Attorney-General's Department, $109,934,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $51,535,000

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

Ms C. Mealor, Chief Executive, Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr A. Kilvert, Executive Director, Policy and Community, Attorney-General’s Department.

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

The CHAIR: We will move to the Attorney-General's Department, and I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I invite the minister to make an opening statement and also the lead speaker to make an opening statement once the minister has introduced his advisers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might introduce those I have with me now. On my right is Caroline Mealor, the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department, and on my left is Andrew Swanson. I must correct the record, as I may have inadvertently said something that was not entirely correct. Andrew Swanson celebrates his 24^th year of estimates as he joins us today.

The CHAIR: Only 24, so no gold watch.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If he survives the estimates process this year and joins us next year, we can happily celebrate his 25^th year of estimates. Behind me, I have Adam Kilvert, the Executive Director, Policy and Community, and Darren Corcoran, the Director of Financial Services with the Attorney-General's Department.

With that, as I said before, I do not intend to make an opening statement on policy matters here or take government questions. I am happy to get into questions from the shadow attorney-general.

The CHAIR: Lead speaker, do you wish to make a statement or just go straight into questions?

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Chair, I will go straight to questions once again. Good morning, everybody. Perhaps then, conveniently all on page 12 of Budget Paper 5, at about point 3 on the page and the heading 'Operating efficiencies', we see over the forward estimates budget measures for operating expenses to be reduced, starting with a touch over $4 million in 2022-23 and rising to $7.2 million in 2025-26. Whereabouts are those operating efficiencies coming from? What is to be cut and how should we best navigate that process over these forward estimate years?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. As a general comment on savings measures in AGD and right across government departments, I think I mentioned that courts are going to be immune from savings measures. Not just in AGD but right across government departments, savings measures will ensure that the government can deliver on its various election commitments while maintaining budget discipline across the forward estimates.

While any savings can be challenging to any government department, I have absolute confidence that the chief executive and the team have the ability, as departments and their executives in the past, to meet efficiency dividends or savings measures that are required of governments of both persuasions. It is important to note that agencies, including AGD, have the ability to make savings in a whole range of different ways.

For example, I know in the past that Attorney-General's has been able to achieve savings through measures such as accommodation changes. Nonetheless, the government will be offering a range of things to assist, including a centrally funded targeted voluntary separation package, if that is the way it has chosen to meet savings. That is part of it. I am advised that the chief executive has been meeting, and will meet over the coming weeks, with the various business units in Attorney-General's to discuss the implementation of savings and also to discuss budget matters in general.

I think what the honourable member was asking for was each tiny little part of AGD what is going to happen or what will make up each of those. As I have said, the chief executive has started meeting, and will meet over the coming weeks, with the different bits to discuss these savings and how they will be implemented.

Mr TEAGUE: The question was what it was. I suppose two things: in relation to the table, is the minister going to indicate that what are very specific figures in respect of each of the years over the forward estimates—well, they are not round numbers. We see round numbers expressed in a range of areas through the budget measures. These are very specific estimates in respect of each year, and they are rising relatively substantially into the final year of the forward estimates. The answer the Attorney has just given is about as vanilla flavoured an answer as one could give in relation to where those operating efficiencies are coming from.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That would be a question best directed to Treasury. Treasury are the ones who allocate savings targets and it is the agencies that implement them. Exactly how they are arrived at and why some end in a zero and others end in the number 8, that would be better directed at Treasury.

Mr TEAGUE: In other words, you have had zero input into the operating efficiency number. That is something you have been landed with.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure if the member in his time in cabinet went through a budget bilateral process, but this was a truncated budget bilateral process. Budget processes necessarily happen over time. There is an opportunity for cost pressures, such as we have seen with the Ironside funding we talked about in our last session, to be ventilated. There are opportunities for the election commitments to be discussed and delivered upon. But ultimately at the end of the day it is something that Treasury finalises, things like this that are required for savings targets.

Mr TEAGUE: So there has been a budget bilateral process, has there?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to go into it because these are part of cabinet deliberations, but the usual processes apply just in a truncated way since the March state election.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon L.W.K. Bignell): Member for Heysen, this is becoming a bit of a chat. Can I just bring you back to maybe asking questions along budget lines.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 12, point 3 on the page, operating efficiencies and operating expenses 2025-26. Is there any further indication the minister might give in relation to the rise in operating expenses savings in respect of that year in particular?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, these are figures that are decided upon and the exact nature of the figures is probably better asked of Treasury in terms of the reasons for such figures. The department will be looking at it, and the chief executive will be talking to the various business units about how to arrive at the savings that are set down for us there in the forward estimates.

