: Why is the Equal Opportunity Commission no longer White Ribbon accredited?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Swanson.

Mr SWANSON: Just to be clear, the Equal Opportunity Commission coordinates the White Ribbon accreditation across government for all agencies, in effect. There were some one-off costs associated with that reaccreditation, which I think occurs once every three years. It was relevant to 2018-19 but not to 2019-20.

Mr PICTON: How much government funding will the Equal Opportunity Commission receive and what is the commission generating in income through its work and partnership with the University of Adelaide and other organisations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They undertake work for other agencies, including the South Australian police department and the Metropolitan Fire Service, to name a couple. In relation to the former, they have undertaken work firstly to do a review of the conduct and behaviour in the police force—

Mr PICTON: Do you have the budget figures for these?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will come to them in a moment. Under that contract, they are part way through a three-year contract, I think, to provide assessment, review and assistance to advance the culture of the South Australian police force after they had had a report on their behaviour not only in relation to women in the police force but in relation to behaviour that was, I think, unacceptable generally.

It was acknowledged at the time by the Commissioner for Police that it needed a substantial improvement. He committed to doing that, and so the equal opportunity commissioner is the recipient of income for that. Mr Swanson indicates that he will have to check exactly how much that is as part of the Equal Opportunity Commission budget.

In relation to the Metropolitan Fire Service—again, I will check this—it is my recollection that it was just to do the assessment. I am not aware that the Equal Opportunity Commission has ongoing contractual provision there or income from that.

Mr PICTON: Can you outline whether this budget imposes additional savings targets or efficiency measures on the commission? Across the forward estimates, what savings target was there prior to this budget, what additional savings target or efficiency measures are there and what is the aggregated amount of savings now?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Do you have any figures in terms of the savings for the commission with you or your advisers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We would on some of those but not all of what you just asked for. I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Did the commission put forward any budget bids that did not proceed and were not successful? If so, what were they?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commission, like a number of units, presents its proposals for consideration. There were some extra proposals presented by the Equal Opportunity Commission and they were not successful.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 18, the Office of the DPP. When was the decision made to appoint Justice Hinton and when was it finalised?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just get the dates that I do have for you. At the conclusion of the seven-year term of the DPP's position on 25 October this year, a selection panel was retained. There were four permanent members of the South Australian legal community and a senior public servant. In February, the position was advertised. They undertook their work and ultimately provided a report to me as Attorney-General, and their unanimous recommendation was Mr Hinton.

Mr PICTON: Do you have any knowledge of the reason the current acting DPP withdrew her application for the role of the DPP?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Are you aware that the current acting DPP made admissions of having attended a Liberal Party fundraiser in the past?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not specifically, although I seem to recall there was a question raised about it either by you or one of your colleagues at some stage.

Mr PICTON: Was there any connection between that attendance at the fundraiser and her withdrawal as an applicant for the DPP position?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea, nor do I have any personal knowledge of her attending any fundraiser.

Mr PICTON: Has the Attorney-General received advice that Justice Hinton, when he is appointed the DPP, will not be able to appear as a prosecutor before the court for two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. The situation is that, under the Legal Practitioners Act, the court has complete responsibility to give leave to anyone who was a former judicial officer in relation to appearances in those circumstances. It is for the court to make that determination. So, yes, I had received that advice. That is as best I can provide to you as to the usual practice that occurs in those circumstances. Leave is sought in those cases.

Mr PICTON: Does the Attorney stand by her comments when she was asked on Radio Adelaide this week whether there were any existing conventions that would stop the DPP appearing in court and she said, 'No, no, no.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have any concern about the rule in relation to appearances in these circumstances. It is a perfectly appropriate rule and it has leave attached to it. As I say, that is entirely a matter for the court. I have no reason to think that that would be any impediment to the person who has been unanimously recommended for that position.

Mr PICTON: Are you aware of comments from the Law Society of South Australia that under the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules a former judicial officer cannot appear as a solicitor in the court they presided over for a period of two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is what I just read out to you. Yes, I am, and I am aware that she made a statement to the effect that she thought it would be five years, but that is not actually correct on the advice I have received.

Mr PICTON: How long would it be under the advice you have received?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Two years.

Mr PICTON: Just two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Does Justice Hinton have a right to return to the Supreme Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suppose I could go into the process under which someone is appointed to the court, but that is a position of appointment by the Governor. If the question is whether there is some sort of automatic default position or something of that nature, the answer to that is no.

Mr PICTON: There have been no commitments given to Justice Hinton along those lines?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has neither sought it nor been given it.

Mr PICTON: Have there been any discussions or negotiations in regard to remuneration or, in particular, pension arrangements?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, and they were made public last week. In short, they make provision for Mr Hinton to continue to receive his benefit under the Judges' Pensions Act 1971. That will enable him to continue to receive a judicial pension which, as the member may be aware, he has some accumulated benefit in for over a decade now as a result of his service as Solicitor-General and then as a judge of the Supreme Court. As we have announced, there is proposed legislation to ensure that he will not lose that benefit by taking up this position.

There is one matter: I indicated a date. I wish to clarify that the appointment of the previous DPP ended on 25 April and not 25 October. I am sorry if I said the wrong date.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of the Attorney-General's Department to be completed. We will reconvene at 3.45. The bells will ring for three minutes prior to that.

Sitting suspended from 15:31 to 15:45.