Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $96,600,000

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 P. Croser, State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority.

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

Mr C. Black, Finance Manager, Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody, on a Monday to Estimates Committee A. I can advise that committee member the member for West Torrens has been discharged and the member for Kaurna has joined us. The member for Davenport has been discharged and the member for Newland has joined us. The member for Taylor has been discharged and the member for Enfield has joined us. I will make a brief opening statement.

The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition please confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings is accurate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, sir.

The CHAIR: Thanks, Attorney.

Mr PICTON: I believe so. I do not think I have any choice, though.

The CHAIR: No—well, as long as you have confirmed that earlier. I am sure it was agreed upon.

Mr PICTON: It was agreed amongst the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just confirm that there has been no change since the abortion of the proceedings as a result of the COVID lockdown. This is exactly the same timetable.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney, and member for Kaurna. I am up to just point 2 of my opening remarks. I will continue.

Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur, and I have already done such today. 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 24 September 2021.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker of the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes, should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. 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.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution. Statistical information of up to one page in length may be inserted in Hansard.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, via the IPTV network, parliament website and video-on-demand service. I am going to make a comment relating to masks: I suggest that members of the committee wear masks unless they are asking or answering questions.

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

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. To members of the committee, may I firstly indicate that I appear here for this portion of the estimates as the Attorney-General. To my right, I am pleased to have Chief Justice Mr Chris Kourakis also present. As members would be aware, under the Courts Administration Act the Chief Justice, as chair of the courts council, is the administrative head of the South Australian courts.

Behind me, to my right, is Ms Penny Croser, who is the relatively newly appointed State Courts Administrator, and we welcome her here to her first estimates and thank her for undertaking this role. Ms Linda South, who is directly behind me, is the Executive Director of Corporate Services, and Mr Chris Black is our money man as finance manager of the CAA.

I briefly indicate in opening that we have had another difficult year living with COVID-19 in South Australia, and I wish to place on the record my appreciation to the Chief Justice and all members of the judiciary and Courts Administration Authority for their extraordinary work during this time to keep those services available to the public. There has been, as with many areas of industry and public administration, the need to be flexible and undertake tasks. For our state courts, one of the most challenging has been the continued public interface with a number of the clients, witnesses and parties involved in court proceedings, and with that of course trials bring another level of challenge.

I would have to say that of all the administrative provisions, not directly in the Courts Administration Authority but in relation to the administration of justice, His Honour's member of his court Justice Judy Hughes, as Justice of the Supreme Court, heads SACAT (South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal). I would have to say that probably of all the parties that are providing services in this regard they have been able to maintain, almost without interruption, a continuous service, and I make a special acknowledgement of her.

I do not mean in any way to diminish the services of the other courts, because they have had added and different challenges, but I thank all those involved and the many hundreds of staff who are employed in the Courts Administration Authority to undertake that role. With that, I am happy to answer any questions of the committee.

The CHAIR: Does the lead speaker of the opposition wish to make any opening remarks, member for Kaurna?

Mr PICTON: No, other than to welcome the Chief Justice to again lower himself to our level of sitting through our estimates.

The CHAIR: I am sure he is pleased to be here, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I am sure. I am happy proceed to questions. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 130, which refers to the criminal jurisdiction of the Courts Administration Authority. I note that it says quite explicitly in the document that the reduction in expenditure is partly attributable this coming year to targeted savings strategies of $2.1 million, which are otherwise known as budget cuts of $2.1 million. How is the proper administration of justice supported by those $2.1 million of budget cuts referred to in the budget papers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could I start by asking the Chief Justice and/or our finance representative to outline to you the targeted savings strategies they have implemented.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I can say that primarily the reductions will be affected by reductions in staff. The total measures there are about $1.3 million. I have not worked out exactly the FTEs; I think they are somewhere around a dozen, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit under. Some of those we hope will not affect services because they have been enabled by the Electronic Court Management System, which has already been introduced for civil and will go live for criminal in February. The constraints, though, on our budget mean that, as with all budgets, savings that will be made there will not be able to be used to improve services; as you can see, most of it is coming from staff.

There is an anticipated saving of $200,000 in juror costs by reducing circuits. We cannot be certain of that. We have had a reduction in juror costs for circuits because of COVID disruptions. The District Court does most of those, so there would be some level of doubt about whether we effect that saving and, if we do not, it will have to be found elsewhere.

