Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $93,592,000

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr. C. Kourakis, Chief Justice, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms J. Burgess, State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr T. Pearce, Chief Finance Officer, Courts Administration Authority.

Mr M. Church, Manager, Financial Services, Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: Welcome to Estimates Committee B. The estimates committees, as we all know, are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that today's timetable, previously distributed, is accurate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 28 October 2016. This year, responses will be published during the 15 November sitting week in the corrected daily Hansard over a three-day period.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes if they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee. However, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee.

The incorporation of material into Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, then the minister may refer questions to advisers. All questions must be based on lines of expenditure within the budget papers, which are identifiable and referenced.

Television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. I now call on the Attorney-General to make a statement if he wishes and to introduce his advisers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am here, obviously, with the Chief Justice and Julie-Anne Burgess, who is the chief executive of the agency. I wanted to say just a few brief things in the nature of an overview. We are at a point in time presently where there are a number of challenges in the justice system. Some of those challenges are to do with physical infrastructure. Some of those challenges relate to technological advances and changes which are affecting the broader community and from which the justice system is not immune.

All those things provide both challenges and opportunities, really, for the delivery of justice services to the people of South Australia. I just want to perhaps touch on a couple of general things and, in a moment, I might invite the Chief Justice to talk a little bit about some of the particular projects that the court is involved in.

We are looking at a range of courts efficiency reforms. Members would be aware that for some time we have been putting out discussion papers dealing with, in particular, improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and there have already been a number of initiatives in that area. My expectation is that major pieces of work involving the reform of major indictable offences and of sentencing will be completed and introduced, at least into this parliament, before the end of the year. Those measures are intended to address the issue of the courts very valuable and irreplaceable sitting time being wasted on matters which either should not be there or do not arrive and therefore the court is already to go but no-one is there to dance with them, and that is completely unsatisfactory.

The notion is that we have matters regularly either not able to be dealt with because of judges not available or the parties pull out for whatever reason or seek a very late adjournment in the matter, thereby leaving the court with no alternative other than to basically do nothing as far as that matter is concerned. You need to appreciate that you cannot backfill these cases at a moment's notice. The witnesses have to be arranged. The court needs to be appraised of what is about to happen and so forth.

A lot of the measures we are looking at in the major indictable offences area are designed to make sure that those court days that are available to the court are not wasted by the system delivering rubbish, matters that really are not ready or matters which could have been dealt with months and months earlier by way of a plea or some other simple procedure to take them out of the list, so that is an important piece of work.

The Criminal Justice Reform Council, which involves the main government agencies, including the Minister for Police, myself, the Minister for Disabilities (particularly in a youth justice capacity), the DPP, the Legal Services Commission, the Attorney-General's Department, corrections and with the courts as observers, continues to meet. We are continuing to work on various initiatives and the object of that exercise is that a matter which may see an improvement in performance or efficiency for one agency does not turn out simply to be a displacement of a job they were doing to give it to somebody else because that is not actually a net gain for the system. It is simply a shoving of responsibility. So far I think that has worked pretty well and a number of the initiatives that have come to parliament have been through that process.

There is an item in the budget specifically for a study of the needs of the courts in respect of new infrastructure. I say today, and I have said it every other time I can recall since I have been doing this job, that there is no question that the physical infrastructure of the superior courts in the city is inadequate. It needs to be addressed. I was personally very disappointed that the process we went through previously turned out to be unsatisfactory for financial and accounting reasons, but, nevertheless, that concept is not given up upon and there is an amount of money in the budget—I think $1 million from memory—to attend to a property and asset study that will involve the Courts Administration Authority and the government.

People would be aware that the government is a substantial landholder in the precinct, and owns a large block bounded by Gouger Street and Wright Street and King William Street. There are many questions that we need to resolve the answer to, not least of which is the government's and the courts' future intentions in respect of the Sir Samuel Way Building. That piece of work is going to be undertaken. Also I should mention that in conjunction with the Chief Justice we have moved to amend the law to offer the courts greater flexibility in their use and provision of audiovisual services to improve the accessibility of court and justice services to people without necessarily requiring them to physically attend.

