Attorney-General's Department, $117,786,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $94,269,000

Membership:

Mr Pengilly substituted for Mr Tarzia.

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 I. Haythorpe, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms C. Mealor, 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.

Ms J. Lai, Financial Consultant, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms C. Newberry, Financial Consultant, Attorney-General's Department.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open and refer members to Agency Statements, Volume 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have just been advised that the material the member for Bragg was agitated about not having been provided with was in fact forwarded on 20 December 2016.

Ms CHAPMAN: To whom?

The CHAIR: To the member for Bragg?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, by email.

Ms CHAPMAN: To us?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: We will find it with parliament then, thank you. So, 20 December is outside the parliament's sitting time—20 December 2016?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 20 December 2016.

Ms CHAPMAN: Parliament was not sitting on 20 December—funny about that. We will find it if it is languishing somewhere here in the parliament, thank you.

The CHAIR: We move on. Do you have an opening statement, Attorney, or do we go straight to questions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Andrew Swanson is on my right. Ingrid Haythorpe is the Chief Executive of the department, and Caroline Mealor is the Deputy Chief Executive.

The CHAIR: Do you have an opening statement in relation to those payments?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is great to be here.

The CHAIR: Likewise. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 14. How many full-time equivalent positions were reduced in the workforce in 2016-17 that you took on notice at last year's estimates, indicating that you would not freewheel it? I am asking again how many full-time equivalent positions were reduced in the workforce in 2016-17.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I repeat all of this stuff about trawling through last year's estimates? I know it is very theatrical and it is good from that point of view, but having regard to what I just told the committee then, I am not prepared to accept that any statement the member for Bragg makes about things not having been provided is accurate, unless there is some proof of that fact.

I will now ask for further checks to be made about this particular matter, but I have asked those who accompany me to make sure that they do answer questions that have been asked in estimates as soon as possible. My expectation is that whatever the question is, the answer has been provided some time ago, and the answer has been provided to the parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney obviously was not listening to my question, because what I pointed out was that while I had asked for the estimate of what was going to be the reduction in the 2016-17 year, I am now asking him how many full-time equivalent positions were reduced in the workforce in 2016-17. If he has the answer, I would appreciate it if he could give it to the committee.

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

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. In respect of the provision of the matters of the Consumer and Business Services building, if I can describe it as that, you will recall that last year there had been a refit of that facility. Who owns that building occupied by Consumer and Business Services?

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, we are looking at the Office for Consumer and Business Services from 4.45pm this afternoon.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about ownership of the building.

The CHAIR: Okay. Can you point us to a line then, please?

Ms CHAPMAN: Assets of the entity.

The CHAIR: What page?

Ms CHAPMAN: I will just find it, again. There we are: 48. It is a capital upgrade.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What page are you on? You tell me where you are.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just looking at the CAL. I am mistaken on that.

The CHAIR: The member for Goyder has some information.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Page 14 does have a reference to the cost of services for Consumer and Business Services. It is a $9 million cost.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is $9 million income. They make money in that division.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just suggest we deal with this in Consumer and Business Services, if the member is not ready?

The CHAIR: If you are happy to, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I am happy to look at page 15.

The CHAIR: Now, or in the later session?

Ms CHAPMAN: Now. Chesser House fitout, March 2018, $2.969 million. My question was, in respect of that building: who owns the building? I was going to then ask you what the $2.69 million fitout was to do.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand that the owner of the property is a corporation called Chesser Properties Pty Ltd. The amount of $2.9 million is apparently intended to fund a significant portion of the fitout that will enable half a floor to be relinquished.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is it doing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you want to know how much was spent on wallpaper and partitions and stuff, I will have to get back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I want to know whether it is to redecorate, refit, repaint. It is pretty basic; it is not going to be very much money. You surely have that answer there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In order to answer the question accurately, I will take that on notice. I will find out how much exactly is spent on partitions and glass and whatever else we need.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 15, the GPO Tower at 10 Franklin Street. This is a transfer of a number of AG departments, if I can describe them as that, including your offices, to the GPO Tower. Who made that decision?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it was a cabinet decision, if I remember correctly.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it at the request of the Attorney-General's office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not going to go into what actually happens in cabinet, but there is a property division within DPTI which spends its time looking at how government can get best value for its money in the provision of office space for agencies around the state but in particular in the CBD. So, it is normal for them to be the people who act for the agencies within government as the procurer and the specialist agency.

