Attorney-General's Department, $114,607,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $158,992,000

Membership:

Mr Brown substituted for Ms Thompson.

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, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department.

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

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

The CHAIR: We now move to the Attorney-General's Department. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I invite the Attorney-General to make a statement, if he wishes to do so. If he could also introduce his advisers. I then welcome the lead speaker to make any comments and lead into questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have no opening statement to make. I am keen to give the members as much time as possible for questions. I will introduce those who are with me today. Behind me I have Darren Corcoran, the Director of Financial Services; Adam Kilvert, Executive Director of Policy and Community; Caroline Mealor, the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department; and a quarter of a century, the 25^th year of involvement in the budget estimates process, Andrew Swanson, the Chief Financial Officer—25 golden years.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Heysen wish to make a lead comment, or do you wish to just go straight into questions?

Mr TEAGUE: I will just get on with it, thanks, Chair. Can I start by asking that we have attention to the ready reckoner at page 23 of Budget Paper 3. I might also have open more particularly Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 53, which sets out those operating expenses somewhat more particularly.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What page was it?

Mr TEAGUE: Page 53. Bottom line of the table on page 53—the second to bottom, actually.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Expenses included in net cost of services?

Mr TEAGUE: That is the one, and then compare that to the first line of table 2.6 at page 23.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is getting tricky, but we will try.

Mr TEAGUE: It is where we were before. We see there an estimated result for 2022-23 in excess to budget in the amount of $8 million in round numbers. Before I move on to the budget amount for 2023-24, is there any explanation that the Attorney can provide for that $8 million excess to budget that is set out on each of those two pages? Again, it is a relatively modest contribution to the $1.353 billion overall but $8 million nonetheless.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was about $6.6 million, the variance that the honourable member has referred to.

Mr TEAGUE: Hang on, I think it is eight—it is eight and a bit.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are increases and decreases that net off but, comparing the figures the member has referred to, in very round numbers it is $8 million. I am advised that the difference is mainly attributed to a number of factors that include carry over of funding from 2021 for various grant payments made under the National Legal Assistance Partnership (NLAP) agreement; targeted voluntary separation packages that were provided in the 2022-23 year; additional funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Operation Ironside and complex criminal cases; and additional funding to Forensic Science SA for the management and storage of bodies. They are, I am advised, some of the reasons for the increase. There were decreases that partly offset that as well, including adjustments to depreciation as well.

Mr TEAGUE: I am glad to have them identified, as it were. This is a good opportunity to identify them. They are a good way to describe the ordinary commitments and expenses that are inherent in operating the Attorney-General's Department. In effect, there has been $8 million of expenditure excess to budget—that is the bottom line.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it would be more correct, rather than 'excess to budget', to describe it as budget adjustments made during the year. I would not describe things like additional funding for Operation Ironside and complex cases as excess to budget. These are budget spending decisions made during the year.

Mr TEAGUE: They are provisions made through the years that have led to a result that is in excess of the amount that was budgeted in 2022-23.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A difference, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: A difference—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In excess of, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: —in the excess. We go from $277 million to $285 million on budget estimate. As I say, it is a relatively modest contribution to the overall $1.353 billion excess overall that we see at page 23. Again, I am prepared to accept an explanation in terms of, 'Well, this is the range of commitments, and they are the ordinary commitments of any given year, and it has led to an $8 million excess.'

To the extent that they are particular to that year, they perhaps do not provide as helpful an indication as to the next question, which is the reasons we see the figure for the 2023-24 budget, the current one, then set at $290 million, as opposed to where it was estimated last year. It gets to the background: if you say there are particular challenges that have led to commitments in this last financial year, then alright, the rise is so high. If that is the case, why are we not reverting to the 278 point? We can come back to the operating efficiencies measures from last year if that is helpful as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I understand the question. It is partly explained, as well, by the fact that not all these things are going to be expenditure in just the one year. For example, additional funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Operation Ironside and complex criminal cases is $1.9 million, but the total funding over the forward estimates for Operation Ironside and complex legal cases amounts to $16 million over the forward estimates. That will necessarily reflect in the next year's budget additional funding for Forensic Science SA, although I am advised part of the contribution for that increased between the budget set down in 2022-23 and the estimated result that the member for Heysen has indicated. It represents a $3.5 million increase over four years.

