Courts Administration Authority, $93,617,000

Membership:

S.E. Andrews substituted for Ms Wortley.

Hon. L.W.K. Bignell substituted for Ms Savvas.

Mr Brown substituted for Ms Thompson.

Mr Teague substituted for Hon. D.J. Speirs.

Hon. J.A.W. Gardner substituted for Mr Batty.

Mr Basham substituted for Hon. V.A. Tarzia.

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

Hon. Justice T. Stanley, Supreme Court Justice, Acting Chair, State Courts Administration Council, Courts Administration Authority.

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

Ms L. Abrams-South, Executive Director Corporate Services, Chief Financial Officer, Courts Administration Authority.

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

The CHAIR: Good morning. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that that is the case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The CHAIR: 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 8 September 2023. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not to the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination, but before I do that, I note the changes to the committee.

The portfolio is the Courts Administration Authority. The minister appearing is the Attorney-General. The estimate of payments is for the Courts Administration Authority. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Attorney-General to make a statement, if he so wishes, and to introduce his advisers. Then I will call on the lead speaker for the opposition to make a statement, if he so desires, and I will then proceed to questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, Chair. I do not have an opening statement to make, but I will take the opportunity to introduce the Hon. Justice Timothy Stanley, Supreme Court Justice and Acting Chair of the State Courts Administration Council; Penny Croser, the State Courts Administrator; and Linda Abrams-South, Executive Director Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Courts Administration Authority. Behind me is Mr Chris Black, the Finance Manager of the Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition?

Mr TEAGUE: I have no statement, Chair; I will get on with questions.

The CHAIR: Okay, proceed.

Mr TEAGUE: I start by opening Budget Paper 3 and turning to page 23, operating expenses. I think we might use that as a ready reckoner across the day, so I might keep it open. We see there, conveniently set out, the agency expenditure. On the discrete item of courts we have $95 million budgeted and a $2 million blowout budget—relatively modest in the scheme of the overall blowouts. Is there anything that you would like to say at the outset about the reason for the $2 million excess to expenses?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it would not be accurate to describe it as a budget blowout, but in the Mid-Year Budget Review there was an allocation of funding for the continuation of a part-time magistrate for the Youth Court, and that marginally reflects that Mid-Year Budget decision.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, that is instructive. The next item that might perhaps be borne in mind by reference is the operating savings that were built into the Attorney-General's Department in last year's budget. We do not see them as a budget measure in this year's budget, for obvious reasons.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Do you want to refer to the page?

Mr TEAGUE: I am still on page 23, where we see that the 2023-24 budget pushes us out now to $100 million. That is as against a $96 million estimate last year. Is it the same simple answer in terms of how that excess is baked in?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can, for the member's benefit. My advice is that there are reasons for that difference, being a number of things: firstly, additional resources that have been provided and associated with Operation Ironside to the tune of $1.2 million, higher courts development funding of $1 million, Way supplementation of $0.7 million and reclassification of carryover funds from capital to operating of $0.525 million.

Mr TEAGUE: We will get to the higher courts point fairly soon, and we will have a look at Ironside fairly soon as well. That is 2.2 of it and I note those others. If I can now go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, the Agency Statement at page 132, there is a line of questions now in terms of the expenditure summary that is set out in the table there. First of all, the Court of Appeal office accommodation. It is a question of working through the table. It is the first line item in the table at about point 3 on the page, Court of Appeal office accommodation. We see there estimated completion in the June quarter of 2024. Do you have that?

That is against last year's estimate being the June quarter of 2022, so is there an explanation for the two-year blowout? I do not mean it as an inflammatory term. Let's say the two-year delay, extension, non-completion, difference—June 2022 to June 2024. What is the reason for that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice regarding the funding that was allocated by the previous government for the capital works on the Court of Appeal is that it has been deemed that the full amount of that funding is not necessary for what is needed for the Court of Appeal. That funding has been carried over for other works in the courts precinct, including things needed to accommodate hearings under Operation Ironside.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry, I do not quite follow that. There are two propositions, as I understand that answer. One is that funding is inadequate and, secondly—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the funding that had previously been allocated by the former government for the Court of Appeal capital works has not all been needed for that purpose. It has been carried over in that budget line to potentially be used for other purposes that are more necessary and needed by capital works to accommodate Operation Ironside.

