Estimates Vote

Courts Administration Authority, $102,134,000

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

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

Ms S. Briggs, Acting Finance Manager, Courts Administration Authority.

Ms M. Garreffa, Senior Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

The ACTING CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee B. I respectfully acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of this country throughout Australia, and their connection to land and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to Elders both past and present.

The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time. Do we agree?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The ACTING CHAIR: It looks like we agree for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answer to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2025.

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. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. 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.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution.

The incorporation of material in 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. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament's website.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio of the Courts Administration Authority. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I welcome the Attorney-General. Do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, Acting Chair, no opening statement.

The ACTING CHAIR: Could you introduce your advisers first, please.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Today, I have to my right the Hon. Justice Laura Stein, a Judge of the Supreme Court. To my left is Penny Croser, the State Courts Administrator. To her left is Linda Abrams-South, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Courts Administration Authority; and behind me are Stacey Briggs, Acting Finance Manager, Courts Administration Authority; and Mishelle Garreffa, Senior Business Analyst, Courts Administration Authority.

The ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, minister. You do not have an opening statement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No opening statement.

The ACTING CHAIR: Excellent. How about you, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: No opening statement.

The ACTING CHAIR: I assume you are the lead speaker.

Mr TEAGUE: I am just a member of the committee, sir.

The ACTING CHAIR: Just a humble member of the committee—then proceed to questions, thank you.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks very much, Acting Chair, Attorney, Judge, and thanks all for joining. I will turn first to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 126. I might flag a general interest that might sound more specific to questions down the track in the interaction between particularly the Youth Court and its DCP and DHS-related functions that are expressed in the data, but first, in general, there is a table at about point 6 on the page: workforce summary and FTEs as at 30 June. We do not see there the 2024-25 FTE budget, but I understand that was 718 FTEs. The estimated result is 699. Of those 18 FTEs that were budgeted for but not retained over the last financial year, is there an explanation specifically for that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to clarify, member for Heysen, we are looking at the totals on that last table—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —the estimated result of FTEs being 699.1 as compared to?

Mr TEAGUE: As compared to 718, which was the budget for 2024-25. We do not see that on the table.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that in front of me.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not either.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So your question essentially is 18.9 FTEs difference, why then is it nearly 19 less than what we budgeted for as the estimated result?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, if I am right about that figure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the funding is for some of those officers who are primarily Sheriff's Officers within the courts, and that funding has not been needed because of some of the major cases, particularly in relation to Ironside. While those matters percolate their way through as they have to the High Court, the funding for those particularly Sheriff's Officers has been carried over with an anticipation that particularly things like Ironside matters will find their way to fruition over the next year.

My advice is that it is primarily Sheriff's Officers who were budgeted for in anticipation of the needs for Ironside cases. Clearly, that has not happened to the extent that was anticipated with the High Court challenge, and then the High Court challenge to the federal legislation, but it has been carried over so that hopefully, when we get a result from the High Court on the challenge to the legislation, they can be used now.

Mr TEAGUE: I think the only follow-on question from that is that we do not see 2025-26 going to 718, we see it going all the way to 734.1. Is there some further uplift that is expected at some stage for the same topic, or is there some other reason?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, very similar reasons. As the anticipated significant increase in activity once the Ironside trials start in full swing, we will see a need for that extra staffing.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not a technical term, but does that mean that we can sort of think about 700 FTE or so as a sort of steady state, and 718 or 734 reflecting a kind of seasonal load that will then subside again?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, in effect, is around about the case. The increased figures from the year before with the 18 more that were identified in the first question, the 34 more anticipated to be needed because of the special circumstances, particularly with Ironside, and that is time-limited funding, but there will be things we cannot anticipate that may indubitably increase the need for these sorts of services in court. It is not seasonal because I think seasonal probably happens regularly. These are one-off unanticipated events that had to have been accounted for.