The other major cut is $300,000 in CPI withdrawals, which has just been allocated pro rata across all cost centres. That will have an effect. Goods and services are down by $136,000, $50,000 of that in IT hardware, which is a concern because we are going to a full electronic model, but hopefully we can manage that by being frugal and sensible about those things. There is an internal audit reduction of $25,000, but we have a strong internal audit function chaired by an independent forensic accountant, so that should be fine.

There is a $50,000 reduction in intervention services. That is to do with our special courts that provide support for people on the drug program, mental health program or domestic violence program, but those cuts should not affect services. If in other areas the savings strategies are not met or if we have cost pressures—and we will certainly have cost pressures—we may need to look at other cuts in intervention services and across the board. In summary, that is where the reductions are being made.

Membership:

Mr Brown substituted for Ms Wortley.

Mr PICTON: The Chief Justice mentioned a reduction in staff of $1.3 million. Do you have a breakdown of what staff positions they will be?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It varies from senior management. Some of it is part of management restructure. For quite some years now we have been flattening our management structure, and that will continue. So some is there and some reductions are in registry staff. That is the area where the ECMS hopefully will mean that will not be affecting services.

There is a reduction in some court transcription and our facilities officer. Court transcription will just be natural attrition; they are a very valuable part of our workforce. As it turns out, one of our facilities officers is required on a special project planning for future court buildings, so she will be with us, but she will be paid out of another budget line for that.

Mr PICTON: The budget papers show estimated result to the FTEs of 428 reducing down to 387. You mentioned about a dozen or so, but that seems to suggest a reduction of 41 staff.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We were at 686 FTEs down to 609, but it will not be that level of reduction because we will have a carryover for about 40 staff working on the Electronic Court Management System (ECMS). We had anticipated that that would be finished by now, which is why there was an expected reduction, but we had a surplus in our operating budget for this year and we have carried that over to support the ECMS employees until the job is finished, as I said, sometime after go live in perhaps about March next year. But I am not sure about the 400 figure.

Mr PICTON: This was just in the criminal jurisdiction sub-program.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Sorry, that is a breakdown. That is part of the 600, and I cannot tell you how that particularly breaks down.

Mr PICTON: Is it possible to take that on notice?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, it is.

Mr PICTON: In terms of the circuit courts and reducing the circuits, you mentioned $200,000. What is the impact of that? Where are those circuits being reduced across the state?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: This is based on assumptions as to what has been happening over the last year. That is what I meant when I said that we cannot be certain about this saving. If there is a demand and waiting lists and backlogs increase, then that money will have to go back in. If we do not find money elsewhere and the demand for those circuits is there and we have to put circuit courts out with jurors, then either there will still have to be a backlog and waiting time or else we have to cut elsewhere.

Mr PICTON: So this is reflective of what has happened over the past year in terms of circuits?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The estimate is to us thinking that we can make a saving that is based on what we have seen, numbers being committed and the like. I cannot drill down as to exactly how that estimate was made.

Mr PICTON: Over the past year, what has been the reduction in circuits that has happened?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I cannot tell you; I will have to take it on notice. That would be part of the working formula that went into the $200,000.

Mr PICTON: Where is the $50,000 for the intervention services going to come from?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Sorry, I said that was circuits. It is not just circuits; it is all courts.

Mr PICTON: So where is the $50,000 for intervention services coming from specifically?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That would be mostly a saving found with our external providers, I think. I am not sure about that. That is in our contracting arrangement with external providers of services, whether it is a counselling program or a urine testing program, that sort of thing. Yes, I have a nod that it is that sort of saving.

Mr PICTON: The intervention programs will continue, but you would be reducing the amount of counselling or testing—

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, or we have managed to negotiate a better price for it with an external provider.

Mr PICTON: Has that negotiation started?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, and from looking at contracts and expected usage and the like, that is an estimate of what we think we can save. There are other options to make bigger savings, if they are necessary, but that would result in reductions in programs or numbers of participants in programs.

Mr PICTON: If you do not have it with you, perhaps you could take on notice whether there is any breakdown of what you are expecting that $50,000 to be down from?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We can take that on notice, yes.