Mr TEAGUE: Nothing in the bilateral process gave rise to that particular outcome, so you are on the receiving end of that one as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There were a number of areas that were quarantined from these savings. The courts we discussed as one of them, and frontline services such as health I think is another one. I will not go into a list in case I get something wrong, but there are some areas that have been quarantined. I think it is appropriate that courts have been quarantined from these savings, but these are savings in departments right across government that have savings requirements.

It is not just this current government that has savings requirements. Other governments have had requirements, and governments of all stripes have had efficiency dividends or savings requirements to be made. We do have a significant commitment in a whole range of areas in terms of the commitments we took to this election.

In AGD, in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, in the Department of Treasury and Finance, there are savings that are required to meet what we consider are important—quite frankly, I think that is what the public expects if you go to an election and make a compact about what you are going to do, that you fund these things without doing great damage to the budget of the future, and that is exactly what we have done here.

Mr TEAGUE: I will not ask you to catalogue areas outside your own portfolio responsibilities. Is the DPP one of those quarantined from budget savings measures?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, there is not a quarantine like there is for courts for the DPP but, as I have said, the chief executive will be having those discussions over the coming weeks and months with the business units in AGD, including DPP, about what these savings mean.

Mr TEAGUE: It might be convenient to move to about point 5 on the page, the same page.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Page 12?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, page 12, the heading Operation Ironside. Before we get to the year-by-year provisions, we see the narrative indicates that the initiative provides $6 million. Do you see that? It is under the table.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I think we ventilated that in the last one, the $8.8 million. We talked about the $2.8 million for the Courts Administration Authority on top of the refurbishment of a number of criminal courts in the Samuel Way Building and that there is $6 million over and above the budget provided in relation to the DPP for the prosecution of Operation Ironside.

Mr TEAGUE: We did, that is right. How are we to understand that in the context of operating efficiencies? You have said that the DPP is not quarantined from operational efficiencies measures, but at the same time it is being provided with these additional funds that are broken down over those four years. Put it this way, and you might like to explain it however you choose, will it be possible on the one hand to identify those funds that are applied to the DPP for the purposes of Operation Ironside, as distinct from those operating efficiencies the DPP might be asked to contribute to over the course of the forward estimates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: How are we going to be able to do that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The chief executive will do that—she is very good—in consultation with the DPP.

Mr TEAGUE: In relation to those funds that are provided for more particularly in relation to each of the years of the forward estimates, is the minister able to explain the way in which those Ironside funds will be deployed, reasons for the provision rising as it does over the first three years of the forward estimates and then dropping off marginally in the final year of the forward estimates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can give a sort of general overview of the Ironside funding—

Mr TEAGUE: That would be great.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —and then maybe if the member wishes to drill down into specific parts of that—

Mr TEAGUE: Any kind of information at this stage would be a step forward.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that over 80 people have so far been arrested and charged by SA Police in relation to Operation Ironside. I am advised that in November last year the DPP filed charges in the Supreme Court in relation to three men accused of multiple drugs and firearms offences. That matter is listed for August and November this year and it is expected that that will be the first of the Operation Ironside prosecutions to take place in Australia. My information is that the majority of trials will commence in 2023 and 2024.

As we have said, this year's budget provides $6 million over four years to assist the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting matters in relation to Operation Ironside. My advice is that part of this will provide for around an extra 10 FTEs. We have discussed the further $2.8 million for the Courts Administration Authority to enhance the ability for security and to give evidence.

I am informed that since October 2018 the Australian Federal Police, in conjunction with the United States FBI, have been conducting an investigation known as Operation Ironside in relation to the ANOM platform used by organised crime groups in Australia. This encrypted communications network was pre-installed on mobile telecommunication devices and exclusively distributed by members of organised crime groups, enabling privately encrypted communications between users in an effort to avoid detection by law enforcement agencies.