Mr TEAGUE: If there is a comparator or a corollary, we have heard it in other agencies—DCP stands out, for example—where the minister has sort of telegraphed as a virtue the employment of more people being self-evidently a sign of things being positive in the agency. We would leave that for others to judge. I am not asking the question, obviously, with a view to it being self-evidently negative or positive, but just for information.

If there are FTEs, it might be helpful perhaps to advise the committee: if there is a seasonality to it, that they are not specifically associated with a particular case or cases, but are these FTEs employed for any unusually short term? Is there something that might be anticipated in advance to say they will actually come and go on present settings?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This might provide some help, I think. My advice is there are 15 new and ongoing FTEs for the ordinary operations of the courts that are budgeted for. There are 18 carried over that will be specifically attributed to both Ironside and the possibility of further trial in the Alzuain case.

Mr TEAGUE: Going one page further on, page 127, and a table that is at about the same level on that next page, investing expenditure summary, a question about the Court of Appeal office accommodation, the first of those existing projects. My recollection is that the 2024-25 budget had estimated completion by June last year, with a total project cost of $1.3 million. So two questions: why is the project being delayed and why the variance to project costs from the last budget to this one?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the funding in previous budgets that was provided for the Court of Appeal office accommodation has been completed, that there have been Treasury approvals for what has been in that budget line to be applied for other purposes. I am informed that there was carryover approval of $328,000 to 2025-26 for court modifications in the Sir Samuel Way building relating to multidefendant trials. It has been completed, but although it is still under that budget line there has been approval for carryover and reallocation of that funds for other purposes.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there a way, neatly, to make sense of that $999,000 figure, therefore?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It might be easiest if I take that on notice to provide a consolidated answer.

Mr TEAGUE: I have one more question on that table. Sir Samuel Way facade repairs has been a feature for some years. My recollection, again, is that—I am not sure; it might appear here on the face of this table as well—that was to be completed in June 2025. We now see that its estimated completion is June 2027. I cannot recall what the previous project total costs were. I think $11.5 million has been around the mark for a while. I do not think that has changed, but with the two-year delay on the project completion is that then going to come at a greater cost? And what is the reason for the delay?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it has taken longer than initially anticipated because of the nature of the building—the heritage status of the building and the construction materials in the building. I am advised that prototype works have been designed to verify the methodology that is going to be needed for that treatment of the facade of the building and to inform broader scopes of the work. That work is underway but, yes, it has taken longer than anticipated, because of the very nature of the building itself.

Mr TEAGUE: But there is no cost impact as a result of the two-year delay?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that they have to verify exactly how you can do these sorts of works on a unique building. That work is underway, but that needs to play out.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand, and that explains the delay, but in terms of the cost, there is no shift in the project cost?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, there has been nothing that suggests that yet, but that does not mean that once more is known about how you remediate or do these sorts of repairs there may not be changes.

Mr TEAGUE: Perish the thought of a comparison, but we heard from the government that the hydrogen plan was going to be $593 million all the way until it was not. I am not rushing to put this in that category. The budget has been set at $11.5 million. Ordinarily, one might think that just with the CPI and cost increases and all that stuff over time it might naturally end up costing more, but there is no particular reason why it has come in less than it would otherwise have been that accounts for the delay being able to be absorbed within the budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, my advice is that it is difficult work. It is taking longer than anticipated. Until we know for sure exactly how works will be carried out on such a unique building, we will not know exactly what the cost will be, but that is why it is being done prudently and methodically.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright, I get the delay, but again we have a very specific total project cost of $11,494,000 and that has not changed, despite the two-year delay.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That has not changed. As I think you pointed out, member for Heysen, as projects mature and evolve it is not only price that can change but scope, backwards and forwards, can change as well. You can obviously work towards a budget and vary what you do and how you do it to make it as well.

Mr TEAGUE: It is well known that the building suffers from concrete cancer, and there are the heritage aspects of it. All that is well known. Is the minister then saying that, confident of the project costs, that is going to stay at $11.494 million and they will just have to cut their cloth to fix a bit of it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not necessarily; how you stage what you do in what order and the timeframes obviously can be looked at, but we are not even up to that stage yet. It is just the prototype design work to verify the methodology to properly assess the condition of the facade and what might happen.

