Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $109,443,000

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Chapman, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

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

Ms L. South, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Courts Administration Authority.

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

Ms J. Carney, Chief of Staff, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: Welcome, everybody, to a reconvened Estimates Committee A. I have a short statement to make at the outset. I remind members that following the adjournment on 18 November, pursuant to standing order 268 I requested the Speaker to vary the sitting schedule in accordance with the statewide lockdown order. The committee resumes today in accordance with the revised schedule issued by the Speaker on 20 November.

I advise members that the following proposed payments the committee was considering on Wednesday 18 November remain postponed until a future date. Those payments are the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Premier—other items.

I remind members that the estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the Attorney and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings as previously distributed is accurate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr PICTON: Yes, I believe so.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the answers to questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 February 2021.

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

Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. Questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house are broadcast, through the IPTV system within Parliament House, via the webstream linked to the internet and the Parliament of South Australia video-on-demand broadcast system.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination. The portfolio is the Courts Administration Authority and the minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination, and I call on the Attorney to make a statement if she wishes and to introduce her advisers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, and members of the committee. May I confirm that joining with me today is the Chief Justice, the Hon. Chris Kourakis. Behind me, now at a safe distance, is Ms Julie-Anne Burgess, the State Courts Administrator. Behind her is Ms Linda South, the Executive Director of Corporate Services. To the administrator's left is Mr Trevor Pearce, the chief financial officer, and behind him is Mr Chris Black, the Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

I will simply make a couple of comments and confirm my appreciation to the Chief Justice and members of the judiciary and staff for their diligent work during the course of the COVID times this year. It has been a difficult year for everyone, inconvenient to many and very distressing for some. The courts are no exception, and the opportunity to have disputes resolved, and determine matters in relation to the criminal area, is pressing, particularly if any of the parties are in custody.

An enormous amount of work has been undertaken by the courts to ensure that justice has continued and that the operation of the courts has been maintained. Although there has been some interruption by the sheer area required for jury trials, I am very pleased to report that there has been excellent attention.

Members might note from material that has been presented in the budget that significant funds have been made available to ensure that AVL opportunities for the courts, Corrections (prisons, in particular), and the police were furnished with funding to facilitate during that time. Apart from those short comments, I invite questions from the committee in due course.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Lead speaker for the opposition, the member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the Chief Justice for coming here again, and I welcome the fact that we are here. I appreciate all the hard work of particularly public health officers that means this committee was able to convene, as was requested and planned.

The CHAIR: With the introductions done, I invite questions.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 139, and specifically questions relating to the fourth dot point, under the heading 'Key agency outputs', regarding fostering an environment where staff can contribute to the effective performance of the courts system.

First, through you, Attorney, I would like to know when or if the Chief Justice, as the head of the Courts Administration Authority, was made aware of issues in terms of bullying, intimidation and serious human resource issues at the Courts Administration Authority, specifically in the Sheriff's Office, as reported by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee in its recently released report, the Inquiry into the State Courts Administration Council Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I assume that is the report tabled in the Legislative Council on 17 November 2020, and I invite the Chief Justice to comment on that.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I first became aware of the matters being investigated by the committee as the investigation progressed. There was one occasion in 2015 when I saw a memorandum concerning disciplinary action that was taken against one particular Sheriff's Officer. That came to my attention because the Sheriff's Officer had written to the Chief Magistrate in the form of a complaint and asked it to be brought before the council.

My assessment of the memorandum and what it said about that Sheriff's Officer was that he had adopted an oppositional and disruptive stance, perhaps because of underlying personality traits. My subsequent review of the matter, for the purposes of the hearing before the committee, served only to confirm that assessment and, in particular, reports, which had been prepared by medical practitioners concerning his condition, spoke of that.

That was the only occasion on which a matter came before council. I was not aware of allegations of widespread bullying or bad behaviour within the workplace until they were disclosed in the course of the committee's hearings. I must say that even now I have not had access to the confidential material that was given to the committee. I invited the committee to provide that to me on the basis that I would not disclose it to management and review it myself for two reasons: firstly, to help the committee evaluate it and, secondly, to inform my work as Chair of the Courts Administration Council in what needed to be done going forward.

