Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $94,066,000

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.

Mr P. Hocking, Acting State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority.

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

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

Mr C. Black, Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

The CHAIR: Good morning, Attorney and members. Welcome to Estimates Committee B. As you know, the estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure. There is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the Attorney and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments. Is that correct? Have you agreed to the times in front of you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe so, yes.

The CHAIR: The first session is the Courts Administration Authority from 9 to 10, the Attorney-General's Department from 10 to 11 and the Electoral Commission from 11 to 11.30. Are we sticking to that program for the first session?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, although obviously if they want to truncate it, I am happy to accommodate them.

The CHAIR: If we can get it down to 10 minutes, I think we will be happy.

Ms CHAPMAN: It depends on how many Dorothy Dixers there are, of course.

The CHAIR: It remains to be seen. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. There is 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 27 October 2017. This year's responses will be published during the 14 November sitting week. I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should 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. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

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, not the minister's advisers, but the minister may refer questions to advisers for a response, if he wishes.

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. Attorney, do you wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will not say anything in particular, other than to introduce those who are here at the table with me. Obviously, to my immediate left is the Chief Justice, to his left is Trevor Pearce, the Chief Financial Officer, and to my right is Phil Hocking, the Acting State Courts Administrator. I do not require or necessarily encourage my colleagues to the left to ask me any questions, although of course I am happy to answer any if they do—and that is it.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. In the hope that we may truncate proceedings.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I hope this is received in the spirit in which it is intended.

The CHAIR: That is your opening statement then, is it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is it.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: My first question to the Attorney-General—in welcoming those who are attending the estimates committee this morning—is: why has the Attorney-General not provided an answer to my question on the breakdown of minor capital works at page 8 of last year's estimates, and when will he provide the answer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will check out what is going on but I do not think that is pertinent to this particular committee. It is a nice debating point but let us move on to this budget.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is right. Can you identify a budget line for your next question, please, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: Given the minor capital works at page 171, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1 for this year, will the Attorney-General confirm what it is this year, will he provide a breakdown and will he provide the breakdown by 14 November 2017, which is the identified publish date that has just been announced?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will attempt to give the breakdown within the stated time. I am following up, by the way, the other question. It is my understanding that those matters had been dealt with but if they have not they will be.

Ms CHAPMAN: Similarly, will you provide an answer in respect of the $2.755 million for minor capital works for the 2017-18 year? As you have indicated, you will attempt to do that in the time identified, and that would be appreciated. While you are at it, will you provide an answer to the use of online system request adjournments taken on notice at last year's estimates at page 11 and will you similarly do that for this year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I know this is very theatrical and very entertaining from the member for Bragg's point of view but—

Ms CHAPMAN: I just want some answers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —today we are here examining this budget. I will give a general statement in respect of previous questions if they remain unanswered—and I emphasise 'if'—I will attempt, if there are unanswered questions, to have them answered as soon as practically possible. So, can we please get on with this budget.

The CHAIR: Let's get on with this budget. That closes the examination on last year's budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: Then on this year, will the Attorney-General provide the use of online system request adjournments taken on notice during the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Have we not just been through this?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am asking for this year.

The CHAIR: Perhaps we should start again, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: For 2016-17.

The CHAIR: This year is 2017-18.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If there is anything in this budget—this budget—that requires particularisation, if you simply read out what you require we will seek to achieve the particularisation of that as soon as possible. If there is anything outstanding from previous matters then I will follow that up as well. All you need to do is just read out the list of things that you understand to be—even though it is not relevant to these proceedings—

The CHAIR: Even that is not in order, so can we get to this year's budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will repeat it for the third time: will the Attorney-General provide the online—

The CHAIR: Which budget line are you referring to in this year's budget papers?

Ms CHAPMAN: It is on performance indicators.

The CHAIR: Which page?

Ms CHAPMAN: But in any event it is the use of online system request adjournments—

The CHAIR: Which page?

Ms CHAPMAN: —taken on notice. I am happy to find that in between.

The CHAIR: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 174, my able adviser next to me tells me.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Highlights 2016-17, page 174.

Ms CHAPMAN: You would think the Attorney would know this off by heart, seeing it is one of his highlights, but in any event.