As part of Operation Ironside, Australian Federal Police identified users of ANOM in South Australia, and on 7 June 2021 the platform was shut down and numerous arrests were made. Some additional arrests have been made since and I am advised that more may follow. It is alleged that the distribution of this encrypted communications network installed on the Android devices of those arrested by SAPOL was predominantly but not exclusively controlled by members and associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs, who themselves used the platform.

As I said, over 80 people have been arrested and charged by SAPOL. The charges laid include conspiracy to murder; conspiracy to cause serious harm; participating in a criminal organisation; money laundering; arson; trafficking in large and commercial quantities of methylamphetamines, fantasy, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and cannabis; manufacturing large commercial quantities of controlled drugs, including methylamphetamine and fantasy; and firearms offences.

These matters are now the subject of ongoing SAPOL investigations and progressing through the courts. Obviously, I will not comment on individual matters. Many of the files involve multiple defendant matters, and some defendants have multiple files before the courts. A number of files have been committed for trial to the District Court. In a handful, I am informed, the accused have pleaded guilty to some or all of the charges and have been sentenced or are awaiting sentencing.

I am advised that in November 2021 the DPP filed charges in the Supreme Court in relation to three men accused of multiple drugs and firearms offences. The trial for that matter is listed for August and November 2022. As I said earlier, it is expected to be the first of the Ironside prosecutions in Australia.

I think that gives a flavour of the volume of this and why there has been a need for special funding. I think that the member asked about the profile of the funding and why it rises in future years. I am advised that the rise over the forward estimates, followed by that drop in the last year of the forward estimates, relates to the best estimate as to when the bulk of the trials will take place in the District Court.

Mr TEAGUE: You mentioned that there are a number of multiple-accused trials in amongst the various serious charges that have either been laid or might be anticipated. An amount of $6 million is then provisioned for the DPP, as we see in the table, and you have indicated there is a provision of $2.8 million for the courts in order to facilitate the courts managing the process. With reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 64, I have a question about the Legal Services Commission so far as it relates to anticipated burdens of Ironside from its point of view.

The reference is at about point 5 on the page, where we see 'Legal Services Commission—contribution to legal aid'. The estimated result for 2021-22 and the budget for 2022-23 I think is readily explained. It is more or less about the time of payment, but we are talking about a relatively consistent budget for LSC. It is just that there has been a forward payment in 2021-22 and then that tops up LSC such that the payment anticipated in 2022-23 is, on the face of it, $20 million but reflects a $40-odd million budget; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Broadly, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Against that background, and maybe more particularly directed to your answer just a moment ago, minister, in relation to the challenge of multiple accused there is no particular Ironside provision for the LSC to deal with any more particular Ironside burden that it faces; is that right?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might answer to try to help as much as I can in this matter. My advice is that I need to be very conscious that I cannot speak directly of how many Ironside accused are or are not represented by the Legal Services Commission. My advice is that to do that would risk breaching the Legal Services Commission Act.

What I can say in general that I think might be of some help is that my understanding is that when there are these very big or complicated matters that could—I am not saying 'will' in this case because I am going to avoid doing that—impact on the Legal Services Commission, discussions are held between the Legal Services Commission and the Attorney-General's Department about the Legal Services Commission's budgetary needs for difficult, big or complicated matters that are out of the usual sphere. That has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

As I say, I am very conscious of this. I do not want to talk directly about whether the Legal Services Commission is or is not, or how many Ironside people they would be representing, but where there have been extraordinary and unanticipated pressures on the Legal Services Commission due to the nature of particular matters, that has been the subject of discussion and negotiation between the Legal Services Commission and the Attorney-General's Department. For example—and it is a matter of public record—that is what happened in the Snowtown case.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, exactly. We will put it in the context of the expensive criminal procedure for LSC. There is an agreement, the minister would be aware, and it is published and provides in broad terms—tell me when you disagree—for a single accused to have the first $50,000 covered by the LSC. If the LSC were to find itself, according to its charter, having to represent a whole lot of Ironside accused, for example—but couch it in terms of the overall LSC case load for those years of the forward estimates—it is having to come up with at least, without going to the $100,000 provision for multiple accused, that first $50,000 out of the budget set out at page 64, which is not changing. Is the minister satisfied that the expensive criminal process and the agreement are the appropriate continuing baseline for the LSC to navigate this unusual territory?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is difficult to talk in theoretical and hypothetical terms, but—

Mr TEAGUE: We are talking about budget line items—page 64, point 5 on the page.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is a budget for expensive criminal cases already provided but, as has happened in the past, if there are matters like—and it is a matter of public record—the Snowtown cases that are not able to be fitted within that budget, there will be discussions that occur in relation to the funding needed.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is forward looking. It is a good example; the minister has identified Snowtown as an example of an expensive criminal case, and it is one stand-out, extraordinary case. The difference with Ironside, as the minister has set out at some length, is that it is this ranging police investigation that is resulting in—I will not repeat the minister's catalogue of different charges and number of accused.