The council declined to provide the material to me. I understand that it was given to them confidentially. I do not know whether or not they approached their informants to see if they would consent to it coming to me. But I can say now to those informants that, if they wish to speak to me or make that material available to me, I am more than happy to hear from them directly, as I am as any other Sheriff's Officers, former or serving Sheriff's Officers.

Mr PICTON: Thank you for the answer from the Chief Justice. It seems clear that there were some issues made aware, but the totality of the issues have certainly not been made aware to you. What steps has the Chief Justice taken or ordered to address the issues that have been raised in the report, bearing in mind it has only been released for some days so far?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Chief Justice?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I started to read the report last week. It is a complex report covering a wide range of matters and this is not the place to go to that detail. Obviously, ahead of this committee meeting, I have over the weekend accelerated my thought process about what needs to be done. I can state this—that I was surprised by the findings and recommendations of the committee but, as I said a moment ago, I have not had access to the confidential submissions.

I can only take the report at face value but, doing that, I have this morning instructed the State Courts Administrator to take immediate steps to do two things; the first is to establish an independent grievance complaints body. It is not intended—and indeed this body could not—to replace the legislated grievance procedures in part 7 of the Public Sector Act, procedures which, I might say, allow for internal and external review before the Employment Tribunal.

What I have in mind will not replace those steps. It will look at complaints about systemic matters within the Sheriff's Office and indeed the Courts Administration Authority, although I have to say that the number of complaints and concerns outside the Sheriff's Office pale into insignificance compared to the issues that arise out of that particular office. What I propose is something that will look systemically throughout the organisation and it will deal with matters that may even be simply matters of perception.

The body will receive confidential complaints, if that is what the employee prefers. It will do more than just take and pass on the statement. We have already had something that does that for some months now and it has received no complaints from anybody—an anonymous service. The body I propose will do more than that. It will have the full cooperation of the senior management of the Courts Administration Authority and will therefore be able to interrogate that management about the matters on which complaints are made, as I said, either anonymously or openly.

That body will be invited to make recommendations directly to the council. The Courts Administration Council comprises the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate. I do not know precisely what structure it will take. It may be established through the public sector commissioner, if the commissioner thinks that falls within their power and is prepared to do so. It may be necessary for the Courts Administration Authority to engage independent consultants to perform that function—that is number one.

The second thing that will be done is to embark upon a procedure that will again engage independent consultants, the purpose of which will be to provide information sessions to all Sheriff's Officers about the implications of a transfer of their employment to the Department for Correctional Services. I would propose that the officers of the Department for Correctional Services attend those meetings, together with officers of the Courts Administration Authority, and propose to invite the Public Service Association to attend those meetings.

After those general meetings, when the broad implications are discussed, the consultants will make themselves available to discuss how a transfer might affect individual employees, and that again can be done anonymously or openly. After that process has been completed, the independent consultants would organise a survey of all Sheriff's Officers. The precise mechanism—and it is likely to be electronic—will have to be discussed, but it will be such that respondents can answer anonymously or openly as they wish and it will make provision for differentiation between different operations in which Sheriff's Officers are engaged.

If the committee's findings are sound, naturally we would expect a large number of the Sheriff's Officers—indeed, a large majority of them—to elect to move to the Department for Correctional Services. If they do, subject to two matters that I will mention in a moment, I would support their wishes being fulfilled. Whether the Department for Correctional Services decides to offer that employment is, of course, a matter for them, but can I elaborate on the complexities of this because it is no simple matter.

Sheriffs' functions are diverse. A number of Sheriff's Officers are employed in the basement cells of the Sir Samuel Way Building. Their job is to receive prisoners from G4S, a private security contractor that transports them from prisons, hold them in the cells and then take them to courts as they are called on. I have been concerned for some time at the inordinate amount of time that managing largely interpersonal conflicts with that office has taken from senior management of the Courts Administration Authority. It is time that could be spent on improving the delivery of services to ordinary South Australians in accessing our civil courts and in dealing with our criminal courts. Given how I have described it, that is an area that would fit easily within the structure of the Department for Correctional Services.