Mr TEAGUE: And we heard a bit about those last year, the court enhancements for the purposes of Ironside.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We did.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not expect you to have it in front of you, but in last year's equivalent tables at page 131 of the Volume 1, Agency Statement, we saw last year's estimate for the Court of Appeal office accommodation being completed in June 2022. It was unsurprising that there was nothing in the 2022-23 budget for that completion, and the total project cost was there set out at $1.373 million—you might have to take my word for it, but if it is convenient to bring it up—stated as the total project cost.

We see at page 132 of this year the total project cost described as $1.348 million, and there is $1.008 million set out there as a budgeted expense for 2023-24. That is against a touch over $1 million in 2021-22. On the face of it that seems to head towards a total project cost somewhere in excess of $2.2 million. Would you agree with that, or is it something new? It is not expressed to be.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just so I am clear, to arrive at your figure are you adding up figures that appear in this budget and that appeared in last year's budget that do not appear in this budget?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You are putting together the sum of what appears at page 132 in this year's budget of Existing projects and Court of Appeal accommodation, the second column $1.348 million—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What are you adding to that to come up with your figure?

Mr TEAGUE: The project cost at page 132 is $1.348 million and there is a budged amount of a tick over a million for 2023-34.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The $1.008 million?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, the $1.008 million. Then, if we go back to last year, we see that the estimated result for 2021-22 was another tick over a million, $1.083 million, and then there was nothing budgeted in 2022-23 because it might have been presumed last year that the project was finished in June 2022. You have just described reasons for the extension to June 2024, but we appear to have a total project cost in excess of $2.2 million.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I am not sure that is how we describe it. The $1.008 million that appears in that column, if my advice is correct, is carryover from the last year. I am advised that the $1 million from last year has been carried forward already, and already appears as part of the figures we see on page 132. That is what I am advised.

Mr TEAGUE: So it simply was not applied in 2021-22; is that right?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice: it was not applied. It forms part of the amount we see on page 132 of this year's budget. That is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: Why did we not hear about it last year, in that case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Hear about what?

Mr TEAGUE: Why did we not hear about the application of those funds last year, when we saw a zero sum applied in the budget last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How do you mean, 'Why didn't we hear about it'?

The CHAIR: Questions for this examination have to relate to matters in these budget papers. If there was something that should have been or should not have been raised last year—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take it on notice. I am not sure I quite follow—

The CHAIR: I have not finished yet. Also, I draw the attention of members on my left that it is not reasonable to expect a minister to respond to information that is not available and we should not assume that the minister can actually access that information. We need to make sure our questions relate to information that is in this budget, in the time periods in this budget. You can take the question on notice, if you wish, minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can take it on notice to see if we can figure out what is being asked.

Mr TEAGUE: We will stay with the table, and we are still at page 132. The Chair will be pleased to know that we are at page 132 of this year's Agency Statements, Volume 1. The higher courts redevelopment, again we have seen an augmentation of the estimated completion from last year indicating June 2022 to now March 2024. Do you agree?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: By an augmentation, what—

Mr TEAGUE: A change, a blowout, a delay.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If your question is, is there funding that appeared in last year's budget that was not spent in the time that last year's budget had aimed for it to be spent and it has carried over to this one, then the answer is yes, if that is your question.

Mr TEAGUE: That was not the question. The question was why the delay in the estimated completion date to start with.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We accept that there has been a carryover and you are asking why was that money carried over; is that the question?

Mr TEAGUE: We have not got there yet. We are just going from an estimated completion date of June 2022 to March 2024; is there a reason for that? What is still to be done? Why is it not finished?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the money that was budgeted for the project was expended for what it was intended for. There was an underspend and that was carried over.

