Attorney-General's Department, $173,516,000

Administered Items for Attorney-General's Department, $65,845,000

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.

The CHAIR: We come next to the portfolio of Attorney-General's Department and State Records. The minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I ask the Attorney to introduce her advisers and make a short statement if she wishes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I indicate to the committee that the Chief Executive, Caroline Mealor, of the Attorney-General's Department is joining me; she is to my right. Immediately behind me is Mr Andrew Swanson, the Chief Financial Officer, who is in charge of all the money. Mr Adam Kilvert, to his right, is the Executive Director, Policy and Community. I think that is all that I have officially for this area in terms of advisers.

I might just briefly indicate again that the Attorney-General's Department has undertaken two areas of extraordinary work during the last 12 months. One is to support the provision of services, many of which are well known to members of the committee. I will not repeat them, as they are outlined in the budget papers in relation to the funding of them. However, during the COVID-19 period, since early last year, that has been a very challenging responsibility. I thank the chief executive and her staff for undertaking that work.

I should particularly acknowledge the Crown Solicitor's Office, which has provided an extraordinary amount of work and support during COVID in the preparation of legislation, in the drafting and advice given for directions to our police commissioner, the Coordinator under the Emergency Management Act, and in extending other advice to government.

It has been a challenging time, and it has been a department that has certainly come to the fore in providing all that extra work that has been required, and I am extremely proud of them. The chief executive has also undertaken a separate role of extra responsibility in taking on planning and local government areas of responsibility together with our three generals: the Valuer-General, the Registrar-General and—

Ms MEALOR: The Surveyor-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the Surveyor-General, Mr Burdett. I nearly forgot him. He is very important. These are areas of extra responsibility that the chief executive and the department have taken on. I must say, personally, I have very much enjoyed that extra portfolio coming into this area of responsibility, but it has been an extra role.

Probably without her knowing it, she also became the coordinator-general for a period of time. That is the fourth general that has disappeared now that the Development Act has been repealed, so she only had that for a short time. Nevertheless, she certainly stepped up and her department has been exceptional during that time. There will be opportunity to consider further those extra portfolios a bit later today but I just wanted that acknowledged at this point.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Does the lead speaker for the opposition wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No.

The CHAIR: If not, I will invite questions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to Budget 4, Volume 1, page 14, program net cost of services summary regarding the Crown Solicitor's Office.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry, could I confirm which one? Item 3, did you say, Crown Solicitor's Office?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At about point 8 on page 14?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am sorry to interrupt. It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Page 14.

The CHAIR: Page 14, thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are we all on board?

The CHAIR: We are all on the same page.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Crown Solicitor's Office has an annual budget of about—well, their budget has dropped dramatically from $13 million in 2018-19 down to $4.8 million this financial year. There were media reports that Ms Ranieri, the public sector employment commissioner, was recommended a private investigator from the Crown Solicitor's Office. What process did the Crown Solicitor's Office go through to choose that private investigator, and is it being funded out of the Crown Solicitor's resources?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just say as a general matter that the Crown Solicitor's Office provides services to many different government agencies, and that is part of its job. In many ways, it is the largest legal firm in South Australia. It provides advice to government agencies as part of that and, generally, they pay for it; that is, the services that are provided by the Crown Solicitor's Office. In other words, there is a charge generated and they meet that cost.

In one of the roles of the Crown Solicitor's Office, that work is undertaken at the request of or under instruction from a government agency, and that is also accessible to the office of public employment, Ms Erma Ranieri's agency. She is no exception to that. So I will just make that as a general statement. I will make some inquiries.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Attorney is providing an answer in relation to the budget and specifically in relation to the budget for the Crown Solicitor's Office.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised, Mr Chairman, that we are not aware of the specifics in relation to the appointment or funding or otherwise of a private investigator, which appears to be the basis of some media report that the member is referring to. But I am aware, I am advised, that Ms Ranieri has sought advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office and advice has been provided, so I am not able to provide any other information to the committee at this stage. If there is something else that I can provide, I will make that inquiry and advise the committee accordingly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The commissioner for the public sector, Erma Ranieri, said, 'An external investigator has been appointed to investigate the matter. They have extensive experience working with the South Australian government and they were appointed on the recommendation of the Crown Solicitor's Office.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as a comment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, that is a quote from your commissioner for public employment, so my question is—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. I think the member—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I have my question?

The CHAIR: No, I think we will wait, Attorney, because the member for West Torrens needs to pose his question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, thank you. Is that statement accurate?