The CHAIR: I gather you are referring to the highlights from 2016-17; is that—

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So, you are looking at the top of page 174, there are five highlights there in dot points and you are asking about the first one?

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will seek further—

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That highlight is the fact that we have signed the contract for the electronic court management system, which has only happened recently.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the provision for online adjournments—request for adjournments—is already actioned, and I am asking: how many of those were taken on notice in the 2016-17 year, which is the subject of these estimates?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we will have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Take that on notice; thank you. To the best of my knowledge, Attorney, they are the only two outstanding issues from last year. There were numerous matters taken on notice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I know, but I think the Chief Justice had something to add about that.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Quite independently of the electronic case management system, which we are about to procure, we have attempted, with the old technology, to arrange online adjournments. We do that quite frequently in the masters jurisdictions of the higher courts fairly informally. There was a pilot program for online adjournments in the Magistrates Court involving the Legal Services Commission, but there was a very small take-up on that, I think only about six by the looks of it, and that has not gone any further. There is probably a number of reasons for that small take-up. Technology is probably a large part of it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Could there be some explanation as to why the take-up has not been—the number of explanations, what they are?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The technology is still a bit cumbersome, and to try to manage the lists with online adjournments as well as people coming into court, we limited it to the Legal Services Commission, because they are a specialised legal practice, and another government agency. It was expanded to two private legal practices only in May this year, so we are proceeding slowly on that. It is fair to say, I think, that many of our resources in the IT area have been diverted to the electronic case management system.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the technology that is there for use by the Legal Services Commission, I am assuming, because the two private operators only came in in May this year, 2017, that given the small take-up of the Legal Services Commission—although, as I say, they have approval to actually use it—they are not using it?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It is not suiting their practice, and it might be because of the nature of the practice. They have lawyers in the courts all the time, and it might be that it is just as easy—

Ms CHAPMAN: Just as convenient to not utilise the service.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: But I am making assumptions from my understanding of their practice. I have not had a review of it come before me.

Ms CHAPMAN: The two private practices that have sought and been approved, presumably, to have the electronic use of the online adjournment arrangements, I assume they have applied, is that right, and they have been granted the right to utilise the system?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I do not know. I can provide that information through the Attorney in due course. I suspect they were selected and asked if they wanted to be involved. Again we identified practices that we thought would best suit and—

Ms CHAPMAN: Can facilitate that. When you say the technology is a bit cumbersome, as one of the factors that perhaps is a deterrent against using this facility, what is needed and what is the cost to actually remedy that?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I think what is limited about it is that it is not much more advanced than a sort of email communication. The technology that will remedy it is the ECMS system, which will allow parties to calendar their own adjournments through that system.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And the ECMS—sorry.

Ms CHAPMAN: When will that be operational? Sorry, Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: ECMS has been the subject of a great deal of work by the Chief Justice and the Courts Administration Authority over some time, and I think the Chief Justice explained a little while ago that they have just, in the very recent past, got to the point where they have a successful tenderer and have executed the necessary contractual arrangements with that service provider, so all of the preparatory works, which have been extensive, and necessarily so, are behind the Courts Administration Authority, and now it is a question of the service provider that has been through the tender process getting on with the production of the product and the provision of that product to the courts.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I can be a bit more specific. We are hoping that the civil new electronic system will operate for civil in the Magistrate's Court towards the end of 2018 and in crime in 2019. Crime is a little bit more sensitive, because it involves interaction with other agencies, Police and Corrections. The police Operation Shield IT development may impact when we can go online. We hope that it does not, but it is really important that there is good coordination between the police and their Operation Shield and our new system so that this comes on board as quickly as possible and as effectively as possible.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any legislation that is further required to facilitate that?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There may be bits and pieces to allow things that are done traditionally in court to be done electronically, but I do not think that will be very extensive.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: At that point I would add that the Chief Justice actually, in discussion with me some time ago, pointed out the fact that a relatively simple change to facilitate the utilisation of technology, where it was deemed by the court to be in the interests of justice to do so, would be a very general but useful tool for the courts in due course, and that was included in an Attorney-General's omnibus bill, I think, in the last 12 months, if I remember correctly.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: That was for audiovisual connections. There is still an issue about service and whether service can be done electronically. The courts' preference is that these matters be left to our rules so that, if we want to provide for electronic service as and when that is possible, and it works fairly, that we can do so without having to constantly come back for statutory change.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, Attorney, I thought we had dealt with that in legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the Chief Justice is referring specifically to the question of service. We dealt with the question of the utilisation of audiovisual technology and left it pretty much entirely up to the courts to make a determination when it was appropriate for that technology to be used. I think that what the Chief Justice is saying is that matters such as service, which are, in the scheme of things, not large matters but can be important, obviously, in terms of improving efficiency, are things that may require modification in due course. For what it is worth, I agree with the Chief Justice in that I favour the view that the courts should be given sufficient discretion to be able to determine as and when its capacities and computing support makes it appropriate for when and how modification of the existing personal service rules be rolled out.