Mr TEAGUE: Carried over for what purpose and why until March 2024?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For other things for courts.

Mr TEAGUE: Do you know anything more about that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the higher courts development business case is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: We see that there is completion expected March 2024 and a total project cost of $30 million, yet there is no funding in this year's budget; there is a dash by the 2023-24 budget line item. How are we to interpret that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think that is explained by my last answer, that the project for the redevelopment has been completed and there has been some left over from it and that has been put into the business case—the underspend is being put into the business case. The redevelopment project is finished, so this money is now being applied to the business case.

Mr TEAGUE: Why describe it as having an estimated completion date of March 2024 then?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is when it is estimated that that underspend will be utilised.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, it might have got more of a gold star for the overall project if it had perhaps been described differently, but that might be a comment along the way. One more on the table, the next line item, the Sir Samuel Way facade repairs—the rather epic journey of the Samuel Way facade repairs—again we have an estimated completion date moving from what was previously stated as June 2023 to now being June 2024.

This time there are funds that are allocated in the budget for the completion of the works. On the face of it, it would appear to be a coherent description in the budget. There is work to be done to June 2024 and there is money in the budget to do it, so we see in the 2023-24 budget $10.709 million to be applied on that project; correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised yes.

Mr TEAGUE: We see a total project cost there described as $11.494 million; correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think you are reading those five figures correctly, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: You might need to take it from me, but 2021-22 tells us that $9.112 million was spent in that year, and some more is being spent in 2022-23, which leads to a total project cost of something more like $20 million. Is there an explanation for that?

The CHAIR: Can I clarify that this question based on the budget papers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I cannot see it in this year's budget papers, sir.

The CHAIR: With all due respect to you, member for Heysen, I do not think we can actually assume those facts, so you need to rephrase your question or move to a new question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, without having the benefit of last year's budget papers in front of me, we suspect it might be the case that it is adding up two numbers, one of which already includes carryovers. That is what we suspect is the case.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a commonsense point. Surely the Attorney is aware that millions are being spent on the Sir Samuel Way facade repairs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is no secret.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not a trick question. Unlike the other two that are a bit harder to interpret—and I am glad you have taken the answers on notice—the Samuel Way facade repairs have a budgeted expense that is relatively significant that South Australians would be interested to know how it is deployed over the year ahead, and that is welcome.

We see that, on the face of it, the amount to be spent on the 2023-24 budget of $10.709 million is remarkably close to the described total project cost against a background of millions having been spent in previous years. If the Chair is not wanting me to set out specifics, it is a commonsense point. We all know that there are millions in addition to that $10 million, so how are we to give some meaningful interpretation to the figure in the total project cost line item there of $11.494 million?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that question on notice. I think we are having trouble identifying the millions and millions that are being spent that, as I think the member may have suggested, doubled the project cost. That is not my advice that that is the case at all.

Mr TEAGUE: To assist—and again I appreciate your taking it on notice—the relevant figures are at page 132 of the 2022-23 Agency Statement. The estimated result for 2021-22 is $9 million. The budget last year was $2.485 million, and the total project cost last year was described as $11.600 million. So far so relatively coherent, yet we now see a marginally augmented total project cost but a fresh round of $10 million, it would appear on the face of it, for the Sam Way facade.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I am happy to correct it to the extent that it needs correcting, but my initial advice is that there is not a doubling. My advice is that much of what is included in the figure that appears in this year's budget is carry forward from previous years. If there is something that is substantially different, I am happy to bring back a reply. If that is substantially the reason for what we have seen, then that would be the answer.

Mr TEAGUE: That, in turn, would explain the further year's delay, but I appreciate your taking those matters on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, to the extent that carry forward is not the simple answer for it, I am happy to take it on notice if there is another explanation, but that does not appear to be the case.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, I emphasise that the estimated result for 2021-22 was $9 million spent, so I appreciate your assistance in that regard. There might have been a component carried forward.