I can tell you that the Attorney-General's Department was looking at the situation where the lease on 45 Pirie Street was coming up in a relatively short space of time, in 2017. A decision had to be made as to whether or not the lease on that particular building was to continue or whether the end of that lease was to be seen as an opportunity for a better value proposition or a more desirable outcome for the government as a whole to be sought.

In terms of the cost-benefit analysis of that and the implications of rents and incentives and all those other things, that is not part of the skill set of the Attorney-General's Department. The Attorney-General's Department is, in effect, the customer in the sense that it has its own idea about how much space it requires, how many staff it needs to deal with and that sort of thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, except that the two people sitting left of you have given evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee in respect of this expenditure, of the $26.608 million to refit the GPO and the reasons for doing so, including that the annual accommodation cost will be less, namely, $8.4 million; the area will be less. My question is: is it still the estimate that the $8.4 million will be the annual accommodation cost when you move into the GPO Tower?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My advice on this is that the Franklin Street property, which is the GPO Tower, is expected to cost about $8.1 million per annum—

Ms CHAPMAN: So, it is a bit less.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —which is favourable when compared to $8.6 million for 45 Pirie Street for a comparable period.

Ms CHAPMAN: When are you proposing to move?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised around September 2019.

Ms CHAPMAN: September 2019?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will all the agencies in AGD that are proposed to move, move at that time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the agencies that are moving are the ones that are in 45 Pirie Street, but I think all of those will be vacating simultaneously.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are any of the agencies in 45 Pirie Street going to alternative premises or are they all going to the GPO?

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

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the Crown Solicitor, page 17, what is the total value of legal work outsourced to the legal profession in the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What is the question?

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the total value of the legal work outsourced to the legal profession in the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that according to the Crown Solicitor's Office records, $13.5 million was paid by agencies to private legal providers approved by the Crown Solicitor under the Treasurer's Instruction No. 10. I should also add that apparently some of the invoices in respect of this period are still being processed so it may be that there are additional outgoings which are attributable to that financial year in due course.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the budget for that expenditure in 2017-18?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that is in other agency's budgets so each of the relevant agencies that have their own requirement for legal services would have a contingency or a line relating to that.

Ms CHAPMAN: What other agencies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It could be any of them. It could be Health, for example, Transport, Education. I imagine a great many of them have some reasonably predictable requirements for legal services.

Ms CHAPMAN: But the Crown Solicitor is the person who has to approve these external legal service instructions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We do not pay them.

Ms CHAPMAN: My understanding, Attorney, is that, yes, a request might come in from the education department seeking approval to appoint X and that is an expenditure that is met by the Crown Solicitor's Office and then billed to the education department, but you are saying it is a direct payment from the education department.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are the customer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. So you are saying that at the end of the financial year there is an accumulation of each agency's use of approved external legal costs and that makes that the $13.5 million or thereabouts for last year?

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

Ms CHAPMAN: And that is an amount which is identified in each of the agencies that use private solicitors.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It should be, yes. You see, the role of the Crown Solicitor in this respect is kind of the gatekeeper. Some of the individual agencies have their own, from a Crown perspective, outposted lawyers, but from their perspective, in-house lawyers, and the role of the Crown Solicitor in respect of them getting external counsel is basically as a gatekeeper—is this the sort of matter that requires external legal advice, is the advice being sought appropriately and proportionate to the nature of the problem and that sort of thing. Each agency has its own needs, some more than others.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, a bit like approving funds for the health department to do the Oakden inquiry. Was there any payment made to the Crown Solicitor at the end of her position and recent appointment to the judiciary? I think she is being sworn in tomorrow or this week some time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Next week. I will have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: In checking, if you could identify how much was paid out because I think that appointment was only for a couple of months.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but bear in mind she has been a public servant for a considerable period of time, so it may be that her most recent iteration was not particularly lengthy, but I think—

