Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $93,709,000

Minister:

Hon. K.J. Maher, Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector.

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: Good morning and welcome to today's hearing of Estimates Committee A. I respectfully acknowledge the traditional owners of this land upon which the committee meets today and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

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, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers as required. Can the minister and lead speaker confirm that is their understanding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, sir.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 2 September 2022.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes, should they wish to do so, but there is no necessity to do so. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call to asking questions. A member who is not a member of the committee may ask a question at my discretion.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers, and all questions are to be directed through the Chair. 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.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply to this 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. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house are broadcast: through the IPTV system within Parliament House, via the webstream link to the internet and the Parliament of South Australia video-on-demand broadcast system, so I would ask everybody to be civil and well behaved.

The portfolio is the Courts Administration Authority and the minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Attorney-General to make a statement if he wishes to and introduce his advisers. I will then call on the lead speaker to make a statement or ask questions as we go along. Minister, the floor is yours.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that I do not intend to make an opening statement about the portfolio area, but I might make a couple of remarks before we get started on the day's hearing.

Firstly, I would like to join you in acknowledging the Kaurna people as the traditional owners of the lands and seas of this area. The Adelaide Plains, the whole state and this whole country always have been and always will be Aboriginal land.

I want to thank the dedicated officers in the Attorney-General's Department in relation to all the areas I am responsible for today. They have put in a huge amount of effort for estimates. I know from my time some 20 years ago, working for a minister and in my second stint as a minister in government, the huge amount of effort that goes into preparing for estimates. We in this parliament only ever get to see a very small fraction of that work. I see some knowing nods from other people who have been ministers and who have had that experience with estimates.

I do not intend to make a statement about the portfolio or have government questions to allow as much time as possible for the opposition to ask questions. The administration of justice is an exceptionally important function in this state. I suspect a lot of it will be dry and technical, but it is critical that we allow as much time as possible for questions.

Before we get to questions, I would like to introduce those joining me today. To my left is the Hon. Chris Kourakis, the Chief Justice in South Australia. On my right is Penny Croser, the State Courts Administrator. Further to my left is Linda South, the Executive Director, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer. Behind me is Chris Black, the Finance Manager from the Courts Administration Authority. Sitting closest to us in the gallery are Caroline Mealor, the Chief Executive Officer of the Attorney-General's Department.

Andrew Swanson is the chief financial officer and, if my information is correct, he deserves a special mention. I am told that this year might be the 25^th round of estimates he has been involved in, which no human should have to suffer, quite frankly. It is a remarkable achievement.

The CHAIR: Well done, Andrew, or commiserations, whichever way you would like to see it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: With that, I am happy to receive questions and answer to the best of my ability. Again, because it is an important and often technical area, if we are not quite sure of an answer I will take it on notice and bring back a reply. I think it is important that we get the details as correct as we can for this area.

The CHAIR: So you will seek the advice of a QC or an SC to get an answer? The lead speaker for the opposition is the member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I have no opening statement and will move straight to questions. I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 12, operating efficiencies, at about point 3. The other page that might be convenient to have open for the moment is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 131, program net cost of services summary and the net cost of services for each of the two programs within courts.

We see operating efficiencies for the department set out at page 12 in Budget Paper 5 and what appears to me to be a reduction in the budget in respect of program 1 in the order of $2.5 million from the 2021-22 budget. Can the minister indicate whether or not that budget reduction is part of the overall operating efficiencies that are set out in Budget Paper 5?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So that I understand the question clearly, I assume the member is referring to page 131 of Budget Paper 4, the first table, where the 2021-22 budget refers to over $89½ million.

Mr TEAGUE: That is it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And the 2022-23 budget refers to just over $87 million. Are they the two figures that are being clustered?

Mr TEAGUE: Exactly.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the minister that, in relation to the interaction between the operating efficiencies outlined on page 12 of Budget Paper 5 and the table referred to on page 131, the results of those operating efficiencies do not translate into page 131. The operating efficiencies outlined on page 12 are for the rest of the Attorney-General's Department. A decision has been made that the Courts Administration Authority will not have the operating efficiencies referred to in that table.