Mr TEAGUE: It might just leave one anticipating that at some stage we are going to see a total project cost in a future budget that will be a very different figure to that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Well, you know what they say.

Mr TEAGUE: You would just call that a hypothetical at this stage?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Well, yes; the project is underway and we are verifying how it looks. We will see how it goes.

Mr TEAGUE: I will go to some performance indicators, and pages 130 and 131. Before I do, this is a question that, through you, I have asked of the Chief Justice when he has been here and I asked Justice Stein: just in the broadest separation of powers sense, is the court satisfied that it is sufficiently resourced in order to do the work it needs to do?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am advised that there is a budget, and the Courts Administration Authority work within that budget as efficiently and effectively as possible to deliver the services that courts do.

Mr TEAGUE: On behalf of the committee I thank the courts for the work they do in the interests of all South Australians. Turning to those performance indicators, I might ask a question in the broad, and I would welcome if the Attorney wanted to reflect on this in respect of any particular aspect: is this proposition good that performance indicators are either generally or in specific circumstances a guide to where further investment is needed? Just hold that, and I will be more specific: if the Attorney has anything to say about how much that is guiding where further investments either of capital or labour in the form of FTE are applied, then that would be interesting. If I turn first to the criminal jurisdiction—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which particular page?

Mr TEAGUE: The bottom of page 130 has performance indicators starting and then we have a series of backlog indicators that go over the page. I will just go to the top of page 131 and the District Court, and the percentage of lodgements pending completion that are greater than 12 months old, for a start—and this is one of those targets where the lower the figure the better. I am not sure if these are RoGS targets or targets that you have set, as I have now been reminded, but there is significant variance anyway, more or less consistent variance, from one year to the next between actual and target estimated result and target, in more or less four times the number that are still pending.

The target for 2024-25 was10 per cent, the 2024-25 estimated result was 39 per cent—and again, you have this heroic target of 10 per cent. Is this the actual pattern we can expect to see or is there a realistic prospect of approximating the target?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have traversed this in most estimates, and I think this will answer the statement/question you introduced this with. The targets that are set down are, as you indicated they might be, set by RoGS (Report on Government Services). The targets are the same for every jurisdiction, so the targets are not changed to reflect differences that happen right across the states and territories. As I am advised, the targets were set down in 2003, more than 20 years ago. They were reviewed in 2015 but without any substantial change.

The notion that variance from a target is indicative of where there is more investment needed probably is not a particularly good indicator of where more investment is needed. Targets that were set down more than 20 years ago and are exactly the same for every state and territory, without any differences of how their court systems work or the varying levels in the judiciary, probably are not particularly useful. I think in the question that was asked, 'Are these targets merely ambitious without a hope of being met?' given that, in some cases, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a bit extracurricular, but given we are talking about RoGS, is the Attorney or the courts aware of a league table that has a star on it? Is there any jurisdiction that is actually remotely relating to these targets?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, in that 10 per cent target, there is no state or territory for 2023-24 that has met it.

Mr TEAGUE: Is that a matter for attorneys?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Possibly. We could spend a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of resources, a lot of officials constantly reviewing targets, setting different targets in different states. I am not certain that is the best use of limited resources.

Mr TEAGUE: If we have covered off on the sign for investment required and also an interpretation nationally of a RoGS figure that is 20 years down the track, does the Attorney regard performance even remotely close to that target as being something desirable or part of policy consideration, or is that state of affairs steady-state and that is what the government is prepared to live with?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think obviously you want your justice system to run as effectively and efficiently and timely as possible. Tending towards targets as low as 10 per cent is something to aim for, but, as I said, for targets that were set down in 2003 that no jurisdiction meets, I do not think any jurisdiction would realistically say, 'Well, we are not meeting those targets. Something is fundamentally wrong,' or, 'We need huge investment in a particular area.'