Ms CHAPMAN: Who is the current Crown Solicitor and what is the term of their contract?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will check, but my expectation is that it would have been whatever annual leave entitlements were accrued.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hope you were not going to say you were going to check who the current Crown Solicitor is—which was my next question—and what is the term of his or her contract?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I do know the answer to that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Do you want me to tell you? It is Mr Waite.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would need to get some advice as to what the details of that are and what is appropriate for me to say in public about that. Mr Waite comes to the job as a very experienced and highly regarded long-term member of the Crown Solicitor's Office. He has been recognised by the courts as a very capable advocate on behalf of the Crown, and I am confident he will do a very good job.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the legal funding—and I use the reference to the appointment of private practitioners pursuant to the Treasurer's direction—as you point out, the Crown Solicitor has to approve handling matters where private solicitors are to be appointed. For example, when approval was given to handle the commercialisation of the land services, which had been publicly announced, was that paid from your budget or the Crown Solicitor's budget; that is, the Attorney-General's budget or your budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: And then invoiced to Treasury.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: What happens then?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to check, but I can tell you this: that particular thing is not part of AGD, for a start. So, in the event that there were legal costs associated with that particular piece of work—and I do not know whether there were or there were not—it would have been a matter for the relevant agency to liaise with the Crown and ascertain whether or not they required external legal services. It may be that they did not; I do not know.

Ms CHAPMAN: According to the published material, HWL Ebsworth was identified in October 2016, through being announced publicly, as the lawyers to manage that process. It is no reflection on that entity, I am just trying to ascertain who pays it and how it is reimbursed to Treasury—or does Treasury just do all that directly?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that is a question for Treasury.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the DPP, on pages 19 and 20, what projects were undertaken in the 2017-18 year, 'arising from recommendations of the ODPP review conducted in 2016'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I wanted to place on record the fact that the DPP has been going through, I think, a very healthy process of reflection on how it does things and how it can do things better. The DPP is about to enter into a period of change. The major indictable reform process will require the DPP to look at a number of things in a different way. It will provide some challenges to the office. It is something the office has been intimately involved in the preparation of. They know what is coming, but they are heading for a period where there is going to be quite a bit going on. The last budget provided an amount of $2.2 million for the implementation of a prosecution management system.

Ms CHAPMAN: You handled that last year.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I know.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am asking for this year. What are they doing that is consistent with that recommendation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A number of things. Firstly, there are administrative things that come out of that review.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am asking what they are. This is one of the projects that are being undertaken in 2017-18, arising from recommendations of the ODPP review. So, we know it is in the report. We have all read it, and there is a whole list of things that are recommended. A couple were picked up last year. I am asking: what are going to be the proposed projects for this year, arising from that recommendation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to get that information from the DPP. I am not going to speculate. If you have read the report you will appreciate that the recommendations include a whole bunch of things about the way the DPP runs its office. Exactly where the director is up to in terms of implementing each and every one of those is something I think I should seek his—

Ms CHAPMAN: Your Treasurer has—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I know, but I do not run the DPP. If you want a current—

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, please; this is the Treasurer's report to the parliament which lists a proposed target for this year, and it says that it is going to implement these things. I am just asking what they are. Somewhere along the line I was assuming that your department, that is the Attorney-General's Department, would know what they were to put them in the budget for the Treasurer to publish. That is all I am asking. If you do not know what they are, I would appreciate it if they were taken on notice.

The CHAIR: I think the Attorney-General has indicated he will seek some advice and get back to us.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will. I do not know whether, at this present time, he has decided he is not going to do leave rosters anymore and he is going to get someone else to do them; I do not converse with him about fine-grained management things. But I can say—and I do not know if this is an answer to your question or not—that there was, for instance, an amount of $1.2 million allocated for the DPP to look after major indictable matters and circuit and country committals, which is something they took over from the police. There is nothing unheralded about that—I think it is something that has been on the public record for a while—but that is an amount of money they have got. There is an e-brief project being undertaken, which is intended to replace hard copy material with electronic prosecution briefs, which is going to cost an estimated $2.5 million. That is funded by justice agencies, with the AGD chipping in $826,000 on behalf of the DPP.

To get down to the particulars, again, all I can say to you is that the DPP has started the restructuring and efficiency measures that were recommended in the report, obviously to maximise effective use of the current resources. Exactly where he is up to in that is, as I was trying to explain before, something I will need to find out. It is literally administrative. I am happy to ask him to provide me with a summary of where he is up to with that, and to provide that. There are about 10 projects that were commenced in the last calendar year which were, either in whole or in part, directed towards responding to recommendations that came out of that report, and some of those are ongoing now. So there is a lot going on there.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just for the purpose of obtaining that information, and I appreciate that you are going to have to look into that, it does not say 'continue projects', but says, 'Undertake a range of projects arising from recommendations of the ODPP,' etc. So I look forward to receiving that list.