Mr TEAGUE: Good. That I think was something just to be clear about. The reduction in the budget from 2021-22 to 2022-23 that we see on page 131 is independent of those operating expenses in the department more broadly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is right. There are a range of things that make up that difference. I am advised that it is things such as the end of projects in terms of ECMS, the electronic court monitoring system, AVL infrastructure and a number of other things that are the end of projects rather than any ongoing reductions in operations.

Mr TEAGUE: So it would not be correct to read that as a $2.5 million reduction in funding available to the courts insofar as some aspects of that are the end of projects that have been budgeted over time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is what I am advised. Certainly, as I have said, the operating efficiencies that are required of the department on the whole, on that table you referred to on page 12, do not apply to the Courts Administration Authority.

Mr TEAGUE: Stepping back then, having identified those things, I realise this is not a section 29 context, so I will ask the question through you, minister, but it is really a question for the Chief Justice. In relation to the process for budgeting via the council—and I am concerned with the court's independence here—is the Chief Justice able to identify the extent to which he is satisfied that sections 24 and 25 budgeting and presentation to the minister processes have been completed to his satisfaction and the extent to which, therefore, the budgeting process has followed that contemplated by the act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The advice is that a budget was put in that matches what we see here today.

Mr TEAGUE: When you say that a budget was put in, is there any extent to which the courts have identified how the courts might deploy additional funds, for example, or if the courts were proposing, 'Well, we can do with less; we have come to some landing point'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that what is requested is put in so that it can match what is available.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I just explain?

Mr TEAGUE: Please.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There was a time a few years ago when, in submitting the budget for approval in accordance with the Courts Administration Act, that the Courts Administration Authority would identify shortfalls and it was not the budget that we wanted. I adopted that approach in the hope of having Attorneys consider, independently of the state budget process, the discretion under the act to approve an expenditure budget. That did not have traction in terms of Attorneys taking that up. We have fallen back now into the practice of simply putting in a budget for the Courts Administration Authority which matches the reality of the state budget, and Attorneys have simply signed that.

Mr TEAGUE: Forgive me for staying with that point for just a moment but, when you say that it matches the reality of the state budget, what is the chicken and what is the egg in that?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: What I could have done, and what we could do under the act, is put in a budget that actually reflects what all our needs are and put the Attorney to the test of putting a red pencil through them. That is what I tried some years ago. It did not change the reality of the state budget. We now simply submit a letter asking for approval of an expenditure budget which matches the state budget, and that is what we submitted on the last occasion.

Mr TEAGUE: So, in terms of the processes that are contemplated by section 24 and section 25 of the act, it is operating de facto somewhat in reverse or fully formed?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Before I started this process nothing was done like that. Now we have it formalised with a document, and the thing I attempted some years ago I have stopped trying.

Mr TEAGUE: When you say before you started, that is before the commencement of your time as Chief Justice?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Your predecessor adopted a different process, but it started out, as it were, stepping through section 24 and section 25 front-loaded, and now it has reverted to a kind of fit-for-budget approach?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I am just trying to come in to land on what the offer acceptance is, for want of a better word. When you are aware of the budget and then making it fit, is it that you are these days presented with the available funds and you are doing your best to work within what is presented?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, and what we are presented represents negotiations and requests.

The CHAIR: I need to remind members that all questions should be through the minister, and the minister then refers to the advisers, please.

Mr TEAGUE: All of which I accept. Thank you, Chair. Minister, not to put too fine a point on it, because the agency obviously sits independently for a reason, you are satisfied, are you, that in relation to the budget process there is no sense in which section 31 has come into play? What steps do you take to avoid section 31 problems if that is the process that has been entered into?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have no advice that any part of the Courts Administration Authority governing legislation is not being complied with in terms of how the budget is progressed. In terms of what makes up a budget, as most people know, that is subject to discussion and negotiation: it is not published in the budget papers. We do not discuss those things, but I have no advice that anything is not being complied with properly.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not suggesting that there is. In terms of the extent to which you have turned your mind to section 31, or the courts have, vice versa, I take it that you have satisfied yourself that the budget for the courts is such that there is no difficulty in relation to section 31 vis-a-vis funding for the court?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, I have no advice that sections are not being complied with at all.

Mr TEAGUE: And you have had no concern raised in that regard?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have had no concern raised in that regard.