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you ask your chief executive?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I have just indicated that I cannot assist any further in relation to the appointment or otherwise of a private investigator. I will make that inquiry and, if we are able to furnish some further information in relation to it, then I am happy to do so. I appreciate the office of public employment is in the Premier's area of responsibility, so I suppose as to whether that is accurate or not will be a matter that could perhaps could be put to her. In any event, if there is something else that we can provide information on, and we are able to do so, then I will forward that to the committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to the same budget line. How many indemnities have been issued to Liberal MPs or former Liberal MPs for any legal proceedings that are currently underway?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think you have asked this question before, member for West Torrens, but I am happy to make some inquiry as to what I can say in relation to any particular matter. If that is available and able to be done, I will provide it to the committee. I will take it on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You said in the parliament that your door was always open for people who make complaints. Have you received any complaints from any staff or anyone from the Department for Infrastructure and Transport regarding the conduct of your minister, Corey Wingard?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure—objectives, the Attorney, page 12.

The CHAIR: Yes. I understand we are most likely still on the Crown Solicitor's Office.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I can change it if you like to page 12, objectives, that the Attorney-General's Department 'develops laws and policy that support safety, diversity, fairness'.

The CHAIR: That would fit with your question much better. Thank you, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So have any people complained to you about the bully-in-chief, Corey Wingard, given your door is always open? No-one?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not aware of any, but I am trying to struggle with how—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know you struggle.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —Minister Wingard is relevant to my department. In any event, it is best if I—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are choosing private investigators.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just letting the committee know, and the member for West Torrens, that I am not aware of any. But, again, if there is some information I can provide for the committee that will be helpful I am happy to do that, but I am not aware of any.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Going back to the first reference—Crown's Solicitor's Office, page 14 of the Agency Statement, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1—how much has the Crown Solicitor's Office expended on investigating Corey Wingard?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you ask? Could you take it on notice?

The CHAIR: Apart from anything else, member for West Torrens, we are dealing with the 2020-21 budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: I assume we are all aware of the media reports—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: —that are driving this line of questioning.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: My question is whether it relates to the 2020-21 budget, which finished—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will tell you why it does, sir.

The CHAIR: —on 30 June.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The problem that we have here is that there is a budget for the next four years over the forward estimates, and the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Ms Ranieri, has had the Premier refer this complaint to her. She has sought advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Crown Solicitor's Office, according to the public sector commissioner, has referred them to a private investigator. So what I am trying to get to is the cost of that private investigation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the best of my knowledge, there is no cost to the Crown Solicitor's Office in relation to that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So there is a private investigator?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea. I was just saying to you there has been no expense debited to the Crown Solicitor's Office in relation to this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I thought you charged for all advice?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So your earlier statement is incorrect, is it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let me—

The CHAIR: Just wait a moment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: Just wait, Attorney, I will speak.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry.

The CHAIR: I do not, as Chair, need to get too involved unless I have to in the committee's proceedings, but my recollection is that the Attorney stated in answer to previous questions that she was not aware of any approach in relation to a private investigator; is that correct, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 12. Specifically, my question relates to the administered items for AGD, which states, and I quote, 'On behalf of the Hon. VA Chapman, the agency administers various items,' including ICAC and OPI.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Attorney, were you the original complainant to the OPI or ICAC about John Hanlon and Georgina Vasilevski?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, the member would well know that I am not in a position to make any statement in relation to that, as I have advised him in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, could you repeat that last part.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have advised you in the parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Attorney, this is the same matter about which you issued a public media statement that revealed the existence of an ICAC investigation without the permission of ICAC; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I will tell you. You made a complaint to the ICAC regarding the conduct of Ms Georgina Vasilevski and Mr John Hanlon. That was then taken up by the ICAC and investigated, so you knew—you were informed by the ICAC—that there was an ongoing investigation. As Attorney-General, you subsequently met with the ICAC commissioner and he said:

My recollection of the subsequent conversation is that any statement made by the Attorney would not include reference to the ICAC and that the Attorney would say publicly that neither she nor the government could comment.

Of course, history tells us that the Attorney did. She ignored that advice and flouted the ICAC legislation and went out and made a public comment about that. My question is, Attorney: when you were interviewed by South Australian anti-corruption police, did you inform them that you were the original complainant?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for West Torrens can make all these assertions, but I will not answer the assertion—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, the right to remain silent.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens! The member for West Torrens has asked his question—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has asked his question and I just indicate that there is nothing helpful I can contribute to the committee in relation to this matter. There have been questions asked in the general parliament and I have given answers in relation to those matters, so I do not think there is anything else I can more helpfully add.

The CHAIR: I just remind all committee members that when asking a question of a minister, the minister is able to answer that in—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Answer any way she—

The CHAIR: Just wait, Tom—whatever way they see fit.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is right, so all accused people have the right to silence.

The CHAIR: No, that is not what I said.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is an outrageous statement.

