Attorney-General's Department, $118,141,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $101,555,000

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:

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

Mr D. Soulio, Acting Deputy Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

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

Mr J. Lai, Principal Adviser, Budgeting, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. I now call on the Attorney-General to make a statement if he wishes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not intend to say anything in particular in respect to the department. I think I have probably covered off on a lot of the policy work we are doing in the last session. I will say, though, that the department has been very active in supporting a lot of policy work through all the agencies, and they have become reasonably familiar with and tolerant of absurd time lines. At least that is what they tell me, that they are absurd—I do not think they are, of course: I think they are quite reasonable. They are pretty good, really.

Can I also say that all of us recently had snatched from us, in an untimely way, Mr Rick Persse, who was chief executive of the agency for many years. Rick was a terrific leader for the agency, a very professional public servant and a great person to work with, the person who gave advice, including advice I did not want to hear, like, 'You can't have that done next Tuesday'—things like that. So he is a great loss to us, but we are luckily surrounded in depth, and I wish him well in his new role.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 9 to 67, Budget Paper 5, pages 16 to 18, and Budget Paper 3, page 24. Attorney, at page 14 on the workforce, as at 30 June 2016 the workforce is estimated at 1,576.7 FTEs. However, it is proposed to staggeringly reduce to 1,502.3 this financial year. How and who is to go, and are you actually losing an agency, or is this just a substantial reduction of 75-odd full-time equivalents?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I will have to take that on notice. I can talk in general terms. There are individual—

Ms CHAPMAN: 75 people—you should know who they are?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take it on notice. You said are their particular things that are not happening anymore. One example—but it is only six people—is Medical Panels SA, for instance.

Ms CHAPMAN: So they are going?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. All gone.

Ms CHAPMAN: There are another 69 to go.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take it on notice because I do not just want to free-wheel it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay, they may be potted around the whole agency, but is there any particular area of responsibility that you have now that is about to be moved? Equal Opportunity, biting the dust? Or Police Ombudsman is disappearing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I can give you another cluster of them. In the course of the budget year the nuclear royal commission is winding down. Even though nuclear has nothing in particular to do with AGD, because we are the host agency for royal commissions because of the nature of those things, the Royal Commissions Act is attached to the office of the Attorney.

Ms CHAPMAN: My understanding last year, Attorney, was, as you explained, you pay the money for the royal commission, because it is attached for that reason, but you do not actually undertake the work attached to it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think you gave Mr Scarce an office for a period.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. It is still in the AGD full-time equivalent account.

Ms CHAPMAN: Were there 69 people working on the royal commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I am giving you some more little bits. So, with the nuclear fuel royal commission there is going to be 16.2 FTEs disappear. The child protection royal commission will wind up this year. That is, I am advised, another 15. We will keep delving for other numbers but it gives you an idea where things come and go.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright. Well, if it is not one agency or one group like that, if we could just have the detail of what the position is of that person and whether it is full-time or part-time. To aggregate for the balance appears to be a little concerning. What will the cost be of concluding the contract for Mr Rick Persse in going to the Department for Education and Children's Services, and were those costs paid out of the Attorney-General budget, or did someone else pay for that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, all chief executives actually have a contract with the Premier, and what has happened is that Mr Persee has been—

Ms CHAPMAN: Seconded.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Moved, yes. My belief is, and I do not know the details of this because I do not bump into Mr Persee as often as I used to. But my understanding is that he went across initially, under his existing contractual arrangements, with the Premier. Given that that agency has different requirements, I believe there would have been some review of whether that arrangement was adequate or sufficient or appropriate. Exactly where that landed, I do not know. It is not as if he has been terminated and paid out. He has just migrated across.

