Courts Administration Authority

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): A further question to the Attorney-General: can the Attorney-General advise the parliament how much money in total has been cut from the Courts Administration Authority budget in the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (15:14): I will check this and get back to the honourable member, but I think in the context of their overall budget, which is in the order of $90 million or thereabouts per year, the forward estimates contemplates $4 million, or $4½ million or thereabouts, over the forward estimates in the context of a budget of that size. Can I say to all members, let's be clear about this: all government agencies are being asked to provide the Treasurer and the cabinet with savings—all of us are. Some agencies have made very substantial contributions to making those savings, far greater than the proportion we are talking about here.

Obviously, the government recognises that some agencies, by reason of the way in which they are constituted, have a greater or lesser capacity to vary their expenditures, and of course the courts do have a fairly high level of fixed expenditure in the form of judicial salaries and in the form of leases and other things on major buildings. There is not much they can do about that. There are bits and pieces they can move, there are bits and pieces they can't, but in terms of the overall expectation of government agencies across the board, the expectation of the courts has been relatively modest. I am sure the Treasurer would confirm that. That expectation has been negotiated directly between the Treasurer and the courts, because they like to have the opportunity of speaking on their own behalf to the Treasurer or his officials, and having got their budget they then work out how they are going to allocate it.

Can I make another point too. I notice there were some rather ill-informed comments—obviously not from the member for Bragg, because she doesn't do that, but from some members of the profession—in the last couple of days on this topic. I make the point to those people, and it is worth them contemplating this, that they have the simple answer that if you have a problem all you do is throw money at it and it goes away.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer in the case of the justice system—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You're using your time.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer in the case of the justice system is that everybody there needs to work better. The culture of the whole system needs to be better integrated. That will deliver faster outcomes and better outcomes at a better value.

I make the final point. If by some magic wand trick, the member for Bragg became the Attorney-General tomorrow, and if the member for Bragg were able to persuade her colleagues to give her another bucket of money to tip into the courts, the member for Bragg could not guarantee that one penny of that money would be spent on keeping Mount Barker open—not one penny.

The SPEAKER: A supplementary question from the member for Davenport.