Attorney-General's Department, $182,398,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $72,300,000

Minister:

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

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.

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

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

The CHAIR: The next portfolio to be examined is the Attorney-General's Department and State Records. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Attorney, do you wish to make a statement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. Can I confirm that the monetary amount you identified is not all for State Records but in fact for the entire Attorney-General's Department. I indicate that joining me today is the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department, Ms Caroline Mealor.

The advisers also available to support the committee information are Mr Andrew Swanson, the Chief Financial Officer—I think he is also in charge of people and performance and has a very long, flash title, but in any event he is in charge of the money; Mr Adam Kilvert, who is the Executive Director of Policy and Community; and Mr Darren Corcoran, who is the Director of Financial Services.

Can I open by again indicating my appreciation to the Attorney-General's Department. There are two outstanding issues for which they need recognition this year; one is the service to the whole of government and the community in respect of the response to COVID-19. Whilst the Attorney-General's Department is an agency that is not required to be available to support other areas of government in a circumstance such as this, it did so willingly and has been of great assistance to other agencies.

Advice on urgent legislation in relation to emergency management in other areas, particularly by the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Solicitor-General's Office, has been immeasurable, together with the support of a number of our other agencies, including Forensic Science and the like, which has had to deal with issues such as autopsies and circumstances where there has been extra call upon our agencies.

The deaths of people in South Australia during this period have needed to be monitored carefully, especially if they may have been a carrier of COVID-19 and/or for example the daily scrutiny in relation to any potential suicide cases that may be identified. This is all extra work that is undertaken by agencies, including the Coroner's Office, to assist in all the different facets that relate to this emergency. Sometimes they go unnoticed, but I place on the record my appreciation to so many of the services within the Attorney-General's Department.

The second area relates to the fact that the Premier has given me the delightful opportunity to be the Minister for Planning and Local Government. That new-found obligation has brought with it a whole lot of new challenges and, most importantly for my chief executive, another 230-odd staff and about another $290 million, so there is extra work for her as well as the department. Again, I think the department has taken up those challenges in respect of the ministerial responsibility changes under the governance arrangements, and I thank them for that.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, do you wish to make a statement at all?

Mr PICTON: I have no statement, thank you, sir. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 13, the ministerial office resources. In 2019-20, did the Attorney or her staff use any public resources for the purpose of personal legal matters, as occurred in the previous financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not exactly sure what you are referring to there. I employ staff in my office, through the ministerial office budget, with total salaries for 2021 of $2.292 million. That excludes my personal salary. There are 19 full-time equivalents and there are currently 11.5 FTEs employed under the Public Sector Act out of the budget of 13 FTEs, so in fact I have less than a full complement, I suppose.

Nevertheless, in this last financial year I also have an additional four FTEs who have transferred to my office as a result of the Planning in Local Government machinery of government changes I just referred to. I am pleased to say they have been welcomed and are undertaking the new areas of ministerial responsibility in my office. As part of the restructure in my office, two other personnel, who are non Public Sector Act employees, are undertaking work in relation to those two new areas, that is, local government and planning.

The CHAIR: Before I give you the call, I am going to ask the member for Schubert and the member for Newland to desist from chatting during the committee.

Mr PICTON: Excellent call, Chair. Thank you for restraining them. You did not quite answer the question whether any of those staff have conducted or used any public resources for the purpose of personal legal matters in the past financial—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Personal legal matters?

Mr PICTON: Correct, yes.

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

Mr PICTON: As opposed to when you conducted some personal legal matters through your office, as we previously discussed in the last estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not accept that characterisation of the matters that were raised in the previous estimates, which were as hollow as they are now.

Mr PICTON: It is almost a year and a half since the last estimates hearing. Has the Attorney reconsidered any of her answers to questions on that topic in which she replied, 'Not that I am aware of,' or, 'Not that I recall'?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 22, which is to increase the victims of crime levy from 1 January 2021. In relation to the Victims of Crime Fund, what is the projected balance for each of the years in the forward estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To clarify, the proposed increase from 1 January 2021 is 50 per cent. For example, the main VOC levy fee is $60 currently. That would increase to $90, but that increase will be at the 10-year anniversary since it was last increased in 2011, when the previous government increased it by 100 per cent. The estimated increase to the revenue of the fund will be $9.2 million per annum once implemented.