It is not a Snowtown, one-off, big case: it is what the forward estimates tell us, both in respect of the Ironside DPP provision and the Ironside courts provision, is an extended period of case load anticipation. Put it this way: if the LSC has to cover the first $50,000 on representing who knows how many—it could find itself with an additional, let's say, $5 million, a multiple of that, that it has to cover, on the face of it—has the minister provided for that, in terms of the LSC budget at page 64?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the member's question. The difference here, as opposed to funding for the DPP, is that we know the DPP is going to be prosecuting these cases. We do not know how many of these the Legal Services Commission may be involved with, which makes it a really different thing. Budgets rely on what we know, but, as I have said, there are processes in place that have occurred in the past where there are extraordinary needs on the Legal Services Commission.

Mr TEAGUE: Fair enough; you do not know in advance exactly how many accused will be represented by the LSC, that is true. However (1) you agree that there is zero provided in advance and (2) you are indicating that you are satisfied that the process of engagement, such as that will be, is, for the moment anyway, satisfactory, because we do not see it expressed in the budget.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am confident of that, and I am advised it is satisfactory at the moment. Let's say that the Legal Services Commission does represent people in relation to defending Ironside prosecutions. It might be that defences may come within already provided budget provisions. We just do not know what the Legal Services Commission involvement is going to be.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a fair enough point in relation to not knowing exactly. You might say exactly the same thing about the DPP, except for the fact that you know the DPP will be—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We know how many charges there are, we know how many individuals there are and we know that the DPP is going to be prosecuting them.

Mr TEAGUE: You have indicated that the DPP is going to be on the receiving end of 10 additional FTEs as a result of its funding; is that right?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is a notional number. It will be partly about employing staff within the DPP and partly about briefing out others to help undertake what will be a significant volume of prosecutions.

Mr TEAGUE: So that contemplates possibly briefing out some and possibly engaging others?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Given the complexity and the sheer volume, my advice is it will almost certainly result in some being briefed out, as happens from time to time. Alternatively, other matters the DPP would otherwise have run might be briefed out so that DPP prosecutors can concentrate on Ironside. Given the complexity and the volume of the prosecutions that are going to come up, my advice is that there will almost certainly need to be some element of briefing out, as I said, whether that is briefing out the prosecutions that result from Ironside or briefing out the prosecutions that are still there while prosecutors work on Ironside.

Mr TEAGUE: Coming back to page 12 and the operating efficiencies, all the while there is the possibility that, like ships in the night, the DPP might be participating in the TVSPs, having some people heading out the door while others might be coming in and/or briefing out. You have nothing more in particular to add about that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, and that is the nature of government everywhere.

Mr TEAGUE: Staying on the LSC—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Still on page 64 of Budget Paper 4?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I think that is probably still a convenient reference. Is the minister aware of what has been one component of LSC income, being interest on the Law Society fund which, because it is linked to interest rates, has been ebbing somewhat over this period of low interest rates? That is the first question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the member identifies, there is an element of the funding for the Legal Services Commission where, like many areas of what a lot of governments and NGOs do, it is subject to interest rate fluctuations. I think it predates my tenure as Attorney-General, but the Legal Services Commission has probably been having discussions in relation to what effect interest rates may have on what they do.

Mr TEAGUE: To put it into some context, in the context of the budget line item, does the minister agree that an amount in the order of $2 million or so per annum that is lost as a result of sustained low interest rates is a relatively significant amount vis-a-vis the overall budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to check that. I do not have that information in front of me. If there is significant variance to the amount that has been suggested of about $2 million per annum, I will bring back an answer. I will need to check that figure.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there any particular plan to address it in any way at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, with the help of Treasury and the Legal Services Commission, we will continue to monitor not only what effect interest rates have but also the possibility of a higher interest rate environment, as we are starting to see shifts now globally to a higher interest rate environment, and what effect that may have to ameliorate the effect of a recent low interest rate environment.

