Budget Review 1996-97

---

Detailed Portfolio Reviews

August 1996

---

1. ATTORNEY-GENERAL

1.3.1 Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission
1.3.4 Legal Aid and Family Services
1.4.2 Family Court of Australia
1.4.5 National Native Title Tribunal
1.6.2 Australian Federal Police
1.6.5 Community Protection
1.6.8 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was established under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and is the body responsible for administering Australia's anti-discrimination legislation (i.e. the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992). The Commission also has responsibilities under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Native Title Act 1993. Under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 the Commission is responsible for monitoring Australia's compliance with a range of international human rights instruments which Australia has ratified.

The 1996-97 budget for HREOC is $19.198 million.⁽¹⁾ This compares with $18.866 million for 1995-96. The Commission will be subject to the public service wide efficiency dividend of 2% and will also receive a cut to their budget which has been allocated as a proportion of the savings from the Attorney-General's portfolio.

The Commission has issued a press release pointing out that the overall effect on their funding in 1996-97 is a loss of $462 000. The Commission has pointed out the cuts will require re-examination of the Commission's priorities.⁽²⁾

During 1994-95 there was an increase of over 100% in the complaints handled by the Commission. There were 2780 complaints received. Of these, 1900 lapsed or were formally declined. The Commission is in the process of reducing the backlog of complaints and are instituting new procedures to speed the handling of complaints.

The budget papers flag a projected saving in the 1997-98 budget of $1.1538 million. Part of this cut will be the result of moving a significant aspect of the Commission's work (the hearing of complaints) to the Federal Court.

The Government has announced its intention to introduce legislation in response to a High Court case (Brandy v HREOC (1995) 183 CLR 245). This legislation will establish a Human Rights Registry in the Federal Court-leaving the Commission to deal with lodgement, conciliation and complaint investigation. The details of this legislative change are yet to be revealed. However a response to Brandy has been necessary to ensure that complaints do not have to be heard twice.

1. Attorney-General's Department, Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97, p. 67.
2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Press Release, Tuesday 20 August.

Provision of legal aid is an essential element in providing access to justice.⁽¹⁾

The Commonwealth does not have constitutional power over legal aid but may appropriate funds from consolidated revenue for the purposes of funding legal aid programs. These programs are delivered by State and Territory legal aid commissions which are independent statutory bodies managed by boards of commission representing the Commonwealth and State Governments, the legal profession and community groups.

Legal aid funding has risen slightly in nominal terms in recent years with the Keating Government announcing a $16.8 million increase over four years as part of its May 1995 Justice Statement to enable commissions to deliver more services in civil and family law.

Despite these increases, the overall level of funding and delivery of legal aid services has been criticised as inadequate.⁽²⁾

In June 1996, the present Attorney-General wrote to his State and Territory counterparts giving them 12 months notice that the Commonwealth would seek a substantial reworking of existing agreements. The Commonwealth has indicated that with agreements starting from 1 July 1997, it is only prepared to provide funding for matters heard in State and Territory courts that arise under Commonwealth laws.

Additional monies provided under the 1995 Justice Statement are to be reduced in the present financial year from $5 million to $2 million and future funding of those initiatives is dependent on the finalisation of new Legal Aid Agreements.⁽³⁾

There is no saving to the Commonwealth from this measure in the current financial year but an estimated claw-back of $33.16 million has been projected commencing in 1997-98.

The above appropriations form part of Appropriation Bill No. 2 which may be amended by the Senate.

1. The Liberal and National Parties' Law and Justice Policy, 23 February 1996, p.10.
2. ibid., p.11. In the same document the Coalition also promises to ' . . . maintain current levels of Commonwealth legal aid funding' whilst pursuing a 'broader vision for reform.'
3. Attorney-General's Department, Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97, p.96.

The Family Court of Australia was established under the Family Law Act 1975. The Act introduced the concept of 'no-fault' divorce, and included an emphasis on resolving disputes by conciliation and mediation rather than by litigation. According to the Court's Annual Report for 1994-95, about 95% of cases do not go to court.

The 1996 Budget provides for a reduction in the Family Court's running costs and for new and increased fees on couples divorcing.

The Family Court's budget has been cut by $5.9 million this financial year.

This includes:

• a 2% reduction in running costs-$1.2 million-due to the 2% increase in savings demanded through the efficiency dividend;
• $0.526 million-the Court's share of the portfolio savings impost;
• telecommunications savings of $0.46 million;
• a cut to running costs of $2 million-to meet the Government's election commitments;
• funding cuts of $1.65 million for programs initiated under the previous Government's Justice Statement.

The court has already begun winding back services to meet the cuts. The Bendigo and Mackay Counselling Registries have closed and the Launceston Registry is being downgraded from a Filing to a Counselling Registry. The court's regional and central office management structures will also shrink.

About 40 staff will lose their jobs as a result of these and other Budget measures.

There are three new fees:

• a $250 fee for applications for matters other than divorce, eg maintenance, property and custody orders;
• a $400 one-off fee for setting down a matter for a full hearing in the Family Court; and
• a $40 per hour fee for voluntary counselling.

In addition, the fee for filing an application for divorce rises from $368 to $460.

These measures are expected to raise $12.6 million this financial year-approximately double the amount last year. The Government wants to raise the level of cost recovery in courts and tribunals, including the Family Court to about 30%-the average for State courts and tribunals.

All fee increases will start from 1 September, except for the fee for voluntary counselling, which will begin from 1 January, 1997.

A number of measures contained in the 1995 Justice Statement will be discontinued. These include:

• the further expansion of counselling services, including after hours and visiting services;
• additional services for indigenous people in Queensland;
• judicial education; and
• the development of a court charter and the ongoing Family Law reforms.