I am advised that for the half year, which will be for 2020-21, there will be an increase of an estimated $4.2 million, and I will take on notice the periods after that. I do not immediately have that available, but I will just check. The balance of the VOC Fund as at 31 October 2020 was $158.8 million. By comparison, the balance of the fund as at 30 June 2017, which was when the member for Kaurna's government was governing, was $270.6 million.

The member might be interested to know that, apart from the $146.4 million that was set aside from the fund and held in SAicorp to meet our obligations over the next 10 years in relation to the National Redress Scheme—and, quite frankly, I was very proud that our Premier in one of the first acts of government signed up to that—in addition, there has been an increase from $25.7 million in 2016-17 to $35 million in 2019-20 for payments that have been made from the VOC Fund.

It seems that I have also been a bit more generous in relation to the compensation payments that have been approved, which have increased from $13.3 million in 2016-17 to $19.9 million in 2019-20, and the average compensation has increased from $12,400 in 2016-17 to $17,000 in 2019-20. I am not always known for my generosity in lots of things—

Mr PICTON: No.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —but it seems in this area I have far outstripped my predecessor in relation to compensation. I remind the member that one of the other important aspects of this fund is to support a number of services that are funded.

To give you an update on the money that is coming out of that fund, $2,436,819 over two years is to be paid to Relationships Australia SA for the counselling of victims of crime, $2.01036 million over four years to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service (Legal Services Commission) and $1.661 million over four years to the 24/7 Domestic Violence Gateway at the SA Housing Trust.

There will be $954,000 over three years to Yarrow Place Country Response Program under the Women and Children's Health Network, $375,000 over three years to the Yarrow Place forensic medical services at the Women's and Children's Health Network, $125,035 to the forensic Victims' Register for the North Adelaide Local Health Network (that is a year's payment), $125,000 for a year's payment to the Office for Women for the Family Safety Framework and $8,000 for the Homicide Victim Support Group. It will receive $9,003, I am advised, in 2020-21, with some carryover.

That gives you some indication of the expansion of and some of the continued services that the Victims of Crime Fund provides for, in addition to direct payments to the victims themselves and ex gratia payments that come before me.

Mr PICTON: I am sure that was the answer to some question, but it was not the answer to the question I asked, which was specifically: what is the projected balance for each of the years in the forward estimates of the fund? You have mentioned $158 million, but what are the projected estimates over the forward estimates?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether the member for Kaurna is not listening, but I said right at the beginning that I provided this year's figures and I indicated that I would provide further information. I do not have it here today, but I was hoping this other information would be useful. I will just check with my chief executive in case she has those immediate numbers. No, we do not have them with us today.

The CHAIR: So the Attorney is taking that on notice, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. How much was in the Victims of Crime Fund prior to the 2019-20 budget when you slashed $1.2 million per annum from the Victim Support Service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry, what date are you asking for a balance?

Mr PICTON: Prior to the 2019-20 budget.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So prior to the budget delivery for this 2020-21 year?

Mr PICTON: The previous year, when you slashed $1.2 million per annum from the Victim Support Service.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So we are back in June 2019; is that what we are talking about?

Mr PICTON: Correct.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will have to take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: How much was in the fund when you again slashed funding from the Victim Support Service this year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thought I had provided it as at 31 October 2020. I think the balance as at 30 June 2020, if it is not directly in the full budget—I do not have that information before me. I think I have just provided you with October 2020, but if you want a date as at 30 June 2020, I will need to take that on notice. It may be somewhere else in the budget but I am not sure.

Mr PICTON: In your very long statement earlier, you mentioned $2.4 million is being provided to Relationships Australia. Is it correct that that is a significant reduction compared to the support that was previously given to the Victim Support Service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Victim Support Service, as the member would well know—I think we canvassed this last year—was providing other services for the funding it received. Counselling was then put out to tender and we went through that, and the other services have been accommodated in the Commissioner for Victims' Rights office, and she has been given extra funding to accommodate those services.