Indeed, that we have continued to directly employ our Sheriff's Officers in the basement cells is an anomaly. In all Magistrates Courts, a private security contractor manages the cells and takes the prisoners from the cells into the courts. Much of the report deals with the basement cell Sheriff's Officers. They are an anomaly. If they wish to go, to ensure that all similar services are done in a similar way, I would support those basement Sheriff's Officers going to the Department for Correctional Services. What the Department for Correctional Services then does about how it manages them is for it to decide.

If the basement cell Sheriff's Officers decide to stay with the authority, and I hope that they will—if the committee's report is right, they will not—I will do everything I can to ensure that their workplace is one in which respectable behaviours are prevalent and in which their concerns are properly addressed.

The other area of a Sheriff's Officer's function is front of house: checking people as they come into court. The Federal Court employs private security officers to do this. There is no element of core functionality in having Sheriff's Officers do it. I would be very sorry to see many if not all of those Sheriff's Officers leave and go to the Department for Correctional Services. I see them daily as I walk through the courts. I communicate freely with them and they with me, and just today I had a chat with two of them about the findings of the report. But if they do decide to move across to the Department for Correctional Services, I will support that move. If they decide to stay, again I will do everything I can do to assure that their workplace remains a respectful one.

To the reservations, there are Sheriff's Officers whose job it is to take the names and particulars of people appearing in busy courts and give them to clerks, the chamber staff of the presiding judicial officer. There are Sheriff's Officers highly trained and carefully selected who work with juries. The Sheriff's Officers in those areas have to work closely with judicial officers and the staff of judicial officers. It would be very difficult to have lines of management bifurcated for those Sheriff's Officers. I hope that I can give them the assurance that they need to decide to stay with us.

The final matter is the position of the Sheriff itself. Unfortunately, it is lost in the mist of history a little, but the Sheriff is the officer through whom court orders are enforced. If the courts did not have an executive officer at their disposal to enforce their own orders, they would hardly be courts. Sheriff's Officers around the country generally are offices held within the court services department of an office of Attorney-General. The reason for that is clear: the Attorney-General, as first law officer, can be relied on to make the Sheriff available to properly perform the function of enforcing court orders.

I have not known of any area or any jurisdiction in which the Sheriff has been under the control of the Minister for Correctional Services; I would be concerned with that. The budget for the enforcement of largely, we are now talking, civil orders—because the taking in of prisoners to prison is dealt with in the ways I have already discussed—and the position of Sheriff in terms of enforcing civil orders should remain within the Courts Administration Authority. I distinguish that formal position from the employees, and the report deals with their functions, but I draw a distinction between the constitutional office of Sheriff and the different functions that I have referred to. That is the immediate proposal. There will be time, after we ascertain what the Sheriff's Officers actually want, to discuss some of the detail in the report.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the Chief Justice for outlining his response identifying both the challenges in relation to the Sheriff's position itself and some of the information that has come in the said report. I advise the committee that, consistent with the obligations, the report has been transferred to my office although, in fact, I was sitting here in this parliament when I had word on 17 November that this report was tabled in the Legislative Council. I have not read the full report myself yet but, similar to the Chief Justice, there are aspects of it which have already been reviewed.

Nevertheless, I will confer with the Chief Justice in relation to the matters he has raised and, doubtless, members of his senior staff, and the Sheriff's Office and the Department for Corrections in relation to this matter. The recommendations require a government response within four months, and I will ensure that that is provided. I have provided a short briefing to the Minister for Corrections so that he is aware of a proposal that suggests he might have an extra area of responsibility, so as a courtesy he has been advised. Otherwise, obviously, the government will provide its response in due course. I do note the matters raised by the Chief Justice as to whether any other alternate agency should have responsibility, particularly in light of the split role of the Sheriff's Office, for both a security and an enforcement role. I thank the Chief Justice for that.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, particularly to the Chief Justice, for that fulsome answer. I am glad I asked that question.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I think it would have got out anyway.