While we are at it, the higher courts redevelopment project is nearly done, and that line item might be expressed unusually. Is there any impact from courts and facilities point of view that has been identified in terms of plans to have as a staging point SAPOL horses on land that has been set aside for those courts processes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we are not aware of anything that would affect that.

Mr TEAGUE: Any other budgetary or facilities preparation that is needed to be identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we are not aware of that at this stage.

Mr TEAGUE: I will go to some of the operational side, and perhaps the most convenient point of reference is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 151. There we see statement of cash flows, operating activities and the cash inflows. Under fees, fines and penalties, the second subcategory, civil fees, there is an approximately $4 million increase in civil fees anticipated to be collected from 2021-22 to the current budget. Do you see that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Between the final column saying $6.532 million and the first column with the estimate of $10.217 million?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. It would appear, by the way, that whoever is setting those amounts is pretty adept at estimating because the budgeted amount for 2022-23 accords precisely with the estimated result. There appears to have been a very accurate prediction process for the last year, but I say that by and by. There is a relatively dramatic increase from 2021-22 to 2022-23 and then a more modest increase again from 2023-24. Can the minister explain both the rationale and the source for that roughly $4 million increase from 2021-22 to the present?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have advice on why the budget estimate this year is necessarily different from previous years. A commonsense reading has in that one year from $9 million to $10 million a smaller increase from the year before which is $6 million, so the increase from one year to the next is relatively small compared to two years ago to the next. I do not have the information and I do not have any advice on that but I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Has there been any individual fee increase to which that can be identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is not an individual fee increase that we are aware of, so I have to take it on notice as I do not have it. I am advised there is no individual fee that anyone is aware of that would mean that, but in terms of that 2021-22 year and why it is bigger now, we are happy to have a look at it and find out and bring back a reply.

Mr TEAGUE: So you will take that on notice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I shall take that on notice. For the sake of completeness for the honourable member, the fee increase for this year, I am advised, is set at the standard government fee increase of 4.8 per cent from 1 July 2023 including for court fees. As I say, we are not aware of anything that would be in any individual particular fee, given that the standard court fees will increase by that standard rate that is the formula that has been used, mostly I understand, for many, many years.

Mr TEAGUE: The only other obvious source is volume, filings, but it is still somewhat dramatic.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is somewhat dramatic. As I say, I am happy to take that on notice. That 2021-22 year was the tail end of COVID which may impact things. But again I do not want to speculate. I am happy to take that on notice. But, yes, I think it is a reasonable assumption; if fees have increased generally at the standard rates of government fee increases—

Mr TEAGUE: You would not expect a 50 per cent increase.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, activity may be a much more reasonable explanation for that rather than fee increases.

Mr TEAGUE: Still in Volume 1, page 138, Sub-program 1.4: Coroner, we see there at point 7 on the page, and then at about point 9 on the page, two rather elliptical statements, one expressed in terms of a highlight 2022-23, and then one in terms of an explanation of a significant movement. First the 'Continuation of an additional Deputy Coroner and associated support staff for a 12-month period to assist in reducing the backlog'—I am just reading that word for word—and then the explanation of the significant movement is it being 'primarily due to time-limited funding for an additional Deputy Coroner and associated support staff'—in other words, the discontinuation of the third Coroner.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: That has been a decision of the government that is expressed in the budget and we see it as a significant movement. That is right, is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Meanwhile, in terms of the circumstances that the Coroner's Court finds itself in, we have a series of indicators including on the following page that the volume and the workload of the Coroner's Court just continues to increase. That is clear enough on the face of it, is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will fluctuate but people are still dying and I do not think there is going to be a significant reduction.