Mr TEAGUE: I see that the Chief Justice is shaking his head, so that is good news. It is really more a question for the department in the next session, but there have been news reports at least associating the additional funding for the DPP in respect of Ironside to facilitate the court process. To what extent are additional funds in respect of Ironside directed to the courts, as it were, to facilitate any case load from a court's point of view as opposed to the DPP's point of view?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am sure if I get any of this wrong I will have one of my advisers let me know. It is about $8.8 million over the next four years in relation to Operation Ironside. To the best of my memory, $2.8 million of the $8.8 million is for the Courts Administration Authority for security upgrades, Sheriff's Officers, the things that the courts need to do to facilitate those prosecutions.

In addition to that, there are upgrades, I think, to three courts in the Sir Samuel Way Building. Courtroom 3 was recently refurbished for another matter. Courtrooms 8, 18 and 19 have been identified for modifications to accommodate the large needs of multidefendant cases that will occur in Operation Ironside. Those works will be undertaken in 2022. Those courtroom modifications will enable a security model utilising Sheriff's Officers to increase the number of defendants that will necessarily be in the docks for some of those cases.

To summarise it, it is $6 million for the DPP for these exceptionally complex prosecutions. I think Ironside sees something like 110 people charged and cases that will involve multiple defendants, eight or so defendants. I think there are some cases involving multiple defendants that might have 80-odd interrelated charges, so it will be very, very complex. So $6 million of that $8.8 million is for the DPP and $2.8 million is for the Courts Administration Authority as necessary.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, again these are questions that are primarily for the next session in terms of the department, but you just indicated that there is $6 million for the DPP and $2.8 million for the courts. I just flag, and I will ask some more questions about this in the department section, there is no money earmarked in that $8.8 million for the Legal Services Commission. I am conscious the Legal Services Commission has an agreement in relation to those that it would represent that would therefore operate in the usual course.

Insofar as this session is concerned, and I have couched it in terms of section 31, my question is: to what extent is it interesting, for want of a better word, for the courts to be satisfied that that the $6 million that is applied for the DPP is going to make the prosecution side functional, and to what extent is it interesting for the court to be satisfied that the LSC is appropriately funded to the extent that its burden will be increased as a result of Ironside?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think there might be more that can be said in an hour's time when we have AGD in terms of the Legal Services Commission and the process for cost pressures for the LSC if necessary, but these were identified as cost pressures as part of the budget process, so that is what we have for the DPP and for the Courts Administration Authority for Ironside.

Mr TEAGUE: Staying with that for one moment further, the $2.8 million applied to the CAA that is couched in terms of Ironside is a bit special, I suppose. But how desirable is it in the course of budget processes year to year and over the medium term to earmark the provision of funds in respect of a particular investigation? This is an unusually large one.

These are court facilities requirements that are presumably desirable in the broad. Is it, as it were, good news for the courts that there is a need and that therefore $2.8 million is applied so that the court facilities are improved? To what extent is it desirable to earmark that against a particular investigation and an anticipated load for that particular purpose?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think you have earmarked it correctly. It is good news for the courts that there are upgrades that occur. It is also the case that it is good news that court upgrades will not be undone after the Ironside cases, but it is also good news in terms of the funding that has been provided not just for the Courts Administration Authority but also for the DPP. It is good that this will make sure that these trials are efficiently handled, but it is also good in terms of what the court would otherwise be doing without this funding.

There could be a potential impact on the other matters that the courts or the DPP would be running, so it is not just good for this case but, as you have identified, there are benefits in terms of upgrades that will survive beyond this. It is also important that these extra resources and funding are provided so that the other business of the DPP in courts, the regular business if you want to put it that way, can continue as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: At page 133, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, at about dot point 5 on the page, the first line in the program summary, the estimated result column 2021-22 has an intragovernment transfer of $1 million. Can the minister just indicate what that is about? Do you see that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I am advised that that is money coming in to help with looking at options for High Court redevelopments.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is earmarked as opposed to a broader top-up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is my advice at this stage.