Mr PICTON: Yes, you were probably expecting that. In terms of what you have announced in relation to the grievance body firstly, do you have a time frame around when you expect that to be established, and how will you make sure that that is truly independent from the Courts Administrator and the Courts Administration Authority?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Member for Kaurna, I assume that is not a question that I will answer but that you are asking the Chief Justice to provide that information, so I will refer it to him.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I would like the survey completed before the four months is up. If there is going to be a response, I think it should be informed by the wishes of the Sheriff's Officers. There are really two ways in which to ensure its independence. The first is to actually engage independent bodies to do both things, whether it is the public sector commissioner, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, or whether it is an independent human resources or psychological organisation-type body. I don't know; it would depend on who is willing to do what. That is the first thing. The second is to have it reporting directly to council.

Mr PICTON: Obviously through the Attorney, in relation to the potential transfer of people to the Department for Correctional Services, would that have to be an all or nothing proposal? Presumably, you could not have some people working for DCS and some people still working for the Sheriff's Office. There would have to be a policy decision overall that you would reach a view after these surveys were conducted. There might even need to be legislation as well, would there not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Member for Kaurna, that will be a matter ultimately for government and/or the parliament if legislation is required, and I think we have heard a fulsome response from the Chief Justice as to some of the diverse duties of the Sheriff's Office. That will be a matter that will be considered by government.

Mr PICTON: I guess what I am asking is whether you could have a situation in which, say at the front desk, you have some people working for DCS and some people working for the Sheriff's Office, or would you have to transfer each individual unit?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, the structure of how that operates assumes for the moment that there will be a separation of the role between the Sheriff and the security services that are provided by Sheriff's Officers, and they are all matters to be considered. At this stage, I think the Chief Justice has made it very clear he would like to undertake a survey and review the matter comprehensively before he would put any recommendation to me as to what he might ask the government to consider, and obviously we will respect that. There are serious issues that have been raised in this report and, clearly, they need to be addressed one way or the other; accordingly, that will be undertaken.

Mr PICTON: How often was the welfare or issues to do with concerns raised, including bullying of Sheriff's Officers, discussed between the Chief Justice or the Judicial Council and the State Courts Administrator, Julie-Anne Burgess?

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

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The only matter that came to council since my time was the memo concerning Mr Gillies. I also have regular meetings with Ms Burgess—weekly meetings. I had them just with me and Ms Burgess to start with, but I expanded it to include the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate soon after I took office and we meet weekly. In the course of those meetings, particular disciplinary proceedings against particular Sheriff's Officers have been raised. The question of a problem of bullying or harassment was not.

Can I just say that, in my entire time as Chief Justice, neither the Public Service Association nor any occupational health and safety representative has raised, formally with the executive or informally with me, a question of harassment and bullying within the Sheriff's Office. I find that surprising, I have to say. Given what the committee has found, that the Public Service Association either did not know or decided not to raise it with me, is a matter that really does surprise me. I think it is really important that we, in a careful, informed and qualitative as well as quantitative way, ascertain the views of current Sheriff's Officers.

Mr PICTON: Following from this, is the Attorney or the Chief Justice aware of the level of staff turnover in Sheriff's Officers in terms of resignations or dismissals over the past five years.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will start in response to that question. In short, no. Of course, I have been in this job for 2½ of those five years, so I am not familiar with anything before that. To the best of my knowledge, apart from an issue that was raised by the member for Frome in respect to a Sheriff's Office matter, I do not recall any other matters being raised with me.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I am not aware of the numbers. Again, in all the disclosed material that I saw I did not see reference to a high turnover, but you have to remember that there are 120 Sheriff's Officers all-up for the last financial year and this financial year just gone. Some of them are permanent, many of them are casual, and so they might be coming or going, leaving or staying for all sorts of reasons.

I forgot to mention, and I think this is really important, that in just this year our human resources department administered a particular test or survey tool developed by La Trobe University called the Participant Hazard and Identification Risk Management Toolkit. The committee was given this, but it is not in the body of its report. Of the 120 Sheriff's Officers, 94 responded.