Mr TEAGUE: We have addressed what, on the face of the budget line item at page 64, looks like a stark disparity. I think the minister has agreed that that is simply a matter of Treasury paying up-front in respect of 2021-22.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is what I am informed, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Staying for a moment on the Legal Services Commission, I give the minister the opportunity to respond to any extent he might be able in relation to care and protection. The significant part of the Legal Services Commission's overall workload relating to care and protection is significant and growing and there is not, as it were, an Ironside equivalent specifically identified as additional to core funding for the LSC to deal with its care and protection obligations.

Is there anything the minister has in the planning in relation to the LSC's work in that area, or is the minister satisfied that the Legal Services Commission can undertake that work satisfactorily within the bounds of its ordinary budget provision at page 64, point 5 on the page?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. It is not something that has been raised with me to date from the Legal Services Commission. While we are on this topic, I pay tribute to the commission. In my experience, in the short period of time not only as Attorney-General but as shadow attorney-general and since being in parliament, I have very much come to appreciate the work the Legal Services Commission do, vital as it is to South Australia, with its dedicated legal and other staff in the commission and those who have served on its board. That particular area has not been raised with me to date by the Legal Services Commission.

I note the mix of what many organisations do, non-government organisations, ebbs and flows and changes over time. I am not specifically talking about the Legal Services Commission now, but generally organisations will see a rise in one area of what they do and sometimes a fall in other areas of what they do.

Mr TEAGUE: Or in some cases a rise in all areas of what they do and no significant change in the budget provision for them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take that as a comment.

Mr TEAGUE: Turning to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 31, Program 8: Forensic Science. Forensic Science continues over to page 32, concluding with activity indicators and performance indicators; heading up that is 'Program summary—income, expenses and FTEs'. I note at the top of page 32, performance indicators, the performance of forensic science is at or exceeding targets in all areas, with the possible exception of the final line item, which appears to stand out. I ask if the minister has any explanation as to the final line item; otherwise, the observation is to identify the extraordinary good work of Forensic Science.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Forensic Science do extraordinary work in the service of the justice system in South Australia. I have a little bit of information in relation to that target. As the member pointed out, when you look through those targets you see exceptionally high expectations that are met and exceeded in a lot of these cases.

Mr TEAGUE: Quite so.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It really stands out, and then you look down at the last one and it does stand out on the page. I am informed that, despite an approximate 35 per cent decrease in the number of illicit drug cases submitted for analysis, an existing case backlog, and in particular the impact of COVID-19 workflow, resulted in the turnaround target not being met for the year. The advice I have is that process improvement initiatives have been implemented into workflow, including the reporting of preliminary results to SA Police to assist with timely charges and the movement through cases.

The information I have is that, even though there was a decrease in the number of cases submitted for analysis, a combination of a backlog and the impact of COVID has resulted in a turnaround target not being met for the year.

Mr TEAGUE: If we are after a particular line item, we might go to the description/objective at the top of page 31. What provision is contained, and what update can the Attorney give in relation to capital works and facilities improvement for Forensic Science SA?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that a strategic business case for Forensic Science SA and SAPOL's Forensic Services Branch for future accommodation has recently been completed. In April 2022, as part of the government's project assurance framework, an Infrastructure SA gate 1 review of the strategic business case was undertaken. Infrastructure SA's gate 1 review highlighted that successful project delivery appears feasible and made sure risks are identified appropriately and mitigation measures provided.

AGD in conjunction with SAPOL are currently undertaking a procurement process to engage a consultant to complete a final business case that will further develop the preferred options by reviewing and updating the investment needed, including demand; developing a joint agency service and operating model; undertaking to the extent necessary site selection process; to the extent necessary, developing a design and associated capital and operating costs for project options; undertaking analysis of project options, including financial, economic and integrated assessments; developing a delivery strategy for a preferred option; and developing an implementation planning strategy, including risk considerations.