Ms CHAPMAN: And any costs associated with that, though, have not been left to your agency to pick up? Other than the fact that you have to clean out the desk and put someone else in there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Chesser House refit? I am happy to ask that in Consumer and Business Services, but it is a capital work, so is it best to ask that question now?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am easy.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Depends what the question is, obviously.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, there is an invitation. It is referred to on page 15, for the benefit of other members of the committee. A 2.969 fit-out. Apart from consumer affairs, and I think the veterans' tribunal, and a few federal migration tribunals and so on, do we have any other government agencies involved in that fitout?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised it is just Consumer and Business Services.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the government own the building?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand it is a lease. I have some information, broadly, about that, and that is that in January of this year cabinet approved a seven year and two month lease renewal, and it is for around four and half thousand square metres, effective from 1 July 2015. About 65 per cent of the fit-out is 18 years old and is not really satisfactory, so it is intended that the lease incentive of $2.9 million will fund a significant refurbishment and fit-out.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who does own the building?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the actual fit-out is for what? Is it for the chief executive's office of Consumer and Business Services or is it for the new toilets?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If it is, I am going to ask him to move into my office, and I will go down there.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think yours is pretty good, so we will just come back to what is actually going to be in the $2.969 million.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is five floors of the building, apparently.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is actually happening in them that costs $2.969 million? Is it just a very expensive repaint or are there partitions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We can get detail of that. I think it is probably better if we take it on notice, but we will get you something. We will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: I note, of course, it is an agency that actually makes money for the state—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It does.

Ms CHAPMAN: —so we are not necessarily saying that it is not necessary or appropriate. I would just like to have some detail of it, if that could be provided to the committee, thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are a jewel in the crown.

Ms CHAPMAN: At least they make money—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed.

Ms CHAPMAN: —at taxpayers' expense, I suppose, but could we just move to child protection on page 56? How many members of the steering committee are to oversee the government's response to recommendations of the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission which, of course, are to come out next week, and who is on the committee?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will get you the exact particulars about who is on there. I will take that on notice, but the gist of it is it is a multi-across government agency group. I think there are approximately a dozen people, and the idea is for that group to carefully analyse the recommendations that we expect to be receiving from Commissioner Nyland and to work out implementation strategies and processes. It is the government's attempt to be ready to hit the ground running when the commissioner's report is received. Rather than having a cold start, scrambling around and starting from scratch, we wanted to have a group of people whose hands are ready to receive the report and to begin work immediately.

Ms CHAPMAN: Which is why, given that it is five or six days away, we do not have a committee yet, or are they just the committee for the purposes of the Public Service representatives of various agencies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am informed that the group has already met once.

Ms CHAPMAN: I see, so can you provide a list then of who is on the committee?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I will do that on notice. I just do not have the names and details now.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, could I say it is a group of police, families, communities—all of the usual suspects—relevant to and informed about the agencies that are responsible for child protection systems?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are they support members from the departments or are they just ministers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not personally—

Ms CHAPMAN: Just departmental people?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are departmental people. I have not been to the meeting that occurred. There is a cabinet subcommittee which I chair, which is called the Child Protection Subcommittee of Cabinet, and that has relevant ministers on it, which are the Minister for Police and, obviously, the Minister for Education and Child Development and so forth. This group reports to that subcommittee of cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the response unit different to the committee of departmental people?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are three tiers to this. The top tier is the cabinet committee. Reporting to the cabinet committee is the steering committee, which are the dozen or so people, and reporting to the steering committee is a response group, which is working up policy, I guess, in relation to the thing.

The way I interpret this is that the response group is the first base. They recommend stuff which then goes to the steering committee, which then filters it across agencies to work out whether there is some obvious anomaly in it that has not been picked up, or whatever, and then that is referred to the cabinet subcommittee.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who is on the response group unit?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will have to get you the details of that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are there any people other than people who work for the government?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: So this is really just an extra $1 million then. In a structured way, the department is assembling and the department then gets the extra $1 million to prepare the report to government of what the government's response should be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I guess, yes. This is salaries, basically, of all of the people for all of that time doing all of this work. That is basically what it is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Aren't these people already paid?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are apparently seconded into this, as a stand-alone proposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: I see. So the salaries of the people who are on the response unit, who are all public servants from other agencies, are really going to be picked up by you while they work for you for three months in this response unit. Is that how it works?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So we should see a corresponding diminution of the cost of these people in their respective agencies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I guess so, but it will be relatively tiny anyway.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is $1 million.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I suspect that, if these people are being pulled out of work elsewhere, they will probably be backfilling somebody to fill in for them.