I am of the view, and I think the Chief Justice probably shares this view, that this has the potential to offer great access improvements if it is managed properly. Ultimately, the government's view is that the actual management of that is a matter for the courts. They are best placed to work out in which circumstances the provision of that type of service is most appropriate. We look forward to seeing developments in that area. The last thing I would mention, by way of opening, is the electronic case management system, which is a project which is being managed and run by the Courts Administration Authority. I might just invite the Chief Justice to perhaps provide a bit of an update to members of the committee about how that is going.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Over the course of this year we have evaluated around 10 tenders and we have put together teams from across the Courts Administration Authority, including judicial officers, to evaluate those carefully. We have short-listed down to four, both Australian-based and overseas providers. They will be presenting to us next week on what they can offer. Shortly after that, later in August or September I think it is, our senior staff will visit sites at which those short-listed tenderers have provided systems and speak with the actual courts who use them to see what they are like. We will then further short-list down to perhaps one, but perhaps one or two, and later in the year go through what we are calling a discovery workshop, where they demonstrate to us how they can actually attend to the business processes that we need.

We hope to have a recommendation to cabinet at the end of this year, beginning of next, as to a preferred tenderer. We are seeing this process as not just an information technology process. We are mapping our current business processes, that is, what happens to a summons from the time that it hits the registry desk through, to see how we can actually improve those processes and enhance the gains that we will get from the IT system as a result. It has been a terrific process to watch staff who have not worked together before coming together on this project, and that in itself has, I think, added a lot to the organisation.

The ECMS project we see as something of a consolation prize. When the building fell through—the building earlier and being built now would have been terrific. But the importance of this project should not be underestimated. It will, for example, significantly reduce the space that is required for a new building, and so I think we will gain many collateral benefits to this project that are yet to be realised.

The CHAIR: Chief Justice, thank you, Attorney. Member for Bragg, do you have an opening statement?

Ms CHAPMAN: I would just like to welcome, of course, the Attorney and the Chief Justice and senior members of staff of the agency. Last year I asked a number of questions which were taken on notice, of which I have not received responses, or the committee has not received responses. On 23 June I sent an email, Attorney, to you, listing those. They included subjects on the number of civil cases currently active in the courts in the preceding 12 months, involving the department or minister of the government; a number of questions on the ex gratia payments; also some questions in relation to the Nyland royal commission. Some of that information has been, I think, in the public arena since.

There were also some questions as to the scoping study funds for the courts precinct project and the further questions in respect of costings and money spent by the Courts Administration Authority in respect of development of that now ill-fated proposal. I have not received any answers to those questions, as I say, for the benefit of the committee. Can I ask, in response today, that the Attorney-General gives some indication as to when we might expect answers to those questions? I would invite him to explain if there is any reason for the delay or, if that information is not going to be provided, if he could indicate that to the committee, but otherwise I have no other opening statement.

The CHAIR: The Attorney can choose to answer that if he wishes, it is not—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not mind responding to that. There has certainly been no deliberate decision by me not to provide those bits of information. I have not had drawn to my personal attention that those matters had not been provided. I can say, though, from the few questions that were mentioned by the honourable member: the first one about civil lists would probably be pertinent to the people in the room presently, but it may well be many of the others are not, for example, ex-gratia payments,. Can I just take that on notice, and I can invite my advisers to see if they can give me some information that might shine some light on that. I can assure the member that there has been no deliberate determination by me not to provide information. On the face of it, it appears to be more of an oversight rather than anything else, but I am happy to look into it.

Ms CHAPMAN: It may assist the committee, Mr Chairman, by indicating that the email was sent on 23 June this year to Mr Peter Geytenbeek, who is, of course, employed by the Attorney, and it lists those areas that were outstanding to the estimates committee from last year.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I just say that my staff thought we had attended to what was left over, and, insofar as there is any delay with the authority, I apologise. Can I say that as to the internal costs of the Court Administration Authority on the building project, they were some $340,000, mostly based on internal staff being taken offline to work on it. There may have been some actual cost in backfilling some positions—I am not sure what that is, but I am just giving a figure based on the salaries for the people for the time they were involved in it. There was a small amount of travel cost, which I think was reimbursed, by and large, from DPTI.