Regarding Forensic Science, pages 21 and 22, with no extra funding other than the specific extra expenses identified at page 21, how does the Attorney-General expect Forensic SA to improve its performance on page 22? You will see there that currently DNA crime scenes, drug driving, illicit drugs all have significant failings in respect of the turnaround times.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have to say that Forensics does a terrific job; they are a remarkable group of people and are continually improving the service they provide. We should all be very grateful to the people who do that job. There is a number of ways in which we are trying to support Forensics. I am actually optimistic, again, that the major indictable reform project will be of assistance to Forensics and I will explain why. Every case which is a case which is going to trial is a case which potentially requires Forensics to do extensive work in preparation for that trial.

That work includes not just analysis of DNA or other things but also it involves preparation of people for the giving of evidence and the preparation of reports, so it is quite an intensive piece of work. For every single matter which goes to the doorstep of the court before it resolves that requires forensic support, the time and energy of those forensic science people have been wasted because that matter goes all the way—all the preparations are done, the reports are prepared, etc.—and then the case does not go on because there is a guilty plea.

I accept, obviously, that in some cases that will happen. It is just the way things are. Sometimes things do not resolve until the end but, to have a disproportionately large number of things not resolving until the end—so many not resolving until the end to the point where the courts are overlisting, like Tiger Airways, at 160 per cent of capacity—is indicative of how much unnecessary material is occupying the court lists. That has an impact on Forensics.

If we can actually have a significant number of those cases being determined as matters that will resolve by way of a guilty plea much earlier in the process, that means Forensics can put the tools down, they can stop working on that case, they can stop preparing their reports, they can not worry about preparing themselves to go to court and they can get on with something else. To me, the biggest single benefit in the short term that we can deliver to Forensics is to stop them, as much as possible, spending time on things that might go to trial but do not.

Ms CHAPMAN: Some may take the view, Attorney, that in fact they have a very instructive role in securing the opportunity to have guilty pleas, but be that as it may, how many of these valuable people were employed in Forensic Science SA as at 30 June 2017 and how many are budgeted to be there at 30 June 2018?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All I can say is that according to the material I have been shown, we are looking at 136.1 FTEs in 2017-18, which is 0.5 of one FTE less than the previous year. I am not sure what those numbers include. It could be that the 0.5 reduction is a reduction in somebody who operated the lift. It could be that it is a 0.5 reduction in somebody who is a scientific expert.

Ms CHAPMAN: Very well. Can I have a breakdown, then, of the 136.1 as to their status or qualification?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: Obviously, I do not have to have just the lift operator, but if there are clerical, administrative, forensic assistants, forensic scientists—I think the Attorney understands what I am talking about as to a breakdown of employees of that task force. I refer to Legislative and Policy Services at page 25. Now that the youth offenders boot camp program has been completed, where taxpayers paid over a million dollars for the trial, will the Attorney-General now release the program evaluation report?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the final evaluation report is expected to be received before the end of the year. I think the member for Bragg's point is a good one. If we are spending money on this it is not unreasonable that we should know what we are getting for our money.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is an interim report.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is an interim one, yes, but I am conscious of the fact that it is an interim report and I am also conscious of the fact that sometimes people go off half-cocked (not the member for Bragg, of course, but others) and get very excited about something which is not a final report. However, in terms of the final report, unless there is some very important reason that is not apparent to me, I agree with the member that it would be sensible for people to see that.

I have to say that, with all of these projects, nobody is a stronger supporter than me of the government investing in projects which deflect people away from a life of crime or public nuisance but, unfortunately, I am very keen on seeing evidence about the effectiveness of these programs because I think we are spending public money and we deserve to be able to prove that the money is being spent wisely rather than simply being spent on something that makes somebody feel good.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has money been allocated in the 2017-18 budget to continue this trial, that you want to consider wisely?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have granted a six-month extension to the program to the end of December this year, so I guess my position will be that by the time I have to make a decision as to whether it is extended again I will have the benefit of the final evaluation of the project.