Mr TEAGUE: I am going to ask some questions about the case load in the various courts and by reference to the criminal and civil courts statistics.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is there a particular page?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, there is, but I am just flagging the broader topic. Firstly, perhaps it might be convenient to turn to the bottom of page 133 of Budget Paper 4 and Volume 1 still. We see the Sub-program 1.1: Criminal Jurisdiction heading, and then over the page we see the highlights and targets that follow. By the time we get to the bottom of page 134, there is the performance indicator table for the jurisdiction.

The row that I am just concerned with is, in particular, the District Court percentage of lodgements pending completion that are greater than 12 months old and the target in 2021-22 is 10 per cent, which remains the target for 2022-23. The estimated result in 2021-22 is 27 per cent. Is there any particular factor or range of factors that that might be ascribed to? Perhaps rather than rehearsing those questions in respect of the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court in particular, the same questions might apply to those that are at the top of page 135.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have some advice for the District Court target that, as is identified, it is significantly above what is the actual, the estimated. I am informed that these are the targets used by the Report on Government Services (RoGS), published by the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. The significant variance, I am informed, is largely due to the effect COVID has had on jury trials in terms of the District Court. I think the member flagged a similar question—I assume from the top of page 135—where there is a similar variance for the Magistrates Court, and I will get some further advice.

Mr TEAGUE: I am quick to note that the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court seem to be held to the greater standard of six months, rather than 12 months. I said they were the same, but they are actually not. The Magistrates Court looks like it is a greater figure, but in fact it is a greater threshold. The comparator is really the second row.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am further advised that the targets we see here are not targets that we set down ourselves; they are the targets that are set down—the RoGS targets, the national targets.

Mr TEAGUE: I am aware of that. You have indicated that COVID is the cause in the District Courts cases. Is that the same for the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that it has had some impact, but the results in those jurisdictions are not hugely at variance with historical levels of the targets that are set down. I know from previous experience—and the honourable member is probably aware of this from his time in government as well—that often with the Report on Government Services there are variations between jurisdictions, so you are not necessarily comparing apples with apples when you set down national targets.

For various reasons, there are differences in the way different courts and different services are provided in a whole range of areas. My advice is that for the Magistrates and Youth Court, yes, there has been some influence of COVID on these figures but that historical figures are much higher in those areas than the RoGS target sets down.

Mr TEAGUE: Are you satisfied with the results, particularly in relation to the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court? Are you anticipating those to improve against the target, burdened as you are with a RoGS set of targets?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is hoped, I am advised, that post COVID they will get slightly better, but I am informed that historically they are higher than the national target that we do not set down.

Mr TEAGUE: Back on page 134, in respect of the District Court do you expect that to resolve itself because that is down to COVID?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, in part, we would expect that, but the effect on jury trials has meant that that may have been even more pronounced than the historical variance from those national targets.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure what is best to refer to more particularly in terms of the budget line item, but maybe page 137 at point 4 on the page. My question is in relation to the provision of associates in the District Court. In terms of the FTEs, is there any provision more directly for additional associates in the District Court? Do you have any sense in which that may contribute to achieving or improving on the achievement of targets?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that Ironside funding—the part that is for the Courts Administration Authority—will be provided for associates in superior courts to help with that.

Mr TEAGUE: So part of that 2.8?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the specific question the member asks, I am advised that part of that $2.8 million of the Ironside funding is directly related to being able to provide for more District Court associates.

Mr TEAGUE: You talked before about the corollary long-term flow-on benefits of having such particular funding that goes to courts so that they are enhanced for their normal business in the long term. If it is part of that $2.8 million, can you assure those on your left and your right and in this committee that that will find its way into the budget, beyond the $2.8 million, once it is required?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that the $2.8 million is provided over the forward estimates over the next three years.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and it has this tagline associated with it. Given that—and I am not asking you to indicate what is to happen beyond the forward estimates—is it your expectation that therefore the provision for associates is with respect to a temporary need of the courts and it will just revert back afterwards, or is it your expectation that that is a reform that continues now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Like all the funding for the Ironside case, the total $8.8 million is provided for the Ironside case. If there are needs identified, they can be considered in future budgets, but the money that is provided for the Ironside case is provided, as I have said before, for the prosecutions of those matters, but also to have the benefit of allowing the other things the courts and the DPP do to keep running efficiently while the Ironside matters run. The funding for the various areas of the $2.8 million is for the Ironside case, which I think was the member's question.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to be clear, it is not an Ironside case: it is an Ironside investigation that is going to lead to, we are told—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed, it is for the effect on the courts and the DPP of the prosecution of what has resulted from what we know as the Ironside investigation. If there are future needs identified, they can be looked at in future budgets.

