Courts Administration Authority, $96,665,000

Membership:

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

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

Hon. Justice L. Stein, Supreme Court Justice, Courts Administration Authority.

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

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

Ms S. Briggs, Senior Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

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

The CHAIR: Welcome back to today's estimates committee hearing. I understand that the minister, the Attorney, 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 please confirm that is the case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The CHAIR: I remind members that all questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. The questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced.

Briefly, I also advise that if the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the answer to questions mailbox no later than Friday 6 September 2024. Members who are unable to complete their questions may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

The rules of debate in the house apply to the committee. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee but may supply them to the Chair for distribution. I will allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make some opening statements of up to 10 minutes, should they wish to do so.

I now proceed to open the lines for examination. The portfolio is the Courts Administration Authority. The minister appearing is the Attorney-General. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Attorney, would you like to make some opening remarks? If not, please introduce your advisers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you Chair. I do not have any opening remarks. I am happy to go straight into questions after introducing the advisers I have with me. To my right is the Hon. Justice Laura Stein from the Supreme Court. Immediately to my left is Penny Croser, the State Courts Administrator. Also on the front table is Linda Abrams-South, Executive Director Corporate Services, Courts Administration Authority. Immediately behind me is Stacey Briggs, Senior Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority, and Mr Chris Black, the Finance Manager from the Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, would you like to make some opening remarks or go straight to questions?

Mr TEAGUE: Go straight to questions Chair.

The CHAIR: Go ahead.

Mr TEAGUE: I perhaps conveniently start with the Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3 at page 23 and the table that is described as table 2.6, operating expenses—selected agencies. It is a question through you minister really to the CE, and I appreciate the presence today of Justice Stein on behalf of the Chief Justice. If I might ask a question then that is rather unusually directed to both Justice Stein and to the CE. Do you have all that you need in terms of resourcing from the government? Is there adequate resourcing and are you able, therefore, to undertake your necessary and important work in the interests of the justice system unimpeded by any shortfalls of funding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to answer that question. As the Courts Administration Authority is an independent agency, they manage their budget and prioritise as they see fit.

Mr TEAGUE: That is a question I have asked at the outset of estimates on each occasion. I guess it is a way to underscore the special independence of the courts. In terms of interrogating the budget provision for the courts, I would certainly premise inquiry on that basis. I take it from the minister's answer that the minister is also satisfied that the government has made adequate provision for the courts in the budget. Is that the case as well going forward for this year's budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: So, staying with the table, it is at about point 4 on the page and the line item described as Courts. We see there that the courts operating expenses come to an estimated result that is in the order of $4 million over what was budgeted for 2023-24. Are there key reasons for that having occurred?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that is primarily explained by the Holden Hill sale and proceeds for that court complex and costs of approximately $4 million, so a reduction in sale costs and transfer of funds to the DTF Consolidated Account as a result of that transaction, in effect coming in in the estimated result but then going out, which accounts for the $4 million is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. Now, this might be one of those reconciliation points, and I have in mind going to Holden Hill a bit, so I just flag that, not immediately, but we see there is a bit of coming and going on Holden Hill, so I just flag that I will ask some questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I suspect you may have further questions, as the last time, in terms of carryovers and how that affects budget positions in terms of infrastructure spend for the courts that we may well traverse again this year.

Mr TEAGUE: There might be a clue in that, and I am not professing the intricate knowledge of whether or not those accounting measures might go to explain what is on the face of it. The Holden Hill transaction is clearly a significant impact. So that is then accounting for the bulk, if not all, of that departure from—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, it is the majority of that.

Mr TEAGUE: If I might just stay with that line then, there is a rather granular in the circumstances incremental adjustment to the budget for this year and a further incremental reduction for the following year in terms of the estimates before returning to the round number that 2023-24 had. Given there has been relatively close adherence to what is essentially a $100 million line item, is there a particular reason for increment down and up over the course of the forward estimates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is in the 2024-25 budget, where it has $99 million, that accounts for carryovers from previous years into that budget, then my advice is the 2025-26 goes back down to $98 million not accounting for any carryovers, and then it is adjusted up through CPI to the 99 then 100. So, as you see, it is bumping up in 2024-25 as a result of the carryovers, not accounting for carryovers in 2025-26, and then adjusting up in its usual course of CPI in the two out years that you have there in 2026-27 and 2027-28 is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: So we actually see an orderly stepwise incremental adjustment from 2025-26 on and the bump in the road is the carryover effect in the immediate short term. In that context, we have a relatively significant departure from budget that is explained, if not entirely, then by Holden Hill, and I will come to it. So before getting to Holden Hill, there is a little bit of work that has gone on capital-wise. It might be good to advert to it.