Mr TEAGUE: Not to single out the District Court for particular focus here—the whole table tells a story in a way; the Magistrates Court figures are similarly at variance, and I will come to the Youth Court in a moment—I just highlight that that second figure for the District Court completion greater than 24 months old has gotten quite significantly worse from year to year. Here we have, again, a RoGS target of zero, an actual result in 2023-24 of 11 per cent against zero, which looks actually quite good compared to 2024-25 at 17 per cent. Is there a reason for that deterioration?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have many Ironside matters that have started, that are not progressing at the moment and are quite old, waiting for decisions of the High Court. It is no 'coinkydink' that there are these Ironside matters that have started, have not been able to be finished, and there are matters that are getting towards a couple of years old. So it is Ironside that can largely, I am advised, be attributed to many of those. You start the prosecution, you have the evidentiary challenges that we saw find their way through our Supreme Court, then to the High Court, changes of the law made at a commonwealth level, and those laws being challenged. There have been significant delays in Ironside, particularly prosecutions that have started that have not been able to continue while those matters are being decided.

Mr TEAGUE: So if one is looking for Ironside impacts on our court system in South Australia, one can look at the FTE count and say, 'Well, there is a lot that is in the pipeline, therefore we have not employed everybody and we are therefore at 699 versus 718 but we are projecting to go to 734.' At the same time, you can see there is a big uplift in the non-completes after 24 months that is also due to that workload. They would appear, at first blush, to be contradictory, but perhaps they reflect different parts of the pipeline.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is correct that the carryovers waiting for Ironside trials to start mean there are fewer particularly Sheriff's Officers employed, but the flipside of that is there are matters that have started but are being put on hold and while they are on hold we do not need as many Sheriff's Officers. So, yes, those lodgements pending greater than 24 months increasing because of Ironside also have the effect of the carryovers and not needing the staff as of yet.

Mr TEAGUE: On that, let's assume there is actually something more than a steady state in the offing. We have a criminal justice administrative task force doing some work. To what extent is that work directed towards reducing backlogs, or is that off the table?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, the criminal justice task force has been doing some very good work coming up with proposals that will be put to government to, in part, increase the efficiency of our criminal justice system and, if they work, they necessarily will have an effect on how things flow through and may have an effect on backlogs. But, as I said, for those over 24 months my advice is it is largely attributable to the delay in Ironside stuff.

Mr TEAGUE: So the criminal justice administrative task force might have—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If there are specifics on that task force it is probably better to do it in the AGD rather than the courts. Hopefully, it will have some effect on some of the recommendations when they come in and review the function of the courts, but it is hosted within the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr TEAGUE: I am happy to come back to it and the Attorney might remind me as well if there is more to say to advertise its good work in the AGD. I am happy to do so, just while we are directed on the backlogs I thought to mention it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I will not remind you.

Mr TEAGUE: I thought you might not. In terms of backlogs, to be clear, there is no new money, as far as I can tell, directed at reducing backlogs. We can talk more about the administrative task force.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I can, member for Heysen, I do not think that it is entirely correct to say there is no new money directed to reducing backlogs. There has been significant investment in this budget, particularly for the DPP and investment and Forensic Science SA, which does a lot of work in the criminal justice system. In previous budgets and Mid-Year Budget Reviews, there has been further money, particularly for DPP and for the courts as well, to reduce anticipated backlog from Ironside in particular, so there has been significant investment to reduce the backlog that is showing up in the figures but cannot be addressed yet because we have not started those trials.