Mr TEAGUE: So we are clear, I understand that answer to be putting the court on notice: 'Don't count on your associates beyond the Ironside process.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear for the member, it is not putting the court on notice not to count on it; this is very clearly a cost pressure in relation to these prosecutions. This is not something where I think there has been any expectation that the $6 million provided to the DPP for the Ironside prosecution will continue every year after that.

Similarly, the other parts, in terms of Sheriff's Officers or associates who will be required to provide for that will continue afterwards, I do not think it is putting anyone on notice that, 'Hey, this might stop.' It is the case that these are provided specifically as a cost pressure for these purposes. It is a minor point, but I think an important one, that it is not a need to put someone on notice that this is going to stop. It is necessarily a cost pressure for this purpose.

Mr TEAGUE: I would not couch it as a minor one. I presume you are not going to tear down court facilities that have been built to accommodate large cases, but in terms of the ongoing funding to facilitate things you are clearly putting all and sundry on notice: 'Do not count on it.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is right, and it is probably worth pointing out, too, that the upgrade to the three courtrooms I mentioned are over and above the $8.8 million I have spoken about. As we talked about earlier—and the member is absolutely right—we are not going to reverse the renovations or change what has happened in those courts, but those things, including funding for staffing and other things associated with these prosecutions, are for these prosecutions.

Mr TEAGUE: I would like to turn from the criminal jurisdiction to the civil jurisdiction, at the top of page 138. Before getting there, perhaps the Supreme Court might have a mention. There is a variance there in relation to the Supreme Court 'greater than 12 months old' list and also in relation to the 24-month list that is at about point 8 on page 137. Is there any particular reason for that variance in the Supreme Court?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To double-check, are we referring to the bottom table on page 137?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, performance indicators, backlog indicators, Supreme Court.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to these, my advice is that, with the Supreme Court, it does not have the same effect some of the other courts have had in terms of the effect of COVID, but it would be a similar answer that was given when we looked at the Magistrates Court figures: the RoGS set down the targets; these are not the targets we set down in South Australia.

Because of different court processes and the way things are done and finalised, we are not comparing apples with apples across Australia. A blunt instrument such as this is not always particularly useful, but it is a variance that has historically been varied in South Australia. I am advised it has not been the same effect we have had with these figures for COVID, but this is a variance we have seen for some time.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can just make the point that these figures include matters that go before the masters in the preparatory phase. How long solicitors decide to take to get matters ready and when they eventually tell the court they are ready to be listed vary enormously, and it is something the court does not have a strong control over. It is not just a measure of the court: it is a matter of how practitioners approach those matters.

I will just point out that the 2020-21 actual result, which was in the first year after COVID, was higher. It has come down. For example, possession lists, bank actions to take possession of properties, may well have been delayed in that initial period of COVID as part of the response. That might have led to some matters taking longer to resolve.

Mr TEAGUE: I do note the improvement. Minister, in relation to the Chief Justice's observations, are there matters within the court's control, noting that the RoGS might set out benchmarks that are more or less appropriate? Are there any matters that are within the court's control or that you have given any consideration to? I have in mind, for example, a docket list approach or any other measures that might address those particular procedural matters as matters in the Supreme Court approach trial you have turned your mind to.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you for the question. It is not something I have discussed with the Chief Justice, but if there were ways to improve the efficiencies of the court I know that the Chief Justice and the courts in general are constantly looking at ways they can improve their performance and at any ways that access to justice can happen in a more effective and timely manner. I know that it is not a project they think about every now and again: it is something that is constantly considered by the courts.

Mr TEAGUE: There is no particular matter you have turned your mind to, as it were, as a proposal or initiative that may assist the courts?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have not had any particular one put to me. There is not a big project we are about to launch that has been developed. I am not aware of anything.