The CHAIR: The Attorney does not need to speculate about what is happening in other departments.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, fair enough. I am not sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright. In any event, this does not include paying for the advice of other experts who might be called in from the independent sector, or the non-government sector?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, if it is determined by these people that they need to bring in somebody external to provide some support or advice, the budget is able to accommodate that up to a point.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the time frame that the response unit and the committee have been allocated to prepare the response and provide the advice to government in this financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps the best I can do is to give you my take on things. I would like this all sorted before the end of the year. Absent some unforeseen complexity, my expectation is that this piece of work would be concluded well before the end of the year, and ideally we would be in a position where, in as much as there is legislative change coming out of this, we at least have a bill in the parliament. That is me. Those who sit near me might tell you, if I was not around, that I often push the envelope a bit about getting time lines to happen. That is the way I would like to see it roll out, but whether it does—

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any other provision in your budget, either of that $1 million or otherwise, set aside as a contingency for the implementation of whatever recommendations come out of the royal commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The only thing I can point you to is a quote from our Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: That could be a worry.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On page 6 of his Budget Speech, he states:

This budget retains additional funding in contingency to respond to Justice Nyland’s final recommendations. We will make those plans public once the final report has been contemplated.

Ms CHAPMAN: So whilst the plans are yet to be identified and considered, as to what the government's response will be, how much has been allocated for that in the contingency?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As far as I know, it is nothing more or less than I have just read out, but that is really properly a question for the Treasurer. I am not able to answer that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: But you are the minister in charge of child protection reform. Surely you would be saying to the Treasurer, 'Look, I want you to allocate—'

The CHAIR: The Attorney is not responsible for administering that particular part of the budget.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but I just suggest you ask the Treasurer that. My understanding is that it is not unknown for there to be a notional contingency that does not have a number attached to it.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much did you ask for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did not ask for anything, because I have no idea.

Ms CHAPMAN: I see. Alright.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: When I say I did not ask for anything, I am not suggesting that there may not be something required. That is not my point. To ask in a vacuum, when I do not even know what I am asking for, would be putting the cart before the horse, I would have thought.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the announcement by the government in the budget that there would be an amalgamation of Families SA facilities to administer child protection services—one of their roles is to administer the child protection services—had you received any interim report from Ms Nyland to recommend that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The only interim report I am aware of us receiving was the one that was publicly discussed not very long ago and—

Ms CHAPMAN: On the restructure of the departments, yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I do not believe there is—I will check, but my only recollection is the recent recommendation or report (or whatever it was) that Families SA be pulled out of education. As far as I can recall, that is the only recommendation or whatever that she has come up with, but I will check. I will see if there is anything. There is certainly nothing momentous, otherwise I would—yes, that is right. There was another not unimportant but comparatively not significant matter of youths not being up for victims of crime contributions, but that is not in the same ballpark as the other.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sure, it was a press release.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, the amalgamation of these three units into a fourth premises is a cost saving, as you understand it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to take that on notice. I do not know. You are getting into another minister's budget there, so I—

Ms CHAPMAN: It is just that you have allocated this $1 million to respond to the royal commission, but in the budget already has been the announcement of the amalgamation of three important services, obviously, into one. That may be a good thing. It may be consistent ultimately with what comes out in this report, but having proposed that, have you given any instruction to your department in respect of this response unit to consider whether or not that is actually appropriate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Two things. First of all, inasmuch as there is anything going on inside DECD, I am not in a position to answer questions about that. They are internal DECD matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to this matter, we have a cabinet decision made recently in response to the request or recommendation or report—however you wish to characterise it—from Commissioner Nyland. I do not see it as being the role of this group to attempt to second-guess the cabinet decision about that. I think what their starting point will be that that decision is taken as the government position on that particular point.