The CHAIR: What I said, member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is true.

The CHAIR: —is that ministers are able to answer questions in this committee or in the parliament in whatever way they see fit.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Attorney, after a court threw out the Hanlon-Vasilevski case for lack of evidence after the DPP's stunning statement to the court, was it appropriate for you to then stand up in front of the media and flag a possible appeal or reopening of the case?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have covered this matter in the general parliament. I have advised the parliament and I will confirm again that, as I understand it, the DPP office is still yet to consider what action is taken, if any, in relation to the outcome of the Magistrates Court and as to whether there is any other action they may take. That is a matter for the DPP. To the best of my knowledge, he or his office have not made a statement on that matter yet, nor have I received any briefing on it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For the benefit of the committee, the accused, Mr Hanlon, said to InDaily:

I was surprised to hear those comments made publicly by the Attorney-General.

I understand the need for a review—but more in the sense of how we ever managed to get to this situation in the first place, as opposed to the Attorney-General’s suggestion that there could be some kind of appeal of the decision that was made on Friday.

Further, he said the Attorney's remarks 'put me under more stress and pressure'. Do you have anything that you want to respond to Mr Hanlon?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No?

The CHAIR: Bear in mind, committee members, that the member for West Torrens is providing us with what was reported in the media.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, remind me what budget line we are on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The administration of justice, sir, and the objectives—how is that?

The CHAIR: It is fairly broad, is it not?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it is; it is a cracker. Can I also ask, Attorney, given you made an ex gratia payment to an accused murderer of over $2 million, who is still the only SAPOL suspect for the drowning murder of his fiancée, after having forged multiple documents on her life and there was severe bruising on her body—

The CHAIR: Once again, member for West Torrens, this has been—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know this is uncomfortable, sir.

The CHAIR: No—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know it is uncomfortable.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, this has been—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not uncomfortable for me.

The CHAIR: That is alright, Attorney.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are fine with it?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is your time.

The CHAIR: —and Attorney—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is your estimates.

The CHAIR: —order! This, again, is a subject that has been well canvassed in the media. The Attorney has answered questions in the parliament—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not really.

The CHAIR: —on this matter in the past, from your good self, member for West Torrens, no doubt. Attorney, do you wish to respond to that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have not finished asking my question, sir.

The CHAIR: My apologies.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question, member for West Torrens?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do. Given she is prepared to pay an accused murderer, who is still the only suspect in a murder case—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr CREGAN: There is extensive argument, under 97—

The CHAIR: Yes, I uphold that point of order.

Mr CREGAN: —prior to a question which may come but it certainly has not come.

The CHAIR: We are all familiar with the situation surrounding this. Member for West Torrens, it has been well canvassed in the media and the parliament, and the question is?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are you considering any compensation to Ms Vasilevski or Mr Hanlon for what has happened to them?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have already answered this question when you asked me in the parliament, so I have nothing further to add.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you just remind the committee what that was?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think that is necessary. There is nothing else I can helpfully add in relation to this matter. As I have indicated, it is a matter that is still with the DPP and, when any decision is made, it will be a matter that is either back before the courts or not. It will be a matter, if and when I receive any application from anyone, that I will consider, but at this point there is nothing else I can helpfully add.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just for the benefit of the committee, the fine for breaching the ICAC Act is $30,000, which the Attorney escaped. These two former—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I am actually going to ask you to withdraw that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry?

The CHAIR: Could you withdraw that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Withdraw what, sir?

The CHAIR: You are furnishing a lot of argument here and I do not think it is appropriate, member for West Torrens, that you throw in debate that might assist your line of questioning, particularly in that vein.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is uncomfortable for the Attorney, I know, but sometimes these things need to be ventilated publicly because of—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have suggested that in some way the Attorney-General has 'escaped' making a payment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, sorry, sir, she was not charged with an offence. I withdraw the 'escape'.

The CHAIR: Thank you. That is what I asked you to do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: She was lucky enough not to be charged with an offence.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr CREGAN: Clearly 97—clearly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you ruled so?

Mr CREGAN: No, I have invited the Chair to rule.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I am asking you to be very careful here. You have withdrawn your initial suggestion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, of 'escaped', and saying that she was not charged.

The CHAIR: That is a matter of fact.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 11. Specifically, my questions relate to the objective of the AGD, which says, 'The Attorney-General's Department develops laws and policy—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, I am on page 11 and I have the contents. Is there some other page?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Budget Paper 4, the Agency Statement Volume 1, page 11.