The National Native Title Tribunal is established under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth). Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Tribunal functions include receiving applications for native title determinations and applications for compensation.⁽¹⁾ It attempts to resolve these applications through the use of mediation.

The Tribunal was established in January 1994. The Tribunal's first Annual Report was for the financial year 1993-94 and records that in the reporting period it received 30 applications.⁽²⁾ In 1994-95, the Tribunal received 119 applications and in 1995-96 it received 491 applications.⁽³⁾

The 1996-97 Budget (total outlays) for the National Native Title Tribunal is $17.9 million. This compares with a $14.6 million actual 1995-96 Budget. The figure of $17.9 million is comprised of running costs of $17.8 million and other program costs of $0.1 million minus adjustments of $37 000.⁽⁴⁾

1. Since the High Court's decision in Brandy v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245, the Tribunal has made administrative changes to its procedures pending amendments to the Native Title Act 1993. Among other things, the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996 is designed to address the decision in Brandy. The Bill is presently before the Parliament. The Native Title Amendment Bill 1996 provides that applications for native title determinations and for compensation will be filed in the Federal Court. The Federal Court will then refer applications to the National Native Title Tribunal for registration, notification and mediation.
2. This total comprised 15 claimant applications, 13 non-claimant applications and 2 compensation applications. See National Native Title Tribunal, Annual Report 1993-94, Appendix 2.
3. Attorney-General's Department, Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97, p.121. In 1994-95, the total of 119 applications was made up of 68 claimant applications, 50 non-claimant and compensation applications, and 1 future act application. In 1995-96, the total of 491 applications was made up of 285 claimant applications, 37 non-claimant and compensation applications and 169 future act applications.
4. ibid., p.119.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is established under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The AFP is the principal law enforcement agency through which the Commonwealth pursues its law enforcement interests. The statutory functions of the AFP include the provision of police services in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, Commonwealth laws, property and the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests.

Estimated outlays for the AFP for 1996-97 are $189.1 million.⁽¹⁾ This compares with actual outlays of $204.9 million for 1995-96.⁽²⁾ The figure of $189.1 is comprised of running costs of $240.3 million, other program costs of $4.7 million and capital costs of $2.6 million minus adjustments of $62.9 million.⁽³⁾

Major changes to Sub-program 6.2 outlays 1995-96 to 1996-97 include:

• reduction of $19.2 million in running costs;⁽⁴⁾
• reduction of $1.2 million in outlays for plant and equipment;⁽⁵⁾ and
• reduction of $1.8 million in appropriations for buildings and works.⁽⁶⁾

An amount of $1.1 million is allocated for the inquiry into allegations of corrupt conduct within the AFP. The Attorney-General announced on 5 August 1996 that Sydney barrister Ian Harrison would conduct an independent review of corruption allegations levelled by a former AFP detective sergeant and examine evidence concerning the AFP presented at the Wood royal commission into the NSW police. The inquiry is to report to the Attorney-General by April 1997.

It has been reported in The Canberra Times of 22 August 1996 that the office of the Attorney-General was unable to provide an explanation why the AFP's planned National Headquarters would not be built, despite a recommendation from a Public Works committee. The building was to cost $39.2 million. The Attorney-General's Department Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97 do not make any reference to this amount.

1. Attorney-General's Department, Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97, p.153.
2. ibid.
3. ibid., pp.152-153.
4. ibid., p.152.
5. ibid., p.153.
6. ibid.

The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is established under the Criminology Research Act 1971 (Cwlth) to conduct research, policy analysis and information dissemination on criminal justice issues. The AIC also provides administrative support to the Criminology Research Council, also established under the Criminology Research Act 1971.

As part of the 1993 Budget process, the previous Government established a Review of Commonwealth Law Enforcement Arrangements.⁽¹⁾ As a result of the review, the AIC's budget was reduced by one-third and a second review was undertaken. Following the second review, the staff of the AIC was reduced by 19, the organisation was re-structured and new priorities were set.

The Portfolio Budget Statements for the Attorney-General's Department show a variation of -36.1 per cent for the AIC.⁽²⁾ It appears that this variation is largely accounted for by items which include a 2% reduction in running costs, the efficiency dividend, repayment of advances made for the refurbishment of new premises and the discontinuation of funding provided under the previous Government's Justice Statement for a violence against women project.⁽³⁾ The Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97 state that 'Funding [of the violence against women project] is proposed to be discontinued as a result of re-prioritising access to justice initiatives.'⁽⁴⁾

1. Report of the Review of Commonwealth Law Enforcement Arrangements, February 1994, AGPS, Canberra.
2. Attorney-General's Department, Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97, p. 171.
3. See Table 2.2 Attorney-General's Department, op. cit., p. 173. As a result of the Justice Statement released by the previous Government in May 1995, the AIC was provided with funding to 'coordinate research on the criminal justice response to violence against women, so that the Government will have reliable national data for the development of the best means of dealing with crimes of violence against women.' (Australian Institute of Criminology & Criminology Research Council, 23rd Annual Reports 1995, p. 7). The Portfolio Budget Statements 1995-96 identify funding of $160 000 in each financial year up to and including 1998-99 for this project. Implementation of the project commenced in June 1995 (AIC & CRC Annual Reports).
4. Attorney-General's Department, op. cit., p. 174.

The 1996-97 outlay for ASIO represents a 25.7% increase over the actual outlay for 1995-96.

The largest element of net increase is $12.4 million described as 'rescheduled / increased project expenditure'. No details of this initiative are given but it might be speculated that it partly relates to activities associated with security arrangements for the Sydney Olympics.

Back to Budget Review 1996-97 Contents
Back to Detailed Portfolio Reviews Contents

© Commonwealth of Australia