In terms of civil lodgements, they have generally been low in what we traditionally see as civil in the District Court and the Magistrates Court; that is, stable or a fraction lower, because applications in the Children's Court are dealt with as civil lodgements. They lift the overall figure. Surprisingly, there has not been a large increase in civil lodgements in the Magistrates Court to match the change in jurisdictions. The actual figures as to cases pending, and so forth, are available in the RoGs data, and I just cannot bring them up right now, but I am sure we can get those figures out without much help.

Ms CHAPMAN: If I can assist here, the question actually was not as to the number of civil cases per se, and I appreciate that information that you have just repeated to us is publicly known, Chief Justice, but the question was: the number of civil cases that currently are active in which the state, and/or department and/or minister is a party, either as a plaintiff, or defendant, or applicant, or respondent. I appreciate that that is not necessarily something you would be immediately familiar with, but, of course, the Attorney-General would be, and I am sure he will promptly attend to providing the committee with an answer.

The CHAIR: Questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, if I may start with Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 157 to 179, which principally relate to the Courts Administration Authority, but as the Attorney has indicated in opening there has been provision identified in the budget measures paper in respect of funds for a further scoping study or business case in respect of court infrastructure. Can I start with the workforce, which is at page 161. In respect of that, of the 716.2 FTEs as at 30 June, whose job will be removed, including a combination of part-time employees, to achieve a reduction this financial year to 715.6, and when?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That will arise just by people leaving and not being replaced. Most of our savings—and they did not to be great for this year—basically will be achieved through staff changes of that nature, administrative staff in a number of different areas, and just by not replacing or rearranging responsibilities.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it largely clerical staff?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS Administrative staff of one sort or another, yes, and not direct judicial support staff in registry departments.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the Attorney intend to fill the vacancies in the District Court for judges?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is an interesting question. As I was explaining before (and it is worth trying to explain it, perhaps I did not going into enough detail about what I am thinking about this), the District Court is the main trial court for the more serious civil and criminal matters in the state. The District Court, I think it is fair to say, does more criminal work than it does civil work these days, although it still very much has a live civil jurisdiction. As I explained in the opening, I am in the process of finalising substantial reform to practice and procedure in relation to major indictable offences, which overwhelmingly are dealt with in the District Court.

It strikes me that the time for consideration of the question of increasing above current numbers the personnel for that court should correspond with some assessment as to whether those changes are achieving the outcomes they are designed to achieve. I think it is probably also fair to mention that, obviously, for reasons beyond anyone's control, there has been an issue with illness in that court, and that is nobody's fault and beyond everyone's control. That is an ongoing matter. The judicial staffing levels are a matter of ongoing consideration.

It is probably worthwhile trying to explain again: a day in court is not like money in the bank. It is not something you can store up and roll out whenever you need it. A day in court is more like a seat on an aircraft: the 5 o'clock flight to Melbourne, which has 100-odd seats, only flies once at 5 o'clock today and after that it will never fly again, so your either on that plane or you are not. It is much that way with court days and court time. On any given day there are only a certain number of judges who are available to hear cases.

In circumstances where some of those judges are involuntarily not given a case, in other words they are ready, willing and able to do a case, but circumstances like a late nolle from the DPP or a late application for adjournment by the accused, or a guilty plea, literally at the door of the court, mean that, notwithstanding that the judge and the judicial system are ready and willing to do the job that the community expects of them, their time is being wasted and it is not the sort of thing where that can just be backfilled at the drop of a hat.

What we are trying to do is to say there are a number of judicial days, court days, which are lost through no fault of the judicial officers. There are a number of court days which are lost to the profession and to victims and to accused people through no fault of the profession, because there is an over-listing problem in the court, and there is no judge available on the day and the parties are sent away, sometimes for a lengthy adjournment.