Then to everything else that is going to come out from the commissioner in due course, the government will either say, 'We've had a look at this and we already know which way we want to go on things,' and they will get an early steer. Or the government will say, 'We need a bit more thinking to be done about this. Can you go away and work something up for us so that the cabinet can make a decision?' This group will ultimately be presented, I think, with a mix of responses from cabinet. There is the one we have already decided, which I think they would have to accept is—

Ms CHAPMAN: Happening.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Happened. And then there may be things which, once we receive the report, we can fairly quickly rule in or out and we might be able to go to them fairly quickly and say, 'Look, we have seen the report and unless you folks have some very good reason to the contrary, we are pretty sure we are going to be doing whatever it is.' Then there may be a group of things which are a little less clear initially which we would be expecting these people to spend time working up.

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose really what I am asking is: is this response unit, which is getting $1 million, going to be charged with considering, obviously, restructure that is already happening, possibly the amalgamation of Families SA offices which is budgeted for but has not happened yet, and then, particularly if there is either no or there are contrary recommendations by Ms Nyland in her ultimate report in respect of what services should be out in the field, is that within the area that this response unit will be considering in giving its advice to the government?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I believe so because when you get down to the question of whether we have a central or a decentralised model, for example, the government has only received one official recommendation so far from the commissioner which we have agreed to. That recommendation does not address that particular point and so I think it is fair to say that, if the agency has been, as a matter of policy, doing one thing or another up until now and the commissioner recommends that it take a different direction, then that will be something that this group will be looking at, unless, of course, it was something that the government was definitely not intending to do, but I do not expect that to be the case.

My expectation is that there will be general agreement, I would expect, with most, if not all, of what the commissioner has to say, but I am saying that again in a vacuum because I have not seen what the commissioner's recommendations are.

Ms CHAPMAN: In regard to the Victims of Crime Fund, which your administered item is listed on page 13, how much is currently in the Victims of Crime Fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well—

Ms CHAPMAN: A lot, I know, but I would like more detail.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, as at 30 June this year, there was $238—is that dollars or millions of dollars?

Ms CHAPMAN: I trust millions. I certainly hope it is, unless Mr Koutsantonis has got his hands on it. It is $238 million?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: What was the expenditure from and the income to it during the 2015-16 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thought you might ask me that.

Ms CHAPMAN: So you have the answer ready?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I might have, yes. In the 2015-16 budget, the revenue was $58,077,000 came in and $30,966,000, went out.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the projected expenditure from that fund in the 2016-17 year and over the forward estimates, given that we have had a review of the law now and people have put their applications in?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am looking at these numbers here. This is just what I am advised. I will start with revenue first. In 2016-17, it is $60,681,000; in 2017-18, it is $61,660,000; in 2018-19, it is $62,607,000; and in 2019-20, it is $63,492,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: And expenditure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In 2016-17, it is $28,259,000; in 2017-18, it is $28,810,000; in 2018-19, it is $29,557,000; and in 2019-20, it is $30,330,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: It might hit the half a billion dollar mark by 2020, by the look of it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, who can say?

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that very substantial balance growth that is expected over the forward estimates, is it the government's intention to reform the Victims of Crime Act to increase the compensation available to claimants?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There has recently been a reform of the victims of crime legislation. As you might recall, we increased the maximum compensation payable from $50,000 to $100,000, and we doubled the payable maximum for grief to $20,000 and funeral expenses to $14,000. We have also nearly sorted out an increase in fees for legal practitioners representing individuals in relation to this. We have literally just done that. The extent to which those changes have been accurately factored into this, I cannot say. The only point I would make is—

Ms CHAPMAN: I hope they have been.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Given three things: first, the maximum claims have gone up; that the funding for legal practitioners to represent victims has gone up—

Ms CHAPMAN: Four hundred dollars.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nonetheless. It may be that there is some volatility in this, I do not know. I think we will probably have to wait for this year's figures to see whether that occurs.

Ms CHAPMAN: But even assuming, Attorney, that there had been a delay in applications from the 2015 financial year into the 2016 financial year in anticipation of the legislation that was known but had not passed, had accumulated and given a bit of a balloon in this financial year, quite clearly, that legislation gave a very substantial improvement in funds available to the catastrophically injured and those with the highest injury. Attorney, you are well aware of the concern raised that the amount available for everyone else in this category was less than adequate.