Ms CHAPMAN: Be clear as to what the Chief Justice wants in that regard, that is, to provide for the opportunity for electronic service via the guidelines and rules set out under the court rules—correct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I think that in terms of the exact wording of it (and those who are in the room from AGD might care to make a note of this for the soon forthcoming omnibus bill), we could simply leave matters of service and the formalities of service to be placed in the hands of the court.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I have suggested that we do a mapping exercise to find all the statutes that affect that. A simple measure might be—and this is just off the top of my head—that there is legislation that says that form of services is as provided by statute, unless the court rules otherwise provide, and then we can just deal with it as and when it is necessary.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will leave that to you, Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we have made this much progress. I think that is a terrific idea. Those who are behind me, please get your pencils out and include that in our omnibus bill shortly.

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent. On the ECMS, the design and configuration of the program to facilitate it is in the targets of 2017-18. Is that fully budgeted for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the complete installation of it? Is that budgeted for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is my understanding.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the operations anticipated for civil at the end of 2018 and criminal at the end of 2019 are in the budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know that the starting dates for these things are in the budget. They are the anticipated time lines, but the project is, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: But the project that the Chief Justice has indicated has those time lines, of using that measure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Provision of funds for the project has been made.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the total cost of that project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is $23.2 million without GST.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the amounts for each in the 2017-18 year and 2018-19 year? If you do not have that in front of you, could I have it—unless the finance adviser has that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that in 2017-18 it is $6.702 million, and in 2018-19 it is $6.541 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do I assume that $25 million or thereabouts is the total?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is $23.225 million, I think.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. That will only apply, then, in the Magistrates Court or across all courts?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It will be rolled out across all courts.

Ms CHAPMAN: Including SACAT?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: No.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: SACAT is a separate—

Ms CHAPMAN: Mess.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised not the Coroner's Court, and SACAT, of course, is not part of the Courts Administration Authority, so that is a different kettle of fish, but in terms of the Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court—and the Children's Court?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, but not the Coroner's Court.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But not the Coroner.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the Federal Court, to your knowledge, have these services?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: They have something very similar. We are confident that we will provide an improved service for users and, importantly, for our internal management of the case loads and pending reports on what is happening with cases and the like.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has any assessment been done from the agency, the Courts Administration Authority, as the entity, to review what is happening or find out as to the success of the Federal Court's operation of this?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes, they are very confident. They say that it went well. We had an extensive procurement period, an informal one, when we looked at what was available in Australian courts, expressions of interest, then formal tenders. This provider who provides services to many state courts in the United States was an outstanding tenderer and was selected. They have started work, and that is going very well. A large proportion of that money is our staff who are working with the people from the American company, just to give you an example.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who was the successful tenderer?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Journal Technologies. They were a newspaper journal, which went into IT and are now one of the two leading providers of IT services to courts in the United States. The other leading provider won the tender for the Northern Territory courts, just in the last year. That is the entry for both of them into Australia. We are hoping that that competitive pressure will result in a very good product.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, you consider the product to be better than the federal system?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In what way?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: It provides more useability to lawyers. They can upload the documents they are filing more easily. We are looking even at electronic templates that they will fill in for filing rather than, in effect, emailing in a PDF form. We are looking at systems whereby the information they provide us populates a number of fields in the data that we have to keep. We, as I said earlier, should be able to obtain reports going down to a much finer grain of detail in terms of sorts of actions, how they are progressing, time involved with them and the like.