Mr TEAGUE: There might be some other reasons for the increasing load, apart from the observation of the Attorney. Just to pick up the point about fluctuation, if we are at page 139 and the final line of the written words in that table—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, which—

Mr TEAGUE: Page 139, the bottom line, 'No. of coronial finalisations'. The 2021-22 actual was 2,674, the projection last year—it is all on the face of this year but it is talking about other years—the projection for last year against that actual was a minor decrease, do you agree?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, from—

Mr TEAGUE: From 2021-22 to 2022-23, the projection that we saw last year expressed that we see there on the page again this year was a minor reduction.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So 2,674 to 2,600: a reduction of 74, is that—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. Yet, unlike the civil fees estimation, which was remarkably accurate, the estimated result for 2022-23 in fact was a quite substantial jump from 2,674 to 3,110; that is right, too, is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is what—

Mr TEAGUE: That is what it says.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is 3,110 in that column.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. So we now see in the 2023-24 budget, the great big relevant number, a projection, and that projection is 3,000. A bit like we saw last year, a projection that was a minor increment reduction in finalisations from 2021-22 to 2022-23, it turned out not only wrong but overly optimistic. The fluctuation, to use the Attorney's word, was all the other way and quite dramatically so.

What we see now is a projection that we are going to see another optimistic incremental reduction, and my question is: on what grounds is that based? Are there actually grounds or are we operating on the same set of assumptions that might have applied last year and in which case is that a pretty good guide that we are not actually likely to see a reduction in finalisations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the question: what is the methodology that is used for this particular activity indicator?

Mr TEAGUE: Sure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that information with me. In each of the jurisdictions, the Courts Administration Authority will talk to those jurisdictions about a whole range of things that affect what they do and make those predictions.

Mr TEAGUE: That range or that methodology has not changed dramatically from one year to the next; it is the same methodology from one year to the next as far as you know?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have any information about that. Obviously, methodologies that are used to predict things, not just in courts but in every area of government, will be subject to changes and influences. New facts become available, there is new evidence. I am not aware whether there have or have not been any new things that have been brought to bear on this or not.

Mr TEAGUE: Would you take on notice an indication if there has been anything different? I am not expecting that there has been, but if there has been I would certainly—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take on those and bring back if there has been something new but, if there has not, I think we can take it as read there has not been anything.

Mr TEAGUE: I would be glad to give you that opportunity. Absent that, if we assume just for present purposes that we have seen a 2021-22 actual result, a 2022-23 projection that hopes to trim that a bit, but the end result is a substantial increase and then we are seeing again a projected trimming, with or without asking you to speculate about the future, if we see that repeated—whether we take the 2023-24 projection in bold text on the page from the government applying the methodology, or whether we take as a trend the year-on-year figures from the previous—we are seeing a situation where we have seen coronial finalisations increase in an order of magnitude from 2021-22 to 2023-24. That is plain is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I think, however, one thing that may factor into it but we are not taking into account is obviously legislative change that occurs. In the term of the last government there was a legislative change that occurred that the parliament agreed with in terms of what things coroners needed to do and when they needed to have coronial inquests. There will be things that will—

Mr TEAGUE: Add to the workload.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —tip up and down depending on the decisions that we make as parliaments as well.

Mr TEAGUE: Exactly as you say, Attorney, they do have an impact. You have talked about fluctuations, and I just suggest that the impact is up, up, up. It is not with a view to trimming.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to go back and check, but I think there have been changes that have been made that will not necessarily have that impact, in the past.

Mr TEAGUE: It might be useful for your consideration when you are taking it on notice just to have a second look at the 2021-22 annual report for the Coroner's Court.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just add, too, these are finalisation matters—these are not new matters in any given year—finalising matters that have related to previous time periods, which show up in figures for that next year not in the year in which the matter may have started or materialised.

Mr TEAGUE: I take all that on board. We will see. It is not only the 2022-23 estimated result that we can see as a source for where things are heading, but the annual report of the Coroner's Court sets out those figures and the trends on deaths reported. So I just refer you to that as well as those figures, projected and actual. The proposition is that the trend is up and substantially so in a sustained way. In the circumstances, what is the rationale—to use the more diplomatic, bureaucratic language—for not continuing time-limited funding for an additional deputy coroner? In other words, why was that not continued and if not made permanent in this year's budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the member has described it correctly. It was time-limited funding and it is based on advice that is received about what the priorities are across the court system and within departments generally. As the member correctly points out, it was time-limited funding. It is something that the previous government had obviously turned their mind to in the same way and decided not to make it a structural permanent change.