You may not agree with that, but obviously there has been significant complaint about that, given that the Victims of Crime Fund—which does have some other obligations already in meeting the salary of the commissioner for victims of crime and also a victims advocacy group and so on—still has a very substantial ballooning net revenue stream over forward estimates, which clearly indicates there is the capacity to be more generous towards all of those other applicants who really have not had much increase at all because of the new regime.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The numbers speak for themselves. I think it is fair to say that there is a reasonably healthy balance. What might or should be done about that is essentially a policy question. To take it really simply, there are three policy responses possible. One is leave it alone, but I emphasise, leaving it alone at the moment is leave it alone in the context of just having completely changed it, so we should wait and see what happens. The second policy response is to effect the amount of money coming in. The third is to effect the amount of money going out. There is an infinite number of policy questions attached to all of that. My preference is we just wait and see how the current changes, which have only literally just come in, bed themselves down.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney is also responsible for the administration of the Legal Services Commission, and that is also at page 13. The Legal Services Commission itself has had some restructure in its governance, but I am assuming for the moment that has not provided any very significant saving or extra expenditure, hopefully the former given the objectives of that legislation. The Productivity Commission's recommendation to states and territories suggests that a combined $80 million be invested in civil legal aid, and obviously the state has a substantial responsibility in this area. What factors have been taken into account in reducing the budget for the Legal Services Commission by $6.1 million over the next four years?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, the question around the Productivity Commission: they are very good at recommending what other people might do, and they are to be commended for that. I think they also recently recommended that we shut down the motor vehicle industry, that we do not build any defence equipment in Australia and various other—

Ms CHAPMAN: National Disability. Some very worthy projects that they recommended—but I accept they want people to spend money.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And that farmers should not get subsidised diesel fuel, and so on. They have got a view about pretty well everything. Let's put them to one side. As people would know, the Legal Services Commission does not fund civil matters, and I do agree that there is a longstanding problem in our community for people who are not wealthy enough—and let's face it, for civil litigation you have to be pretty wealthy, at least, if it is not going to really hurt you—but who find themselves in that unfortunate category where they have a civil problem and they find it difficult to get affordable advice. That has been a problem for a long time. It is a problem now, but the Legal Services Commission has never, ever sought to fill that gap.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you saying that, at present, there is no funding available for advice on consumer protection and civil matters?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. They do have advisory services and, indeed, they do good advisory services. I am talking about legal aid, as such, for civil cases. The Law Society has a scheme which works to some degree. I have actually been extremely pleased with the way the Legal Services Commission has been approaching the way it does its business. I think it has been quite open minded to change.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did they ask for the $6.1 million cut?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is fair to say they did not ask for that. In fact, in my experience, it is unusual for an agency to ask for a cut. This is a very simple way of explaining it and it is also my way of explaining it, so can you correct me if I am wrong, but the Legal Services Commission had constructed a set of reserves which were predicated on—

Ms CHAPMAN: Having to pay for capital works.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was not just that. They were predicated on things like, for example, every assignment of legal aid that had ever been given, but never called upon, would one day suddenly turn up in the letterbox. That is my understanding of it. This might have been an assignment granted 10, five, three years ago, or whatever, and they had notionally booked it up as an assignment of legal aid to so-and-so: $500 or $1,000. That was put onto a list. Ultimately, with that, for example, they did a call—and I cannot remember exactly when it was—a year or so ago to all these people and said, 'Look, you have an outstanding assignment; it is still sitting on our books. If you do not get in touch with us in the next six months or so, we are going to form the view that you are not particularly interested in this assignment anymore.'

So they were then able to purge their books of what amounted to old debt, which was a non-debt. So they have been able to do things which have improved their position. Whilst I am sure that they would prefer not to have had a reduction or some moneys taken out, I actually give them full marks for the way that the management team there is approaching things. An initiative as simple as that, where you discover that you have a whole bunch of notional debt sitting on your books, which, as it turns out, is not really there, and they work that out, they deal with it.