Ms CHAPMAN: When it refers to, in the targets of 2017–18, 'Develop data interchange capabilities with other agencies and systems', who are they?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Police and Corrections, primarily. Police in terms of complaints for criminal conduct coming in, and results in terms of sentences to Corrections; motor vehicles would be the other one. They are lodged by the data moving across in bulk rather than individual bits of information for each matter, and that involves some complex technology which we refer to as data exchanges. That is why I mentioned Operation Shield, which is the police department's technology development, because that will be providing bulk electronic data which will then populate the files we need in our system to run the court cases.

Ms CHAPMAN: In your view, will the proposed system be compatible with these other systems to facilitate that exchange of data?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We are constantly talking with Police and Corrections to ensure that, and we have recently established a task force between Police and Courts to ensure that Operation Shield and our system come onstream together and—

Ms CHAPMAN: And are compatible. Is there any further funding required for the other agencies to come up to the standard of the program that you are introducing with Journal Technologies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a matter for them. Can I say this: the general proposition here, if you look at it, is we are moving from a paper-based system to a digital system. Obviously, that is a significant change in approach. It is a massive change in technological capacity, and it is a significant piece of work to undertake this.

I have been advised—and I am sure the Chief Justice is more aware of this than me—that under the old paper-based systems, the same data could be entered multiple times throughout the system, sometimes multiple times within the same agency, because the paper-based system was not capable of retaining data that had been provided to that entity or that agency in the first place, and reused over and over again within that agency. What the Chief Justice is talking about here is a system which would see, in its perfect expression, data entered once in any of the co-joined agencies never having to be re-entered or repopulated physically within any of the other agencies.

When police, for example, apprehend a person and at that point of apprehension they identify the name, address, date of birth and whatever else it might be, and that material is entered into the police system, that material would not then have to be re-entered once that individual came into the purview of the Courts Administration Authority because that material would move seamlessly from the police data records across to the CAA's data records. Ultimately, when the CAA had to advise Corrections about the outcome of a matter, the material relating to that individual would then move seamlessly through to Corrections without anybody having to turn their mind to the physical re-entry of that basic data.

As the particular matter proceeds from one end of the process through to the other, each agency will be adding elements to the data. So there is a bit of a snowball effect going on as the matter rolls through the agencies. The idea, as I understand it, and obviously I invite the Chief Justice to refine my understanding if he cares to do so, is that no agency should be put to the time and the trouble and the expense of having to rediscover and reinsert material that another agency has already previously acquired in respect of that same matter.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me ask this, Attorney, because I have heard your speeches on the 'interweb', so I do need some backup here as to what the situation is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am no expert on the technology.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I want to be clear about is that if information is electronically filed in the court system, can other agencies have access to it, or is it suggested that when that data is entered in the court system it will automatically be transferred to the other linked-up agencies?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There are information exchanges so no other agency will have access to our internal court workings.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. That is refreshingly reassuring, given the Attorney's statement.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We have to put out outcomes so that people know what we decide, and we have to get inputs in terms of complaints to start a court process going, so there is an exchange there but no other agency has access to our system and the Courts Administration Authority controls it. It is one of the big advantages of having an independent Courts Administration Authority—

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed. Thank you very much.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: —because we have a council of the heads of jurisdiction.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 171, Higher Courts Redevelopment. What is the breakdown of the $31 million expenditure for this capital work by June 2019 between the court development of Sir Samuel Way Building and the upgrades at the Supreme Court building?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Under Higher Courts Redevelopment, total project cost $30.955 million. Is that what you are looking at?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think he was rounding it up.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I am looking on page 171 under the heading Investments and it says Higher Courts Redevelopment, June 2019, $30.955 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct. That is why I said $31 million. I am sorry if that has thrown you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am making sure I am looking at the same point. So I am clear on the question, you are wanting to know inasmuch as we do know all of the elements making up that number?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I want to know the breakdown between what is being spent on the Sir Samuel Way Building and what is being spent on the Supreme Court building.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My advice is that the Supreme Court building is $13 million and the Sir Samuel Way is $18 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will these projects be progressing contemporaneously?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think there is a timing issue and, again, I might ask the Chief Justice to supplement what I have to say but because the activity that is currently being undertaken on the fifth floor of the Sir Samuel Way Building will obviously have to cease in order for the fifth floor to be redeveloped to facilitate the provision of additional jury courts, there will need to be somewhere else for that activity to occur. It is indicated, as I understand it, that that somewhere else will be in refurbished courts within the structure on the other side of the road.