Mr PICTON: How much extra money has she been provided?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take the detail of that on notice. Specifically, there was $250,000 to deal with the extra services. Some of that included, from memory, assistance with the preparation of victim impact statements, which was a service that was from time to time offered by the Victim Support Service. The Commissioner for Victims' Rights has advised the government—and I know I have reported it to the parliament before but I am happy to report it to this committee as well—that there was significant overlap of services provided.

She has undertaken to look at that but is yet to give a final report on how that should be restructured. Instead, what has occurred to date is that Relationships Australia SA has provided its service in relation to counselling, including across regional parts of South Australia. Just as an update, there are nine physical locations: Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Port Adelaide, Marion, Salisbury, Elizabeth, St Agnes, Berri and the newly opened office in Mount Gambier. A tenth physical location will be established in Port Augusta next month.

This is an organisation that has been providing services for 70 years. It also has an outreach visiting service provided at Gawler, Noarlunga, Clare, Loxton, Barmera, Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Port Augusta and Ceduna. The other services are currently in-house. She has rewritten a lot of material that is available for public education purposes, and I have seen some material which is excellent, and I invite members of the committee to review the online material available in that regard.

Another thing that has been sought is for another agency, Crime Stoppers SA, which is about to receive a significant amount of extra money. Crime Stoppers SA will receive $200,000 indexed annually to assist in improving safety and will include, in particular, methods to stop rural criminal activity. That has been announced in this year's budget and I am very pleased that that has been done.

As the member would know, Crime Stoppers is a longstanding not-for-profit organisation, which obviously supports crime fighting. It is not only a crime-fighting charity but it also helps police achieve cold case breakthroughs from time to time in high-profile cases. It is dedicated to assisting SAPOL in that regard. From memory, the call service is within SAPOL for Crime Stoppers.

I have had a number of meetings with representatives of this organisation, and it is the government's view that they provide a valuable service and their funding has therefore been extended in this year. As I say, in particular the rural criminal activity is a matter that needs some attention. In fact, just recently it was brought to my attention by the Outback Communities Authority—

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Mr Chair. I have been very patient. The Attorney was wrapping up, but she has gone way, way off the topic, which was asking about the Victims of Crime commissioner and the support being provided to her.

The CHAIR: I understand that, member for Kaurna.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It also pays for her office.

The CHAIR: I would remind all members that when questions are asked, the minister is able to answer in the way they see fit. I am sure you will come back to the question, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Yes, thank you. From what you have said, $2.4 million has been given to Relationships Australia, and an extra $250,000 has been given to the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. How does that compare to what has previously been given to the Victim Support Service? What was the total amount of money that was being given to the Victim Support Service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will have to go back to last year. The Victim Support Service funding amount for 2019-20 was $2.28 million. That was in last year's budget.

Mr PICTON: So there is an overall cut. Given the extra funding that you are receiving in relation to the victims of crime levy, will you reinstate funding to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That has already been provided to the Legal Services Commission, and it was in the list I just read out to you.

Mr PICTON: Do you have any data—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The service continues. It is being operated by the Legal Services Commission. One of the things that became evident in relation to that service is that that Victim Support Service, which is not a legal service, actually had a contract to provide the legal support service. In fact, I remember reading the contract when in opposition. It was actually on a social work contract. I am not quite sure how that worked but, in any event, I remember raising it with the former Attorney-General. When we came into office, that was a matter that was put out to tender.

From memory, I was advised after the tender process that the Legal Services Commission was the recommended body, but one of the other bodies, for example, was JusticeNet, which put in a proposal. I can't remember any others at the moment but, in any event, entities providing a legal service tendered for it and the Legal Services Commission was successful and is currently providing an excellent service.

The CHAIR: Before I go to the member for Kaurna, the Attorney may have extra information for that answer, or not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think there is anything else that could really assist. I think I have covered all the matters that would be helpful to the committee.

Mr PICTON: How much money is being provided to the Legal Services Commission to run the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service per annum compared to what that program was previously receiving?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just pull that up again: it is $2,081,036  over four years.