What I am trying to do is to say, much as the Chief Justice said in relation to the ECMS project, you try and actually improve your process before you then automate it. We are attempting to improve the practice and procedure in relation to, in particular, major indictable offences, so that in a sense everybody brings their mind to the question about whether the matter needs to be a trial that runs or whether it is a matter that can be resolved by one means or another, early, and they do that early. They do not leave it to the last minute to do that. If they do it early, that means the court winds up having matters stuck in its list which the court can be reasonably confident are going to require the assistance of a judge.

At the moment, all the court probably could tell you is that, statistically, one in whatever of lodgements in the Criminal Registry actually require a judge and at each point during the process of that thing being in the list; they could probably tell you statistically that this one has now got a two in three chance or a one in four chance or whatever of actually winding up at the end. What we have to do is push that back so that a higher concentration of those matters entering the District Court list are matters which require the assistance of a judge and that will enable those judges to not be in a position where they are involuntarily required to, in effect ,waste their time because people leave them hanging to the last minute before they tell them they are not required.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS : I have a number of observations which I would like to make in relation to that question. In anything I think it is important to have short, medium and long-term strategies. In terms of the medium to long-term strategy, reducing the number of matters that do not proceed is really important. The Director of Public Prosecutions taking control of country committals will help with that, because better decisions will be made about which charges to proceed with.

It is because so many matters drop out, either because a defendant pleads guilty or the prosecution withdraw, drop or lower charges, the courts have always over-listed, because we do not want the empty seat on the plane that the Attorney spoke of. But, the inevitable flipside of that is that sometimes the matters will run and cases will not be reached, so that is the problem we are in.

Having said that, lodgements in the District Court in the last financial year have increased. They were about stable, small drop, in the year before, but backlogs have increased seriously in the District Court. There was a time when there were judicial positions vacant that were not filled, but they all have been filled now. So, all judicial positions are filled, but in the interim, the backlog has increased. The current position in the District Court is that there are some judges who are not available fulltime for trials, for a number of reasons, including illness.

It is possible, and it has been done in the past, to appoint a judge even above numbers when a situation like this exists because, as you would appreciate, one judge or other is regularly reaching the retirement age, so the actual impost is not a long-term impost of an additional judicial position. It is just an interim measure until someone retires and the position is back at equilibrium.

Because of the increasing backlog in the District Court in criminal matters, that is a matter that I think is worthy of consideration. If backlogs get too big, they become very difficult to manage, even with the appointment of other judges, because, as I have said on other occasions, we have a medium-term problem in terms of a bottleneck with numbers of courtrooms available. So, even if you increase judges, you may not have a courtroom for them. I think replacing a judge shortly before his or her retirement is something that needs to be considered.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for that, flight captain. Can I just indicate that, last year, when we discussed this issue, Attorney, you said that you were considering a reconfiguration of the state's courts in response to questions about filling vacancies. Is there any provision in the 2016-17 budget for a restructure of the Supreme Court and District Courts or indeed the establishment of a permanent appeal court, other than the initiatives you have indicated of what you might introduce for streamlining major indictable offences?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is nothing in the budget for it. It is something that the Chief Justice, I and others sort of kicked around the place for a while trying to see whether, in the end, there was some consensus about whether there would be a different configuration which ultimately would yield sufficiently good results to be worth the trouble, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no compelling case to make a fundamental change at this point in time.

I would say just in general terms though that it appears, from looking at other states and the commonwealth, that, at some point in time, at some stage of growth in the population or in the size of the judiciary, most states, ultimately, at some point, then elect to have a model where there is a court of appeal sitting somewhere in the mix. New South Wales has been in that position for a very long time, I imagine. Victoria, Queensland and I think Western Australia are in that position. Tasmania is not, as I understand it, and nor are we.