I think there is an order to things, a natural order, being that the work is done in the old Supreme Court complex as a beginning, which in effect is a refurbishment of a couple of the courts there, which would then serve as being adequate civil courts for the purpose of hearing and disposition of civil trials. Once that is okay, then the civil requirement for the fifth floor ends and the work can begin on the fifth floor—half of the Sir Samuel Way.

Ms CHAPMAN: In short, the old Supreme Court building $13 million project will progress first. How is that advancing?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We jumped this straightaway because we are keen to get this fixed. The money has actually been allocated to the Courts Administration Authority but we will obviously have to work with DPTI. We have put in some letters some time ago and are waiting for a response. We hope that happens very quickly so that we can start spending the money that is allocated for this financial year.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the letters that have gone to DPTI outline what specifications are recommended from CAA?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We are wanting to start working with them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Start working with them?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the file is not open yet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, no.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just trying to work out where we are at.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: We are a joint working group.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. Obviously, to come up with, first of all, the scope of this project and the costings that have given rise to the allocations in the budget, there has been some considerable work done on what would need to occur. The client, if you like, is the Courts Administration Authority. They have the cash and they are the ones who are the customer in the project. DPTI is, as is normally the case, the agency within government that acts as their mediator, I guess, with the builders or whoever—architects and suchlike.

Ms CHAPMAN: They manage the project.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is the court's project, not DPTI's project, but DPTI manage things like tendering and other things in which they have expertise and the courts do not.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, when is it expected then, Attorney, that the Supreme Court refurbishment—necessarily to be done before the evacuation from the space in Sir Samuel Way—is to be completed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will see if I can get any further detail on this, but I think the Chief Justice has made it clear that we are looking at it over the next couple of years. That is what the budget's allocations are suggesting. The Supreme Court comes first. I will need to get some further advice on whether it would be started before the end of this year or whether it will be early next year. Ultimately, it will be a question of, first of all, the CAA and DPTI coming to a clear position as to what they are looking for. Then there will be some tender process undertaken, and the successful tenderers will be able to start whenever they can. We are certainly not interested in delaying this.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, indeed. To identify the estimated completion time (which is June 2019) of the total project, I am assuming a time line has been prepared that sets out the expected processes for this to be completed by June 2019. No? The Chief Justice is shaking his head.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: This is what we need to meet with DPTI about, and we need to meet them urgently. We have established our own internal working groups. We are getting out plans as best we can for what was done on the lower floors of the Sir Samuel Way Building. We want to approach this urgently and for that we need some response from DPTI to our letters.

Ms CHAPMAN: If that has not been resolved yet, can I have some understanding about what is actually to be done, physically, in respect of the upgrade of the old Supreme Court building? I am assuming we are not just painting and decorating; we are adding partitions or removing them. What is the deal?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: No; you would be familiar with the courts 3, 4 and 5 complex. Court 3 is a larger court on the first floor, 4 and 5 are some very small courts on the ground floor. Basically, they are all not usable, they are so dilapidated, and the toilets next to them are dilapidated. The idea is to have 4 and 5 moved into one court and courtroom 3 upgraded, so those three courts become fully usable.

Ms CHAPMAN: As two courts.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: As two courts. Courtroom 11 will be upgraded as well—that fronts onto King William Street. We are going to take back the lease of Jeffcott Chambers. We will put our masters in there with mediation suites, so our masters will actually return to the old Supreme Court complex, rather than take up space on the fifth floor of Sir Samuel Way, and that will free up some courts there. I should make it clear that the criminal courts will only be on the northern half of the Sir Samuel Way Building and they will still have civil courts on the southern half.

