NSW pre-election administrative review … Expenditure on new “working models” for courts … Coroners stiffed by stringent funding … Law & Justice Foundation grants program gets politicised … Janek Drevikovsky reporting from the Bear Pit
The spending figures were published in the Justice Department’s 2017-18 report and seem to have escaped public comment.
“Funding of $5.5 million over 2016-17 to 2017-18 was allocated to conduct a comprehensive review of the courts operating model and to develop business cases for new ways of working. This includes expanding digital services, meeting future demand for court rooms and opportunities to improve efficiency.”
The report details only two implemented projects connected to the review, and of these one seems to have pre-existed the review itself:
“The project progressed the greater use of technology in a number of areas, such as development of a prototype of an online portal to request grants of probate and expansion of the eSubpoena initiative.”
The eProbate service, we’re told, allows executors to apply for probate online, but will only be publicly available in 2018-19. The project was developed “in partnership with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia”, which adroitly handles dead people’s money.
The report vaguely says “a number of projects” recommended by the review will debut in 2018-19 and that efficiencies would be improved by …
“… improved websites, expansion of online court and use of new technology for recording and transcription.”
No surprises there.
Other outlays include $10 million for a “state of the art” renovation of Sydney’s Downing Centre and $900,000 a year for three years for the Youth Koori Court.
According to an external review, departmental “efficiencies” have resulted in savings of $909 million over the last six years.
The outlays still haven’t managed to ameliorate a District Court backlog of over 2000 cases.
Compared to other states, the NSW Coroner’s Court has fewer staff, fewer funds, finalises fewer matters and takes more court time to do so, according to data in the Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services 2019.
The court had a difficult 2018 with the resignation of chief coroner Les Mabbutt, after only eight months in the job.
The Productivity Commission’s data found that NSW had the smallest number of serving coroners, with 0.1 coroner for every 100,000 inhabitants; Victoria 0.2 per 100,000 people; and the Northern Territory as many as 0.6 for the same number.
The NSW court also finalises fewer coronial inquests than any other jurisdiction except the ACT. in 2017-18, NSW brought 81 inquests to completion per 100,000 people. Victoria managed to finalise 102 matters per 100,000, and SA doubled NSW’s completion rate.
At the same time, the NSW court seems to need more court time to finalise each matter. The report approaches this question by looking at the number of attendances required for each completed inquest.
An attendance is defined as the number of times that parties or their representatives were required to be present in court.
In the NSW Coroner’s Court, the average finalised matter required 5.3 attendances. Victoria, only needed 1.6. The only jurisdiction with a higher average than NSW was the ACT, with 8.3 attendances per inquest.
Last year, former Deputy Coroner Hugh Dillon wrote he was “concerned our coronial system is failing the people of NSW”.
Some of the difficulties facing the NSW court may come from its “hybrid” set up. Unlike Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, the NSW Coroner’s Court is not a standalone body. It is administered by the Local Court and has five full-time coroners, plus around 35 regional magistrates who serve as part-time coroners.
Dillon condemned this system:
“Coronial work should be centralised in a specialist court, not farmed out to overworked, under-resourced, under-trained country magistrates.”
We’ll see if the spanking new $90 million coronial facility at Lidcombe will make any difference to the statistics.
In December, the NSW Law & Justice Foundation announced the closure of its grants program due two a “lack of core funding” from the Public Purpose Fund.
Over its 20 year life the program dished out $4.6 million in grants, or about $230,000 a year.
The most recent funding went to a Tenants’ Union project to provide plain English advise to people in public housing; a legal support project for young people in out-of-home care; two community legal centres; and Rosie’s Place, which supports victims of domestic and sexual violence.
The general direction of the funding has been to projects that “contribute to a fair, equitable and accessible justice system”.
All very noble.
A 2017 report by the steering committee on the Public Purpose Fund showed a collapse in funding for the foundation. From highs of $3 million in 1999-2000, it received only $1.38 million in 2016-17. And so the grants scheme was tossed out the window.
Never fear, the the government wouldn’t let an important programme like this just vanish!
In December an Access to Justice Innovation Fund was announced by by AG Mark Speakman SC. It will be run in-house at the Justice Department with $1 million to be spent over four years – roughly the same amount annually that the Law & Justice Foundation was spending before the crunch came.
The AG crooned about “the government’s commitment to improving access to civil justice, particularly for the vulnerable and disadvantaged”.
The two schemes are not as similar as on they look on first blush. The foundation’s old programme was directed to worthy projects to “meet the great need” and were “informed by the most up-to-date research”.
The AG’s new scheme, on the other hand, is focused on technology and small business. Grants will go to people with “new and tech-savvy solutions”, said a Justice Department spokesmodel.
The AG is also suggests the money will support “small business and people experiencing social and economic disadvantage”.
Apart from entrepreneurs and movers and shakers, “coders and social entrepreneurs” have also been invited to apply for the new grant.
It might have worked just as well if the money had been given to the Law & Justice Foundation, which had a history of running a well-managed grants program.
But, this is an election year, and the government needs to get as much kudos as it can muster for spending money in a manner that maximises a rewarding political outcome.