I think it is one of those things that, at some point in time, in the event of the size of the courts getting to a certain point, might be something to be considered again but, at the moment, I am not convinced that it is necessary. Indeed, having tossed it around, I am not convinced it would add any value at this point in time, so I do not intend to be taking that any further.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I suspect it would be after my time.

Ms CHAPMAN: May I ask if there is any provision in this year's budget to bring overseas judges to Australia or to send South Australian judges overseas?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe there is any explicit line to that effect, but perhaps it might be helpful for the Chief Justice to share with the committee the genesis of that idea. I think some members may have got the slightly wrong end of that stick. Chief Justice, would you like to say a few words?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There is no provision for that to happen at all in the budget. If it were to happen, it would be a matter of exploring whether, in what is called the administered budget, which is the budget out of which judicial salaries, including auxiliary judges salaries, are paid, the terms on which that budget is administered allowed for it and if there was actually money available to do it. So, if there was any source of fund, it would be that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Could I just ask one other question ancillary to that? Apart from the salaries which are, as I understand, in the current bill before the parliament, approval would have to be obtained by yourself as Chief Justice in any event, as to the terms and arrangements, but is there any intention that any judges, if they do come to South Australia, will come from countries which provide for executions and capital punishment in their criminal codes?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There are no plans for it at all. The amendment that was made only allows the Governor to make a regulation adding to the jurisdictions, and no regulation has been made and I have not asked for any particular regulation to be made at all. The genesis of the idea of allowing overseas jurisdictions, other than New Zealand, to be included by regulation was mine; it had nothing at all to do with criminal matters. In terms of Australia's economic interests, most see the importance of trying to establish Australia as a commercial centre in Asia. The interstate courts make efforts to have relationships with Asian courts for that purpose. The Bar Association and the Law Council are all busily trying to build up links to promote that.

It was as a result of a visit to Singapore in January that this idea occurred to me, because of contact I had with Singaporean judges, and Singapore has established an international commercial court. It was only simply to have the facility, should contact between Adelaide judges and an international commercial centre overseas, Singapore or another place, develop to the point where we would contemplate exchanges to build up our respective expertise and standing as a centre for international commercial disputes. But other than some brief contact I had on that one visit, nothing more has happened. I really hoped that it would. I suspect that it is not going to for reasons that are outside my control as the Chief Justice; it has got to do with economic centres, commercial centres. It just occurred to me that, if it ever does happen, the machinery ought to be in place so we could move fairly quickly. It is purely that.

On auxiliary judges, we do have an arrangement with some interstate jurisdictions (Western Australia and Victoria), where we have had a judge from those jurisdictions come to hear matters in Adelaide, and we have sent judges back the other way, to Victoria, the idea being that the salary is still paid by the home state but the state bringing the judge over pays accommodation and travel expenses.

We did some rough calculations for an exchange we had with a judge who came from Victoria to hear a matter in which our judges were conflicted, and it came out at about the same, probably a bit cheaper, to have the Victorian judge come over and for us to just pay the accommodation costs rather than appoint an auxiliary judge. When we appoint an auxiliary judge, we pay them the difference between their pension and the ordinary judicial salary. It worked out cost-effective but, importantly, it promoted exchange between the courts of the states, which most people see as a pretty good thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: You need to beware, Chief Justice; that idea might be planted in the Attorney's head and you might all become redundant. I think there are some strict rules in relation to superannuation entitlements as well that do not apply when we bring in interstates for conflicted matters, etc., in any event. Just in relation to overseas positions, given that you see this as assisting in a commercial way, you would not then have any objection to there being a restriction on the judges coming to hear civil matters, and/or not to come from countries, if they are going to do criminal matters, where they have a mandatory death penalty?