Mr TEAGUE: And no particular structural change—and I say 'structural', a docket list system might be what I have in mind in terms of structural change. Is there anything about the way in which the pre-trial process works that might benefit from some broader structural reform within the court process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is not a specific thing that is being considered but, as I have said, it is something that I know the courts are very capable of and that they do turn their minds to regularly in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of the way they operate and their practices and procedures.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I might mention that we have a special classification list in the Supreme Court. The masters refer into that list complex matters that would benefit from docket management, and much of the other stuff they do are things like possessions and the like, which they can docket manage effectively themselves. So we have a hybrid system.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to the top of page 138 now and the District Court figures. Given the RoGS has had a run in relation to other jurisdictions, you can see the same target in relation to lodgements pending completion that are greater than 12 months old are targets 10 per cent and at 24 months the target is zero. Those are the two stand-outs, it seems to me, in terms of challenges for the court. The Youth Court is doing outstandingly well, maybe for reasons to do with the jurisdiction, but the same might be said about the Magistrates Court and the ERD Court to some extent, but I will just focus on the District Court because it is the major trial court of the state. First of all, is there anything in particular that has caused those estimated results for 2021-22?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the answer is substantially similar to what we have canvassed previously. Our Report on Government Services sets down targets. It is a pretty blunt sort of estimate. Different jurisdictions have different ways of doing things that means it is not an apples with apples comparison, but these figures are not too different from what we have seen historically in South Australia.

Mr TEAGUE: Put it this way then: do you think the target is appropriate? What target would you set if you were setting a target, and is the estimated result for 2021-22 about right, acceptable, needs improvement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, the complex nature of looking at what different jurisdictions do in terms of how their courts work I think probably makes this an extraordinarily difficult thing to set down a target for, trying to take into account the variances that occur right throughout South Australia. So a one-hat-fits-all target, if you were to do it, would be a huge amount of work that probably would not be justified in terms of the amount of work that would go into it.

One way you could do it would be to set down different targets for different states, taking into account the variances that occur between states in terms of their judicial systems. I am not suggesting that is the best way to do it because of course you have to look at what benefit you get from doing that in terms of the work it would require to do it, but that is one way you could do it. You could not have an Australia-wide target but you could set different targets for different states.

Mr TEAGUE: Let's look at it free from reference to targets for a minute. From that answer, I presume you have not identified a particular target that you would adopt if it was a state-by-state one. It is not a trick question. The 12-month figure is identical from year to year, just over the last couple of years. The 24-month figure has deteriorated just minorly. Is there anything that you have to say, as minister and as Attorney-General, about those figures? Are they about right? Could they be improved? Should they be improved?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that these are very similar figures to what they have been over recent history. You would always like to see improvements not just in the court system but in everything that governments do. In relation to a question the member asked before, I know that the courts do regularly look at how they can do things better and how they can improve what they do, how they can be more efficient and effective and ensure as timely access to justice as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: I have a couple of questions about court facilities and the higher courts, and I think that is a matter of going back to page 131. At the second dot point, about point 4 on the page, there is a key agency output to improve court facilities and, in terms of more particular provision, at the top of page 132 there is the higher courts redevelopment in row 1 and the Sir Samuel Way facade repairs at row 2. Are those two projects in particular on track and does the minister have anything to say more broadly about objectives and targets for improving court facilities generally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the 2017-18 state budget provided just over $30 million to the Courts Administration Authority for the purpose of redeveloping higher courts facilities, including the delivery of five refurbished civil courtrooms, three criminal courtrooms, two mediation suites, judicial chambers and administrative facilities. My advice is that the higher courts redevelopment project was finalised in June 2020, with a final project underspend of just over half a million dollars. I think the member asked about the Sir Samuel Way facade repairs.

Mr TEAGUE: Facade repairs, yes, the second line.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise the honourable member that my advice is that in early 2006 evidence of cracking to the Sir Samuel Way building facades were identified. Preliminary investigations identified masonry cracking to columns on all elevations of that building, that several pieces of the building's facade had dislodged and fallen onto the building's verandah and the adjacent roof of the Central Market Arcade and that there was a high risk of pieces of the facade causing damage to property and/or harm to people.