There were 10 basic concerns, which they identified as being a risk or hazard in the workplace. I have combined some of them but, as you would expect, number one was coping with unhappy people, lack of opportunity for new skills and promotion was another and lack of variety and repetitive work was another. That is just in the nature of the work of Sheriff’s Officers, and you can see why those matters would contribute to a stressful workplace in which they work.

Lack of facilities was another, and people getting things done without following all the correct procedures, and the 10^th was people not being treated fairly, but that related to the number of hours they were given because they are casual, so it was an extra-hours problem that they had identified. Harassment and bullying in administering this tool, which has been designed to identify risk factors for harassment and bullying, was not on the top 10 list.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chief Justice. Through the Attorney, what is the total establishment number of Sheriff's Officers, how many of them have been subject to disciplinary proceedings in the past five years and how many instances of leave have been taken due to stress or mental health issues?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Chief Justice?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The full complement, as I said a moment ago, as of 30 June 2019 was 120. That is what was funded, but there were actually 114 in place at the time. As of June 2020, it was 122, but the actual FTE was 120.8. The actual number, because there is part-time work, is 150.

Over the last 10 years, there were 11 internal reviews in the Sheriff's Office—requests for internal review of a disciplinary decision—and I do not know what the results were for that. Only three of them sought an external review, which I said earlier may have been in an employment tribunal some years ago; it might have been something else. There were four unfair dismissal applications in the last decade. I will take the rest of the question on notice.

Mr PICTON: They are people who have appealed a disciplinary action, but you are not sure, or you will take on notice, how many disciplinary proceedings there have been or how many people have been on stress or mental health leave.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, I will take those on notice. Can I put it this way: of the few matters that were disclosed to me, in terms of disciplinary proceedings and about which complaints of procedural fairness were made, many of them actually admitted the misconduct that was alleged, so those people would not have sought internal or external review, plainly enough. I do not know how many people who did not admit the misconduct then took it up with internal reviews as a proportion of the total number of disciplinary actions. What was disclosed, what I have seen, is not huge. I would think that the number of internal reviews is probably a higher proportion of the number of disciplinary proceedings, but I will have to take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: I refer to the same budget line. Has the State Courts Administrator, Ms Julie-Anne Burgess, previously had her contract extended twice? Was the most recent time to assist with the transition to the new Electronic Court Management System?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Is the current State Courts Administrator contract being timed to end when the new Electronic Court Management System is fully implemented?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, it will be shortly after. We expect the criminal component to be implemented September 2020-21, and the contract expires at the beginning of 2023.

Mr PICTON: The start of 2023 is when the contract for the administrator expires?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, 8 January 2023.

Mr PICTON: Were there any other factors taken into account in relation to that extension other than the new court system?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Do you mean as a reason to extend?

Mr PICTON: Correct.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, but only to the extent that Ms Burgess's competence and service were obviously taken into account. We had no difficulty in extending her employment to ensure the full implementation of ECMS, confident in her administration of the authority.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the committee, I might just add that the position of the State Courts Administrator is an appointment made by the Governor. I indicate that the Chief Justice's explanations on those questions are within the envelope of his recommendation to me to present that to cabinet.

Mr PICTON: Is it correct that that was recently extended? My understanding is the previous expiry date was January 2021; is that correct? And now it is 2023.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The position is that it is due to expire shortly. There has been no extension.

Mr PICTON: I thought the Chief Justice just said that it is now expiring in January 2023.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is a recommendation that has been put to my office for the position to be extended to 2023. It has not yet been presented to cabinet.

Mr PICTON: In your consideration of that recommendation, will you consider the issues raised by the report into the Sheriff's Office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the current matter, that may well be a consideration for cabinet, but at this stage it is not before cabinet.

Mr PICTON: Specifically, does the State Courts Administrator have responsibility over industrial workplace issues in the Courts Administration Authority?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: So presumably that would be a factor in terms of consideration?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think they are all matters that are canvassed in the actual SARC report as to areas of responsibility. There are obviously some recommendations as to who should have responsibility for those matters in the future and some apparent plight to have that brought within the public sector.