Ms CHAPMAN: I assume at this point, based on the interim report, it was sufficient at least to extend the program to then have a final assessment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many children have gone through that program?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The advice I have is that as at December last year—so that is not the most recent, but still—87 people had been referred: 34 of those were Aboriginal people; 71 were male, 16 were female; 47 of those were referred through family conferencing and 40 through the Youth Court.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps if you can take on notice an update of those figures because they were all available last year, thank you. SACAT, pages 26 and 27, program 1.7: are there any new jurisdictions to be transferred to SACAT in the 2017-18 financial year and, if so, what?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is some interesting stuff there. I am intending to bring into the parliament shortly a bill which will have the effect of bringing a significant number of additional jurisdictions across. What happened was that—and I think members might recall this—originally when we introduced SACAT there was a contemplation that it would start off with the core functions of the Guardianship Board and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and then progressively other bits and pieces would be rolled in.

We got into this chicken and egg problem where to roll extra things in, we needed extra money, and until we had the extra money we could not roll things in and so that slowed things down. Happily, in this budget there was an allocation of some $6 million or thereabouts, if I remember correctly—$6.1 million, yes—and that has created the headroom within SACAT for the decanting of further jurisdiction now to proceed. It is my intention to introduce a bill to the parliament in the course of this year—next sitting week.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is next week?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Wednesday?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. So, subject to the approval of the parliament, obviously, the intention is that the following jurisdictions would go in through 2017-18:

review of decisions made pursuant to the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act;

review of decisions made pursuant to the Children and Young People (Safety) Bill;

review of a range of administrative and occupational disciplinary decisions made under more than 40 acts included in the statutes SACAT bill of 2017, which will confer on SACAT the remaining jurisdiction of the administrative and disciplinary division of the District Court. The jurisdictions of note to include review of administrative and occupational disciplinary decisions made under the Local Government Act, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, the Emergency Services Funding Act, the Land Agents Act, the Land Valuers Act, the Conveyancers Act, the Survey Act and the Fisheries Management Act; and,

last but certainly not least, jurisdiction under the Dog and Cat Management Act.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sure Ms Hughes, soon to be Justice Hughes, will be thrilled at that. Is the new judge for SACAT that has been funded in this year's budget to just do appeal work, or are they to do work of first instance?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is really a matter for the president to determine. The interesting thing is that what became clear to me is that the initial situation whereby the inaugural president, Justice Parker, was a 0.5 of an FTE president was not enough. Part and parcel of this year's budget was to provide for a full-time leader for SACAT, and Justice Hughes will be a full-time president of SACAT. That involves a number of things. First of all, the day-to-day management and the setting of the tone of the place is absolutely the responsibility of the president. The president will determine how the different resources of the SACAT will be allocated to the matters coming before the SACAT.

I think it would be a matter for her to determine where she would intervene personally in terms of hearing matters. She can go anywhere she wants, but logically both the president and the deputy president, Judge Cole, are probably the sort of resources that should be left to the high-end type work. Obviously, the president might determine, 'I want to know what it's like to be working on the ground in residential tenancies matters; I'm going to list myself for a couple of days just to get a feel for it,' and that is fine, that is up to her, but—

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the SACAT review being prepared by the Hon. David Bleby due to be concluded, and if so when?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Very soon. My last information on this is that Mr Bleby is going on a probably much deserved holiday sometime at the end of next week. He has indicated to the officers in the Attorney-General's Department that he expects to provide them with a copy of his report before he leaves. But I do not have it yet.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that he is doing this report. Was he asked about all these other jurisdictions that you are about to transfer over to SACAT?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What do you mean, asked?

Ms CHAPMAN: Asked his opinion on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, he was just undertaking a review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised he did look at that as well; I am sorry.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right. While we are waiting for his report as to the review of the existing SACAT, he was asked about these others coming across, and presumably you have his recommendation to support that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Look, as I said, I have not got his report yet, but—

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, when he was asked did he say, 'Look, I'd hold that off for a year or two years,' or was he happy to support that occurring?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. Can I make this really clear, just for the record, because I know the members sitting in the room would be aware of this. There is nothing new in this SACAT thing. The idea of the jurisdictions that would be folded in, the names of them, have been well and truly on the public record for a considerable period of time.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of the things, Attorney, that could, I suppose, make one reflect on whether it should be taking on more work is if it is not functioning properly at the moment. Obviously a review is being undertaken. Are you satisfied, on the advice that he has given you, that he is supportive of the structure, as it currently is, taking on these other jurisdictions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I emphasise again: I have not received his report.