If I can go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, the page number I am interested in is page 125. We see there, at about point 7 or 8 on the page, an investing expenditure summary table. First of all, by about point 9 on the page, we have existing projects. There are two. The first of those is the Court of Appeal office accommodation. The indication is that works on that were delayed last financial year. Is that to be concluded? Is it still on track to be concluded in June this year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the description 'Court of Appeal office accommodation' was actually completed in financial year 2020-21 but, with approvals, there was funding from that that was approved for modification to courtrooms 8 and 18 to accommodate large, multidefendant trials. My advice is that is largely completed now.

Mr TEAGUE: So the Court of Appeal office accommodation has carried the same capital project description, but we are talking about discrete works that have been separate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice, yes. It was for that budget, and that was the title of the budget, but with approval it is being used for modification, as I said, to courtroom 8 and courtroom 18.

Mr TEAGUE: It was not funding that was left over? It was additional to the funding that was associated with the works completed in 2020-21?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was part of the original funding for the Court of Appeal office accommodation funding.

Mr TEAGUE: So it was always part of what was to be completed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the Court of Appeal office accommodation project came in at significantly less than was initially estimated, so without any further funding being provisioned for it, the money that was left over, with approval, is now being used for modifications to courtroom 8 and courtroom 18 to accommodate large, multidefendant trials.

Mr TEAGUE: That is actually news to me. I hope that might be of assistance to the committee. I might be slow off the mark in that regard. My understanding was that, yes, the bulk of the work was done in that way some time ago and the facilities have been completed and so on. On the point about the funds that were left over, were they somehow able to be kept within the project, despite the project being ostensibly completed? The need for the enhancements identified, money was then drawn on from the same project, hence we see it described the same way in the budget line?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I sort of follow what the member for Heysen is saying.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister will put it much better than me.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the question is: is this money that was provided to what is described as the Court of Appeal office accommodation in that section on page 125 of Budget Paper 4 and then the money that was already in there under the name of that project was applied to the modifications to the courtrooms—if that is the question, the answer, I am advised, is yes.

Mr TEAGUE: That was all possible to do without a whole lot of unnecessary calisthenics?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that was possible to do, as I said, without further funding being required.

Mr TEAGUE: I think the minister might have already indicated that that work is to be completed, if it has not already, by this month?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is largely to be completed by the end of this financial year, which would be this month, being June.

Mr TEAGUE: That would make sense, because there is no budget allocation for any money in 2024-25.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Correct.

Mr TEAGUE: Incidentally, given that there is then money over from the major works that were completed in 2021 and there is no further draw on capital, does that leave any overrun or has it been more or less dollars and cents to the dollar on the new work?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the money that was left over from that project for the courts, for the Court of Appeal office accommodation, that was then, with approvals, approved for modifications of courtrooms 8 and 18. My advice is that is expected to be fully expended on that project.

Mr TEAGUE: And no more no less.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No more no less. The Courts Administration Authority are remarkably good at managing budgets.

Mr TEAGUE: It is better than that; they are good at fashioning a budget to a new project that was not anticipated at the time the original capital was applied.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They are very good at fashion, indeed.

Mr TEAGUE: That is particularly coherent, if I might put it that way. We have, therefore, Court of Appeal office accommodation unlikely to find its way into a starring role on the investing expenditure summary table next year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will still be happy to take questions as to why there is nothing against that next year if the member for Heysen wishes.

Mr TEAGUE: I note that for the benefit of the committee and I appreciate that, and I might say it has been a tremendous improvement to the court facility within the constraints of that rather ageing structure in need of significant improvement, extension and investment.