They are also looking to make a lot of changes internally, and that is part of the reason why I have had in the parliament legislation to deal with the management structure of the commission, because I think the chair of the commission, Mr Abbott (who we both know is a driving force) and the director, Ms Canny, are very good. I am wanting them to be backed up by a more commercially orientated board structure, which gives them the chance to get maximum value out of their budget and their staff.

Ms CHAPMAN: So this $6.1 million cut is not to reduce in any way the funds available for Legal Aid cases; it is to deal with the streamlining of administration within the commission—is that what you are saying?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is ultimately a matter for the commission itself, how it deals with it. All I can say to you is that I am confident that they will be able, through efficiencies and changes in the way they do things, to deliver the saving and continue to offer good services.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let us hope that does take place and there will be no reduction to it, but, in your determination as to what cuts they should have, were you satisfied that they would be able to achieve those reductions in the cost of their operation without affecting the amount of Legal Aid available for representation in cases?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think is going to push them, I accept that, but I believe they will be able to do that and deliver their services.

Ms CHAPMAN: And apart from what you have described as a fake debt, a liability for the work that has been allocated and approved but not actually spent and that being a paper debt or liability as such, how much money do they have in the bank in reserve as at 30 June?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has there been any conveying to them that it is the expectation that they have to use whatever they have in capital reserve if they cannot achieve the efficiencies within the administration?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Look, I—

Ms CHAPMAN: You have not asked for it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will you inquire whether Mr Persee asked for it before he left?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If he will take my calls, I suppose.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sure there will be a record somewhere if he has.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will try to find out. The gist of it is this: I do believe that the current management team and leadership group is capable of delivering significant change in the way the agency operates. We have been looking at this agency for a long time: we started doing reports on them five years ago, and I have to say that I have been really impressed by the way in which they have embraced new thinking, and they have improved what they had been doing. I think these are reasonable budgets to set. If it turns out at some time in the future that we hit a speed bump, no doubt they will talk to me and we will deal with it then.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the legal representation that is available in matters, I refer to whether there is any budget allocation for legal representation for elderly and disabled people in respect of their applications, particularly under the old guardianship rules before SACAT.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The detail I will have to either ask my colleagues here or get back to you, but you might recall that, when the SACAT legislation was going through, there was a conversation, which I recall having with the Hon. Mr Wade, about the provision of support for people who were going into guardianship, and I think the member for Bragg was involved in that as well.

There was then determined that a certain amount of money would be allocated to the Legal Services Commission to provide some sort of advisory service. The detail I will get for you. I do not have it at my fingertips, but I do recall that there was something done about that, because there was money in Health, and I cannot remember how much, but there was some sort of money in Health for guardianship-type advocacy—

Ms CHAPMAN: Support persons

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Support stuff. And then there was some money which the guardianship board used to have available to provide some assistance. Now, my recollection is what we did was we pooled those funds and that pooled money has then gone to the commission so the commission can deliver that service. The exact detail, I will have to get back to you on.

Ms CHAPMAN: Anyway, your understanding is that there is some provision in the budget available for that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And in respect of the justice reinvestment trials, I am not sure whether that is in your agency department, as part of your law reform, but really my question is: does the budget contain funding to implement the justice reinvestment trials, given that the government made a commitment to implementing two trial programs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Justice reinvestment is a very interesting and difficult area. There was a commitment to trying a couple of justice reinvestment trials. There was no specific funding allocated to the initiative. The idea of justice reinvestment, strangely enough, is something that, depending on who you talk to, you get a slightly different definition, but our working definition at AGD is that it is to work with communities to reduce the number of people being imprisoned. In effect, it is based on preventing and reducing crime by addressing the underlying motivators and contributors to criminal behaviour.

It has been said by many that this sort of approach may be one of a mixed bag of measures to assist in reducing the number of Aboriginal people who are in custody. The Attorney-General's Department has consulted with various groups—community groups and others—and in July and August of last year, initial consultations were held in Port Adelaide to gauge community commitment to a potential trial of the justice reinvestment scheme.