Ms CHAPMAN: There have been others—your advisers have just told us that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just finish? I have not received his report. That said, I have had no feedback from the department to the effect that Mr Bleby is concerned about this hold off. In that circumstance, him knowing what is our legislative agenda, me not having been advised by the department that he has concerns sufficient to warrant me holding off, I am proceeding, as has been contemplated.

The significant thing about the agency, the two big things that are happening for the agency now to improve its efficiency are, number one, a full-time president, provided for in the budget—significant improvement. This is not a reflection on Justice Parker personally, but the fact is that he had only 0.5 of his time there; he has now been freed up to be 100 per cent of his time on the Supreme Court, and Justice Hughes will be 100 per cent of her time on SACAT. That is point number one. So, that is an additional resource they did not have.

The second thing is that they have additional money, so their physical environment and their capacity to deal with things has been enhanced by the allocation of funds in the budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: We look forward to receiving your bill and his report.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the fines enforcement—

The CHAIR: Sorry, Attorney, had you finished your answer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Pages 49 and 50. What is the total outstanding amount owing to the fines unit as at 30 June 2017, and what is budgeted to be outstanding as at 30 June 2018?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, this is an evergreen, is it not?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not know about evergreen—it certainly has ballooned.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This fines payment thing is an interesting issue. The starting point is, obviously, so far as the government is concerned and certainly as far as I am concerned, that we would prefer that people did not commit offences and therefore incur fines, but, unfortunately, some people do.

Some years ago we reformed the process by which fines were collected and created a thing called the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, and that unit has, since that time, been a dedicated fines collection outfit, whereas previously fines were an adjunct to the courts' activities, not really their core business, something they sort of did because they were required to do it, but not something that was their reason for being.

The performance of the unit has been good. In 2014-15 they collected $107.6 million; in 2015-16 they collected $116.2 million, which was an increase of 8 per cent; and in 2016-17 they collected $124.5 million, which was an increase of another 7 per cent. Since their inception their recovery rate has been around 45 per cent higher than was the case under previous arrangements, so by any measure they have been doing a good job—by any measure, they have been doing a good job.

The fines unit issued 618,000 enforcement notices and 1.1 million notices in total between July 2016 and June 2017. As at 30 June 2017, the total debt was $379 million. This compared with a total debt of $369 million at 30 June 2016. As at 30 June 2017, the debt owed to the state was $302 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, when?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: At 30 June this year.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thought you said $379 million.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am talking about debt to the state now.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, okay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Some of that $379 million is not a debt to the state.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I appreciate that. It can be to others. Can I ask you for the 30 June 2018 estimate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We do not have an estimate for next year, but if you look at the last few years, you would expect it to be around the same, with perhaps a slight increase.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright. In relation to the—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just add here, too, that in looking at these numbers, we need to understand that this includes debt that is also outsourced to collection agencies. Some of that return is uncollected, some of it is collected by the agencies. As at 30 June 2017, 94 per cent of all fines processed by the unit are under proactive management, which is an increase from 85 per cent in the previous year. A significant portion of the debt is considered doubtful, for various reasons. A portion cannot be enforced due to data issues, such as having no names or dates of birth, a considerable amount is unlikely to be collected due to age, and a considerable component of the outstanding debt actually predates the fines payment unit.

The amount of outstanding fines is continually increasing due to ongoing referrals, and the amount of debt under active management is also increasing, as is the rate at which debt is either repaid through non-monetary means like community service or through deferred recovery. In the case of deferred recovery, recovery action has been deferred until new information is received to justify additional or continued allocation of the fines unit's resources. Enforcement sanctions remain in place for deferred debt. As at 30 June, fines totalling $171.2 million have been referred for enforcement, and $124.5 million has been recovered, compared to $180 million referred and $116 million recovered during the preceding year. In other words, that is improving.

As at 30 June 2017, $58.3 million in debt has been waived, in other words, permanently expunged; deferred, which means it is written off but can be reinstated if it is possible to identify the individuals; or annulled, which is when the debt is returned to the issuing authority, generally by process of recall or review. In addition to that, it is important that, out of that $379 million, $40 million is not overdue. It is important to recall that this total debt includes money which is owing but not overdue as well. That is $40 million, and there is $37 million that is owed to third parties.