Moving to the next line item. There is the well-known necessary work on the facade repairs associated with the deterioration and the dilapidation of the Sir Samuel Way Building and the longstanding existing project of the facade repairs. The estimated completion is indicated at June 2025. As I read it, the 2023-24 budget budgeted $10.7 million for repairs to the facade but only a tiny part of that appears to have been expended and then there is the bulk of that we see expressed in the budget. I think $794,000 of the $10.7 million was incurred. Is there a short-point reason for what appears to be a delay and a failure to apply the capital?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised there are a number of factors, including the nature and the complexity of the works. The heritage issues associated with the Sir Samuel Way Building are being made even more complex by the current Central Market development works happening on the western facade, and this has led to a prudent measure and stage program being undertaken over several years for this work.

Mr TEAGUE: Is it correct then to read the $10.086 million that is set out in the budget is a carryover of what on my maths is $9.915 million from 2023-24?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In effect, yes, that is a carryover.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are on the maths, does that mean there is an additional $171,000 on top of the carryover that has been applied in this year's budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, there is no additional money for the project. When I said yes, it is correct that there is a carryover, I am advised that the carryover and amount is in effect what is in the 2024-25 budget. That is the amount that is carried over, so the carryover is $10.086 million. In addition, and it may assist the committee, there is an amount in the budget that is not in the capital works project but sits in the operating account that is in addition to the capital works project. The total project cost, being $11.494 million, is what is remaining of the $11.6 million that was funded in 2020-21 to undertake repairs to the facade of the Sir Samuel Way Building.

Mr TEAGUE: I think my maths is focussing on the 2023-24 budget of $10.709 million, and the estimated result of $794,000, and how that then translates to what is in the 2024-25 budget, $10.086 million. There is not necessarily, I guess, a direct correlation between what was budgeted and what the estimated result is because there may be other funds that are drawn from the previous year's budget to some small amount that gets to the $10.086 million?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the estimated result is what is left after the approved carryover.

Mr TEAGUE: The numbers do not quite add up on the table, and I am not suggesting that they need to. We had a budget of $10.709 million in 2023-24. The result was an expenditure of $794,000, so that meant that there was an unused portion of, as I said earlier, I think $9.915 million. If that was carried over, I would have expected to see in the bold text in the middle of the table $9.915 million. There is only a small disparity, and there may be an explanation for it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there can be some variance with the figures that are being used. It is not the actual, it is the estimated result for 2023-24.

Mr TEAGUE: We will perhaps leave it there. Turning a couple of pages forward to page 128, I flagged an interest in the proceeds of the sale of Holden Hill Magistrates Court being first on the list of explanation for significant movements that is set out in the middle of that page. So far as the question is concerned, I would be glad in case there is a kind of overall explanation, if that suits the minister, for what would be of assistance to the committee just in understanding. We have had a significant sale of a significant court facility. What were the proceeds, what costs have been incurred as a result, and what has been the net outcome? I am happy to leave it at one question if it is desirable for the minister to address all of that in one go.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to do so. My advice is that on the revenue side from the budget impact of the sale of the Holden Hill facility, the proceeds from the sale were $4 million. On the revenue side, the carrying amount of the assets held for sale is $2.406 million, the net gain on the disposal of the asset being $1.594 million. On the expenses side, these are the selling costs of $1 million and the payment to the Consolidated Account being $3 million.

Mr TEAGUE: In circumstances where there is a payment to the Consolidated Account of $3 million, has there been a corollary benefit to the courts as a whole—and, more particularly, to the facilities of the Magistrates Court—that is either the direct result or able to be invested for the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that as a result of the Mid-Year Budget Review there was an expenditure authority for 50 per cent of the net proceeds of the sale, so that was half of the $3 million. That is, $1.5 million was approved by cabinet as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review for the Courts Administration Authority in 2024-25 to address cost pressures.

Mr TEAGUE: Operating cost pressures?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Identified by the Courts Administration Authority to spend—as we talked about it at the very start—as an independent authority.

Mr TEAGUE: And those could be, let me put it this way, not necessarily earmarked for the Magistrates Court, including its premises—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To the Courts Administration Authority.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there an indication about how that has been applied?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will be a matter for the council of the Courts Administration Authority to decide that.

Mr TEAGUE: So not yet but in the year ahead?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As per usual, it will be part of the budget-setting process for the Courts Administration Authority for the 2024-25 financial year.