It is a combination of refurbishing the civil courts and the old Supreme Court complex. The southern half of the Sir Samuel Way Building will cope with the civil needs of both the Supreme Court and the District Court. We have undertaken an analysis that shows it might get a bit tight, but we are quite confident we will fit that in. In the longer term, again, there will be a need for all of the fifth floor to be criminal courts. That is when decisions will have to be made about a new build for more civil courtrooms.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, there is no provision for any upgrade for courts 1 and 2 in the old Supreme Court building?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There are things we want done there, like a lift. We are hoping we might be able to get a lift to make courtrooms 1 and 2 more usable. Other than that, these are the scope of works that are going to depend on plans and where the money goes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just add here that I have been saying in these estimates committees for some years now—

Ms CHAPMAN: Seven years.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes—that there is no doubt there is an urgent need for investment in the physical space occupied by the superior courts in this state, and that what they have presently is not okay. We went through an exercise a while ago where we looked at whether or not we could resolve the matter in a single big project, but unfortunately that became an option we were not able to proceed with. What we are doing now is, in effect, a no-regrets improvement in the facilities of the District and Supreme courts which will meet their short-term and, to some extent, medium-term needs, and which leaves a wide range of options available to the courts and the government about how the matter of the ongoing need of, in particular, the civil courts may ultimately be resolved.

There were occasions when, for a variety of reasons—and I could go into them, but it probably would not be helpful—we had a circumstance where, in criminal cases, the case was not able to proceed because there was no courtroom available. There was a judge, there were parties, but there was no courtroom. There are many reasons why that circumstance could occur and they have, in part, been addressed by the major indictable reform bill that passed the parliament, but there is no doubt that the provision of additional jury courts is necessary to enable the courts to deliver on the needs of the justice system as efficiently as possible.

So, we are addressing the short and medium-term requirements of the court, but this is not a substitute and this is not an alternative to there being ongoing investment in the courts. That is not something that is optional; that is absolutely necessary and it remains absolutely necessary. We are looking here at a staged process of investment in the physical infrastructure of the courts. I want to underline this: this is not an alternative to significant ongoing investments in the courts, this is a staged approach to it and this is the first stage. It is not intended to be an end to it. It certainly does not preclude—in fact, it opens up—the opportunity for multiple potential alternative additional investments in the court precinct.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the Sir Samuel Way Building, which is going to have $18 million spent on it in the next two years, I think the lease for that expires in 2023. Is there any proposed extension of that lease?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have not specifically got into that yet, but my view is that given we are now spending a significant amount of money to improve the facilities in that building to enable the courts to have a longer effective use of that building, it does suggest to me that the court will be requiring that building beyond that date. However, that is not a matter we have specifically and formally dealt with.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The government has an option to buy it at land value, so I would be surprised if they will—

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the land value?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: I do not know, but it will be a lot cheaper to pay off the land buying it at land value than the rent that the superannuation fund is charging us at the moment, which is way above commercial rent. Into the future, the best option for the government, I would have thought, is to buy it at undeveloped value.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. They could have bought the SA Water building, I think, in Grenfell Street, too, but they did not. Is buying it being considered, Attorney?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not yet, but what the Chief Justice says is absolutely correct. Take a step back. If we had gone down the path of building a significant new complex which encompassed civil and criminal jurisdictions and that project had proceeded as contemplated, it may well have been that, by 2022-23, the Sir Samuel Way Building would be surplus to requirements. That is clearly not now the case.

What I am trying to explain to you is that, although there has been no formal determination of the method by which the courts will continue to occupy the Sir Samuel Way Building post expiry of the lease, it is clear to me, particularly in light of this investment, that the courts will require that building subsequently, and it will be a matter for determination as to whether, as the Chief Justice says, the balloon at the end of the current lease arrangement is exercised and that property becomes wholly a property of the state or whether the lease is continued.

Without having gone into it in any depth, I think there is an enormous amount of logic in what the Chief Justice says about how we should deal with it, but the formal determination of that matter and the formal evaluation of that matter has not yet occurred. I think the one thing that is clear is that that building will continue to be required, so somehow or other we will have to retain that building. The lease that was entered into in respect of that building some considerable period of time ago—and I cannot even remember when it first began now—in the eighties, was it?