It appears from what I have read of the report to date that there is some consideration given to other jurisdictions. It is not clear from the report that I have read so far whether the Sheriff or Sheriff's Officers have actually been asked whether they would like to be moved. In any event, they are all matters that will be looked at, as the Chief Justice has pointed out, from his perspective and also from the government perspective in their response.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I can say this: in the material that was disclosed to me, I went through the way in which a number of disciplinary complaints were conducted by the State Courts Administrator or her delegate. I can only speak on the face of the documentation of those disciplinary proceedings.

Save for one matter, which I brought to the attention of the committee and which they have included in their report, there was nothing that would cause me to hesitate renewing Ms Burgess' contract. I carefully went through each of the matters that was disclosed, the open ones and, save for that one matter, I saw no evidence that Ms Burgess had not acted appropriately on the face of that documentation. That one matter would not cause me and does not cause me to hesitate in recommending her reappointment.

I have not seen the material that we have only had a peek into, which the committee has, that there is a really big issue here, which is why I asked the committee to consider disclosing the documents to me. I cannot not employ someone nor can I dismiss someone on material that is anonymous. If the committee thinks that there is a reason in something they have seen which I have not, then it should be formulated as a particular proposition and the material provided to me. But on the material that is publicly available, not secretly given, I would not hesitate and do not hesitate in recommending the reappointment of Ms Burgess.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the Courts Administration Authority and particularly given this report from SARC, there are a number of issues in relation to allegations of workplace bullying, misconduct and cultural issues. I understand there are particular issues raised that these are pronounced in regional courts. In that light, is Mr Brian Morris still engaged by the Courts Administration or the council as a consultant to attend its meetings and provide a non-legal perspective on matters such as governance, finance and management?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just indicate that, apart from the one issue that was raised with me by the member for Frome, I have recently visited some of the regional courts, in particular, to announce at Port Pirie the government's extra security provision, and Port Pirie, Berri, Mount Barker, Murray Bridge and Whyalla are five regional locations of significant upgrade. Whilst I had conversations with a number of security officers, those issues have not been raised directly with me.

I also regularly meet with the Chief Magistrate, who has the responsibility for, in number, most of the courts scattered around the regional areas, some of which host superior court circuit attendances and the like, and it has not been raised by her. Nor have I received anything from my regular meetings with the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge or any other heads of jurisdiction, that are relevant to those matters. Obviously, as Attorney-General, I am also responsible for the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is not within the CAA but which has a role dealing with the public in dispute resolution and also has security matters to consider from time to time. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been a matter that has been raised with my office, but I will invite the Chief Justice if he has heard of any concerns in relation to regional South Australia.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Two of the serious disciplinary matters that occupied some of the attention of the committee concerned Sheriff's Officers in Mount Gambier, one of whom drew and posted an appallingly sexually offensive purported parking ticket and placed it on the windscreen wiper of a solicitor employed by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. When he did so, his fellow Sheriff's Officer was seen by that solicitor standing at the court door laughing. The clear inference is that they were both involved in doing that.

The only officer who was disciplined—and I think it might only have been a reprimand—was the one who drew the purported parking ticket and put it on the windscreen. He was very lucky to have simply been reprimanded, and the other Sheriff's Officer was very lucky not to have been disciplined himself. Years later, the Sheriff's Officer who drew this offensive parking ticket and the other Sheriff's Officer fell out, and an accusation was made by the one who put the ticket on the windscreen against the other, and that officer was disciplined and transferred to Mount Barker.

The other regional matter concerned a Sheriff's Officer in Port Pirie who made a complaint against the Senior Sheriff's Officer in Port Augusta about her discriminatory treatment of him. That complaint was dismissed but then a complaint was brought against the Port Pirie officer for deliberately and mischievously making the complaint, and that was found proven.

That is the one matter that concerned me that I mentioned earlier and I have acknowledged to the committee was not appropriate; that is, to bring a disciplinary complaint against someone for bringing a disciplinary complaint is not appropriate, and I acknowledged that. I informed the State Courts Administrator of my view about that as soon as I realised that that was what happened.