So there are a number of these things that are reasons why it has increased in the 2022-23 year that also provide reasons for why it has increased in the 2023-24 year, because although they are increases in the year we have just been talking about, they are also things that remain in the year ahead and, in the case of both of those, across the forward estimates.

Mr TEAGUE: I would just suggest to you that that is actually not a particularly good answer, in that you—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you for your helpful advice. I am happy to tell you how to do your job too.

Mr TEAGUE: With respect, it is not a matter of telling you how to do your job.

The CHAIR: Can I just remind members—and I have let it go—that this is actually a committee meeting. It is not a personal discussion between the Attorney-General and the member for Heysen. I would ask that all questions and answers be directed through the Chair.

Mr TEAGUE: Can I suggest, Chair, that for the benefit of the committee it is not a particularly good answer to highlight commitments that have been made. In particular, the minister has drawn attention to Operation Ironside and we have had reference to operating savings, both of which appeared in the last budget. I might serve both of them to illustrate the fallacy in the minister's response, in that last year the Operation Ironside provision over the forward estimates was set out in the Budget Measures Statement and provided for funding around, and a bit in excess of, $1.5 million in each of the years out to 2025-26.

Similarly, on the flip side, we have seen in the Budget Measures Statement a really quite significant operating savings measure for AGD of $14 million coming from last year's budget, and then continuing savings that are built in for 2023-24 out to 2025-26 as measures last year. So both in terms of provision for Ironside there is pre-provision—it is not as though this is something that we have all just discovered or LSC has come along with a complex case. This is of a different nature, in that there is provision for Ironside.

If the Attorney wants to say that that was wrong and we need to revise it, then we need to see it as a fresh measure in the Budget Statement, perhaps. Otherwise, I just make the point that it is there in the measures from last year, anticipated. Similarly, we have those operating savings built in on the flip side.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the member is disappointed at the answers given, it might be directly reflective of the questions asked. I would point out that when an initiative appears in a Mid-Year Budget Review, then it appears in the next year's budget. I am not sure if the member has been part of a budget process in his time holding ministerial portfolios, but that is often how it works.

For example, in Operation Ironside in the 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Review there was further money on top of the last budget and on top of the Mid-Year Budget Review before that. So in the 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Review, in addition to previous moneys that had been provided there were further funds provided in that Mid-Year Budget Review. If the honourable member is under the misapprehension that everything already accounted for in Operation Ironside was accounted for in the previous year's budgets, that is not the case. There was further money in the Mid-Year Budget Review.

Mr TEAGUE: That is true, and really the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That seems not to accord with the member's last statement/question.

Mr TEAGUE: I am under fairly strict constraints from the Chair, it would appear, in terms of referring to previous documents, so what I do refer to is perhaps illustrative. The bottom line proposition is that surely there comes a point where the question is about basic management of the budget year to year. It is all very well to refer to individual matters that have come up from time to time, but what we have seen as a bottom line is an $8 million excess to budget—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, just to be clear—

Mr TEAGUE: —that has been baked in in terms of expenditure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I assume the words are deliberately chosen. The member is a well-respected former lawyer who chooses his words carefully. It is not an excess to what we had planned to do and somehow there has been a waste of money in some areas because there is some sort of excess spending. These are spending decisions that have been made during the course of the year. It is not things that—although they can happen—rapidly escalate. What I have referred to are the deliberate spending decisions for events and circumstances that we find ourselves in.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that completely, and we see them baked in again going forward.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is described, not necessarily just baked in from the previous year but when circumstances dictate it, such as Operation Ironside, as new information comes to hand or there is a better ability to estimate the need in the justice system, further funding commitments are made. We cannot not just fund things where there is evidence of dangerous criminals. I think that would be a perverse outcome if we did not fund those things, and I think the public would expect that people are brought to justice where there is the evidence to support it.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are on it, in terms of that overall outcome, were the operating savings that were set out in 2022-23 achieved, and were they then contributing to the meeting of expenditure constraints for this year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, those savings have effectively been met.