Mr TEAGUE: And it is not the minister's expectation that it is any more earmarked than that, and the minister and the government have in mind that that is funding that is available to the Courts Administration Authority to apply as it best—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was a decision that was selected in the Mid-Year Budget Review.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the context of questions about capital works that have been subject to pretty fine-tuning in terms of budgetary expense, there is no indication that these funds are to be applied for those two significant capital works?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, that is up to the Courts Administration Authority.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I got that. Is there any indication, and there need not be, as to where those funds might be applied?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. It will be part of the Courts Administration Authority's budget-setting process.

Mr TEAGUE: Why is it not 100 per cent of the $3 million? Why 50 per cent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the decision of government.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I know. The question is why.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When you sit around the cabinet table next time, you can interrogate these decisions. It is a decision that cabinet has made.

Mr TEAGUE: So in terms of a payment of $3 million to the Consolidated Account, the result of the sale of the Holden Hill Magistrates Court has been a windfall to the Consolidated Account in the amount of $1.5 million?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And a windfall to the Courts Administration Authority of the other $1.5 million, so everyone is a winner and that is great, is it not?

Mr TEAGUE: The Courts Administration Authority have reduced their facilities in terms of the Magistrates Court facilities by the disposal of the Holden Hill Magistrates Court. I suppose whether that is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is a decision of the authority.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps it was remiss of me not to ask this at the conclusion of the questions in terms of those facade repairs for SSW, Sir Samuel Way Building. The results of what are understandable precinct matters that you would want to tie in with, has any of that impacted on the courts' capacity to undertake the ordinary course of business? Are we talking about purely a matter of deferred capital works? Is there anything that is actually impeding the courts' capacity to conduct business as a result of that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am just unclear what the question is. Is the question: has any part of that facade project for the Sir Samuel Way Building impacted on the courts' ability to do what it does on a daily basis?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The way that the court goes about what it does necessarily needs to be tailored to work programs that are occurring.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is having an impact?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, at various times. If you are doing work, it will impact on how a building is used. My advice is that the Courts Administration Authority is working with all the stakeholders that they have to make sure that the impacts are mitigated on anything that the court does. But, yes, you cannot do work without having an impact of doing work. That is the very nature of doing something to a building.

Mr TEAGUE: The question was slightly more specifically to the consequences of the delay. So if you are not doing work, maybe that is a good thing for the short-term productivity of the court, because it is not impeded by such works. But if there are defects to the building, such as the drip of water that hits the stairs, for example, and has done for years, that might actually be impairing the capacity of the building to be used.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not understand that. When you talk about the courts precinct, do we take you to mean the Central Market redevelopment and associated works to do with that?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, but I am focused on the facade repairs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in terms of the Sir Samuel Way Building facade, no, none of the works or the timing of the works is impacting on the work that the Courts Administration Authority does.

Mr TEAGUE: It might have been remiss of me not to ask that in the first place. Apart from the building falling down eventually, the facade repair is therefore something that, when it is done, it is a challenge to do it, but it is not a significant impedance in the meantime.

I move to the bottom of page 128, just a few lines further down, and performance indicators. There are numerous backlog indicators and many of them are set against somewhat unhelpful, perhaps unnecessary and irrelevant figures. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense, but the RoGS data as I understand it, with all those 10 per cent numbers that we see populating the table on page 128 and over to page 129, if the minister had anything to say about that by all means do, but I am focussed on the estimated results: the 2022-23 actuals and the 2023-24 rather than the targets, as such. I think I have a clear sense of reasons why there might be departures from targets. We are just a few lines down from where we were a moment ago.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So the second-last dot point on page 128?

Mr TEAGUE: That is it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So the difference between the 18 per cent and the 25 per cent, I assume is the question?

Mr TEAGUE: Eighteen and 25, yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the member for Heysen has pointed out, the targets are not particularly useful; they are targets that are set around Australia as targets. I do not know that anyone meets the targets that are set down. These are not set, unlike most of the figures that are set. Most of the figures that are in a budget are set by the government as something that they aim to meet. These are external to South Australia and are set nationwide. In terms of the 18 to 25 percent—

Mr TEAGUE: While the minister is doing that, just to be clear, we are focused here on Sub-program 1.1: Criminal Jurisdiction. So when we are talking about the Supreme Court, including appeals, having that uptick, that is in the particular context of sub-program 1.1. We will get to 1.2 and so on in a minute, but more particularly 1.3 by comparison. Again, I am not rushing ahead to suggest the answer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are a number of things that are certainly affecting some of these figures. One particular area, I am advised, is an increase in complexity of cases that sees some of these figures, the estimates, increasing. Another area is workforce issues that I am advised have an impact. It is not necessarily workforce issues within the direct court system itself but, for example, when psychiatric reports are needed as part of a process, those sorts of workforce availability issues for suitably qualified psychiatrists to provide reports that are necessarily needed as part of a process are having an impact.