The CHAIR: Which is a list of contents.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have I misquoted? I apologise, sir; it is on the objectives.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is on page 12.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Page 12; my apologies. Attorney, let's begin with regard to fairness and justice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, this is on line 1?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am referring to the objectives of the—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: 'Fairness and justice in the community'. Yes, I see those words.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Excellent. I am glad. Attorney, can you advise the committee when you exactly first made contact with the Digance family?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: With who?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Annabel and Greg Digance.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot see how that has anything to do with these matters, Mr Chairman. It is bizarre to me. I am more than happy to answer. There have been some questions that have been asked by the member in the parliament on these matters, but it is nothing to do with what is before us.

The CHAIR: It is tenuous to say the least. It is a tenuous link, member for West Torrens, but it is a very specific question about—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Page 12, the ministerial office and her ministerial responsibilities. When did the Attorney-General first have contact with Annabel and Greg Digance regarding their accusations?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: it has not been established in the subsequent question that there is any proper connection to the budget line items presently being examined, and I ask you to rule the question out of order.

The CHAIR: Before I make that ruling, can we have the budget line again? The member for Kaurna has identified a better budget line for the question.

Mr PICTON: Well, an equally good one, sir, I believe. It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 13, ministerial office resources, the office of the Hon. V.A. Chapman, $3.251 million.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, and what was the question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you as Attorney-General meet with Annabel and Greg Digance?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, Mr Chairman: again, I cannot see any connection to the original—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would be saying that too, if I were you, but the question is—

Mr CREGAN: —budget line item.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —did you meet with Annabel Digance?

Mr CREGAN: And I invite you to make a similar ruling.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman, it is a matter of public record.

The CHAIR: Order! I will just rule on the point of order. The member for West Torrens is using a very general budget line to ask very specific questions about particular individuals.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The CHAIR: It is tenuous that the Attorney—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a common practice in estimates.

The CHAIR: Just wait, member for West Torrens! The Attorney, I think, was indicating to the committee that she was prepared to say something to that question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have made statements to the parliament on a number of occasions that in relation to any alleged bullying or harassment by members of parliament, of which they are victims, that they are welcome to come and speak to me as Attorney-General. Indeed, in the last 19 years I have been here at parliament there have been colleagues in the parliament of different political persuasions who have done so.

I have been quite open about that, and I make it very clear that I consider—and I think our government considers—the importance of every workplace being free of bullying and harassment. I have worked in this workplace for the last 19 years and I maintain that position, but I do not think there is anything else further that I can helpfully add to the committee in relation to my role as Attorney-General or as a member of parliament in relation to conduct that is illegal, unacceptable or unlawful in this workplace.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you contact them or did they contact you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is nothing else I can further helpfully add.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you seek any advice from your department regarding your dealings with the Digances?

Mr CREGAN: Mr Chairman, point of order.

The CHAIR: Before I take the point of order, what was the question, member for West Torrens?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did the Attorney-General seek any advice from her department regarding contacting or being contacted by Ms Digance or Mr Digance?

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr CREGAN: Yes, sir. The Attorney has made plain that there is nothing she can add in relation to this subject matter. The member presses on, in my submission, in contravention of standing order 128: repetition. I ask you to—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Repetition!

Mr CREGAN: You are pressing the same substance—

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel, with all due respect, if we picked up on every item of repetition in this place we would be discussing it for a long time.

Mr CREGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, you may be right.

The CHAIR: Yes, but you are quite right, member for Kavel: the Attorney has already answered this question, and she may refer to her previous answer or she may have something to add.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think there is anything else I can helpfully add to provide to the committee—

The CHAIR: Nothing further to add.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —in relation to this, but I am happy to take any other questions on my ministerial office resources.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: After the Digances were charged, did you seek advice or receive any advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions about whether the Digance couple should or could appear before a parliamentary committee that you wished to establish?

Mr CREGAN: Mr Chairman, I maintain my objection.

The CHAIR: No, sorry, member for Kavel, I think this is pursuing the same line of questioning, but I do not see it as repetition—at this stage, member for West Torrens—but the Attorney can answer as she wishes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: She won't.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I understand the question, it was: did I seek advice from someone in my agency—DPP or Crown Solicitor—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: DPP.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —in relation to persons who may be required to give evidence to a committee that I proposed to establish? No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did not think it appropriate to speak to the DPP about calling people to a parliamentary inquiry who were facing criminal charges?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Certainly not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But you saw fit to contact the DPP regarding Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You make that assertion but that is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You said so in the parliament.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is completely rejected. I said in the parliament that I had sought a briefing from the DPP as to the process of the matter—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is the same thing.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —which is something that I am commonly provided with.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You do it lots of times, do you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have said that to the parliament already, that I get regular briefings. I have regular monthly meetings with the DPP and I get regular briefings in relation to matters, particularly if they are likely to be in the public arena.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When was the last time you had contact with the Digance family?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the last occasion was when I indicated to the parliament that I had had phone call from Ms Digance. It would be months ago now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No subsequent emails or correspondence?