Mr TEAGUE: They were, so the $14,053,000 from last year contributed to—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, the $14 million, where is the member referring to that as a saving last year? Is the assumption in the question that there was an efficiency saving of $14.3 million last financial year?

Mr TEAGUE: It was $14.053 million.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which budget line is the member referring to?

Mr TEAGUE: Last year, Budget Measures.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Whereabouts so we can refer to it?

Mr TEAGUE: Page 9, Budget Measures, last year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have last year's. Sorry, Chair, we are at a bit of a difficulty—

The CHAIR: We need to work on the figures that are in this budget's papers. We should not assume or introduce facts that are outside those. The minister should not be responding to questions that assume certain facts.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a question about page 23 of the Budget Statement as replicated on page 53 of Volume 1 this year. The question is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think everyone is having trouble finding where the member is getting the figure of $14 million from, so maybe—

Mr TEAGUE: That is the magic of Budget Measures Statements. When they are a budget measure from the previous year, they then do not get restated, but they do carry forward because they are forward estimates statements. That is just clear.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, the honourable member has managed to perplex, I think, most of the advisers with the $14 million sum.

Mr TEAGUE: As perhaps a bit of further context, when the questions were asked in the course of last year's estimates about where those operating savings were going to be found, the answer was, 'Well, we will apply diligence to finding those savings and we will see it at the end of the year.' It would be unsurprising to have an answer now, 'Well, they were achieved and they have contributed to budget management.' That would be an unsurprising answer. There is certainly no mystery to the budgeted operating savings for the department.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the assumption again, and I know we do not have these here, but just so we can check for later on in case it comes up—the member says that in the last financial year, that is the 2022-23 financial year, the Attorney-General's Department had an efficiency savings target of 14 point something million?

Mr TEAGUE: Do you want to see it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, we will go away and have a look later.

Mr TEAGUE: I can hand it to you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are happy to go away and have a look.

Mr TEAGUE: Happy to have a look?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Later.

Mr TEAGUE: For good measure, this year included 6.5; 2024-25, 4.5; and 2025-26, 7.2. In a way, it is an opportunity for an answer that I thought I had actually received, that is, that if those diligence measures have been applied they have contributed to being within cooee of the overall.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The $6.2 million figure mentioned, if that is in a current budget paper, that might be useful for us to refer to.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, but it is a measure from last year. There are no fresh operating savings this year. We would expect to see it applied over those years.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are at a bit of a loss.

Mr TEAGUE: You do not know if you have applied the operating savings from last year's budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the question was whether they met the efficiency savings that the AGD had against their name. Is it the sort of headline question that—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

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

Mr TEAGUE: How?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: By making the savings.

Mr TEAGUE: What measures were applied, more particularly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: From factors such as the offering of targeted voluntary separation packages across the agency. There were some savings that had been achieved from vacant positions in the tight labour market—noting the difficulties that both the public and private sectors have in attracting and retaining staff—and an amount in general efficiencies, including supply and services, and accommodation.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, that is clear.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We got there.

Mr TEAGUE: You say they have been met in full, and I am conscious that at the outset you explained that part of the reason for the blowout in costs was the cost of those targeted voluntary separation packages. It is a bit of both.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, they do not add up to the $14 million the member referred to.

Mr TEAGUE: No, sure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No-one can really understand that figure as some sort of an operational savings measure, but they add up to what the AGD had as an operational savings measure.

Mr TEAGUE: For all of our edification, I might hand it to you while I move onto something else and we can perhaps satisfy ourselves.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If this is a photocopy from a page, you would have to make sure I know exactly what it is.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a whole section: 2022-23 Budget Measures. It was a really important part of the budget in 2022-23.

The CHAIR: It would help the committee's understanding if there was perhaps a little less commentary and more questions and answers. That would actually make the whole process more effective I think. I will start pulling members up if they do not have a direct question and just run commentary. The floor is yours, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Apart from a single page, I have been referring to Part 2: Budget measures by agency 2022-23. It starts at page 7 of the Budget Measures Statement. The relevant page is page 9. I have a copy. If the Attorney would like to acquaint himself with it, that is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which volume of this year's budget?

The CHAIR: Which document are you referring to, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which volume of this year's budget are we referring to?