This is not just having an impact on the working of the judicial system; very tight workforce issues are having an impact across many facets of society and the workforce. Certainly, the availability of things like psychiatric reports, e-crime reports and forensic reports are being affected by very tight labour markets and time frames that are more challenging than they may have been in the past.

Mr TEAGUE: Put it this way: is the minister satisfied with the results that are set out in the first dot point in terms of percentage of lodgements that are greater than 12 months old?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am satisfied that, given the challenging circumstances for a range of reasons, the Courts Administration Authority are doing what they can to make the system as effective and as efficient as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: I move then to the top of the following page. On page 129, we see the District Court, and of course—before getting to the Magistrates Court and the different set of circumstances—it has long been the case that the stand-out for backlogs, because they are doing the heavy lifting in terms of the criminal list, has been in the District Court.

There is, relative to the Supreme Court, a significantly greater percentage of lodgements and, in turn, a significantly greater number that are more than 12 months old, and we have seen a further uptick from 2023 to 2024: now up to 38 per cent of lodgements. I am interested to know how many lodgements that translates as. What is the raw number?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the raw numbers that the percentages are derived from. I am happy to take that on notice. We do not have that information with us here.

Mr TEAGUE: In that sense, it might be a means of giving the District Court a tick or putting in perspective what the percentage does not necessarily reveal, because there might have been a greater number of lodgements or less and it might reflect in similar or even improved performance, but on the face of the table, there is an increase in the percentage of lodgements that are pending completion greater than 12 months old. Is there any particular explanation for it in terms of the District Court?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I repeat some of the challenges that I mentioned previously—that is, complexity of cases and workforce issues, particularly in the preparation of reports that are necessarily needed—but one extra thing that I am advised in relation to the District Court is an increased election of trial by judge alone. That will necessarily mean that there is a lot of time spent writing judgements rather than a jury delivering a verdict and that does have an impact, I am advised, in the District Court as well.

Mr TEAGUE: I think it was the subject of some advocacy from me, if not getting around to having the opportunity to fund it directly, and I think there was some particular provision—short-term—for funding of additional associates in the District Court. Is it the case that that has now run its course?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. I am advised that, at the moment, it continues.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister talks about the time taken to write judgements, and so on. Has that informed a view with regard to making that provision for additional associates permanent or extending the provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, that is a matter for the Courts Administration Authority council when setting their own budgets.

Mr TEAGUE: Is the minister aware of any particular request, suggestion or indication from the court about the means by which a further provision of resource might go some way to tackling—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The writing of judgements for judge alone trials?

Mr TEAGUE: The backlog as a whole, the 38 per cent. The minister has drawn particular attention to the challenge of writing judgements. I am not suggesting that the courts necessarily averted to that being a challenge; that is something the minister has averted to. Is there anything, that included, that has been drawn to the minister's attention that might, with the benefit of some additional resource, tackle that increasing backlog number?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the question the member for Heysen is asking is; are there any measures that are being proposed that might reduce the backlog? Is that the question?

Mr TEAGUE: Not quite. You are a step ahead of me. The question was: has the minister had any indication from the court about what measures, should they be applied, would go some way to reducing the backlog? If the minister is considering measures, that is even a better answer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not recall having a specific measure, that was wholly directed at reducing backlog, put forward to me. I have no doubt that the Courts Administration Authority in what they do, their deliberations and how the council operates, considers that and many other matters quite regularly.

Mr TEAGUE: But nothing in particular?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not that I recall being directed to me, not directly.

Mr TEAGUE: Is the minister satisfied with the state of the backlogs in the District Court as it stands?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think in every area of public administration we would always like to see the public being served to the highest standard and would like to see things operating as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: With respect, that is something of a general statement. The purpose of the question is to understand the present conditions. While they have been able to improve, we are all here to work towards it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my view of the world.