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you take on notice my earlier question about legal indemnities?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, today or some other day?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Today.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There was a question about the Crown Solicitor's Office, yes, and I have indicated that if I am able to provide any information I will. I am not sure what information there is or what I am allowed to say, but if there is I think I have indicated to the committee I will make it known.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, excellent. Have you received any advice from the DPP regarding the Digance matter or sought any advice from the DPP regarding the Digance prosecution?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Certainly not that I am aware of, no.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you have not sought a briefing like you have in the other matters?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There has already been public commentary made about it, so no.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you have not sought a briefing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of. That is a matter that is entirely a matter for the DPP.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have you spoken to Ms Sandi McDonald regarding the prosecution of Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski?

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, not that I am aware of.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, for my information, who is the person you are referring to?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Ms McDonald is the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. I think that is her official title.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just for the benefit of the committee, the actual DPP has recused himself of involvement in the prosecution of Helena Vasilevski, which you would think probably the Attorney-General might have as well, given that she was the original complainant, but she has not.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is outrageous, these statements, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The DPP who is handling the matter is the assistant DPP, who is Ms Sandi McDonald. That is why I am asking those questions, sir—so, for your benefit. On how many occasions have you sought advice from the DPP over the last financial year on its prosecutions, on any of its prosecutions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, the DPP, as the head of the unit, does make provision of a monthly report to me. We meet and he advises of matters that are progressing and whether they have been successful on appeals or not. His general advice to me as the Attorney-General, I understand, is just the usual order of business as to matters. Obviously the DPP is able to come to me to seek extra resources if necessary, and this is just in the ordinary course of business.

Sometimes there are cases of notoriety. I think the member may not have been present in the committee, but we have just had the Chief Justice in here to consider matters, including expenses arising out of Operation Ironside. These are matters which, of course, I will discuss with a number of agencies, including the DPP's office.

As the member is aware, the DPP is an independent statutory office for the purposes of who gets prosecuted and the prosecution of those matters, just as the police commissioner has independent statutory independence as to who is investigated. That is a matter which I respect. But he does, of course, as the head of the unit, come to me to canvass all sorts of things, including, sadly, the current ill health of our witness support dog, Zero, who is very ill. He will come to me to report on myriads of things that his department is doing, including the progress of a number of cases, especially if it involves extra support being required for him to undertake his responsibility and for his team.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given you have raised the progress of prosecutions, have you ever had any discussions—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given you raised the progress or timing of prosecutions, have you—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He gives me a written report of these.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure. Have you ever received or asked for a written report on the timing of the prosecution of Fraser Ellis?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When did you first learn that the trial would begin in November?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot recall specifically, but there is a regular update of the court listings of cases, and that is something that is online.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you had no prior knowledge about the timing of the Ellis prosecution, because it all seems to have happened very, very quickly?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is not a matter that I have control over nor does my chief executive. The running of the cases that are brought before the court by the DPP office is a matter for the DPP and his team to manage and progress and they do that in concert with, presumably, the defence attorney and the courts that are hearing the cases. They are all matters that are sometimes called operational, but these are entirely in relation to the management of those cases. Should the DPP consider there are matters about which I need to be informed, presumably he does that. He regularly reports to me. Should he require some extra support, or indeed give me advice as to legislative reform that he recommends, these are all things that frequently come in his reports to me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you. I will pass on to my colleague. I will yield to my colleague, the member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Further to that same question—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, can I just identify the—

The CHAIR: Budget line, member for Kaurna, please?

Mr PICTON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 19, the DPP. Are the reports you receive from the DPP general in terms of time lines for prosecutions or do they list every individual matter and its expected time line?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure they do not list every matter but matters of significance that are determined by the DPP that he thinks I ought to be informed on. Some of that includes advice as to whether something is on appeal or whether it is expected to be heard in the High Court at a certain time or whether it is listed for trial or those sorts of things.

Mr PICTON: Has the Ellis matter been listed on those reports specifically?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not what I can call specifically, but it may well have been.

Mr PICTON: Could you take that on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, these are matters that I am not sure whether I am allowed to talk about, but I just make the point that I get regular reports on any matters of significance according to the DPP that I should be advised of, particularly if there is any proposed loss by the DPP or whether there is any extra money or resources required for it or whether there need to be applications for judges to be brought interstate—all these types of machinery matters to support the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions' role in the prosecution of matters in our state courts.

Mr PICTON: So you will not even take on notice whether that item was listed specifically in one of those reports?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure that I am able to discuss what is in these reports. These are matters that the DPP reports to me. I am just indicating to you that I meet with him at least monthly. He provides me a written report. I do not think I am able to provide information in relation to those reports, but I will make the inquiry.