Mr PICTON: You mentioned that if there are cost pressures, which almost certainly there are going to be, there will be additional need to look at that budget.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes. One of the cost pressures will be—and it will not be surprising to some members here—to improve our leadership and our leadership training, and we may need to recruit for that and have money for programs.

Mr PICTON: So there would be an additional impact upon those intervention services, if that occurred.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We will have to find the money somewhere. I suppose the only point I am making is that we looked at these programs to make the savings we have, to meet the cut we have to meet this year, and obviously we look at them to see if there is anything further we can live with—there is no fat but anything further we can live with—to meet the cost pressures, like the one I just mentioned.

Mr PICTON: Is the Courts Administration Authority not worried that if you start reducing the expenditure on things like counselling or testing that is going to have a broader societal impact, particularly when we know the pressure on these areas?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There is enormous concern about that, especially amongst the magistrates—and they are primarily magistrates almost exclusively who run those programs—who tell me constantly of the lives that they have seen change around because of involvement in those programs. I think that is very important.

There is another point or issue I have agitated from time to time and that is, even though those externally provided services like counselling and programs and the like are important in effecting that change, as well as the close management of the individuals by the magistrates who see them regularly come back, whether that is core work for the courts and whether we should really have a split in the provision of community correctional services, which is in effect what is happening now, with the Department for Correctional Services providing Community Corrections supervision and programs post sentence, and the Courts Administration Authority providing really programs—not supervision—before sentence.

I have wondered whether there would be some improvement in service and efficiency if there were not a split. Others, especially the magistrates who run the programs, are really keen for the Courts Administration Authority to maintain it because they fear a dilution of services if it goes into another department. But that is an all of government, or at least across both of those departments that someone has to look at that. We cannot effect any change like that from within ourselves.

Mr PICTON: Is it not a risk that if you cut a small amount of money from some of these counselling and other programs it can lead to a worse result and end up costing more in Supreme Court trials if offences get worse down the track?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That is right. That is what is often said. I have not seen any recent economic modelling of that. I am sure it is possible. The other thing that I have often agitated, and I am happy to get some air space for it now, is a concern that nationally there has not been a review of the multiplicity of programs all over the country to assess the effectiveness of one program against the other so that we can identify best practice and not so good practice and start to improve around the country.

I have certainly not seen that sort of economic modelling. Intuitively I share that view, but I have not seen it economically modelled. Even if you accept that, there is still an argument about whether you are targeting the right people with these programs and whether, for example, it might be better to put fewer people through them by better targeting but provide a better service.

By better targeting, I mean this: there are some people who it will not change at all—why spend the money on them if you find a way of predicting it—and there are some people who are about to change their lives anyway without that intervention. How you pick them is the big problem.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To date, if I could just add to the Chief Justice's contribution in this regard, the intervention programs that have operated in the time I have been in the parliament are ones that have been maintained, and they have been maintained within the structure of there being a dedicated provision for this via the CAA rather than the Department for Correctional Services.

To date, I certainly, as Attorney-General, have not received any request for a transfer of the funding to come via a different department, whether it is the Department for Correctional Services or otherwise, but I have no doubt that the Chief Justice is much more capable of keeping an eye on that money, rather than if it was coming from another department, so that may be the major motivation for not.

To date, I have not, but of course should the Chief Justice or the council want to put to us that there be a transfer of that funding to be financed via the Department for Correctional Services or any other department, we are happy to look at it.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I asked the Chief Magistrate to speak with people from the Department for Correctional Services about these possibilities at a time when I was worried that we would have to make a bigger cut, and if we were going to make a bigger cut to intervention programs hoping that we might be able to save something by some efficiencies across the areas. The report I have back is that it looks difficult for everyone and there is not a lot of enthusiasm, but that will have to be revisited. That might have to be revisited if the cost pressures or the assumptions about savings in other areas do not come to fruition.

Mr PICTON: Given what has been articulated in terms of the importance of these programs, why has that been an area that has been targeted for those budget savings?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Because it is not core for us. Community Corrections is not core court work. This was an innovation and an extension on court work, and there is some very strong adherence on the advantages of what are called therapeutic courts. Intuitively, again, I feel that and see that. I have not seen a lot of analysis of it. I think we would all benefit from that, but from my perspective I look at it that, because it is not core work, it is not measured.