Let me see what else I can tell you about this, because it is interesting. Here is some other information that I think I should perhaps share with the committee as well. This is just to put on the record something that appears not to be picked up around the place. The fines unit attempts approximately 1,000 suspensions of driver's licences and 800 restrictions on transacting business with the registrar of motor vehicles each night, to encourage individuals to contact the fines unit to address their outstanding fines. Nearly 342,000 phone calls and 29,000 emails were received in 2016-17. The average wait times are now below the target of five minutes. The average number of daily client contacts that an agent takes is 50.

The fines unit continues to improve quality of data acquisition with a number of government agencies. As the unit links up with more agencies, its capacity to identify people for whom otherwise it would be hard to get their name and address and so on, improves. The more it links up, the more it is able to fine people.

The unit is progressing with data sharing initiatives with the commonwealth, which is something that I have been pushing for some time, including the Department of Social Services and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, to ensure the most recent and accurate information about clients is identified. The unit also continues to participate in the treatment engagement trial led by Drug and Alcohol Services for clients with chronic substance dependencies.

Can I say in relation to the other engagement with the commonwealth, we are not only interested in the commonwealth providing data to help us identify and fine people, we are also interested in speaking to the commonwealth about whether or not we can actually get some recoveries of fines through commonwealth benefits.

Ms CHAPMAN: How is that going?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have to say the current minister, minister Porter, has been prepared to entertain the conversation.

Ms CHAPMAN: Last year you told us, Attorney, that you had advanced discussions with commonwealth departments to facilitate the deductions from social security entitlements. How has that progressed since last year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All I can tell you is that minister Porter who has the advantage of being an Attorney and a state Treasurer gets what the problem is. I give him that credit. But he has to get his colleagues to agree. I have to say I have been asking successive commonwealth ministers for about four or five years for help with this, and I have not been getting very far on them deducting moneys. I have to say there has been progress on them providing some additional data to us. Let's not be completely negative about the commonwealth role here.

In the past 12 months, the office has successfully applied to the magistrate for 125 fine defaulters to be placed on community service orders under section 70U of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act. Proceedings can be brought to enforce community services orders if the fine defaulter fails to comply. One of the consequences of failing to comply includes imprisonment.

In the past 12 months, five enforcement applications have been issued. One person was imprisoned for 62 days, two people paid the sum owing in response to the enforcement proceedings, and two people are still awaiting hearing.

The unit is actually taking a proactive approach to try to enforce the recovery of fines. Obviously, the idea of putting a person in prison for failure to comply with directions from the unit is very much an absolute last resort. But so far, there has been an individual in the last 12 months who was imprisoned for 62 days for failure to comply with directions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 17 on the Crime Prevention and Community Safety program; can the Attorney confirm the total budget for the grants program in 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the estimated total spend for the program 2016-17? What is the budget for the program in each year in the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let me see. I have bit of general information here. In 2016, the maximum grant available in the general stream of grants was increased from $50,000 to $100,000, and there was a strengthening on place-based and family-based initiatives. Programs targeting domestic violence and reducing offending by young people were particularly encouraged.

In 2017, 10 local crime projects have been funded, totalling $735,544. Seven of these projects, including $596,015, are in the general crime prevention category and three projects, totalling $139,529, are graffiti specific projects. The recipients of the crime prevention grants come from a variety of community groups, local councils and not-for-profit organisations in regional and metropolitan areas.

As members would be aware, there is also a CCTV Grants program which is available to councils in metropolitan and regional South Australia for the installation of CCTV security lighting and other technologies to improve safety in hotspots. Councils have been working with the police to identify these hotspots and make applications accordingly. In 2017, the government provided $348,000 to six councils in the metropolitan regional areas for the installation of CCTV, security lighting and other things to improve safety in hotspots. CCTV installation plays a very important role in tackling crime and promotes safer public places. With those grants, the councils are required to put in matching funding on a dollar for dollar basis.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that we are near the end of time, but in respect of the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Grants and the CCTV Grants can you provide to the committee a list of those that received amounts in the 2016-17 year and how much?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can.

Ms CHAPMAN: Similarly, if there has been approval of programs for this financial year, a list of those.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We can do that. I can read some out if that helps.

Ms CHAPMAN: We can but I think the Electoral Commissioner is waiting.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to provide that.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department and the administered items for the Attorney-General's Department adjourned until later today.