Mr PICTON: Is that more or less than what was previously being funded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would have to take that on notice, but I think it is the same. I am advised that, due to the ability of the Legal Services Commission to deliver a more efficient service, there are savings of over $150,000.

Mr PICTON: There you go.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was made in 2019-20, with savings increasing to $205,000 annually from 2020-21. It shows what can be done when you put something out to tender with someone who has a service, bearing in mind, for the Legal Services Commission, as perhaps other parties might have been able to put, this is their core business. It is unsurprising to me that they can provide a more efficient service. That is not to say that the former service at VSS was a bad service in any way, but they are not legal advisers.

Mr PICTON: Do you have any data to demonstrate the success of the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service since you transferred it with less funding to the Legal Services Commission than under its previous incarnation? More specifically, is it run better or worse since you have put in a new provider with less funding?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have regular meetings with Gabrielle Canny and Mr Jason Karas, who is the new Chair of the Legal Services Commission. Most of his are online from Hong Kong, no doubt because of his international work and COVID. The information I have about the service, since it has been undertaken by Legal Services Commission, is that between 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020—the former full financial year—the service provided a total of 1,201 service activities to 845 clients, including 318 provisions of information and/or referrals, 630 provisions of legal advice and/or minor assistance, 69 duty lawyer attendances and 184 legal representations. I am not sure I can give any comparison to the VSS because, bear in mind, they did not have the lawyers for legal representation. So it seems as though the Legal Services Commission for less money are doing more.

Mr PICTON: Is there any unmet need for the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service now that it is being provided by the Legal Services Commission with less funding?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I have been advised. I have not had any request from the Legal Services Commission. They have undertaken a number of extra roles. More recently, for example, they had some commonwealth funding to provide a service for bushfire victims in the Yorke Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Adelaide Hills regions. They do take up the opportunity to provide services when required. I meet with Ms Canny probably once a month, I think, and to date I have not had any indications from her that there is some requirement for extra funding for that service. It seems to be going very well, on the information that she has provided to me. Obviously, it is an important service, and that is why our government has continued it. I am very pleased the Legal Services Commission is operating it.

Mr PICTON: How do you respond to comments from former Attorney-General Chris Sumner, and I quote:

The fund is being used improperly and not in accordance with the purposes determined by Parliament…

The levy is no longer a levy imposed for the specific defined purpose of providing compensation and other assistance to victims of crime…

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not agree with it, but I have also had a meeting with Mr Sumner and invited him to, if he wishes, review the Auditor-General's Report.

Mr PICTON: The Law Society has issued public comments in relation to the 50 per cent increase to the victims of crime levy, and I quote:

…the Society maintains that there is scope to increase payments to eligible victims of crime claimants while still preserving the Fund.

In relation to that, the government says that the levy has not been increased since 2011. Therefore, will there be an immediate increase of payments to victims of crime?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is already happening. I think I have made that very clear. There is a very significant reduction in the account, so that is precisely what we are doing. I make no apology for the fact that we will require criminals to pay this levy into the fund, that after 10 years will increase by 50 per cent, at such modest amounts that are paid, to make that contribution.

I think I have outlined that there are very substantial benefits that come from this fund every year to meet the operations of the Commissioner for Victims' Rights and her division; secondly, to provide all those services that I have listed; and, thirdly, to provide for compensation and ex gratia payments. I am very proud that our government has made a commitment to that in addition to setting aside $146.4 million to ensure that victims of institutional child sexual abuse are able to recover funds.

In relation to that, I should point out to the committee that for South Australia the anticipated cost of participating in the scheme includes $9.8 million to deal with 114 accepted redress offers. I might point out, this is the scheme that the previous government refused to sign up to. In addition to payments for counselling and psychological care, the average payment to date is $86,267.98. Across Australia, there have been 7,000 applications, with average redress payments of $81,796. The extra payment in addition to the average of $86,267.98 has been an average payment for counselling and psychological care, being $4,210.11.

I point out that from time to time as Attorney-General I am asked to approve whether a victim or a claimant under that scheme should be able to receive a redress payment, notwithstanding that they may have committed criminal offences themselves and may or may not be in gaol. From time to time, the state Attorneys-General around Australia who have signed up to this scheme need to consider that.