I indicate to you that I am given a summary of matters of significance and reports on outstanding cases, particularly cases where there may have been a determination by the Court of Criminal Appeal, now the Appeal Court of South Australia, that would influence whether we should give consideration to any law reform or amendment to our legislation or to ensure that we protect the appropriate prosecution of matters, and defence obviously, of matters in our criminal justice system.

So there are a number of purposes for it, but if the member has a look at the Director of Public Prosecutions' law, that is, the legislation, he will see that there is a statutory protection in relation to the decisions being made by the DPP as to who is prosecuted and indeed whether there is any subsequent withdrawal of those prosecutions. They are matters for the DPP.

Mr PICTON: Have you ever shared any of that information received from a report from the DPP with any of your cabinet colleagues or the cabinet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot discuss any matters in cabinet.

Mr PICTON: Have you ever shared the information with one of your colleagues?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, I cannot make any discussion in relation to cabinet matters.

Mr PICTON: Or outside of cabinet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What do you mean—to the general world?

Mr PICTON: No, to one of your colleagues.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You?

Mr PICTON: No, one of your cabinet colleagues.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I cannot discuss matters of cabinet. The member has been in cabinet. He understands the reason for that.

Mr PICTON: If you are not in cabinet, then it is not protected by cabinet.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That may be your summary of the law in relation to cabinet but, in relation to cabinet confidentiality, I am not at liberty to advise the committee about what the conversations are I have had in cabinet.

Mr PICTON: Would it be appropriate for you to raise issues that the DPP has confidentially raised with you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have said this many times. I cannot make it any clearer. I cannot and will not be disclosing to this committee conversations I have had in cabinet for the reasons which are well known to the member.

Mr PICTON: On the same budget line, on 6 June the Chief Justice spoke on radio about the—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Same budget line? I have a page number, and that is all so far—page 19.

Mr PICTON: Yes, the DPP. On 6 June, the Chief Justice spoke on radio about the proper resourcing of the Operation Ironside court cases, and I quote, 'to the credit of the DPP he has already commenced that process, he’s been busy recruiting to increase the resources of the Director’s Office'. The budget papers only show an expected increase of 1.3 FTE for the coming year for the DPP. My question is: how will that very small increase in staffing address the needs of Operation Ironside?

The CHAIR: That is a great question relating specifically to the budget. Well done, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I am not sure what you are getting at, Chair.

The CHAIR: I am saying it was a good question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is an excellent question.

Mr PICTON: Well, let's see if we get a good answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is very clear that, when the Chief Justice was here a few moments ago, he and I set out, and made I think very clear, that there are a number of agencies which have been invited to and are yet to present their submissions as to what extra resource they may require.

Mr PICTON: But he is busy recruiting already, apparently.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will not go into those again at this point. I will just make the point that the DPP was one of them. His office has been invited to also identify and participate in the task force that was referred to by the Chief Justice as to what might be required. I think I also mentioned that there are already conversations at the national level in relation to expertise that may be required in relation to the forensic side of any evidence in this particular case. That is yet to occur.

What I think I also made clear, but if I have not I will repeat it, is that my understanding is that the process from there is that I would then present a submission to the Treasurer. I expect it may go to the Mid-Year Budget Review or to the next year's annual submission, depending on when these agencies present them to me, to present the case to Treasury as to why we would need, in the special circumstances of this case, extra resources for one or more of our agencies, and the DPP office would be one of them. At the moment, I am expecting at this point that the DPP's presented budget has not identified provision for Operation Ironside, but it is open and yet to be considered.

Mr PICTON: Is the DPP currently recruiting for additional positions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of, but I have certainly spoken to him as one of the agencies that I have indicated. He has been invited to think about what resources are going to be needed to successfully prosecute multi-defendants in relation to this matter.

Fortunately, my chief executive is a former prosecutor in the DPP office. She is very familiar with the obligations needed in this area, but ultimately it will be a matter for these units or agencies to present their contribution. We will put together a submission to go to Treasury, and that matter will be considered. I would not suggest that the less than one full-time equivalent proposed staff member at point 4 on page 19 is in any way reflective of that. It is a different matter.

Mr PICTON: The Chief Justice said very clearly that the DPP has already been busy recruiting to increase the resources of the director's office. Is that incorrect, what the Chief Justice was saying, or you have not been advised, or there is some recruitment underway?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just indicate this: the DPP has indicated to me, in general terms, that he would expect that with such a significant case more resources will be required. Even if the defendants plead guilty to charges that have been made, as some of them have, and those pleas are accepted, there is often a necessity for those matters to be presented for sentencing at a higher court—they have been on the charges—at which experienced prosecuting counsel will be required to attend. I do not doubt for one moment that he is looking at that aspect. He has certainly indicated to me, in general terms, that he sees that it may be necessary to look outside the state, even, but again these are matters which are being discussed at a national level.