Mr TEAGUE: As the Attorney has already said, it may be that money is not likely to shift those data that are 20-odd-year-old RoGS data. As far as the government is concerned, is there anything else that then might contribute? If it is not money, is there some capacity via policy and reform and so on to address that? It is really an open question. Maybe the answer is that we keep on working every day, but is there anything on that front that might transform the situation via policy reforms?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There certainly may be things. You touched on it with the task force that is housed within the AGD, and we look forward to working our way through suggestions that they have made. Is there something that is going to be absolutely transformative that will fundamentally change it to have no backlog? I doubt it very much, but certainly the former Liberal government and the former Labor government have done things to try to address that, whether that be how guilty plea discounts work—a whole lot of things that both governments have put in place have had some effect. It is something we will obviously always strive for if there are sensible reforms that can be made that do not do anything to jeopardise community safety, in particular. We are always open to them if it is going to create a more efficient criminal justice system.

Mr TEAGUE: I flagged an interest in the Youth Court, and I will turn to that at page 131. I might ask that you keep handy also the table on page 136, again at about point 6 on the page, under performance indicators. That is under Program 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution Services. There are two bold headings, 'Family conference' and 'Care and protection', and then, at the top of the following page, the activity indicators continue with family conference and care and protection.

Starting at page 131 and the file line in the activity indicators table, which is about halfway down the page: the Youth Court had a projected number of finalisations for 2024-25 of 4,000. Its estimated result was considerably in excess of that, at 4,631. I know that the judge of the Youth Court is not here, but is the Youth Court, and the judge of the Youth Court in particular, conscious that the judge of the Youth Court is now on the joint committee? Has that court in particular raised any resourcing concern to government and to you, Attorney, in light of that workload?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that these matters are finalisation numbers in relation to criminal matters before the Youth Court. Many of these relate to administrative breaches of bail that have seen an increase. I have regular meetings with the judge of the Youth Court, and I do not remember any request being made that the criminal matters before the Youth Court require more resources. My advice is that many of the ones that are the reason for the increase are administrative breaches of bail matters that are heard but count as a stat for criminal finalisations.

Mr TEAGUE: If that is the case, what has changed? Is that the result of—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the factors driving that, I would not have answers to that now. I can take that on notice and see if the Youth Court has a view or keeps statistics. There might not be, but I am happy to ask.

Mr TEAGUE: For the Attorney's benefit, then, is it the case that that might not be a demonstration of a dramatic uplift in breaches of bail per se but rather a different means of dealing with those?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. As I am advised, it might also be a matter for police as well as to how these matters are detected and enforced and brought before the court; it could be reflective of that.

Mr TEAGUE: But it is possible it is a reflection of an increasing number of breaches of bail?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Or the detection of breaches of bail.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. The number of breaches that the court is having to deal with and is dealing with. We go from a projection of 4,000 to 4,631, and the Attorney says that is largely, if not wholly—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is one of the factors and explanations for the increase.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a relatively large increase in the administrative burden of dealing with breaches of bail.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not seasonal or temporary in that it sounds a considerable change in the 2025-26 projection, now to 4,500.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I do not have the previous years' figures to compare before, but the actuals for 2023-24—I am just reading this, 4,226—it may have been that the estimated was significantly below that and structurally we come in above the estimated result. I am happy to go away and take that on notice and have a look.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: But certainly in terms of the number of offenders, off the top of my head I think the Australian Bureau of Statistics youth offender rate sees South Australia as the lowest number of offenders per 100,000 of anywhere in the country. Only the ACT has a lower number than that. It is clearly not more young people offending, with the lowest youth offender rate of any state in the country.

Mr TEAGUE: The Attorney referred to it—the 2023-24 actual—at least to go that far back, because here, on the face of the table, that actual result of 4,226, is the Attorney also telling the committee that that was largely the result of the same cause?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not know is the answer and that is why I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Suffice to say, though, that despite the 2023-24 actual of 4,226, the projection was restored to 4,000, so it was perhaps regarded as an outlier and there was reason to think it might reduce again; whereas this year we do not see it reverting to 4,000, we see it a tick back from what was a significant increase, but not so much. We might be going around the same cause and effect, but is there anything to explain why the projection now might be regarded as less ambitious than what the projection was in 2024-25?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply for the member.