I think probably I have had perhaps 10 or 12 of those applications. There is one I just received this morning, and as Attorney-General I am asked to consider whether they should receive that, notwithstanding that they have gone on in their life to commit offences themselves. As one might expect, quite often they are very serious offences and so there have been some that I have rejected. That can be ignored by the commonwealth when they make the application.

There are a couple of those cases where I have considered it not appropriate for the person to be given a redress payment because the nature of the crimes they have subsequently committed are so heinous that that would be inconsistent with public acceptance, but nevertheless the commonwealth felt that they should at least have some consideration. I am not the ultimate arbiter of that, but I do have an opportunity to make a contribution on behalf of South Australia.

Mr PICTON: How do you respond to comments from the former Attorney-General Chris Sumner, and I quote, 'The levy is a tax by another name,' and:

The Marshall Liberal Government has taken this to a new level. Not only is all the Fund not being spent on victims of crime but funding to victims has been cut.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as a comment. As I say, I have had a meeting with Mr Sumner and obviously we have different views.

Mr PICTON: How do you regard this 50 per cent—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I notice that he did not make those statements over the many years of the Labor administration, including his own, when the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Act applied. I remember that there was up to $1,000. In fact, I recall one case where I sought an application for a woman who was raped multiple times and the maximum was $1,000 under the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. All through the 1980s, when he was the Attorney-General and during the subsequent 16 years of the Labor government in this century, I do not recall that statement being made.

I probably made a few comments about it against the former government because I felt that there had been an inadequate level of payment. Attorney-General Atkinson seemed to ignore that, but Attorney-General Rau did eventually increase the maximum entitlement to a $100,000 payment. When I say he did, the parliament did, of course, but he brought it to the parliament. Unfortunately, he introduced a formula that is so convoluted that very few people get more than between $10,000 and $20,000.

Nevertheless, there was a doubling of the maximum available, clearly for the most serious offences, under that redress scheme. For the benefit of newer members of the committee, that is designed to be a fund of last resort. Nevertheless, it is often the only moneys available, as frequently those who commit crimes are of no means; they are men or women of straw. Therefore, we have this public fund to call upon to give some redress in a circumstance where they have had physical injuries. It is not a property damage fund.

Mr PICTON: How do you view this budget measure of a 50 per cent increase in the levy as consistent with the government's supposed commitment to reducing cost-of-living pressures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have said, I am not at all apologetic about the obligation for criminals to make this contribution.

Mr PICTON: They are all criminals?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is the criminals who pay the levy once they are convicted.

Mr PICTON: Or pay a fine or an expiation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is—and I think this is still the case—that the order of obligation to meet costs and fines and levies is that the compensation to the direct victim, if there is a court order to that effect, is the first charge, then I think the levy and then I think, thirdly, the fine, if there is a fine to apply, and then court costs. There may then be some other costs that a court will order, but largely the victim directly affected with the particular crime, if the judge or magistrate determines that there ought to be a specific order for compensation, can make that order. That is the first charge in order of obligation.

I recall that this was something I discussed with the fines and enforcement unit—whatever it is called; Mr Ovenstone is in charge of it—which is now a fines recovery unit plus an enforcement agency for a number of government departments, so it has had an expanded role. He was explaining to me about the order of obligation in that regard. So they can pay—tough!

Mr PICTON: The budget papers mention that the first full-year increase of this is going to deliver a $9.174 million increase to the fund. What is the total amount in 2021-22 that will be received in terms of the fund?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I gave you for the half year.

Mr PICTON: Presumably a 50 per cent increase would be, testing my maths, in the order of $27 million.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, but I think for the balance of the year, if it increases from 1 January—

Mr PICTON: Not the balance.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —it would be $4.2 million and a full year is to be $9.2 million per annum, once implemented.

Mr PICTON: Yes, but how much in total will be collected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In total? That would be $33,575,000 for the 2020-21 year, so that has a half year with the increase in it, then 2021-22, which will be the first full year, is $40,556,000.

Mr PICTON: How much was collected, estimated, in 2019-20, before the increase?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: $25,516,000.