I assume the previous government and previous Attorney-General's Department had received advice and, for the same reason, not made a structural change for funding that was time limited. So the member is absolutely correct. It would not be correct to describe it as a cut. It is not something that was in the budget in the forward estimates. This was a time-limited amount of funding.

Mr TEAGUE: All that you say is true, Attorney; it was time limited. You have two options: one is to provide further time-limited funding; another is to make it permanent. Against the background of the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In a world where there was unlimited resources and unlimited amounts of funding, and there was not a commitment to introduce new taxes, you would just keep funding every single thing that had ever been funded. But that is not reality and the world that we face.

Mr TEAGUE: Do you have a view then—if you go a couple of lines up on page 139, you have—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: 139?

Mr TEAGUE: Same page, a couple of lines up. You have this continuing, what I would describe as heroic target—you have seen it before. You have a target of 10 per cent; you saw that last year. The estimated result is 33 from last year with the reduction of an additional deputy coroner. That is, the reduction of the number of coroners who are attending to that workload, and against the background of the increasing number of coronial finalisations, how can you possibly apply the same target?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the target that is set down is the national standard target pursuant to the Report on Government Services (RoGS) target. The target that is set down is what is set down by that national standard. My advice is that it is not just South Australia that is—I think the member may have described it as 'heroically aspirational'. It is a national target that is set down, and my advice is that those targets are rarely met, not just in South Australia but around Australia.

My advice is not that the Courts Administration Authority sits down and says 'We think we can get to 10 per cent,' and then they do not get to 10 per cent and the actual results, or the estimated results, are in the 30 per cent. This is a national target set down by the Report on Government Services. It would be a quite aspirational target, but it is not one that we set down as something that in any given year we think we are meeting. This is a national target.

Mr TEAGUE: I hear you. It is an extraordinary state of affairs, though, I suggest, that it is not described as an aspirational target. It is not described as something that we just shrug about and inevitably do not achieve; it is there for a reason. In circumstances where the finalisation numbers are continuing to grow, is that not just an indication that you are throwing up your hands at the outset and indicating that there is no prospect of getting anywhere near it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, as I think the budget paper actually says, the standards used are those adopted by the Report on Government Services. The budget papers make clear that this is not the target that we have set down; it is the standard adopted by the Report on Government Services. As the figures on the budget papers show, the estimated result from one year to the next improves by I think 5 per cent. Improvements are welcome, but these are national targets that are set down.

Mr TEAGUE: I just suggest that is a forward indication of failure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to pass this on to the steering committee. It might be a view that we can pass on as a collective view, a bipartisan view, that we should not set down targets that all jurisdictions find hard to meet and they ought to be more realistic.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, it might be, against the background of the evidence I have just had in these few minutes a chance to draw attention to, a case for continuing that third Coroner—for example, if there is to be any responsibility to be taken for including those RoGS numbers in the budget projections. You have perhaps described that.

I go back a couple of pages now, moving away from the Coroner's Court but to similar subject matter, to page 134 and about point 7. It is one we have been to before, so let's use it as an example of a similar performance setting.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, those are the 10 per cent figures that are set down by the RoGS steering committee.

Mr TEAGUE: As we know, the District Court bears the bulk of the case load in terms of volume, so it is the jurisdiction that I will just focus on for a minute or two. We see there the application of those targets. The 2021-22 actual result was 30 per cent. The 2022-23 target was 10 per cent and there, unlike what the Attorney has just observed as an improvement actual to estimated, for the Coroner we see a deterioration to an estimated 35 per cent of lodgements pending completion greater than 12 months old. Is there any reason for that to be here described, and what resourcing has been directed to the District Court to improve on that outcome? There is a similar blowout increase when it comes to those that are greater than 24 months old.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that certainly one aspect of that is still a flow-on effect from the very significant delays we had in jury trials during the COVID era. As the member pointed out, the District Court does a lot of the grunt work of the court system, including jury trials, and one reason is during the COVID era the delays in being able to hold jury trials had a flow-on effect that persists to what we are seeing today. That is, I am advised, one of the reasons.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there a plan, other than the effluxion of time, to improve on the result?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are seeing pressures on a number of areas in the court system. The flow-ons from Operation Ironside have had, I think, in each budget and Mid-Year Budget Review since we have been in government further funding applied to it. There certainly is further funding being applied when there is a need for the anticipated increase in activity that we are seeing.