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Early eighties.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Early eighties. From the point of view of the landlord, it was a pretty good arrangement because the lease provided for a very high rental return, fairly beneficial arrangements in terms of what, traditionally, one would consider the role of the landlord and what one would consider the role of the tenant. The role of the tenant in this particular arrangement is significant. I am advised that the current outgoings in respect of that lease are $6½ million per annum, so it is not a cheap property, but we are living with a decision made, as the Chief Justice suggests, in the early 1980s.

In summary, I cannot see any rational alternative other than that the courts will continue to require that building beyond the expiry of the current lease term. The government is going to have to make a decision about how the courts are given extended access to that building and, particularly if the lease payments are 6.5 per year, I would have thought that paying out the balloon is pretty good money well spent.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think we discussed that with Kevin Foley about 12 years ago. SA Water House was rebuilt as such in Victoria Square at a massive tenancy cost, when I think about $25 million could have bought the last one. In any event, who makes the decision on that? Is it your department or does DPTI make that decision, as they did in moving your office to the GPO?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ultimately, this will be a budget decision, so I imagine it would come to cabinet. The process would be that, I imagine, although it should not be necessary to do so, as a matter of formality the courts would advise Treasury that they will require the building beyond the expiry date. I am sure Treasury is perfectly aware of that, but that would be the starting point. Then there would need to be some evaluation by Treasury as to how the government was going to secure for the courts the ongoing access to that building, and there would be a budget conversation about whether there would be an ongoing lease or a payout of the balloon.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who manages that? Does that come from DPTI to cabinet or from—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I imagine that cabinet would seek advice from the property division within DPTI but ultimately it would be Treasury considering that in the context of a budget.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: There is just one matter of principle that I might mention here. Obviously, the economics are such that in 2023 we would not be entering into another uncommercial lease with Funds SA about something like that, but there are other financing options that governments might consider, including selling to someone else or negotiating a cheaper rent with Funds SA. The matter of principle that I raise is that the courts of a state or a nation are best housed on land that is the state's land and not rented. That is the matter of principle that I hope would be factored into the financial considerations.

Ms CHAPMAN: As best we know, Funds SA wants to buy the State Administration Centre, so we are going the other way it seems, but in any event that will be dealt with in another room. At the moment, Attorney, the proposal to extend the lease of the Sir Samuel Way Building, given the substantial capital investment that is about to be made into it, will be a recommendation from which department?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For my part I will be saying, as Attorney-General, as part and parcel of the budget process, that this is an unavoidable procurement requirement for government—not optional.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that but whether we buy it or lease it, is that a recommendation that is put by DPTI, as it was in the changeover of the accommodation of your departments to GPO?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That will be a matter where Treasury will consider the options, including the ones the Chief Justice has just referred to. It may be that Funds SA says, 'Look, we'll give it to you for half the rent,' or whatever the case might be and, in that context, it would be a budget decision, and it would be a budget decision in which obviously the Chief Justice and the Courts Administration Authority would be consulted and their view, including the view the Chief Justice has just put to the committee, would be a matter that would be taken into consideration by the cabinet in making that decision.

Ms CHAPMAN: In making the decision to have the two extra criminal courtrooms to be utilised to maximum capacity, is that likely, given that there is no proposed increase in funding for judges?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Absolutely. I am advised by the Chief Justice that there is funding for Sheriffs and Court Reporting, so the ancillary support services are there. If you look at what has been going on in the criminal courts, there is the very sort of simplistic notion to just appoint more judges and the problem will go away. Then there is what actually starts to resolve when you look into the detail of it. If you look into the detail of it, a significant problem—in the District Court anyway—is that there is overlisting, significant overlisting. The significant overlisting, which I think, if I remember correctly, is running at about 160 per cent or thereabouts, is a problem which emerges from the observed fact that a significant number of trials which get to the point virtually of commencing resolve on the day by way of a guilty plea.

That means that the courts, in order to maximise the throughput of matters, as they should do, overlist on the basis that historical data suggests to them that an overlisting of 160 per cent results in 100 per cent occupancy of judges and courtrooms. What happens sometimes is the phenomenon of no judge, which is extremely annoying from the perspective of everybody concerned, where for reasons of happenstance 60 per cent of the cases do not resolve, and you wind up with over 100 per cent, and therefore you have more customers than you do judges, and the matter is then put off. That is extremely unsatisfactory from everyone's point of view.