Mr PICTON: Out of that funding, either for $25 million, if that is easier, or the $40 million for the future year, how much is collected by way of expiations and how much is collected by way of payments through courts after convictions, etc?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that on notice. I do not have that information before me.

Mr PICTON: There is no breakdown in terms of that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know, but I will take it on notice. If it is available, there is no reason why the committee cannot have it that I am aware of. My chief executive is nodding.

Mr PICTON: I presume a very significant amount of it is paid by expiations. You are saying that this is only paid by—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer to that. I know that we are increasing the levy. We have also—as we have already indicated previously, though not necessarily in this committee, so I will just repeat it for this purpose—proposed to remove the obligation for children to pay the victims of crime levy for several years now on a recommendation of former Judge Nyland when she undertook her institutional child sexual abuse inquiry. She recommended that there be at least a discretion of the courts not to impose a victims of crime levy. I do not think that since that time there has been a lot of revenue received from it, but we are proposing to abolish it.

Mr PICTON: You referenced earlier that criminals pay this. I presume you do not regard everybody who pays an expiation, particularly for road traffic issues, as a criminal, do you? That would be a very large percentage of the South Australian population.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I use that in a general way.

Mr PICTON: The Law Society issued a statement in relation to the changes to the levy and the 50 per cent increase. They noted that the fund generated $46 million during 2019-20, which is different from the $25 million figure you provided, so I guess I would question that. It had total expenses—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps it could be why there is such a diminishing balance, that I keep spending more than is coming in.

Mr PICTON: Well, the figures they had said you generated $46 million but you only spent $35 million, so this delivered a surplus of $11 million. Therefore, will increasing the levy not—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Before you go on, member for Kaurna, I might just stop you there. What you asked me was the revenue from the victims of crime levy. There are other recoveries, confiscations, interest and appropriation that go into the fund—I assume that is from the state Treasury—which total up to the $46.6 million that I think the Law Society is referring to.

Mr PICTON: They were pointing to that figure of $46 million, saying that the expenses were only $35 million and that there was a surplus of around $11 million. Won't increasing that by another $11 million just double the surplus but deliver no extra benefits to victims than what is already being provided?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member extrapolating the experience in the 2019-20 year as being evident of all years would be a mistake, particularly as we have had significant reduction in court work and other factors that would affect that. For example, I suppose it is hard to say but 2019-20 was quite a significant year of recoveries and confiscations, with over $5 million. The 2020-21 year is expected to drop down to $3.9 million. Interest was $6.9 million, close to $7 million, and for 2020-21 it is proposed to be $4.5 million. There is a similar amount of appropriation increasing slightly in those years, so I think to take the 2019-20 year as significantly applicable to the usual years would be a mistake.

Mr PICTON: As I understand it, the maximum criminal injury compensation payment was doubled from $50,000 to $100,000 under the previous Labor government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Are you going to increase that further?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no plan to do that. I think it is worth having a look at the formula that ultimately was implemented under that expansion because, in general, if I can put this as best as I see it, it moved from a maximum entitlement of $50,000 in a claim to $100,000, but it is a lot harder to get it. It was a bit like giving with one hand and taking a bit away with the other.

That still troubles me, but it is a matter I will have a look at in due course. It just seems to me, from the regular reports I get on what money is available in relation to these claims, that it is very difficult to be able to get a full amount, up to the $100,000. I think that is a matter worth looking at, particularly in circumstances where there is really no other chance of recovery.

Another thing we have looked at, and I am not sure where it has progressed at this point, is to ensure that we do not automatically seek recovery. The current scheme, if I can just explain it, has an expectation that the offender can be obliged to contribute all or part of that money back into the fund. That is, the victim gets paid the money but there is a capacity for it to be recovered from the offender. Frankly, that does not happen a lot because, very often, if people have committed a crime they are in custody or they do not have much income or they do not have any assets to seek; that is not always available.

However, under consideration is the question about whether we do that in a circumstance where it might put the victim at risk; namely, it may enrage the offender that the victim has made a claim, and that could cause other problems. We are looking at how we can best protect a victim in those circumstances. For example, a person in a partnership—maybe a husband or a de facto partner—who assaults somebody and is in custody as a result does not have much income, and they get served with a notice of the claim. That just creates another factor that really causes more difficulty. So it is some relief in that regard.