Mr TEAGUE: I am moving now to questions in relation to Operation Ironside.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What part of this year's budget papers are we referring to?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, can I have the page reference and line reference for your questions which are about to come?

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The CHAIR: Can I have the volume and the line reference, the page reference, please?

Mr TEAGUE: I am moving now to Operation Ironside. We are in Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 64.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: 2023-24?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, it is what we are here for.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Okay, sorry. I think you said 2022-23.

Mr TEAGUE: I was indicating the reference to last year's budget paper for the purposes of the last line of questioning, and I have a hard copy of that from last year which you are welcome to take from me.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: But your questions now are from?

Mr TEAGUE: I am now moving to another topic.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Okay—Budget Paper 4, Volume 1?

Mr TEAGUE: That is right.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: 2023-24?

Mr TEAGUE: That is the one—and page 64.

The CHAIR: Which line are you referring to, member for Heysen? On page 64, or have I got the wrong page?

Mr TEAGUE: They are not numbered, Chair. We are at about point 7 on the page.

The CHAIR: I assume they have some words that describe it.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, it certainly does.

The CHAIR: Which is?

Mr TEAGUE: Those are 'Legal Services Commission—expensive criminal cases'.

The CHAIR: Okay, I have found it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Are we talking just over halfway down the page?

Mr TEAGUE: Point 7 on the page.

The CHAIR: Three-quarters of the way down.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, about three-quarters of the way down.

The CHAIR: Under 'Grants and subsidies'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think we are on the same page.

Mr TEAGUE: Excellent.

The CHAIR: That might be a premature comment.

Mr TEAGUE: So we see there the expensive criminal cases provision to the Legal Services Commission, and the budget for 2022-23 being at substantial variance to the estimated result. Can you give an indication as to the reasons for that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I suspected, I cannot refer to an individual matter. It would be breaching the Legal Services Commission Act to refer to an individual matter and identify who may or may not have been assisted by legal aid, but there were a number. One case in particular accounted for a vast portion of that, but there were other cases as well. I have just double-checked: it would be a breach of the Legal Services Commission Act to refer to the case because that would necessarily identify people who were in receipt of Legal Services Commission funding.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, it has been referred to in media reports, including as recently as the 26^th of this month, that in a long-running trial presently before the courts there were eight people charged, some of whom were in receipt of legal aid funding. That is in terms of the present circumstances. The situation in terms of an ongoing large matter rather begs the question of why we see a reversion to what has been a relatively similar amount year on year. I appreciate that there may be some constraint, but what I am getting at is that it seems to me the challenges—

The CHAIR: I am trying to get a handle on what question you are seeking to ask.

Mr TEAGUE: Is whatever befell the Legal Services Commission—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If you are asking why that bit over $2 million was in that year, compared to the $400,000 in the figures on either side of it; that is, was it one thing that is going to be continuing and ongoing? Is that what you are asking?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes—and is it done?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise—and again I will be careful in how I do so because of not wanting to indicate anyone who is in receipt of the services of the Legal Services Commission—there was a long-running case that concluded in that year that accounted for a substantial portion of that, but it has finished and is not continuing. Certainly, there are other cases that will be in there that will continue. I think the member would be familiar with the expensive criminal trial agreements that we have necessarily with—

Mr TEAGUE: Put it this way: is the minister able to be reasonably confident that the budgeted amount for 2023-24 is actually a realistic provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I am advised, it happened in previous years that particularly the Mid-Year Budget Review was an opportunity to make adjustments up and down, based on what we knew from the course of the first six months of that year.

Mr TEAGUE: But there is nothing presently that you are aware of that could give the committee an indication to a level of confidence that that figure is a realistic figure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it is a regular feature of Mid-Year Budget Reviews for that figure to be changed and to go up and down. For those who are in need of Legal Services Commission funding, the quantum of that need is not something that is always known years ahead.