Following the completion of a final business case, I am advised the process is that a further review by Infrastructure Australia will be undertaken (which I am told is referred to as a gate 2 review) ahead of any further decision. The member is probably somewhat familiar with the fact that Forensic Science have served South Australia very well for a long period of time. They currently occupy six floors located at 21 Divett Place, Adelaide. The SAPOL Forensic Services Branch occupies the balance of that building, another three floors, together with one floor on 60 Wakefield Street and, I am informed, some space at Thebarton Barracks.

The current 12-year lease of 21 Divett Place expires in March 2027, which is why it is a good time to look at future needs. I hope that has been enough information on that for the member.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, sort of. Is there a commitment to funding those future needs that is identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is a commitment to the business case.

Mr TEAGUE: Does that have time line objectives consistent with the end of the lease in 2027?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The business case will be done over the next financial year. I think that was the reason for outlining when the lease is up. There will have to be consideration given as to what will the need be at the end of that lease period.

Mr TEAGUE: And no funding commitments otherwise in the forward estimates have been identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the business case—funding for the business case.

Mr TEAGUE: Funding for the business case only?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to understand that then, perhaps one more—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It would perhaps be odd to fund something that you have not done a business case for in relation to something like this. These are particularly pretty technical and specific needs.

Mr TEAGUE: Sure. You would anticipate that is going to need to find voice fairly shortly in light of the lease expiring in 2027?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The lease expiry date will help inform what comes next after the business case is completed.

Mr TEAGUE: Turning back a page—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Page 30?

Mr TEAGUE: Page 29, turning the page, flipping it over, program 7 is Legislative and Policy Services at page 29. I note that, in relation to highlights, the penultimate dot point and the last dash point under the penultimate dot point identifies as a highlight of 2021-22, the legislation to:

…implement recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse relating to civil justice and criminal justice.

Is there anything else to be done with respect to the relevant legislation? Is commencement imminent, and does the minister have any kind of indication as to time on that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that one piece of legislation has already commenced and that the other piece in relation to the limitation of actions is being consulted with agencies and there is an intention to commence later this year.

Mr TEAGUE: Consultation and intent to commence later this year. There is nothing more specific than that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For example, agencies that this touches upon are developing their own processes, their own information and education programs, so the intention is to commence later this year. If it is helpful for the member, if there is something—and I am not sure there is—that can be more specific in terms of a month or what part of this year, given that we are almost halfway through the year, I am happy to go away and see whether anything further can be brought back. My advice is that the intention is later this year.

However, as I say, if I can be more specific I am happy to take that on notice. In fact, I have further advice. The aim is that we are looking to do that by October, if we can, but if there is anything further that I can update I certainly will bring back an answer.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are at it and without drawing attention to it overly, it is described as a highlight of 2021-22. In terms of the rubber hitting the road, it might find its way into being a target for 2022-23. It is not going to be done anyway in the next nine days.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the dot points says 'Passage through parliament of'. This is really important and means real things to real people's lives, so I am not going to get into a semantic argument. These were changes that were made in a bipartisan manner because of the importance, but it might be that their passage through parliament in that year is a highlight and that their implementation partly in that year is a highlight and, as I have said, aim for implementation later this year. It is too important, I think, to argue over what a word means on this bit of paper.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of targets then in the second half of the page, there is a target to introduce a whole range of legislation. Is there any particular priority in respect of each of those? You might accept it as a given that they are all important.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, they are all important. They are all priorities. What probably informs them more than their all being important and all priorities is work to be done to implement them. Some will require significantly more work than others.

Mr TEAGUE: Which ones, perhaps?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not go into each, but, for example, the formal legislation to recognise the operation of the Nunga Courts in South Australia, where there has been significant consultation. I have been personally involved in some of those consultations in the legal system to do with the operations of the Nunga Court and some of the elements of legislation. I expect that is not too far away.

Mr TEAGUE: Is that an example of one where there is a lot of work to be done and there is a lot of work that has been done?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And is not far away from implementation. At the start, if you look down at the last one, 'legislation to ban political donations for future state election campaigns', work certainly is progressing, but in areas where there are constitutional issues and other things to consider, although it is very important, there may be more detailed work that needs to be done in how any such legislation will work in practice. I guess the summary is that they are all important. We want to do them all as quickly as we reasonably can but recognising there are elements—I am sure as the member experienced—that mean that you need to necessarily do more work, receive more advice and make sure what you want to do does what you want.