We are going to be hit around the head for delays and in matters like that no-one is going to say, 'Ah, but we are waiting and we've got defendants in custody or on bail and victims waiting for their matters to be finalised,' but we have actually rehabilitated a few people, which I cannot number. That is where I come from as the Chair of the Courts Administration Council worried about budget reductions and why I look at intervention programs.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Before the member goes on, I might add that there is another intervention service that is offered in this area. It was introduced and is under the direction of Judge Eldridge, who is the head of the Youth Court in South Australia. She introduced a reunification court, as she describes it, which is designed as—this is my description now—an intensive opportunity for her to meet with members of the department in relation to child welfare and protection and also the parties, who are usually one or more of the parents or other kinship members, with the view to dealing with the reunification of families in child protection matters.

It is a matter that she indicated to me she has had operating in the last couple of years or so. Last time we met, she was proposing to undertake a review of it. She indicated her confidence in the importance of this work, and as a government and the minister responsible for this I have been very supportive of her continuing that program to enable her to see whether that can add some benefit in relation to children in that aspect of her court matters.

The Chief Justice has indicated that perhaps it is time for us to have some national review of what is best practice in these intervention courts or programs. To the best of my knowledge, I do not think there has been a review of them. There are matters I discussed with former Attorney-General Atkinson some years ago, as to whether he was going to undertake any review of them. At the time that was discussed, we were considering a juvenile justice review of this parliament.

In any event, on balance and unless we hear otherwise from the court, if all these reports and reviews indicate that in some way these programs are not meritorious or need to be substantially improved, of course we would support the court in their work in this regard.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I make a couple of observations. I do not think that Judge Eldridge's program has an external provider of services and it is not, for that reason, an expensive program. What it does need, though, is a legislative foundation. Already the Supreme Court has seen applications to set aside orders made in court because of the judge's involvement in this informal mediation process where consensus is attempted. A legislative foundation for that work, which Judge Eldridge says has been successful, is really needed.

Secondly, on the evaluation of the programs, we have had internal evaluations of just the program, looking at what it is doing in this state. My interest is in having them evaluated against interstate examples because otherwise it is very difficult for someone externally to really understand what they are seeing in the figures and to evaluate them. If you compare what is happening interstate, you will get a better understanding of whether things are working in this state or not.

Mr PICTON: For the uninitiated, such as myself, what is under the banner of these intervention programs? Drug diversion was mentioned. What are the different programs?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There are two drug programs—a longer one and a shorter one. I think it is the longer one that the magistrates are keen to maintain. There is a mental health program or therapeutic court. There is often a lot of overlap between the two. There is domestic violence and there are the Aboriginal sentencing courts.

Mr PICTON: Obviously, they are all quite large priorities for society to improve our performance, but I guess what the Courts Administration Authority is saying is, 'Well, we have to do our core business. If the government wants to do these other things, the government can give us money to do that.' Is that essentially—

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: They are not saying that at the moment. The view of the magistrates who think they are really important is prevailing. I am just—

Mr PICTON: But there is a reduction in expenditure.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, there has been and this is fairly small compared with what we did a few years ago when we reduced them even more. I am just saying that, if it comes to the crunch, I am going to have to look after core business and I will be talking about those sorts of reductions, but we are not talking about them at the moment. If we do have to relook at them, the first thing we are going to do is to try to work out how we can reduce money but maintain more targeted services that are needed.

Mr PICTON: Is it possible to get on notice a breakdown of the expenditure and contracts under those programs?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just indicate that, yes, I approved most of those, and I will take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Attorney. In relation to the court reduction in expenditure that happened over the past year, has there been a reduction in terms of physically present services in the APY lands?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There have been reductions in circuits because of COVID. As it turns out, we have made a saving, I think, because we have not been able to go there, but it is not that we decided not to go there because it is too expensive. There was a reduction in service, so I imagine the delays in having matters finalised there have increased even beyond what I saw when I went there, I think it was, probably in 2019.

Mr PICTON: Is it fair to say that courts have not been there since the beginning of the pandemic at the start of 2020?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There has been an attempt to go there—at least one—but it was called short for non-COVID related reasons. I cannot remember now exactly what it was, but something came up.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the committee, I will just add that after March 2020 when it became clear that there would be coronavirus matters that would require our attention, at that stage, I think, nine of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands within South Australia were placed under Biosecurity Act rules. I see one of the members of the committee nodding because he would be familiar with this. The APY lands, I think, were one of the first. At their request, the commonwealth acted under the Biosecurity Act to restrict all personnel going in and out of the lands. It was not without exception but—

Mr PICTON: It stopped for some time, though.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am talking about March 2020.