The CHAIR: I will step in just for a moment here, Chief Justice. This is straying a little bit. These are questions of policy. I am happy, if the Attorney is happy, for the Chief Justice, at his discretion, to answer them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am fine with this particular one. It did get a little bit strange in another part of this building when this was first debated, so I am happy for it all to be settled and explained.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Can I make it clear that I am implacably opposed to bringing a judge from any other jurisdiction to hear criminal matters. Crime is local; it must be dealt with in that way. I appreciate that some people may even see a problem in bringing a civil judge for a civil case from a jurisdiction in which, in their criminal capacity, they impose the death sentence. That is a legitimate matter for policy debate, but can I say that there are two layers of protection here, two checks. The first is that the Attorney of the day would have to include the country in a regulation and then, even if included, it would always be the Chief Justice's decision as to whether to assign that judge duties.

Ms CHAPMAN: In regard to minor capital works, on page 161, there is 4.198 million to be spent in this financial year. Where is that money to be spent? On court infrastructure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is repairs to various buildings.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am assuming that. I am just asking if there can be a list provided, if you do not have it today, as to which courts are going to be actually upgraded and what the nature is, in general terms, of the works that are to be done.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, we will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the planning study, which the Attorney has referred to, and which I see is actually now coming out of the Department of Transport's budget, there is $1 million for that planning study. Is any of that money to be actually applied in the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was my understanding that we were getting on with it pretty well straightaway. My expectation is that the whole lot is going in 2016-17.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, $1 million in 2016-17. The Courts Administration Authority started a committee internally to look at alternatives many months ago. We have been in contact with DPTI and we hope that there would be absolutely no delay in getting moving on that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there some reason why this is now being managed by DPTI and not the Courts Administration Authority, which has largely had responsibility for the tendering, planning and the like of these matters?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer is that the role of property management within government is generally undertaken by that department. This exercise involves a number of considerations that go beyond the immediate consideration of a building in a greenfield site. For instance, I think everyone is aware that the lease on the Samuel Way Building comes up in 2023.

There is a period that is required if there is to be notice given either to quit the building or to continue the lease or to buy the building. Those considerations are broader governmental considerations. Each one of them has consequences more broadly within the whole of the government property portfolio, so I think it is appropriate that DPTI, because it does have that cross-government function, is involved in the process.

Obviously, the courts have to be involved as well because the actual requirements they have, in terms of physical infrastructure and other considerations, need to be central in the process as well. I think it is fair to say that the way in which the Samuel Way Building is ultimately dealt with will be an important factor in whatever the final outcome of this is and, for that reason, I think it is appropriate that there is an across-government DPTI-led process.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I ask, then, what the Attorney-General has actually done in advancing the courts precinct redevelopment? Will the new build just have courts or courts and administration entities in it—the twin towers proposal that has been on the table before? What have you have done to actually advance the state superior court redevelopment since your statement in estimates last year, which was, 'I will continue…agitating for a substantial investment in that precinct as part and parcel of each budget process.' If you have done anything, can you tell the committee what it is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have certainly continued agitation. My caucus colleagues would tell you that when we do a round-up of issues every caucus meeting and I am asked what the pressing issues are, I say, 'The courts.' They are getting a bit sick of hearing about that. I have continued agitating with my colleagues. I continue to agitate through budget processes.

At this point in time the fruits of my agitation appear to be the $1 million that we are talking about now for this study. I am satisfied that this study, if done properly, and I am determined to see that it is, will provide a very solid platform for launching the next set of proposals on the basis that they will be grounded in a study which addresses all of the issues that Treasury or other government agencies might have about the courts infrastructure.

I cannot say often enough that this is not a like to have, an indulgence or something that is just some flight of fancy on my part or the Chief Justice's. This is essential. This is inescapable and it must happen. Given that it is an inescapable necessity, the best way I can see of going forward is for me to ensure that this study covers every possible angle about this and makes an absolutely irresistible case for not only the fact that it must happen, because I think everyone accepts that, but exactly how it can and should happen.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given the description on page 59, Budget Paper 5, detailing the CBD Court Facilities—Planning Study which refers to the business case, it states:

…that considers the future accommodation requirements of the criminal and civil functions of the Courts Administration Authority—

which is obviously courts and, indeed, the agency, if that is to be included—

…and the civil and tribunal functions of the Attorney-General's Department.