To come back to your question, that indicates a real issue about management of sheriffs in regional locations. The problem is that they report to managers, ultimately, in Adelaide because of the small numbers in the regions. I have been wondering about whether we can improve the management of Sheriff's Officers in the regions through the registrar of the courts, who is not in the formal sheriffs' hierarchy but might nonetheless be a circuit-breaker.

To repeat what was said to me by a former regional magistrate—and I will keep his confidence—what happens is that one Sheriff's Officer rings the manager in Adelaide and says, 'He said, she said,' then the other Sheriff's Officer rings the manager in Adelaide and says the converse, and the Sheriff's Officer in Adelaide has to sort it out. That, to me, is an unsatisfactory position and we are all thinking about what we can do to improve it. So that is the question about regional.

I am not sure what Mr Morris's connection with that is but, yes, he is employed as a consultant but his job is to sit with us on council, review all the council documents, interrogate us, challenge us about our approach on certain things and obviously bring his accounting experience to bear.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I apologise; I have just got here because we had a death in our family yesterday, so I am sorry I am late. Further to the member for Kaurna's question, with the investigations for supporting claims by sheriffs of bullying to the CAA members, can you tell me how many were done and how many came back in favour of the sheriff who made the bullying claim?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Member for Frome, thank you for joining us and I am sorry to hear of your bereavement. The Chief Justice has outlined quite a detailed process about what was in mind in relation to the outstanding claims, as agreed to the committee to provide answers to that on notice. I will just refer to him in case there is anything else in your question in addition to the issues that were previously raised.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I will have to take on notice as to the exact numbers. Can I just say that, again on the material that I have seen—the publicly open material—the complaints are more about particular incidents than about general harassment or bullying, but I can get you numbers on particular incidents.

It is the kind of complaint that says, 'I was in this common room. Sheriff's Officer A walked past and pushed me and he was angry at the time.' That was a complaint made by a supervising sheriff or a manager about a Sheriff's Officer, not the other way around. I am struggling to think, on the material that I have seen, whether there was ever an accusation of a manager either pushing or in any other way assaulting or yelling at a sheriff. I might be wrong but I just cannot bring it to mind at the moment.

The sort of complaint that has been made by sheriffs about managers has been more along the lines of unfair treatment—that is, not treating everyone the same, whether it is in terms of working conditions or whether they are allowed to go out for a smoke or not and things of nature. I will get the numbers and respond in writing.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have another question, if I may, Mr Chairman. Are the investigations put out to tender or is it the same firm or person who does all the investigations on behalf of the CAA against any bullying claims?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just indicate again, member for Frome, that there has been a proposal set out to the committee already, but I will invite the Chief Justice to repeat some of that for your benefit.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There is a panel and selections are made from the panel. The numbers vary. There is one particular investigator who has had a significant number more than others, but that would be affected depending on where the investigation is and whether the investigator is prepared to travel there. It depends on their availability. If they are new and they are starting up, they will get more.

Can I say this: again, under the cloak of secrecy, an allegation was made to the committee that there was a special relationship between the State Courts Administrator and one of those investigators. The State Courts Administrator denied that on oath. Nothing was put to her in any sort of particularity to support the allegation and yet the allegation is still published in the committee's report. It has been denied under oath by the State Courts Administrator and I have not seen anything from the committee that would cause me to doubt her sworn testimony.

Mr PICTON: Further to that, I understand the Chief Justice has said when he was before the committee that extra funding, especially within the regional courts, would assist with altering workplace culture and assist with bullying and harassment issues faced by the authority. Has the administration authority been provided with sufficient resources to tackle the issue of bullying and harassment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not read all the transcripts that support the report as a result of the inquiry by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, but I think I have just comprehensively heard today a suggestion to the committee by the Chief Justice that the level of bullying and harassment that has been referred to therein is not accepted.