Mr TEAGUE: The proposition that is out there for the moment is that we have this kind of breach of bail crisis going on in the Youth Court. If the Youth Court is doing what it can to manage that increasing load and has not raised the need for more resources to deal with that load, then that might be as the result of good administrative practice, but the volume itself seems to be sounding a warning, just on the face of that line.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to take that on notice. I do not have the Youth Court people here with me.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate highlighting the difference between the Youth Court's work on the criminal side that we have just been talking about and then, on the alternative dispute resolution services side, that is demonstrated there in the performance indicators at 136-136. Maybe the best demonstration of the workload of the Youth Court, first on the family conference side, is the first line of that table at page 137, Activity indicators—Family conference. Do you have that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: We see there that, if we work from 2023-24, the actual figure is 1,901, but the projected result for 2024-25 was less, and the estimated result considerably higher. So there is a projection of 1,800, with an estimated result of 2,224, which seems to indicate the Youth Court is doing a lot of active work in that space, considerably more than the 2024-25 projection.

We have heard a lot from the DCP and DHS side about reforms that will amp up family conferences for all the right reasons, but the projection for 2025-26 reverts to the 2024-25 projection. So that does not seem to indicate any structural increase in those referrals and, in fact, given 2024-25, would seem to indicate a substantial reduction for the year ahead. Is there any explanation for that? Does that sound elsewhere now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, without the people from the Youth Court here to talk about how they set the projections—and I do not know—I am just guessing one explanation might be that they have the same projection again and if there are further trends that keep it towards what we have seen of the estimated, they might change for the next year. I do not know what has gone into the formulation of the projections.

But just to be clear, this is not child protection family conferences, which certainly have been spoken about and been the subject of a lot of discussion, I know, during recent legislation; these are in the criminal area. These sorts of family conferences occur when a young person admits the commission of an offence within the meaning of the Young Offenders Act. Referrals are made to the conferencing unit by South Australia Police and by the Youth Court and family conferences are essentially another stream or diversionary process that offer a restorative approach, with victims given the opportunity to participate in the process as well.

Having been fortunate to visit a couple of times the Youth Court in Adelaide and also have regular meetings with the judge of the Youth Court, it is reported to me that the participants often find these quite valuable. In particular those on the other side, victims related to offences, find this quite a valuable outcome. Of course, anything we can do to lessen young people coming into significant contact with the criminal justice system is a good thing for the prospects of later in their life still not coming into contact.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and I just flag that, in case there was any doubt about it, I share those sentiments entirely. I have referred to this crossover of interest to DCP and DHS and reforms on the DCP side that the Youth Court has a keen interest in. We are here doing a budget estimates process and therefore including scrutiny of the resources allocated to the Youth Court. First, perhaps I will ask: is there some particular reason why it would be necessary to refer to advisers not here in relation to the Youth Court specifically? It is not a trick question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If you have questions about care and protection matters that the Department for Child Protection work on, there is a very good possibility I am not going to have much information at all on the drivers behind those sorts of things.

Mr TEAGUE: I am limiting myself to this aspect of the workload, the sort of thing that might find its way into the judge of the Youth Court or to those responsible for the Youth Court, including the administration authority generally, speaking up for resources for the Youth Court—the result of its many burdens, put it that way. Here we see a couple of indicators of a criminal burden.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure what the—

Mr TEAGUE: It has not sounded in any particular request for additional resources?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I have regular meetings, and I cannot recall that we have had more family conferences or that we are hearing more about administrative breaches of bail and we need more resources. I do not recall that.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to interrogate that line item then a little bit more.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which one are we still on?