I assume that to be SACAT and the like. There does not appear to be any provision in there for what was the previous plan and that was to have a tower of all of the agencies, for example, that you are responsible for, Attorney, in another division, which we will get to in a moment (the DPP, etc.). Are we now going to the streamlined version of just a superior courts building that is going to accommodate that and a support agency rather than the AG department agencies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is part of the question to be answered in this study. I think the fact that the broader administrative services attached to the Attorney-General's Department are not included in here actually does not mean that they could not be part and parcel of this ultimate package. It means that we are not going to actually make it essential, before the courts get anywhere, that the Attorney-General's broader administrative staff are also accommodated.

What we are making is a smaller target here. We are saying that here is our priority—dealing with the Courts Administration Authority requirements and the tribunal functions and the superior courts. That is the main game. I do not know, but it may be that it turns out when the study is done that, if you add in other Attorney-General accommodation around the city, that either makes this an easier thing to achieve or a harder thing to achieve. I do not know the answer to that. That is part of what this thing will look at.

What we are trying to say there is that this is the priority bit or, to put it another way, it is not absolutely critical that there be a second tower, if that is the way we want to characterise it, which accommodates people who are crown law people or DPP people or whatever it might be. That was part of the original proposal because it made sense that, having that large block, we could accommodate everybody in that precinct and it would all work well.

That may or may not be where we land ultimately, but this is meant to be quite particular and say that whatever the requirements of the DPP, the Crown Solicitor's Office and other people might be, they are not the urgent focus of this particular study. That does not mean that if it was prudent or it actually assisted that we could not perhaps include some consideration of their accommodation as well, but they are not the main game. This is the main game.

Ms CHAPMAN: At this stage, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has provided the funding, from what you have said earlier. It is being spearheaded from the Courts Administration Authority as to what their needs are to identify. The primary objective is to get the superior courts into proper accommodation. Ancillary and administrative matters may or may not be added if appropriate, so we can see what has been targeted. The previous courts precinct redevelopment, as it was called, which came in with the twin tower option, was a courts tower and an administration tower, if I could again summarise it in that way. So why did you not just proceed with the quote you got on the courts tower?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That project was a single—I appreciate it had two towers, but it was a single project. I think you would find that if you examine that closely, some of the funding arrangements for that project were predicated on the idea that one of those towers would be occupied by government tenancies and that that occupation by a long-term government tenancy in one of the towers would in some way be factored into the cost structure of the whole business case, so I do not think it is just as simple as that.

The other point I would make is that even within the courts there is quite a difference—and I know the member for Bragg is aware of this, other members perhaps not so much—there is quite a difference in the minimal and optimal physical requirements for a criminal court, a higher criminal court, and a civil court. With criminal courts, you require facilities to detain or to hold prisoners. You require the capacity to separate prisoners from the rest of the group of people who might be in the building, whether they be judges or witnesses or victims or whoever they might be. You need accommodation for jurors.

All of those things require very particular security solutions, and they are expensive. They are not the sort of thing where you can just draw a line in a room and it suddenly becomes a criminal court, it is not that simple. So even within the building that in that particular project design was accommodated as a courts building, there were two quite separate functions being accommodated. The criminal function is a much more expensive and complex housing exercise than civil.

Ms CHAPMAN: So when you received the response to the tender in relation to the redevelopment proposal which had the two buildings, one of which, the courts building, came in under the budget limit that cabinet had set—and combined, it was above that limit, I note that—did you go back to any of the proponents to inquire as to whether they would be agreeable to progress with their quote on the courts-only building before abandoning that project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer to that would perhaps best be directed at the people from DPTI or Renewal, because I think they were the people who were actually engaged in that exercise. I am struggling to remember the exact detail now, but I believe there was some further conversation with the proponents, but to what effect and on what basis, I do not know. Whatever it was, I can assure you it was occurring in the context where I was very keen to see that project proceed if it possibly could. I was ultimately left with the very clear understanding that the ultimate cost of that project put us in the position where it was just not acceptable.