As you would expect, the criminal bar in South Australia will probably be approached for representation on behalf of a number of defendants. When such a big case is being advanced, there are a number of questions that need to be looked at, and one of them is the DPP resources, to successfully prosecute and/or put submissions in relation to sentencing in a number of these cases. I expect there will be extra resource.

Mr PICTON: Have they started already or not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not aware that he has advertised. Certainly, he is looking out amongst South Australia's cohort in the legal profession as to what might be available, and that is as I would expect.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 12, in relation to the department. It says specifically:

The Attorney-General's Department…develops laws and policy that supports safety, diversity, fairness and justice in the community.

Why is it that, according to the I Work for SA survey, conducted from April to June, only one-quarter of AGD employees, and I quote, 'think it is safe to speak up and challenge the way things are done in this agency'?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will start by indicating that our government is very proud to have, for the first time, in 2018 funded a survey of the public sector and then repeated it this year to ask the public sector about their views on a number of things. I think that is extremely important and I am very proud that it has been undertaken. It is our government's view that for too long they had not been asked and there was no funding available for this to occur, so I am very pleased that it has occurred. For the first time, in 2018 they were asked and again a survey was undertaken this year as a follow-up to that invitation. The performance of the Attorney-General's Department I think has been very commendable—

Mr PICTON: Commendable? Seventy-five per cent do not feel safe.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just one moment, if I may—

The CHAIR: Order, member for Kaurna! You have asked the question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am very pleased that there has been a significant increase in the recent survey of respondents, and across the public sector the published position is that the Attorney-General's Department has been commendable in this regard. There are a number areas which need significant improvement in relation to the support of our public sector so that they might do the best they can to serve the public of South Australia.

For the detail of this, I will invite the chief executive to provide further information on the survey. I have quite a bit of the material here, but she is principally responsible as the chief executive of this now expanded public sector agency, which now includes, as I have indicated, the planning and local government areas of responsibility, which have come on since the 2018 survey. It therefore means we are not exactly comparing apples with apples, but that is a matter I will ask her to expand upon.

Ms MEALOR: As you are no doubt aware, the survey that was carried out has been divided up into seven different areas, and across those the Attorney-General's Department's results are better than they were in all those areas from the 2018 survey, with the scores increasing by something between 4 and 9 per cent across each of those areas, and all the AGD scores in the seven areas were also above the public sector average in all areas, ranging from 4 per cent to 13 per cent improvement on the general public sector average. Certainly there are areas for the department to work on, but overall we are very pleased with the results and the fact that it shows a substantial increase and improvement right across those areas.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, how do you think it is satisfactory that only a quarter of people feel safe to speak up and challenge the way things are done in your agency?

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

Mr PICTON: That is what you said. You said that you thought it was satisfactory.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, apologies. It might be my age creeping up on me, but I did not hear the question or the answer actually, so could you repeat it for me?

Mr PICTON: Yes, I am very happy to. Attorney, you said in your previous answer that you believed that these were appropriate or satisfactory results for the department. On what planet is it appropriate or satisfactory that only a quarter of the staff in the agency feel that it is safe to speak up and challenge the way things are done in the agency?

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

Ms MEALOR: I am not suggesting that there is not room for improvement; in fact, that is the whole point of undertaking surveys like this—to be able to ascertain those areas that need to be worked on. We do not just undertake the survey and then walk away from it. The next steps for us—and we have already started on this—to look at those areas that require improvement and to work out the best way to improve in those areas and what we need to do across the department. We will be undertaking further focus groups with staff and we will be devising an action plan to improve on those areas where the scores can be higher.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, do you take personal responsibility for the fact that only 25 per cent of staff in the agency feels safe to speak up and challenge the way things are done?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As a member of the government, we do take responsibility for ensuring that the workplace, in which over 100,000 public servants work in this state, is not only safe but optimal in relation to their having the capacity to undertake their work and serve the people of South Australia. We are very proud of them, we are committed to ensure that they have a safe workplace and we are very committed to ensuring that, as much as possible, they are recognised in the work that they do, that they are given promotion, advancement and career opportunities in the workplace and that that continues to improve.

That is the whole reason for our being quite transparent in our invitation to the public sector to identify any issues, concerns, aspects—good or bad—that they wish to, and they have done so. I am very pleased: I think my description of the results in this regard is 'commendable'. It has increased for the second time; there is a change of profile of all the public servants that the chief executive is now directly responsible for, and again I will invite her to make any other comments she would like to in relation to how we might continue to work on this project. The government, including me, is very proud of our commitment to the public sector and ensuring the safety and advancement in the workplace that they have.