Mr PICTON: Yes, but since then.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That act prevailed and has operated in relation to it. Each of the lands that came under that scrutiny or that restriction was at the request of those communities. I think it is fair to say that there was a very large concern—certainly Australia-wide; I am not sure internationally—that our Indigenous communities would be at serious risk if the coronavirus were to take hold in those communities, and they acted themselves to ensure protection against that as best they could. Similarly, there were concerns in any other areas of close living such as our prisons, but certainly the Indigenous lands were an area of high risk. As a state administration, of course, we respect that, and I thank the Chief Justice for also acknowledging the significance of ensuring that we respected that.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I was wrong. The last one we attempted was cancelled because of COVID, so I assume it was the recent scare.

Mr PICTON: Is there a plan to go back in the future?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, there are a number of circuits there—I think there are probably around six or seven a year—so we will go back. Can I say, we have been trying for years now to get better AVL links to deal with matters in the lands. It is not to replace it. A presence for the courts in the lands is important. In fact, I think there should be a court building perhaps at Umuwa, which is sort of the administrative centre there. At the moment, the courts go and sit in the community centres. They are generally made available to the courts. I do not think they have to be, but they are made available.

Because it is a community centre, it is really difficult to remand someone in custody, because the police are there but the police station is quite some way away. You cannot just lead someone in through a door into a cell, so what they will tend to do if they think someone is going to be sentenced or remanded in custody is adjourn the matter to Coober Pedy. The defendant knows what is going to happen and why it is being adjourned to Coober Pedy. It is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.

On the AVL (audiovisual) connection, they have 4G there, which will support a Webex connection, but what we need are officers in the community who can round people up and set up the link. The idea of this is not necessarily to have the court hearing but to have them speak to the lawyers, have the lawyers speaking to them whilst they are negotiating with the police for a negotiated compromise, because there is hardly ever a trial up there.

Most of them end up being guilty pleas on a negotiated basis, but what happens is the circuit goes up there and the lawyers go up there for the first time and they try to get instructions to finalise the matter. If they cannot negotiate it in time, it is adjourned off for the next circuit in a month or two months' time, and the same thing happens and you have a list of really old matters up there.

Membership:

Mr Whetstone substituted for Mr Pederick.

Mr PICTON: There was discussion about the CAA's cost pressures. One of those, surely, is the additional work, which is welcome, from Operation Ironside. I wonder if there is an estimate in terms of what those cost pressures are.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will provide some information to the committee in relation to Operation Ironside. As most would be aware, from time to time there are some very big cases that come to the attention of our courts, and they place some extra area of responsibility and cost on a number of our agencies. I indicate, firstly, to the committee the significance of taking on some assessment of what that is going to involve.

In this case, we have multiple arrests in relation to serious criminal charges, from murder across to significant drug offences. Earlier this month, as members would probably be aware from media reports, there were police raids across the state; in fact, it is clear that they were across the country and, indeed, traversed other countries. So it was a big operation and has been tagged Operation Ironside.

It is expected that nearly all of our criminal justice system—agencies from SA Police, the Office of the DPP, the Legal Services Commission, the Courts Administration Authority and the Department for Correctional Services—will be affected in some way. Already, as members would have seen, South Australia Police were involved in arrests. A number of those arrested are held in custody for which bail has not been granted or sought and they are placed across our corrections system at present. There has been an extra workload for the Adelaide Magistrates Court and the Legal Services Commission. As I understand it, all of those have introduced some pressure.

I have asked all the agencies, including those and Forensic Science SA, in whatever part they may play in relation to any forensics—and there certainly are discussions, as I understand it, underway at the national level—to look at expert and forensic support in relation to this particular tranche of cases and, in addition to that, invited other agencies to look at some matters. Already, I have received an indication from the DPP office of extra resources that may be required. He is working on a proposal.

I have also received an indication and request from Chief Judge Evans of the District Court for some support that he would like to have in relation to associates to judges who may be involved in this matter. Each is starting to have a look at a number of these. Obviously, ultimately, whatever the Courts Administration Authority may require, we will look to the Chief Justice and his team to provide a summary of that.