Mr TEAGUE: We will come to that. We will come to Ironside and those other matters more broadly in the next session, so perhaps hold that thought. While we are at it, in terms of the District Court, going over to page 137, we are there talking about the results for Sub-program 1.3: Civil Jurisdiction. It is about point 2 on the page, the FTEs as at June. Last year's budget set out FTEs of 170. The estimated result for 2022-23 was 17 less than that, so exactly down at 153. Are there particular reasons for that and reasons why we might be assured that that has not, as it were, contributed to the deterioration on the backlog indicators?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that if you look at the table at the bottom of page 130, the same area of the budget papers, it shows for the Courts Administration Authority in total a stable workforce, if not a very slight increase from the estimated result. It is not that there are fewer people in the court system, but I am advised that there is internally within the court system a way that it is worked out how the resources are best applied, depending on the work demands relative to different parts of the Courts Administration Authority.

I am advised we will see that different areas within the Courts Administration Authority from year to year have different amounts, based on the Courts Administration Authority's own resource allocation as needed. Some areas might see a decrease in something that is based on the estimates of relative need for resource allocation, but the overall workforce in the Courts Administration Authority has remained very steady.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that. Given the relatively substantial shift in the civil jurisdiction against that steady outcome, is it possible to give an indication about where that substantial change has occurred or been compensated for on the other end and the reasons for it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I understand the question correctly, if the overall FTEs in the CAA have remained steady, in this area if they have gone down where have they gone to; is that essentially what is being asked?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, absolutely.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I do not have the exact breakdown of where two or three might have gone here or there but, to the extent we can, I will take it on notice to bring back a reply for the member on that one.

Mr TEAGUE: Is it anticipated that it is to apply for the foreseeable future, or is it a particularly temporary matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it goes up and down, depending on relative activity across the CAA.

Mr TEAGUE: Getting back to where we started, Budget Paper 3, page 23, and the line item for courts, again in the context of the overall blowouts, a relatively modest—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think, as we discussed before, it is not necessarily blowouts. It can be carryovers that can account for that.

Mr TEAGUE: You are right. I was really describing those excesses to budget in other areas that have contributed to the $1.353 billion overall. In that context, the courts excess might be both relatively explainable and modest—so it is a bit of a tick there. Moving to the next column and looking into the future, we see that the 2023-24 budget is ticking up to $100 million. Do you see that? Leaving aside the operating efficiencies that were applied as a budget measure last year and that necessarily—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The courts did not have operational efficiencies applied to them last year. There were a number of areas of government that were exempt from that, and courts were one.

Mr TEAGUE: I think there were a couple—courts and child protection. We will get to it in the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, all your portfolios.

Mr TEAGUE: The broader Attorney-General's Department certainly did, and the courts were exempted—well and good. We see that incremental and maybe explainable excess to budget in 2022-23 is then heading to a further increase in the budget out to $100 million in 2023-24, in the current budget, as against what had previously been set out at $96 million. If that $2 million excess to budget was the result of those particular factors, in the short point what is the reason for the $4 million of extra provision in the current budget? Well, it is $6 million really, if you benchmark against what the performance should have been last year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are things that occur, and I have been pleased that in Mid-Year Budget Reviews since we have been in government there have been allocations made for courts, but the primary result between the 2023-24 budget and the estimated result in 2022-23 are things like the additional resources associated with Operation Ironside and the higher courts redevelopment funding and wage supplementation. Also, there was $0.525 million of reclassification of carryover funds that were capital that are able to be carried over and reclassified as operating for that year.

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