Mr TEAGUE: So perhaps we should not put too much store in that figure of $422,000.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Well, it is impossible to have a crystal ball to know who is going to commit crimes, who is going to be investigated, who is going to be prosecuted and what their circumstances are going to be.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are on page 64, I move five lines down to the Office of the Inspector. We see that nothing was budgeted for the office for 2022-23 and that the estimated result for 2022-23 is something short of $2 million at $1.8 million. There is a provision in the budget this year of broadly double that, out to just a bit in excess of $3 million. Can the Attorney explain the reason for the estimated result of 2022-23 and the significant increase in provision for 2023-24?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that the Inspector was appointed pursuant to the changes that this parliament made to create the role of Inspector on 1 December 2022, so from 1 December to the rest of that financial year up to next year reflects the full effect of a full year of existence of that office.

Mr TEAGUE: So, while it might have been anticipated at the time of the 2022-23 budget, there is no provision for it in 2022-23 for the reason that—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It did not exist.

Mr TEAGUE: —it did not commence until halfway through that year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is right. When the changes to the ICAC regime were made during the last parliament, the legislative regime changed to provide for the Office of the Inspector, but my predecessors had not brought that part into effect for the Inspector yet, but it was brought in and commenced on 1 December 2022. That is why it had not been in previous years. It had not materialised, because the Inspector had not yet been appointed.

Mr TEAGUE: It might be a matter of accounting, but it seems to be a relatively substantial contributor to the excess of expenditure to budget, for the reasons that you have just described?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, funding decisions that are made between one budget and another will show up in the budget papers as the decisions that have been made. It is a legislative requirement that we have an Inspector. That is something that we needed to appoint, to give effect to the will of this parliament. Decisions that are necessarily made during the course of a year will be reflected in the budget papers at the end of that year.

Mr TEAGUE: The provision, therefore, of $3.1 million in the current budget, reflecting a full year, is not reflective therefore of any particular activity. It is an ordinary provision, is it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under the legislative requirements for the Inspector, the first annual review that the Inspector conducts takes into account all things since the operation, since ICAC came into existence in 2013, so that first full year of operation has a lot more work to do than the subsequent reviews that then take into account only the last 12 months. The first full year of funding will be more than we will see in future years, because the first full year will be looking back on 10 years of operation, whereas subsequent years' budgets will not be accounting for looking back on the whole 10 years. It will be just the years after that.

Mr TEAGUE: That is broadly the answer I was looking for. The provision, I suppose, for 2022-23 I rather thought might have been flipped the other way round, as it were, to account for that very activity, perhaps to give an indication of what we are to expect in an ordinary year going forward. While we are at it, at the risk of being discursive, we see a couple of lines below that that the OPI is running on a budget of just under $3 million. I do not think a correct impression would be drawn to the casual reader if one compares the budget for the Office of the Inspector with the Office for Public Integrity.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed, and if one looks at the very specific budget line in Budget Paper 5, page 14, it sets out the estimates over the forward estimates. The estimate for the 2022-23, identified in the line the member referred to, is $1.818 million. For the next year, for the reasons we have just traversed, it is $3.132 million. The next year, it is $1.170 million, $1.197 million and $1.222 million. I think it is a reasonable inference to draw that in the ordinary course of an operating year we are seeing figure in the out year of $1.2 million, sort of settling down to what that budget will be.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks for drawing attention to that measure. It is to be expected, then, that the initial work is to be completed well and truly in 2023-24?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the legislative requirement.

Mr TEAGUE: We have addressed those operating efficiencies and, I think, given indications that, yes, they were all fully applied in terms of budget measures from last year's budget. Can it then be expected that they will be applied and all endeavours made to achieve them in the current financial year as well? It is an opportunity to explain the ordinary, I suppose.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The simple answer is that my advice is yes.

Mr TEAGUE: In order to do that, and I appreciate that you have referred to both costs and savings associated with targeted separation packages, have there been FTE cuts that have been identified already with a view to achieving those targets?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Identified with achieving what?

Mr TEAGUE: Achieving those operating savings.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I understand the question, are there targeted voluntary separation packages planned over the next financial year, starting next week, to meet efficiency savings in addition to what have already occurred?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer is that my advice is no.

Mr TEAGUE: Having traversed the journey of the last year, in which there were, as you have said, a number that have contributed both to savings and to costs, that is not the case anticipated for the year ahead?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are no new efficiency savings on top of ones that have already been proposed.