My advice is that since 2006 the Courts Administration Authority has completed various projects to address remedial work. In 2021, funding of $11.6 million was approved to continue this work. I am advised that the Department for Infrastructure and Transport are assisting the Courts Administration Authority to deliver the main programs of work and that the Department for Infrastructure and Transport have engaged a project team to complete documentation and investigation of the current status of the facade and to complete an initial package of remediation works.

I am informed that, in addition, a separate works package will address the strengthening of the canopy on the southern and eastern elevations of the building to reduce any risk of these elements falling, followed by remedial work of the under-canopy facade.

Mr TEAGUE: Does the minister have anything to add in terms of dot point 2?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which was dot point 2?

Mr TEAGUE: Improving court facilities. Are there any broader plans?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can say that in the times I have spent in court facilities I have been impressed at some of the recent works that have been undertaken, and we will always continue discussions on any further ways to improve our court infrastructure.

Mr TEAGUE: At page 140, program 2, there is a highlight for 2021-22, engaging with the Department for Education to convene education family conferences.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the first dot point in the highlights?

Mr TEAGUE: That is right. We see as the one and only dot point target immediately under that for 2022-23 is to continue that relationship to convene education family conferences for 2022-23. Bearing in mind that that is a truancy initiative initiated in 2021-22 via that engagement, can the minister indicate how many such conferences have been held? I invite the minister to make any observations about the success or otherwise of those.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have advice to hand about numbers. I am happy to take that on notice to provide a response about numbers. While I am doing so, without having any statistical backing, it might be wise to also take on notice and provide any advice about the efficacy of the program when I bring back an answer with the numbers that the member has asked for.

When taking questions on notice, I will provide what I can provide. I do not want to create the false impression that I will have access to things. I do not suspect it is the case here, but there may be things later on that I do not have numbers readily extractable, but I will provide the answers that can be provided.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is a target anyway of 2022-23 to continue those conferences. Do I take it that there is at least a level of success, that it has moved from not only being a highlight of 2021-22 but also a target for 2022-23?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, without having the numbers to back it up, I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply, when I bring back the other answers.

Mr TEAGUE: What, the whole question of the level of success of the conferences?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have information on the level of success. I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr TEAGUE: Are you going to do what the target says?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is what the intention is and that is why it is in there.

Mr TEAGUE: And, I might say, it is the one and only thing in there. It is not a trick question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that a change is not anticipated to what was set up in the previous year and how it continues in the next year going forward.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there anything that you would care to say about the conferences?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I do not have figures with me.

Mr TEAGUE: Not just figures.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply for the member in relation to the success or the effect or information about those conferences.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps you might like to take this on notice, or not—and I welcome any narrative, whether or not databased: to what extent have families refused to participate in a proposed conference?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. That is one that I will take on notice, and if I can bring back meaningful data or responses to it, I will. I do not know the level to which that sort of data is kept, but if I can I will bring back an answer.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand that. Given, as I understand it anyway—and the minister might correct me—the intent of the process is to avoid the need for prosecution, has there been any prosecution either within the context of a refusal to participate or following participation in a family conference?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I do not have that level of data, but that is another one I am happy to take on notice. If an answer can be brought back, I will be happy to do that for the member.

Mr TEAGUE: I just stress that this is something you are continuing and it is the one and only topic of program 2, as far as I read it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the member's question. This is something that is continuing, so there must be some reason for it to be continued. As I understand the member's question, the reasons it is continuing are what the member is getting at. As I said, I am happy to do that, to look at what data is available and how that data has informed the decision to continue it as a target, which I think is a lot of what the honourable member was suggesting. There are a couple of specific areas the honourable member has asked about—the refusal to participate or prosecutions—where I am not certain that there will be readily extractable data, but in the event that there is and I can do it, I will bring back an answer for the member.

The CHAIR: This is the member's last question, so ask wisely.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, this is the last question. Thank you, Chair. Just to assist the minister in going away and considering that, I presume and would otherwise ask the minister to direct his attention to the activity indicators on page 141, insofar as they provide for results projected for 2022-23—that it is not all heading in one direction, put it that way. Will the minister take on notice an explanation of those activity indicators at page 141?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to do so. That is the very last table on page 141?

Mr TEAGUE: That is the one.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take it on notice and provide some more detail and explanation around that.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Courts Administration Authority complete.