Here we are; my ever efficient chief executive has pointed out to me the Victims of Crime (Offender Service and Joinder) Amendment Bill 2019 in which are those amendments to the Victims of Crime Act 2001 to remove the requirement in section 18 for the victim to serve a copy of the application for compensation on the offender:

This ensures that all communications with the offender occur after compensation has been paid and the matter finalised with the victim and will come directly from the Crown Solicitor's Office. The victim will have no need to make any kind of contact with the offender, reducing the risk of triggering renewed violence.

That has comprehensively set out what I was trying to say.

Mr PICTON: If you were talking to a victim who was looking at this increase of 50 per cent in the levy being collected by government, and they were saying, 'Well, why would you not increase the maximum amount payable by 50 per cent?', you would say, 'That is not under consideration at this time.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I would say, if I were asked about that matter, that, for the reasons I have outlined in the last 15 or 20 minutes, the fund is being drawn upon for valuable services increasing; secondly, for increased compensation payments; and, thirdly, for the provision of services and support to the redress scheme. I am proud of it, and I think that is beneficial for them. To try to extrapolate last year's income versus distribution as being effective, or in any way related to every year, is not something that provides any reliable outcome.

Mr PICTON: What is the projected surplus or deficit for the fund for this financial year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This year, I understand the estimate is, in round figures, $20 million, but we still need to do an update, apparently, of the VOC levy, which I previously indicated to you is expected to recover 33.579. I have no idea yet what the confiscations will be, but there is an estimate here of 3.9. I am told they have yet to be reviewed.

Mr PICTON: So for 2020-21 the estimate is a surplus of $20 million; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just indicating to you that is what is recorded there at present, but there are two of those components that need to be reviewed by Treasury.

Mr PICTON: So it might be slightly less than that, or more, or—

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

Mr PICTON: Do you have an estimate for any future years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will try to do the calculations on each of these but can I just indicate that I will take that on notice and provide for what future years we have.

Mr PICTON: Whose suggestion was it to increase the levy by 50 per cent?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We review levies, fines and those matters from time to time. I cannot recall specifically, but that was one aspect that had not been reviewed. If it was introduced to be an increase next year, it would be 10 years since it had last been reviewed.

Mr PICTON: But was it your suggestion, or Treasury?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot recall but I will make some inquiry if it is able to be located. It was certainly put to me at the time as being an opportunity to be reviewed on the basis that it had not been since 2011.

Mr PICTON: And who put that to you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I just said, I do not recall.

Mr PICTON: Did you make any commensurate requests to increase the amount being provided to victims when that was put to you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, no, I think I have answered all those questions. We had, after years and years of asking for an increase, a new scale that was introduced by the former Attorney-General so that the maximum allowed was up to $100,000. I still think the formula of application has some aspects that seem to result in the fact that very few people are actually able to benefit from that increase. Still, on the data that is before me, as a result of this, we end up with a large proportion of all claims being between $10,000 and $20,000.

I have not done any forensic assessment of which of those should perhaps have been at a higher level. All I recall is that at the time we debated this, there was much accolade given to the increase to $100,000 but very little seemed to translate after that into availability for claimants. It is just one of those long to-do list matters to have a look at.

Mr PICTON: You mentioned before, in relation to the women's domestic violence court advocacy scheme, that it was not a provider of legal services. Are you aware that the Victim Support Service had fully qualified lawyers in the women's domestic violence court advocacy scheme?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was, yes.

Mr PICTON: So it was providing legal services?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just indicating that the Victim Support Service was not a provider of legal services as its core business; it was a counselling and support service, which is what it is there for. As you know, it was established back in 1979. As the former Attorney-General reminded me, he was advocating for this during the 1970s where there had been a development of that. He commended the previous Liberal government—probably an LCL government that far back—for actually introducing a compensation benefit to parties.

That could have been in 1981 but, in any event, from what he told me, it was a matter which he had advocated for. The Tonkin Liberal government actually established the VSS which, as an agency, has operated ever since. It has had a long history and has provided a valuable service to the community as has Relationships SA when the matter went out to tender. Relationships SA has a 70-year history, significantly also in counselling services.