Mr TEAGUE: The first line item on page 137.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The family conferences?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. The number of youths referred to family conference. Just to be clear, the 1,800 that is repeated as a projection is not RoGS data? That is an actual thought through figure that is specific to the jurisdiction?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice. Of course RoGS data is the same in every single jurisdiction. To have an absolute number, not a percentage, would be of even less utility given the different sizes in jurisdictions.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, of course. We are not dealing there with some ever-fixed mark inappropriately stuck somewhere that cannot be changed. In fact, we see that the projections change in that very table further on. Anyway, we have stuck with the same projection. Does that give us a clue that there is anything unusual about that trajectory of growth of the number of youths referred to family conference over projection year-on-year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not necessarily but, again, I am happy to take that on notice. It might be they have merely carried it over and repeated it to wait to see if those figures continue, but what was in mind when those were set I am going to have to take on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright. I appreciate the Attorney's willingness to take that on notice, and I will not wring that out, as it were, any further. Clearly, there is valuable information that might be provided, and I would just flag a keen interest in it. If I might just put one general observation in terms of the Youth Court facilities generally, has the government given consideration—even off its own bat—to the accommodation and adequacy of those facilities? I think it is well-known that they have been unchanged now since Dunstan and King were both on a plaque over at the red-brick building.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I have had the privilege and the benefit of being able to visit the Youth Court a couple of times, and I think it is fair to say—and I do not think this is limited just to the Youth Court—but in a world of unlimited resources, many levels of our court system would be grateful for new, improved accommodation, but it is a matter of resources and the functionality of how things are working. Certainly, it has been raised with the Youth Court.

Mr TEAGUE: If I might just turn a couple of pages back to performance indicators.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On what page is that?

Mr TEAGUE: On the way, perhaps to page 135, Sub-program 1.4: Coroner. If there is time, I will just address briefly some of the performance indicators in terms of civil jurisdiction and then some more on the criminal side, but I am just conscious that time is getting away. Sub-program 1.4: Coroner, page 135, the government has provided the extended funding for a third Coroner. That came about subsequent to the last estimates in the Mid-Year Budget Review, as I recall. Then we are seeing a part-year reflection of that set of circumstances, but without improvement in the backlog. There has been a 1 per cent improvement, I think, as I read it.

The activity indicator, the final line on page 135, tells us that the projection for 2024-25 was 3,200 coronial finalisations, the estimated result is 2,888 and the projection for 2025-26 is a reduction in the 2024-25 projection down to 3,000. Despite, therefore, the funding for a permanent third Coroner, we see simultaneously a reduction in the projection for coronial finalisations. Is there anything the Attorney would like to say to explain that? Whether he would like to or not, could the Attorney inform the committee about why the apparent reduction in performance is projected? Do we need a fourth Coroner?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the member for Heysen has pointed out, there have previously been three coroners, but there was time-limited funding that former governments of both stripes had provided that ran out. For a period of time there were two coroners. We could see that there was easily enough work for the three coroners, and after six months, as the member pointed out, a Mid-Year Budget Review reinstated that funding, not just time-limited funding as it has been before but ongoing funding. I am aware that there is, essentially, catch-up in terms of the work of the Coroner that needs to happen. Why the projections have been set at those figures, again, I do not have the benefit of having someone from that jurisdiction here, but I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you. There is one rather important thing that I did not get to on page 136: it is going back to those questions a moment ago. At page 136, the performance indicators, the family conference and the care and protection headings, we see there what might be regarded as a drastic reduction in the percentage in this case in this table of family group conferences that result in valid agreements for care and protection of children. That has dropped and, even leaving targets aside, it is well under target. Even looking at actuals, the 2023-24 actual was 91 per cent of those family group conferences that resulted in valid agreements for care and protection of children, and that is down in 2024-25 to an estimated result of 57 per cent.

The ACTING CHAIR: We have one minute, Attorney.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not quite halved, but it is a drastic reduction in valid outcomes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, halved would have been down to—

Mr TEAGUE: Forty-five.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Halved from the actual for 2023-24 would have been a lot lower than that. The advice I have is that referrals have significantly reduced. I am advised that referrals to the conferencing unit received for family group conferencing are increasingly complex matters, so the combination of the referrals reducing and the complexity of the matters contributes to that.

The ACTING CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Courts Administration Authority complete. We will now move on to the Attorney-General's Department and State Records. That is the Attorney again, but presumably some new advisers.