Ms MEALOR: I am not sure there is anything else I can add to what the Attorney said.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, what action have you taken personally since the release of these shocking statistics from the I Work for SA survey?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not accept the question that there is a shocking report. As a government, we are very proud to have committed to inviting our public sector to have a say. We have done it again the third year into government to try to make sure that there is a continuing dialogue in relation to how they feel about their position and their opportunities in the public sector.

We as a government are by far the largest employer in South Australia and therefore we have what we consider a very great responsibility to make sure, firstly, that they have a safe workplace and an opportunity for advancement in a career in the service of the public. In addition to that, we are responsible for the measured expenditure of public money and we want to ensure that the public get the best from those who serve them. That includes the government and its employees. In this regard, the Premier has been very clear about ensuring that we continue this survey and that it is noted and acted on.

At this point, a request has gone to the heads of departments to consider the survey results, meet with their respective heads of units, consider the employment of other measures to improve where possible and, indeed, to share that with other agencies if they are in an agency where there is better performance. Again, I will invite the CE to make a contribution if she feels that there have been things learned from these surveys in the application of that and the progress being made in consulting with the units to advance the improvement being sought.

Ms MEALOR: I would only add that as recently as last week I did meet with the senior heads of units to talk about the survey results and to talk about the need to establish an action plan to improve in those areas where we can improve. That work is well underway.

Mr PICTON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 38 and 39, the Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity. Attorney, how many candidates were considered for the role of equal opportunity commissioner ahead of the government appointing your Chief of Staff to the position?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member knows, Dr Niki Vincent, who was the former equal opportunity commissioner, elected to leave South Australia to take up a position of some advancement in Victoria, and we wished her well in that regard. It was, I think, some eight months earlier than the expected time of the conclusion of her contract. Nevertheless, an acting equal opportunity commissioner was put in place and then, for a short time, another party while consideration was given to a replacement.

Ms Jodeen Carney was someone I considered worthy of consideration by the cabinet for appointment. Not only had she worked in the Northern Territory as a lawyer, a bureaucrat, a member of parliament and a consultant during her decades in the Northern Territory but she had worked for both Northern Territory and commonwealth governments of different political persuasions.

I felt that she certainly had the experience and, in particular, she had looked at difficulties that other jurisdictions had faced in relation to equality and diversity and had some considerable understanding of these issues. Although she had worked some time as Chief of Staff to me, she was certainly well and truly qualified for that position. She came with high commendation, as I said, from—

Mr PICTON: From you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —other parties of different political persuasions, including the Labor government in the Northern Territory. Her diversity of experience I felt was worthy of presentation and, indeed, ultimately the Governor signed her appointment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On that question, who was the referee from the Labor government in the Northern Territory?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I certainly will not be talking about the details of who was involved in that regard, from my recollection, but she had written a report of her work for the Labor government in the Northern Territory. It was titled something like 'Suffer, the little children'. It was a very long and tragic report in relation to child protection, which was really a lightning bolt in the child protection exposé, I suppose, of how children were being exploited and abused.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Your statement was—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In the Northern Territory, she was one of the first under the Labor government to actually progress that. My recollection was that it was before the current Labor leader, Mr Gunner, but I cannot now recall specifically to whom she had provided the report. My recollection was that it was one of the female members of the cabinet of the Labor government.

In any event, I can have a look at those, but I was certainly satisfied that she had done an extraordinary amount of work since her work in the parliament and also legally. I thought she had excellent credentials for recommendation. Indeed, what I have been very pleased to note is that she has taken up a considerable amount of work. In fact, my chief executive was advising me that it was a report into youth justice that she prepared that came in advance of the royal commission.

Going back to what I was going to say, since her appointment this year—just to be clear, she had not undertaken that work; it was the acting equal opportunity commissioners who undertook the reviews of the parliament and the legal profession—she has progressed with the development of disability guidelines for employers, which I have been very pleased to see.

As members of the committee would be aware, and certainly other members of the parliament would be aware, in the repeated annual reports of the equal opportunity commissioner to this parliament, which I have read for the last 19 years, in more recent years there has been an alarming increase in the number of complaints in the area of disability, regarding either access to employment or, frequently, schools.

These are of great concern, and I am very pleased that she has taken up the initiative in this regard. So, yes, she has hit the ground running. She is not only well credentialled but, pleasingly I think, addressing one of those very difficult areas that we need to address as a community.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. Having gone past the allotted time, I declare the examination of the Attorney-General's Department, including State Records, complete. Further consideration of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's portfolio will resume at 3.15pm.

Sitting suspended from 15:03 to 15:15.