Mr TEAGUE: There is nothing more particular that you—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think everything there falls into those sorts of tensions, of very important and wanting to do quickly and making sure that you do it properly.

Mr TEAGUE: I turn to program 4. We are just a few pages way—working backwards, so page 23, the Crown Solicitor's Office, the fourth dot point. I am interested in the second and the third dot points and flag the CSO's participation in those matters, but I want to focus on the fourth dot point. On the workload in relation to advice and representation in those proceedings directed at keeping children safe that are brought under the 2017 act, what is the nature of the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Are we referring to the fourth or fifth dot point? Sorry, so targets rather than highlights?

Mr TEAGUE: Exactly. Trying to look to the future, trying to focus on the future, minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have been looking at completely the wrong thing and completely not understanding where you are going with this. Are you able to start again from where you were?

Mr TEAGUE: We are in targets 2022-23 and I have just moved on from dot points 2 and 3 to focus for a moment on dot point 4. It is one of the targets. I understand that there is a workload involved in the provision of representation in those proceedings. Can the minister indicate the nature of the workload to the Crown Solicitor's Office in respect of that work?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to do so and I thank the member for his question. The Crown Solicitor's Office continues, as the target suggests, to provide representation in child protection matters involving children at risk during the period that involved COVID-19 workplace limitations, including undertaking multiple hearings with parties in multiple locations. The Youth Court managed the hearing list as per normal, with the parties being able to attend directions and pre-trial conference via video links or telephone links.

The trials themselves have continued to take place in person during COVID-19 affected times and the Youth Court returned predominantly to in-person hearings from 21 February this year. I can inform the member that in the period from 1 July 2021 up until 13 May 2022, which is a period for which I have figures, the Crown Solicitor's Office has appeared in approximately 793 care and protection matters on instructions from the chief executive of the department.

I am informed that this relates to applications for new care and protection applications, applications to transfer an existing guardianship order from the chief executive to another person—I am advised that is normally the child's current foster carer—and applications to revoke existing guardianship or custody orders. During this period, the period from 1 July 2021 to 13 May 2022, I am advised that approximately 2,957 related court attendances were undertaken. I hope that provides some detail.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, that does provide some detail. Am I right then to say that, in relation to those attendances, those are CSO attendances and so that is a workload within the office, is it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the court attendances are all Crown Solicitor's Office. Again, I will double-check that and if there is any deviation from that I will bring back an answer, but my advice here today is yes—

Mr TEAGUE: I am not holding you to something technical on that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —all that application work is Crown Solicitor's Office.

Mr TEAGUE: There is no burden to the Department for Child Protection for those? That is borne by the CSO?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The next one is his last question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might be able to just finish off. As I am sure the member is aware from his previous stint before the election, there are cross-charging arrangements through government, so it is the CSO who attends, but my advice is that it is charged to the Department for Child Protection. Again, I will double-check that and if there is any difference I will bring back an answer. As is common, there is that charging arrangement.

Mr TEAGUE: Might the minister take on notice the extent of those cross charges?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you. I have a final question. I realise that I have neglected State Records, so I might be content for the minister to take this question on notice as well. On page 39, program 12, I note the targets for 2022-23 at the second dot point.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The State Records Strategic Plan?

Mr TEAGUE: That is the one, the release of it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is the question?

Mr TEAGUE: I am getting to that. You have the dot point?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can see it.

Mr TEAGUE: Can the Attorney give an update on when that might occur and what areas of strategic importance exist for State Records in the years ahead?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that, as the member knows, State Records supports state and local government agencies in the management of information through the administration of the acts. State Records' current strategic plan ends in 2022, I am informed. My advice is that the strategic plan 2023-26 is currently under development and will set the direction for State Records for the next four years by establishing a set of goals and strategies for the organisation to meet its vision and purpose.

It will outline goal-supporting strategies that focus on how State Records will partner with the government and community; reimagine the archive, including its role and relationship with Aboriginal people; increase awareness of the value and accessibility of the collection; and support agents in their information management programs.

Broad community consultation on the strategic plan for State Records 2023-26 will occur to allow stakeholders, customers and the community the opportunity to provide input into the future direction. The strategic plan 2023-26, I am informed, is intended to be published by the end of the 2022 calendar year.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Attorney-General's Department complete. The proposed payments for the Attorney-General's portfolio will continue after lunch.