At this stage, what we have, I guess, is a sense that people are interested in it, but we would need to actually have a specific proposal so that we could make a formal bid for funding. I can tell the committee that my personal view about these things is that, whilst the vibe of justice reinvestment is warm and glowing, I am looking for something that has empirical evidence to suggest that it is going to make a difference and it is capable of delivering improvement. I am not interested in funding something, or even asking for funding for something, that is just really a well-intentioned but not empirically supported proposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, Attorney, there has not been any budget expenditure then since the meetings in July 2015, in that financial year. There is nothing in this financial year. Are you saying there has been no program put to you in the last 12 months that you suggest is good enough to have funding to conduct a trial?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Under the rubric of justice reinvestment, no. We do have the proposal, which I think was called boot camp or ReBoot, which was a commitment that was given about trying to intervene with young people who offend. This is where we get into these definitional problems. Is this justice reinvestment or is this diversion? I do not know.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not really mind which one you put it in because that is your responsibility. I am really asking: are any programs under any title that you would say are deserving of a trial to which you would allocate money, or are there existing programs—for example, Aboriginal services giving advice on domestic violence, anger management and so on of young men—to be expanded?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think one of them fits in that category. I am here avoiding what I think is the unhelpful definition of the terminology 'justice reinvestment'. I am talking about prevention and recidivism or—

Ms CHAPMAN: Early intervention.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Early intervention, let's call it that.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is fine. I will call it whatever you call it. At the moment, it is Justice Reinvestment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have the ReBoot program. It was announced in August 2015 that a not-for-profit organisation called Helping Young People Achieve would receive $900,000 over two years to deliver this in partnership with Red Cross, and a $100,000 bonus payment is available to the provider should the agreed results be achieved. The ReBoot grant will be the first in South Australia to be a pay by results grant.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much did they get in this year's budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to take that on notice, but can I say this one is interesting because this is the first time I have been able to find an opportunity to trial something that sits sort of in the social impact bond space.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, you promised to do it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and I am interested in seeing how this works. I think social impact bonds, if they are properly framed up and properly scoped, have a potential to actually deliver quite good outcomes, but we need to sort of get into it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Outside of the early intervention and prevention, what about in prison?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You are moving there into Corrections.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that but, in relation to rehabilitation programs under Justice Reinvestment that you would be responsible for, have you provided any programs to people in the prisons to assist them with that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to take that on notice. I can say that, primarily, that would be a matter for Corrections to respond to, but we do have other things like, for example, the investment the state government, in conjunction with Santos and others, puts into the Power Cup. As people might be aware, a whole bunch of Aboriginal kids from around the state contribute by playing footy. They have a grand final, and they get to run around the Adelaide Oval before a footy game.

That attempts to actually bind them into attending school, and they get career paths out of that, so that is something we are doing in AGD. I will see whether there are other things more explicitly in the rehabilitation area. I think you will find though that the answers to your questions will be spread across Health, Corrections, probably DCSI and SAPOL.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps we could have then a list of the programs that are existing for this financial year to which your department is making all or a part contribution, what they do and whether any of them are new initiatives. I think what I am hearing from you is that the ReBoot grant and the Helping Young People Achieve grant are two new initiatives.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Also, crime prevention grants is another long-running program.

Ms CHAPMAN: Lights in streets is another matter, but they are existing in that sense. I am happy for you to put them in the list if you want to tell me where you are doing that, but in relation to the two new ones that have been announced, if you could identify the amount that has been contributed to that. I think you said you would take that on notice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand Helping Young People Achieve is a $900,000 grant in conjunction with Red Cross, who are obviously putting in some money as well, and they get a $100,000 bonus if they do something—presumably, do the job.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: How are these new projects being measured? Who measures them, and what do they have to achieve to actually get a continuation of their grant?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to ReBoot, the trial is based at the Adelaide Youth Court and it targets, but is not completely confined to, 15 to 17 year olds who are appearing for a second or subsequent time in the Youth Court and are at risk of further offending. That is the cohort of people that we are trying to capture. They are referred to the trial through the court at the discretion of the judge or magistrate, or through family conferencing. The service provider is then required to develop a plan based on the individual needs of the young person and provide six to 12 months of community-based intensive support, which includes case management and mentoring. The young person also attends the Operation Flinders wilderness camp.