Mr TEAGUE: That's true.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That gives the reason that there is not anticipated targeted voluntary separation packages to meet additional savings we do not have.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are on FTEs, I go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 22, and Program 3: Office of the DPP. The final line of the table on page 22 sets out FTEs as at 30 June. As we look at that we see an estimated result for 2022-23 of 192.7 FTEs and a budget for 2023-24 of 178.1 FTEs. I want to understand how that works, in the context of the previous answer possibly, but any way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this is primarily reflective of funding for complex criminal cases. I am advised that future funding requirements continue to be raised and negotiated with Treasury as the matters arise. Although it might be set down at $178.1 million as the budget target for 2023-24, as matters arise and become apparent we may see the result end up being different depending on what comes before the courts and what is needed in terms of prosecutions.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, yes. We are still at the same page, same line. On the face of it, we see there a reduction of not quite 15 FTEs; that is right, isn't it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The explanation that I am advised is that if you look at the row we are talking about, the third column, the 2022-23 budget of $177.1 million, whereas the estimated result for the same year is $192.7 million, being reflective of complex legal cases that are negotiated and Treasury provide for, when you compare the 2022-23 budget of $177.1 million with the 2023-24 of $178.1 million, they are very comparable figures. It may be, depending upon the needs for prosecution of complex legal cases, that figure could be similar again, or it could be half of that again, but this is the flexibility that is provided primarily through the one-off expenses of particular complex legal cases.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that, and I stress that it is not some sort of trick question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of completeness, it is not a drop in the number of the baseline staff who are in the agency; it reflects those who are brought in to deal with specific matters.

Mr TEAGUE: So they are gone already, or they are going to go soon?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That level of detail I am happy to take on notice, the nature of the contracts and when they start and finish. To the extent that we can find that out, I will find that out.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you. I appreciate that. To get back to the indication about a contribution to operating savings, that reduction of 15 FTE, if it works out according to the budget—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, it is not a reduction of 15 FTEs; it is actually an increase from the year before, but there were 15 more brought in for complex legal cases. We are not reducing that baseline staffing figure.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, yes, but you have to start somewhere. The estimated result at the bottom line of the table is $192.7 million. That means that they are either there at the result, at the end of 2022—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I reckon your question is going to be: is this any part of the savings measure that this is going down? If that is the question, then the answer is no, and it is the same answer I gave before about there are no new TVSPs because there is no additional savings measure. I suspect this is where we might have got in five minutes.

Mr TEAGUE: Got it. I appreciate that. It is not going to contribute on that side. The budget anticipates returning to $178.1 million, so the indications that we see on the page, whether we look at provision for LSC, staffing in DPP or those other like measures, as it were, for an unusual jump in the particular load are budgeted to go away. That is the message of the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess there are things we do not know about yet. As I said, in regard to the complex legal cases, the future requirements continue to be almost on a continued basis, negotiated to discuss with Treasury. Like they have been previously, in the budget review they will face in a few months' time there may be adjustments made for those.

Mr TEAGUE: They continue and they are not budgeted for at the moment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There may be other complex legal cases. As I say, we do not have a crystal ball about who is going to commit a crime, who is going to be apprehended, who is going to be investigated, who is going to be prosecuted, who is going to be charged—and, of those, who is going to require, talking about the Legal Services Commission, as we were before, that representation—and, taking one step back from that, the numbers that are going to be needed for this as well and the complexity of the cases.

Mr TEAGUE: Is it fair to say that any such circumstances arising post the publication of this budget are going to increase expenditure in an unbudgeted way? You can talk about when that might be announced or provided for.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If there are further complex legal cases that require further resources, as I said, it will continue to be raised with Treasury, as they have been in previous years. It may be that we see those reflected in a Mid-Year Budget Review.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the answer, but whether we do it by way of what we might call baseline FTE in the Office of the DPP for some sort of baseline provision for LSC funding, as we were previously, you have to move away from a rationale that has zero in the budget line or zero FTEs and then say, 'Well, let's add to that by whatever comes, whatever befalls us in the course of the year.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, well, I am not quite sure that is the case. I think it would be difficult budgeting to say, 'We believe that this is a baseline of things we don't know yet. We believe this is a baseline of complex legal cases that we don't know about yet.' That would be a difficult budgetary position, I would have thought.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not mean it in an uncharitable way. It is actually intended to be a budget that forecasts those anticipated needs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not know that a budget can forecast 'unknown unknowns', to use a phrase that was popular a number of years ago. Budgets often do not forecast those by the very definition of what they are.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not for a moment suggest that it is a complete comparison like for like, when one goes from FTEs in the Office of the Director to provision for funding for the Legal Services Commission, but page 64 shows the provision in the budget of $422,000 this year for expensive criminal cases. It is made against some sort of rational prediction about what is likely to be needed to be provided to the LSC. That is a fair proposition, is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not quite sure I understand the question.