As some members of the committee would be aware, we are probably a long way from a number of these cases being concluded. These are very serious charges. It may be many months, possibly years, before they are concluded, and a lot happens between now and then. Some, you would have seen from media reports, have already been concluded and I think have been referred for sentencing. Again, that takes up court time in the superior courts. These are all matters that will need to be assessed.

There are certainly a number of agencies in the criminal justice system that have already incurred cost and will need to incur further cost. The extent of that is still yet to be fully determined, but as a government I am advised from Treasury that obviously we have some provision for exceptional cases. Already I deal with this as Attorney-General in relation sometimes to people having extra legal representation, things of that nature, but in relation to big cases sometimes a very much different approach needs to be taken, and as Attorney-General I will be expected to present a case to our Treasury in due course as to what else we might need to facilitate that.

Sometimes it may be something as simple as the cost of fitting out a court facility to deal with large cases and/or large numbers of defendants. The Chief Justice is already dealing with a very significant case in relation to multiple accused in a murder case. Again, these produce extraordinary circumstances, and sometimes infrastructure is required to be able to accommodate those types of cases.

I have made a statement publicly, and I will confirm to this committee, that the government understands that in circumstances where these cases are forthcoming, we as a government will need to look at a number of agencies having support to be able to properly administer their obligations in relation to these matters, and that includes Operation Ironside. I will defer to the Chief Justice if he would like to add anything further.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I have written to the Attorney and asked the Attorney's office to convene a meeting of those justice agencies that will be involved, so the Courts Administration Authority through the State Courts Administrator, DPP and the Legal Services Commission. The Attorney is right: it is early stages yet, but in my view as soon as possible all the agencies should have some insight or line of sight into what is coming down the conduit, so I hope that that meeting will be convened in the not too distant future because you have to plan for things like that.

The Attorney mentioned the eight accused's (I think it is) trial connected with the killing in a panelbeater's shop, which has organised motorcycle gang involvement. That is not set until April, but there are many pre-trial hearings that have to be heard and determined to ensure it runs smoothly in April. We have started with those, in effect, and there will be two weeks of hearings in October, so that gives you an idea of the lead time. It may well be that the DPP files directly in our court.

But even before then we have had something like a dozen applications to freeze proceeds of crime. They have been dealt with, and are dealt with fairly quickly in chambers, but what happens next is that the accused whose assets have been frozen seek hearings on whether in fact they are their assets or somebody else's assets, seek hearings to allow money to be released for living and/or legal representation. We have to find judges to hear those matters now, and they will compete with those cases, ordinary civil cases, that are waiting to be heard.

Mr PICTON: Has there been an estimate done by the Courts Administration Authority on what additional resources will be needed, and does that include additional magistrates or justices of any of the courts?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Back of the envelope and worries in the minds of heads of jurisdiction are there, but until we get good information from the director about where these things are going it is hard to be definitive.

Mr PICTON: What is the risk if there are not the resources needed? What would happen if you do see these cases come with the current set of resources?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could I just indicate to the committee—and I hope I have made this clear, but I will make it clear again—the government understands its responsibility, and I have given assurance that we understand that responsibility. It is expected that, unless there was the unusual circumstance of there being a mass submission of pleas of guilty on these matters, there will be considerable extra expense, and it will relate to a number of agencies.

As the Chief Justice has said, a working party will ultimately convene to work through that on the understanding that there may need to be other resources presented. The process, I am advised, is that it may then be appropriate that I present a submission to the Treasurer. This is not unheard of in relation to the extraordinary events of a matter such as this. I think the only other one I can recall, where there were multimillions of dollars allocated, in the time I have been here in the parliament and in the time when I was sitting in the place where I think the member for Enfield is now seated was when I was asking questions about extra money that had been allocated for the Snowtown murder cases, in which there were multiple defendants and multiple victims.