The intended outcomes of the trial include reduced offending behaviour and increased positive behaviour by the young person, including engagement and education, training, employment, and organised activities, whether that be sport or volunteering, or whatever it might be. The trial is being evaluated by the Australian Institute of Criminology. That is at arm's length from government.

As at 21 June, 44 clients have been referred to the program. Of these, 22 are currently active participants, 13 referrals are pending and waiting to be assessed, and nine have exited from the program. Of the 22 participants, 12 were referred through family conferencing and 10 through the Youth Court. Eleven are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people and one is from a different cultural or linguistic background, and 17 are male and five are female.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what will they have to do to get the $100,000 bonus?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will get you the information on that. It is being evaluated, not by me but by the Institute of Criminology. They have to hit the KPIs, but you want to know what the KPIs are.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, what they are.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you could identify if any of your other programs, either existing or new, incorporate a bonus scheme and, if so, what it is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. Can I just mention too—it is a slight segue—I am actually intending tomorrow, as a matter of fact, to go and sit with the magistrate who presides over the Parramatta court. They have a very interesting—

Ms CHAPMAN: I think that is the federal government's new initiative, is it not, to have a new federal magistrate there? It was just recently announced. I hope we get to see that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. This is their diversionary court or therapeutic court. I am very interested. I have been having conversations with the Chief Magistrate about how we might provide more options or opportunities for that to occur here, the basic concept being that a person comes in, they plead guilty and, in between the time of the plea of guilty being received and the time of the sentence being imposed, there is an assessment of the individual and certain recommendations made in terms of treatment, training, or whatever, and the person's compliance or otherwise with that set of recommendations is then a factor that is considered in the context of the sentence.

Ms CHAPMAN: Don't we already have that in our Nunga Court and drug courts?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We do but I am not sure it is being utilised as well as it might be, so I am looking at some options around the country.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the Crown Solicitor's Trust Account, which you also administer (page 13), what was the balance as at 30 June? What went into it and what went out of it in the last financial year? If you could just take that on notice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: One other question relates to the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, whom I note publicly is either en route or up in the Northern Territory giving advice on the establishment of their proposed corruption commission. Does the Northern Territory government give the state government any money to contribute to that, or is he just doing a one-off trip to give them some advice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can only tell you what I know about that. Basically, the Northern Territory government commissioned former Justice Martin to undertake an investigation as to whether or not they should have or could have or might have an ICAC-type arrangement there. I think he formed the view that they would struggle, given their size, to justify setting up something that is a stand-alone proposition there. He approached me to ask whether there would be any in-principle objection to us allowing our commissioner to be a dual commissioner. I said that, provided there is some appropriate funding—

Ms CHAPMAN: Sharing.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Cost sharing—I could not see any objection to that in principle.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much are they giving you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure they are giving us anything presently, but I will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, if it is a condition that he is—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is only a 'report to government' situation presently. There is nothing yet established.

Ms CHAPMAN: I see. Is there anything in this year's budget that you are expecting to receive into government for work undertaken or that may be undertaken?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: At this point, if he is called upon to—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They would need to pass legislation there first to even establish the jurisdiction for him to be called upon, which they have not done, so we are nowhere near that.

Ms CHAPMAN: But, assuming that it is put in place and even though there is no budgeting for it at this point, your expectation is that, if the services are required, there would be some recompense to the South Australian government or to your agency for the cost of providing that, just like we do currently on health services in Alice Springs and the like.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I think it will be a simple cost-recovery model.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney, and thank you to your advisers. I declare the examination of the proposed payments for adjourned until later today. We are now moving on to everyone's favourite part—the Electoral Commission and State Records, if you want to bring forward some new advisers, Attorney.