The CHAIR: Is there a correlation between the $422,000 and $49 million in terms of, if that amount is going up, should the other amount go up to reflect that as well? I think that is what he was trying to say.

Mr BROWN: It was a lot shorter, Chair.

The CHAIR: Yes, I am an accountant, not a lawyer.

Mr TEAGUE: You have provided $422,000 to the Legal Services Commission.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: The baseline question is: how realistic is that provision, given what we have seen last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said before—and again I will traverse it very carefully so as not to identify anyone—a very large portion of last year's was a complex case that has now finished. We do not know what cases are going to find their way to the Legal Services Commission. As the member would know, it is entirely unknowable, the resource ability of defendants, even if you have an idea of what the cases are beforehand.

That is why, as I am sure the member knows from his time looking at these things as a minister, there are these agreements in place for the complex legal cases, because it is literally something where you do not know if someone is going to need those services.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate all that the Attorney says. The baseline point is that if we are going to have anything reflecting a realistic expression of expenditure at Budget Paper 3, page 23, when it all boils down—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is the overall operating expenses for agencies?

Mr TEAGUE: That is right. There is no point having a budget provision process if it is only waiting and seeing what is going to happen in the year ahead. That is a statement of the obvious.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Like all forms of forecasting, you forecast for those things that you know about.

Mr TEAGUE: You do not have any reason to anticipate that we are going to see a year like 2022-23 for the Legal Services Commission this year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Off the top of my head, I cannot think of anything that would indicate it would or it would not—except for the fact that, as I have said, there was a very significant matter that was a substantial portion of that for that last year.

Mr TEAGUE: There is, unfortunately, a very short time available. I would like to ask some questions about Forensic Science SA, and I will not have so much to say about the Electoral Commission, but let's just see what we can achieve in the next few minutes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Three minutes.

Mr TEAGUE: Can I start by saying in that respect that the provision of funding for Forensic Science SA is a welcome capital initiative. It is well and truly due, and the budget is providing for $348.9 million over four years. The present premises are leased, as I understand. Do we know when the lease expires and therefore what the end date is?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For Forensic Science SA's lease at Divett Place, the expiry is 2027 under the current terms of the lease. That is my understanding.

Mr TEAGUE: The provision of funding and the timing of that, is that planned to ensure that the new facility at a new premises will be completed in line with the timing of the present lease?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that everything going as well as it can, that is the plan. You will see in Budget Paper 5, page 13, on the forward estimates, the nature of the profile of that with the vast, vast expenditure in excess of $200 million in the 2025-26 year. Like many projects, it will need to be closely monitored and assessed as to its progress. A lot of infrastructure—including reasons not limited to but particularly workforce availability in the exceptionally tight labour market—will, of course, be managed to look to see if what the ambition is can be met and, if there is any danger that it cannot be, whether you would need to seek a short extension, for example, of that accommodation. Certainly, as the profile shows in the forward estimates, that is the intention: to work towards that 2027 date.

Mr TEAGUE: The plan is for Forensic Science SA to occupy the current premises until the new one is ready?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is the plan at the moment.

Mr TEAGUE: So the fallback, if there were a necessary extension to timing, would be to seek to extend the lease; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, as I have said. If infrastructure projects are not easily completable, particularly with labour markets the way they are, and there were a need for Forensic Science SA to remain past the expiration of the current terms of lease, and it would not be a wholly unusual thing to seek some sort of short extension, depending on how the—

Mr TEAGUE: But it is not planned?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

The CHAIR: The allocated time having expired, I declare the examination of the Attorney-General's Department and State Records completed. The proposed payments for the Attorney-General's portfolio will continue after lunch.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 14:30.