These things are of course extraordinary circumstances. They have a process to follow and that is being undertaken. I just want to assure the committee that it is the government's intention to make sure that we listen to the agencies that provide these services and, where necessary, that we make that extra provision. That includes security in courts, etc. I hope that is clear.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have a question on Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 127. Minister, under your key agency outputs, one of them is to 'foster an environment in which the judicial officers, staff and volunteers can contribute to effective performance of the court system'. Could you please elaborate on that and how it is working?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a very broad question, but I will try to target it in relation to the area that I think the member is interested in and the particular staff—

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: To the Sheriff's Office and the Courts Administration Authority.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just make a preliminary statement in relation to that. I appreciate the member's interest in this area and his involvement in relation to the parliamentary committee. I think the Courts Administration Authority employs something like 160-odd members of staff, some part time, in the Sheriff's Office. So it is an important part of the service provision to our courts provided by these officers. It includes the security in courts, security for judicial officers and other staff in the precincts of the court, and indeed the victims, witnesses, etc.

It also has another role in relation to the execution of service of documents and various other responsibilities on behalf of the court, so it plays an important role in that regard. There are significant recommendations that have been presented from the committee of the parliament, which the member is familiar with. From memory, there were seven; I will just try to find them as I look here for reference to that. I am just stuck here on the Sheriff's Office regional security, which of course the member is aware of having extra service provided up there last year in the budget.

If I come back to the committee, largely there was a tranche of recommendations that talked about referring this matter to the corrections department for employment of the Sheriff's Office, taking it away from the CAA and going to Corrections. Those recommendations were not accepted, but it was pointed out in the response that the government presented on that that each of the employees, as in the Sheriff's Office, do enjoy the privileges and protections and, indeed, entitlements that our public sector enjoys. I will not go through all the process of that again, but that was the substantial reason for that.

There were some other recommendations, including that there be an amendment to the Courts Administration Act so that there would be a consideration of a person with human resources expertise being placed on the courts council, I think it is called. That is something that we have accepted as a government and are looking to work with the amendments to the legislation as to how we go through that. There are others that the Chief Justice had indicated that he would undertake. I think the government are at one in indicating the acceptance or otherwise of the submissions and the Chief Justice indicating that he would support that position. It is just a matter of undertaking the process.

We have Ms Penny Croser, who has come in as the new State Courts Administrator and who has replaced the previous administrator, who also provided evidence to the committee, as I recall. Certainly, some statement had gone from the Courts Administrator, and certainly the Chief Justice made himself available to give evidence in relation to that inquiry. There is still some work to be done in relation to the recommendations the committee has put. However, to be clear, there seemed to be a misunderstanding on the part of the committee as to the protections that were available to employees in the Sheriff's Office.

In light of that, we have not accepted recommendations 1, 2 and 3, I think, of the committee's report, but otherwise work will be underway to institute the other recommendations. So, yes, it is important, and I think the previous Courts Administrator made a public statement in relation to the support and protection of staff in the workplace. Each of those matters has been canvassed. I maintain the position, as the member has pointed out in relation to this section, that it is important that there be protection of all our staff in the workplace.

I also point out that there has been considerable work undertaken by our acting equal opportunity commissioner in relation to the protection of persons in the legal profession, and that includes the courts. There has also been a body of work undertaken by an inquiry by a similar officer in Victoria in relation to the judiciary. These are all matters that have been taken on board, and there are ongoing committees and discussions, and some of the leadership has already been taken up by the Chief Justice in relation to his courts.

It is a question of ensuring that wherever the workplace, wherever the person is in that workplace—and that includes courts and workplaces at which the legal profession work—the staff and the professional persons involved in those processes are entitled to protection. All those matters are examples of what we as a government are committed to ensuring is undertaken. I thank the Chief Justice in advance for the particular committees and things he has set up.

Can I say that there has been an indication by the government that in relation to sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace we have given notice to a number of agencies of a 'no brief' policy for those chambers and/or legal firms who do not have a committed policy in relation to the protection of staff in the workplace. There are a number of initiatives that are in train, and I invite the Chief Justice to make any further comment as to action he has taken to support his staff.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Before that, Mr Chairman, if I may—and I apologise to the Chief Justice—on the fostering of this environment to give them protection, in other words, if it is a Sheriff of the court's authority and they are reporting something, would they have any protection under the whistleblowers act for bringing it to the attention of the courts management?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot give legal advice to the member as to whether a particular complaint or information is transferred, but there are certain provisions under the—I now forget what we have called it, but it is a new act we have passed to replace the old whistleblowers act. It allows for a process that has to be followed for someone to report a concern in relation to workplace conduct, which then provides an umbrella of protection to the party who is making the disclosure. There are very strict obligations in relation to how that works. I indicate that there are laws to protect people in those circumstances that may apply to the matter that is being considered, but I will ask the Chief Justice to make a comment.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I have not looked at the act recently but, as long as the communication is made to a person who is a person recognised under the act as someone to whom a complaint can be made, then it will be protected and I am sure that there are such persons within the CAA who can receive complaints about things that have happened in the Sheriff's Office.