That being the case, I would find it unusual to find a statement. I am happy to have a look at the report and you can indicate to me if there is a direct quote that says that to be able to deal with the bullying and harassment cases that apparently are denied, he needs more resources. It seems rather inconsistent to me, but I am happy for you to reference it.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I just say that I am not denying it; I am just making the obvious point that I have not seen confidential material. The material I have seen is not indicative of that; it is more indicative of particular incidents of disciplinary conduct.

Everyone would like more money to do things better. I would love to have a bundle of money to start retraining that would start with Sheriff's Officers, so that their job and focus is oriented towards, as I said to the committee, being client services officers. For many of them there could be that orientation; it is a bit trickier for those people who have to handle prisoners.

That would be expensive. I do not have the current resources to do it, the Courts Administration Authority does not. I would love to have that to roll out a full training program, and I am sure many departments would. Whether I make a request for that sort of funding will be informed by the discussions with Sheriff's Officers and the survey and what is reported back from the grievance mechanism—which, I hope, will be established very quickly.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. There is clearly no funding in this budget to deal with the training and workplace culture issues that were identified. In terms of the—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just respond—

Mr PICTON: Sorry, Attorney; if I can just ask the question—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, you have made a statement to that effect—

Mr PICTON: No—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just want to be clear; I think the Chief Justice has made it clear that he has not asked for that at this point, but he may indeed do that once he has undertaken his review of the matter. I am not sure how there would be extra funding in for something that has not been asked for.

Mr PICTON: Quite clearly—and I am happy to read the transcript, if you like—the Chief Justice did make comments. However, I am not intending to get into an argument: I am trying to ask a question, Attorney, which is the purpose of this exercise.

Given those issues, there has not been any additional funding—which, I think, is quite clear now. The Chief Justice has raised issues today in terms of setting up a new grievance process, bringing in consultants to undertake a survey. Will they be provided with additional funding from the state government or will the Courts Administration Authority have to find funding for that from within its own resources?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At this stage there has not been any request for funding for consultants or otherwise. If you have a look at the annual report of the Courts Administration Authority, you will see that considerable money is spent, as part of their budget each year, for consultants. There were a number of those in the 2020 report, for example, with nearly a million dollars on recruitment consultancies.

It has a budget for consultancies, depending on what it wants to use it for. I have heard the Chief Justice give an indication of a proposed course of action that he would like to take to review and then consider matters that have been raised before the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, and to consider those recommendations. If I receive something it will, of course, be considered.

The CHAIR: If I can interrupt, we are due to finish this examination at 2 o'clock.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, sir. I am trying to use the time efficiently. Going back to Mr Morris, how was he engaged for his role assisting the council? Was he engaged through an open procurement process or a tender? Is he a consultant? Is he full time? What are his expenses, and where does the money for that come from?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will ask the Chief Justice or one of his advisers to answer that.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: He receives $10,000 annually. I asked her—I am not sure whether it was Ms Burgess or Mr Thompson before her—to approach Mr Morris. I knew him because he regularly gives evidence in court in commercial matters, and I valued his intellect and understanding. I thought he would do the job well. It was not an open process. He was approached, and he has served the council very well in what must be six or so years now, maybe more. He has provided great assistance, for $10,000. He enjoys it.

Mr PICTON: When he sits on the Courts Administration Council meetings, what is his function and role, his purpose, there?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: He does not vote. As I said earlier, he is there to test our approach, to challenge us, to question us, and to provide his experience from private enterprise and his work as an accountant. Can I just say that Mr Pearce, who is sitting behind me, has now served the Courts Administration Authority for a decade and has been at estimates committee hearings in all that time, and this will be his last one. We had thought that he might get on the tram and go home directly after this, but we are going to need him for a bit longer. I just want to acknowledge his excellent service to the Courts Administration Authority and to this house through his attendance here.

Mr PICTON: I share that acknowledgement, and I am sure he will miss coming to estimates committees in the future.

The CHAIR: Thank you for that, Chief Justice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Given that statement, if there are any last questions you think Mr Pearce might be able to assist the committee, I am sure he would love one last question. No? You are relieved, Mr Pearce, and thank you for your service.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Chief Justice. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Courts Administration Authority complete.