Ms CHAPMAN: Would you, Attorney, be prepared to review your records to remind yourself and identify later to the committee, or take on notice, in your agitation for the advancement of the substantial reinvestment in the precinct, whether you had requested that that be investigated, either before or after the public announcement of the abandonment of that project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just make this clear. I, at no time, have had direct interaction with any of the proponents in relation to this matter. I have never been part of a negotiating arrangement with them. I have not participated in any of those things. So, the actual first-hand knowledge about what has and what has not occurred has never been in my possession. That is knowledge that others have, not me. All I can say to the committee is that I do not think there is a single person in government who is not absolutely, clearly aware of my view about how important it is for us to get on with a core project. We've solved the problem that the superior courts have.

Ms CHAPMAN: We are very keen to hear that, Attorney, and pleased that you are continuing to do that. It is just that you were the one who went out in early last year, announced the abandonment of the project, indicating that it was cost prohibitive—or words to that effect, did not come up to the expectations of what cabinet were prepared to approve—and so on. I understand that, but you have also indicated to the committee that you have been active in this space in trying to ensure that there is some advancement of what is in a crumbling superior court position. Whilst I appreciate that DPTI representatives were the parties to actually negotiate with the tenderers—I will ask them, of course, what they have done—but I am really asking what you have done to advance or promote them investigating other options, other than just the abandonment of the project, which has already had a lot of money and time spent on it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, one of the most unpleasant experiences I have had in the time that I have been privileged enough to have this job, was to be told the unpleasant news that that project was not going ahead. The second most unpleasant thing was being told that I was then going to explain to everybody that that was not going ahead. Actually, I am not sure that order is right, but it was pretty bad anyway, from my point of view. I was bitterly disappointed. Literally, the day after that, I asked for various public servants to have a chat with me, and I said, 'This is not the end, this is not the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning.' I think somebody else might have said that too. I said that and on we went. I said, 'Okay, where do we go now? That didn't work, fair enough. What are we going to do now? What are we doing?'

Ms CHAPMAN: And what did they say?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We went through various iterations of things. We spoke about it, I spoke to the Courts Administration Authority and the Chief Justice about it. Ultimately, this line in the budget represents what I am convinced is the most effective way of building our case to the point where it is unsaleable.

Ms CHAPMAN: No-one on the committee, I think, would be criticising the money, at least to keep the idea alive. However, it is all the more puzzling, given your answer, Attorney, as to why you cannot remember what you actually did after speaking to the public servants as to, 'What on earth are we going to do next and how can we advance it?' when you had documents before you which identified that you could have proceeded with a courts tower at that time, under budget, and cannot recall now what you did about that in presenting it back, either to DPTI to explore it with the tenderers, or to cabinet.

The CHAIR: Again, we are straying from this year's budget paper. If the Attorney is happy to answer that—but there are two minutes left on this line of questioning, I'm afraid.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All I can tell you is that I have been absolutely, consistently jumping up and down on the spot about this for six years. I was very disappointed that that process did not result in what I had hoped it was going to result in. I continue to agitate for this problem to be resolved, let me put it that way, and if you want to know details about what went on in the nitty-gritty of discussions between the proponents and the government, I suggest you ask details from DPTI or whoever it was who were the actual negotiators, because I was not in that position.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 163: how many times to date has the online system to request adjournments been used, and what is being done to make practitioners aware of it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Do you want to take that on notice?

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I am sure that, if it has not been used very much we will soon know. Chief Justice, how many times to date has the online system to request adjournments, that is, being able to apply online to adjourn matters, been used, and what is being done to make practitioners aware of it?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We will have to take that on notice. We have had a number of trials with that and audiovisual appearances from practitioners' offices for adjournments, and we are in a trial with the Legal Services Commission I think on the audio visual part of it rather than the online. It has been slower than we expected, but we will have to get the actual detail on notice. It is something we are all keen to progress, but it has been slower than expected.

The CHAIR: With that, the agreed time has expired. So, there being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Courts Administration Authority completed, and I thank the Attorney and his advisers and the Chief Justice.