Can I just talk about some of the things we have actually done on the ground because the recommendations were really at a legislative level. We have commenced a cultural change program. From March this year, we have appointed a change leader for the Sheriff's Office. We had our own survey of Sheriff's to find out what they were concerned about and what they wanted changed. We established a committee, which comprised a couple of our managers in Sheriff's, rank and file Sheriff's Officers and the PSA. The Sheriff's Officers decided amongst themselves who they wanted as their representatives. They actually selected the independent consultant who conducted the review.

The report was helpful. It confirmed some of the themes that had come out beforehand from the SARC inquiry, for example. But, just from conducting that survey and having rank and file on the committee, there is a real feeling that the Sheriff's Office can be made a better place. I attended a meeting of that committee early on, before the survey came out, and there was a Sheriff's Officer—not a supervisor—from Port Augusta who said, having seen the level of genuine openness and cooperation, they wanted to move forward and make the South Australian Sheriff's Office the best Sheriff's Office not only in the country but in the world. That was his level of what the potential was for improvement.

I mentioned the cost pressure for resources in HR to support this process not just for Sheriff's but across our organisation. Very soon after the SARC report was published, we instituted a policy of no disciplinary action—because that was a large area of complaint, as I am sure you know—without attempting mediation first, unless the behaviour complained of was the sort of behaviour that would warrant summary dismissal or something sort of off the page. For run-of-the-mill disciplinary stuff, no disciplinary action without getting the people aggrieved together with an independent mediator to work things out on the shop floor and move forward.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you. To the minister again, but also perhaps to the Chief Justice, this environment of key agency outputs, has that been in place for some time, or has that just been since the SARC inquiry?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can you just explain to me the key agencies. I am not aware of what budget paper you are referring to.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It is the same one, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, same questions regarding fostering an environment in which the officers, the staff, etc., can feel comfortable in going forward. Has that been implemented since the SARC report, or has it been in place for some time?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It had been there before.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: For how long?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you very much.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I think I take your point, though. These things are often stated in documents. The thing is to make them live, and it is fair to say that all our staff have our full attention and we are committed to making it work.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, before we finish this item, I am advised that back on 9 June, in relation to Operation Ironside, you responded to a question on radio about the operation and you were specifically asked whether you had been given advance notice of the raids. You said, and I quote:

I don't think I can make any statement in relation to those matters, these are all operational matters of those agencies and so I wouldn't make any comment in relation to their disclosure to anyone.

My question, Attorney, is: can you explain why you refused to make any comment on this matter but you thought it was fine to make a public statement about an ICAC investigation in 2018?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea what else the member is talking about. I think the public statement in relation to the raids is now well known in relation to Operation Ironside. This was a police raid that took place across five countries and I think four states in Australia, including ours, so it was hardly a secret once it had actually been achieved. It was probably, in police history, an extraordinary international cooperation that was undertaken. Now, of course, we are dealing with the legacy of that operation being quite successful in police investigation terms.

Obviously our courts and all the other agencies I have referred to will now need to be planned for and paid for to ensure that we bring it to its proper conclusion, including the taking up of claims in relation to property that has been either injuncted or confiscated at this stage.

Membership:

Hon. A. Koutsantonis substituted for Mr Brown.

The CHAIR: The Attorney has answered that question, member for Kaurna, but I do remind all members that they need to reference a budget line when asking a question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Objectives, how is that?

The CHAIR: As long as it is referred to in a budget line, which the member for Kaurna I think omitted to do on asking that question.

Mr PICTON: I did, but it was the same budget item as before—page 127.

The CHAIR: The same budget line as before; thank you. Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Courts Administration Authority complete. Thank you, Attorney. Thank you, Chief Justice, and your advisers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Chief Justice and his staff, and Ms Croser, of course, as our newly appointed administrator.