As I have said, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights has undertaken a body of work to make sure that we do reduce the overlap and also ensure that we provide a comprehensive suite of services. One matter which clearly seemed to be inconsistent with the charter of VSS was the provision of legal services. I was aware that at least one lawyer had been employed for the purposes of assisting in that service but this was not a new issue of concern. I had raised it with the former Attorney-General.

There are of course aspects in the provision of a service which get dangerously close to breaching the Legal Practitioners Act if people who are not legally qualified are supporting or providing legal services. But, yes, I was aware that VSS had employed a lawyer—or more than one. I think it was only one but it may have been one full-time equivalent or something of that nature. I am not saying they did not provide a valuable support to people at court, but it was a matter that we felt, quite appropriately, should be the provision and purview of a legal service provider.

Accordingly, a tender went out and the Legal Services Commission was successful. They provide multiple services at multiple court sites. In fact, we have 27 court sites around South Australia and another four that relate to joint police and court facilities in regional South Australia. We have a lot of services that are needed in Adelaide and regional South Australia.

Of course, the Legal Services Commission is a statewide commission. It provides services in regional towns and outreach services and has lawyers who attend individually for hearings, so it was unsurprising really that they were able to provide a comprehensive service, as I have pointed out, even more cheaply with further services with the data that I have outlined. At the moment, it seems we are getting that particular service more comprehensively and for less money.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the Victim Support Service, which obviously lost its contract and less funding is being provided now to Relationships Australia, is it correct that Relationships Australia, as the new provider, had not previously specialised in victims services but it did offer a lower price?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The recommendation came to me as a result of a panel that was employed for the purpose of the review of the tender. I will ask the chief executive if she wants to make any contribution about the tender process. I will perhaps ask the chief executive to outline the tender process because she is in charge of those matters. I get the recommendation at the end.

Ms MEALOR: A competitive procurement process was undertaken to identify a service provider to deliver the counselling service. The service of providing the counselling had never been the subject of a tender process and so that was why government made a decision to go to market. As you know, Relationships South Australia won the tender. It has 70 years' experience in therapeutic trauma-informed counselling. As the Attorney already pointed out, obviously the service being provided is at a cheaper cost, which is obviously a good outcome.

Mr PICTON: How many regional offices closed when the Victim Support Service lost that contract?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I outlined that there had been a delay in the establishment of one at Mount Gambier, which has now opened, and a tenth is on its way to being established at Port Augusta next month. It currently delivers at nine physical locations in Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Port Adelaide, Marion, Salisbury, Elizabeth, St Agnes, Berri and the newly opened office in Mount Gambier.

The outreach visiting service is provided at Gawler, Noarlunga, Clare, Loxton, Barmera, Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Port Augusta and Ceduna. I visited the Relationships Australia office to view its online service capability last August and I directly spoke with a counsellor in Berri via videoconference to hear how COVID-19 was impacting the types of matters that were currently coming to the attention of RASA in the regional area.

They have a statewide network of services. I suppose, a bit like the Legal Services Commission, when you have a statewide structure and you are providing services to multiple areas and sites across the state, probably it is a little easier to be able to provide a more comprehensive service and that may well have weighed on the minds of those who make the recommendations on these selections to be able to provide that service. But that is not to diminish what work the VSS have done over the last 40 years in relation to the provision of counselling, and I thank them for their service.

The CHAIR: This is your final question, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I will have to re-ask it because the Attorney did not answer the question. Exactly which towns lost their Victim Support Service offices? In addition, how many of those regional towns that lost their Victim Support Service office have an in-person service available today, not online, not using outreach or drop-in once a month or something?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take it on notice. I do not think I can be any more prescriptive as to what was there. I recall at the time that there was not immediately available a provision at Mount Gambier, but that is now there and I am advised it has been operational. That was one that had previously provided a service. The VSS had a person who was there and that is the only one I can recall. The information I have is that it was on its way and it has now happened.

The CHAIR: Having reached 3pm, the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department complete. The committee will reconvene at 3.15pm.

Sitting suspended from 15:00 to 15:15.