Mr TEAGUE: There is no particular request for provision that might improve, there is no particular measure that is being considered to be applied, and the indication is there are more judge alone trials that are taking judicial time that might be contributing to time-taking additional number of long outstanding matters. Is that a fair summary?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, not really. I think in relation to the first part of the statement, as I said, I do not I recall it being put directly to me. I would be reasonably sure that the Courts Administration Authority, in how they conduct their own deliberations, will turn their mind very regularly to such matters, though.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure what other way of something coming to the minister's attention there is other than it being put to the minister. I am really not endeavouring to be so forensic as to expect that there might be a particular source. It does not need to be a schedule of seeing individual judges, or anything like that. It might be coming via the CAA or via the minister's office in respect of the court. The minister is indicating that there is nothing that has come to the minister's attention vis-à-vis District Court that has been identified that could address this number, and the minister's response to the question is, 'We would all like to do better,' but nothing specific.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of something being put forward as a submission that requires funding to change something, I do not recall something being directly put in relation to the District Court's lodgements. I have no doubt that the Courts Administration Authority, in each jurisdiction, will be constantly looking at the way they do business and how to make it as effective as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: Going down a couple of lines, we see that the equivalent data for the Magistrates Court on the 12-month side appears as the second dot point. There is a minor uptick on what is a relatively lower number in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The benchmark there for the poor old Magistrates Court is that they have to be held to account on the six months or more. That has experienced the sort of relatively similar uptick. Is there any correlation between the challenges that have driven those similar sort of upticks from one jurisdiction to the other, bearing in mind the different timeframe and the different nature of the proceedings?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is likely in that jurisdiction, the issue of reports and workforce issues, probably even more prevalent.

Mr TEAGUE: But no shortage of magistrates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, we have lots of magistrates.

Mr TEAGUE: My question is: there is no indication that there is any shortage of magistrates?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Mr TEAGUE: And the same goes for the District Court?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That there is a shortage of judges? Not that I am aware of.

Mr TEAGUE: No shortage of judicial officers in either of those jurisdictions contributing to the sustained number in both those respects that we have just interrogated that is causing the number to remain stubbornly high?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the vacancies are very low in terms of judicial officers.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. That is not really the question, either. The question is whether or not there might be a need for more of them as a means of addressing the backlog. The minister has given answers that relate to what I think the minister has described as external factors and those are noted.

Just before I leave the table, there has been some reference to the RoGS data that is used as the targets. That is used in various ways across the board. Is it serving any useful purpose? Is it indeed an aim relevantly for any of those jurisdictions to achieve, if that is the right word, outcomes in line with those RoGS data?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess it is a purpose as a lofty but almost unattainable ambition. I am advised that the national standards that apply those targets to all states and territories have applied since 2003 and were last reviewed in 2015. I am advised it was not changed because there was not an agreement on a suitable alternative. All jurisdictions have these lofty and unattainable targets.

Mr TEAGUE: Time does not permit an interrogation of perhaps the entirety of Sub-program 1.3: Civil Jurisdiction that we find at page 131. I just make the observation that we see the RoGS data inhabiting the performance indicator tables there and over to page 132 and we see a variety of upticks in a rather consistent manner in that there is a relative uptick in the backlog indicators for the civil jurisdiction, perhaps highlighted at the top of page 132, the ERD Court—32 up to 39—and the Youth Court—care and protection, again, according to the summary jurisdiction test, sees perhaps the greatest of those upticks, up to nearly half of the lodgements that are pending completion.

Is there anything about any of those data for which the minister would say anything different about the provision of additional resources from direct additional judicial officers through to other resources that has either been brought to the minister's attention or that is the subject of consideration in terms of measures that might be taken to alleviate it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: One thing that might be worth commenting on is figures in the Youth Court the member for Heysen has particularly highlighted in the care and protection area. My advice is one of the reasons for the finalisation results is they reflect the ongoing use and the particular success of the reunification court process.

There were, I am advised, 255 such referrals in 2023-24 and the reunification court list has increased from two per fortnight to three lists every fortnight. The reunification court adjourns matters with interim orders for a period of up to 12 months while parents participate in a reunification program, then matters are returned to court every eight weeks for review. So the success of that program, almost counterintuitively, has had an effect on the figures that we see before us.