But there are circumstances in which also there are judges available but for whatever reason there are not sufficient courts available. Now, again, this is not every day, but it is something that happens. So, what we are trying to do here is: we are addressing a number of problems at the same time. The major indictable reform is intended to reduce the need for the significant overlisting by the courts, because we are hoping to resolve as many matters that are going to resolve by way of a guilty plea much earlier in the process, thereby not clogging up the court list with matters that are not going to proceed.

That should then enable the District Court in particular over time to reduce their overlisting practices to maybe 120 per cent, or something—we will have to wait and see—which will mean there is greater certainty there. The additional physical provision of courtrooms should mean the judges that they have there can be disposed where necessary to deal with demand peaks that they have. It will give them more flexibility to flex up or flex down. Of course, that is all a matter for the head of jurisdiction to manage, but the head of jurisdiction, I am absolutely convinced, can better manage if they have more physical infrastructure to be able to allocate judges to occupy.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are the upgrades that are proposed in this budget consistent with the recommendations of the scoping study prepared at a cost of $1 million by DPTI?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised they are.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there anything else in the scoping study recommended to be done that is not budgeted for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you are talking about the scoping study of some years ago for the major—

Ms CHAPMAN: No, the one that was budgeted last year for $1 million that has been spent.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: The short and medium-term proposals are exactly as were recommended. There is a real question as to where you go after that. As I said earlier, when more criminal courts have to be built on the Sir Samuel Way Building, what you do then is not settled. The judges have considered it, and DPTI put forward some suggestions, but there is no consensus on that yet, but that is some time off. In terms of these proposals that are funded in this budget—

Ms CHAPMAN: Are within the recommendations.

Chief Justice KOURAKIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And of the other recommendations—Attorney, I will go back to you, because I assume you have all read this report; will you make it public?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What report are you talking about?

Ms CHAPMAN: The scoping study.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would need to have a conversation with the Chief Justice and others about that. I do not know whether there is material in there which is commercial-in-confidence or whatever. In general terms I do not think there is anything particularly concerning about a scoping study, but I would need to speak with the Chief Justice, consider the thing myself and speak to DPTI. So I will just have to reserve my position on that.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it is available. Certainly, there may be aspects of it that you consider should be commercial-in-confidence, but I think it is reasonable, given the public have paid for this, that they have a look at what is recommended at least and what the estimated cost is to do that. That would be, I suggest, reasonable. But in any event, have there been any other recommendations that have come from the Courts Administration Authority, apart from the $1.470 million for the Supreme Court works in this year's budget, that have been recommended but not undertaken? Apart from having a brand-new building: let's leave that aside for the minute.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the Chief Justice explained that in terms of the $1 million study that was done as a result of moneys allocated in the last budget, the immediate requirements of the courts are being met in this budget. I acknowledge completely, as the Chief Justice has said, that this does not deal with the beyond medium-term requirements of the court, which I have said repeatedly—and I say again—are urgent and necessary, particularly to cope with the civil and ultimately more criminal courts.

We have time, as a result of taking this step, to consider what is the best solution to those more durable problems and for the Courts Administration Authority and DPTI to have sufficient time to have a complex conversation about that and work out the wrinkles of those issues. By reason of this being done, nobody is being put in a position where they are going to have to make a decision like 'grab this today or you miss out'. It is going to be now a circumstance where the courts have time to work through issues that will become pressing maybe in five or 10 years. They will have time to talk about them, and there will be time for plans to be made about those. In terms of the immediate requirements, my understanding is—and I think the Chief Justice just explained—the immediate requirements, as identified in that piece of work, are met by this allocation.

Ms CHAPMAN: Finally, if I could ask: in respect of existing works—and it may be in the Supreme Court works to be completed by June 2018—in respect of any structural defects or issues that are the subject of any work, health or safety notice (and I particularly raise that because the mattress at the bottom of the stairs attracted some mirth at the recent Australian Bar Association conference in London, so it is certainly out there as a concerning matter), could they be provided on notice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice.

The CHAIR: I close that line, as per the agreement. Thank you to the advisers. I call the Attorney-General's Department advisers, if the Attorney-General wishes to change advisers. I advise that the member for Hartley has requested to be discharged and the member for Finniss has been injected in his place.