Mr TEAGUE: Because there is a lock-in referral. So, to take that up, is it then consistent with that—or curious or disappointing—to have a look at the table that commences at page 134 and goes over to 135 where we are now in Program 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution Services and we see some data that relates to family conference.

I am just looking at the care and protection indicator and the number of children referred to family group conference. The 23 actual was 90, the 2023-24 projection was 120, and the estimated result was 46. This is something of a segue, but is that a source of disappointment, and is there any other explanation for that significant shortfall and I might say the projection to halve the number of children referred to family group conference by comparison with the 2023-24 projection?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is something we would find it difficult to comment on. That would be a DCP issue. They make the decision that then finds its way there, so that would be largely a DCP question. That is the gateway—

Mr TEAGUE: DCP?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Department for Child Protection.

Mr TEAGUE: With that indication, I will perhaps indicate to the minister that I might take that opportunity in due course. But is there nothing in that table, and indeed in the line above, that the minister would care to add to the remarks just now in terms of that paradox?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. As I said, it ends up obviously in this jurisdiction, but how and why and the numbers that get there are with the Department for Child Protection.

Mr TEAGUE: Turning back to page 130 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, I am interested in the performance indicators for the Treatment Intervention Court. I am trying to find them in order to make good this proposition: there have been performance improvements, I think, for the completion of substance misuse courses, other than the percentage of participants who did not complete a 12-month program but completed a minimum of six months. I think we see that under the heading Substance Misuse. We have six-month drug treatment and 12-month drug treatment, with targets exceeded on both fronts.

But there is what I read as a note to the 12-month drug treatment program that indicates that only about half of the target has been reached in terms of the percentage of participants who did not complete the 12-month program but who completed six months. Can the minister perhaps explain how that data is then reported? Is it that there is some benefit that is gained by the partial completion, or are we needing further resources to ensure that, where there is a 12-month program, we actually see it completed according to target?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to check what we are referring to, in the middle table, Treatment Intervention Court, there are two dot points under Substance Misuse: six-month drug treatment and 12-month drug treatment. There is a point under that, starting with 'percentage of participants'. Are they the figures we are looking at?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, the data to the right.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The estimated result being 10 per cent, whereas the actual was 23 per cent. What is the question?

Mr TEAGUE: The note is an indicator of the number of participants who did not complete the 12-month program but who completed a minimum of six months. You had a target for 2023-24 of 20 per cent and an estimated result of 10 per cent. Is there a resourcing issue there? Is it the suitability of the program? Is there any explanation for that against the background of what appear to be exceeding outcomes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have advice about a specific explanation. It could be, depending on the numbers, that smaller numbers can make for bigger variances when you are looking at a subset of a subset. That could be an explanation. It could be that the target that was set was not calibrated or was more ambitious than what has occurred. But I think it is pleasing to see, in the two dot points above that, the significant increase from the 2022-23 actuals for the six-month drug treatment and the 12-month drug treatment to the 2023-24 estimated results.

Mr TEAGUE: Bearing in mind it might be small numbers, can the minister indicate the raw number that sits behind that percentage?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to take that on notice. We do not have those figures here, but I am happy to take that on notice. The question is for the raw numbers for the six-month drug treatment and the 12-month drug treatment and the percentage of participants who did not complete it, so, all three of those?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, please.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to do that.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps in terms of the fact that we see there is a target, can the minister explain why there is a target at that line item? What purpose is that serving?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The line item with the 2024-25 target of 15 per cent? Is that the target being referred to?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and the preceding one at 20 per cent.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to see if there is an explanation for those.

Mr TEAGUE: Not so much the change, but the change and why have the target at all.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And what is the methodology and the thinking behind setting that target.

Mr TEAGUE: I am conscious of the time, Chair.

The CHAIR: You have one minute left if you want to ask another question. I suggest you use 20 seconds to ask the question.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: That has not been my recent experience. Sorry about these members from other places, Chair.

The CHAIR: Now the time has expired. I did give you an opportunity, member for Heysen. The time allocated for this section has now closed. I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Courts Administration Authority complete. I thank the Attorney-General's advisers.