Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Amendment Nos 1 to 4:

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

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 be agreed to.

I thank the Legislative Council for these very fine amendments.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 5 and 6:

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

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 5 and 6 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 7:

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

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 7 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 8 to 14:

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

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 8 to 14 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 15:

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

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 15 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 16 and 17:

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

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 16 and 17 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 18:

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

That the Legislative Council's Amendment No. 18 be agreed to.

Amendment No. 18 is an excellent amendment and is supported.

Motion carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: I place on the record that the indication from the government is noted. I did receive a letter from the Attorney yesterday outlining the financial consequences of some of the amendments that have been raised, both in relation to the composition of the tribunal that is to be established for mental health matters and also legal representation in that area. In short, it seems that the government is looking to maintain the discretionary role of the President to identify what the composition should be in various cases and that some further consideration is being given to a type of legal representation scheme for those who are in need of assistance in this regard, namely, for legal representation.

What format that takes we are yet to see, obviously, but can I say that some of the financial consequences outlined are expensive, if that 100 per cent take-up rate comes to fruition. I seem to recall us talking about what the cost would be for CFS claims under a change of presumption of costs, some extraordinary amount of money, and recent announcements suggest they have sort of evaporated into a very small amount. Nevertheless, can I say that whilst the percentage rate of take-up and the percentage rate that has been taken into account for these five-year forward estimates of the costs of these initiatives are still quite substantial and we have taken that into account, it is our sincere wish on this side of the house that we have a SACAT and we have supported the bill in the establishment of the umbrella legislation and we are keen for it to be established.

I appreciate that there is still a little time to deal with some of this, in that apparently there are procedures still to be undertaken by the government to facilitate it commencing in March of next year. So, I suppose we have a little time. For the record, we are still keen to try to work through some resolution to this so that South Australians can have access to a tribunal structure to, on the face of it, give affordable, accessible and prompt relief with respect to a number of administrative matters. To that end, we are agreeable to ultimately establishing some open line of communication in this regard. Whether we do it through the formal process of a committee is one option.

Given the Legislative Council has outlined concern in those areas, I think it is probably reasonable that we sit down with them and have some discussion about it. I have not yet heard from the government with respect to the rejection of the Darley amendments, which of course relate to another matter, and as to the mover of that motion, maybe at this stage very much endorsed across the spectrum, except for the government in another place.

That may be a matter which does require a bit more attention. It may be that the government has a capacity to accommodate some other option in that regard, but I just place on the record our desire to try to reach some resolution on this and, if that occurs, we will either meet in the formal process of a deadlock committee—assuming that the Legislative Council maintain their position at this point when it gets back to them, presumably in the next 20 minutes—or alternatively on an informal basis.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the member for Bragg for giving an indication that the material we provided to her and to opposition members about the costing of these things is being taken into account, and I appreciate that. Can I indicate that I am very happy to have ongoing discussions with the member for Bragg about this matter before it is dealt with again in the Legislative Council, and I would be very pleased if we could resolve those matters in a way that did not have the very adverse implications either for the budget or, in terms of a cost recovery model, for the cost of people accessing SACAT.

One of the advantages of the model we have now is that it is relatively cheap and accessible. If we up the base cost of the whole SACAT as an organisation, the government will have to employ a cost recovery model that will increase the costs to members of the public using the scheme, and that will thereby make the scheme less than it would have been had those additional cost burdens not been imposed. So, I do welcome the comments made by the member for Bragg.

As to the other separate matter, I am going to be circumspect in my remarks about this, which is, I have to say, slightly difficult because of the peculiar way in which this matter has arisen and some of the tactics that have been employed. I will keep this pretty clear and factual because I think that would be most helpful when the matter returns to the Legislative Council, rather than pepper it with colourful language and other things, which one might be tempted to do, particularly when one appreciates—

Ms Chapman: If I can do it, you can.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —indeed, quite correct—as one does on this side of the house, the supreme irony of what the Legislative Council has done from the perspective of the opposition, but let me leave that to one side. I am putting this on the record simply so that it might be of assistance elsewhere.

On 28 October, I was asked a series of questions by the Hons Robert Brokenshire, Mr Wade and Mr Parnell regarding the information provided to the President of the Guardianship Board, Mr Moore, about the future of the board and the future of the position of the president. In light of the proposal to establish the SACAT at the time, Mr Moore applied for and was reappointed for a second term as president of the board. The gist of these questions is whether, at the time he applied for reappointment and accepted an offer of reappointment as president of the board, Mr Moore was made aware of the government's plans to abolish the board, and as a consequence the position of president, and transfer the jurisdiction of the board to the SACAT. I am advised as follows.

In October 2011, the Attorney-General (me) wrote to Mr Moore advising of the review into whether a generalist tribunal should be established. On 30 November 2011, the Hon. Tony Piccolo MP, as chair of the SACAT review, and review team members met with Mr Moore to discuss the appropriateness of transferring the Guardianship Board jurisdiction to SACAT. I am advised that no opposition to the proposal was expressed at this meeting by Mr Moore.

On 5 December 2011, the SACAT review team provided information, facilities and resourcing survey to the board. On 13 December 2011, the SACAT review team members visited the board at Collinswood and met with Mr Moore, the managing executive, and registrar of the board. A further meeting between the review team members and the board members was held on 20 December 2011, during which issues affecting the transfer of jurisdiction, including case management system, facilities and other issues, were discussed.

From January 2012 until August 2012, there was ongoing contact between the SACAT review team and the board staff regarding planning for the transfer of the board's functions to SACAT. Mr Moore was reappointed, after this time obviously, on 1 April 2013—

Ms Chapman: Was that supposed to be April Fool's Day for some reason?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That just happened to be the day—but in clear understanding of what lay ahead. That is, he was appointed for a further term some 18 months after the transfer of the board's functions into SACAT was first raised with him and had been for some time discussed with him.

Ms Chapman: Then why was he appointed for five years?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Because the legislation only permits a five-year appointment. It is a five-year term. There are many cases, member for Bragg, where we have these difficulties. For example, with boards and committees we intend to abolish, you will find that some people have been for an interim reason appointed for a term of more than a few months. That is not necessarily because that is the intention of the government because the relevant statute says appointments must be for three years, five years or whatever it might be and, therefore, we either have nobody there or we comply with the provisions of the legislation.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. In any event, honourable members should also be aware that Mr Moore advised that he was supportive of the transfer of the board's function to SACAT until early in 2014. On the 29 August, Mr Moore wrote to me advising me that 'I submit that the Guardianship Board model and way of conducting itself can and should be transferred on to the SACAT with appropriate changes'.

Ms Chapman: Perhaps he thought he was going to get the job.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps. This support and cooperation continued until March 2014, when Mr Moore advised in an advice to the department that he was 'withdrawing the Guardianship Board from SACAT'. Interesting concept, but there you are. Throughout March and April, the Attorney-General's Department and SACAT Establishment Project Team continued to include the board in its consultation and planning. The chief executive of the department both wrote to and met with Mr Moore seeking his agreement to re-engage with the process. Eventually, in late April 2014 Mr Moore indicated that he and his staff would cooperate with and assist the implementation team.

On 5 June 2014, the chief executive of the Attorney-General's Department met with Mr Moore. At that meeting the chief executive advised Mr Moore that compensation would not be payable to statutory office holders, including himself, whose appointments are terminated upon the abolition of the board and who were not successful in securing appointment to SACAT. On 6 June 2014, the President of SACAT, His Honour Justice Parker, wrote to all current members of the board providing details as to the establishment of the SACAT and the application processes for persons seeking appointment. Justice Parker in his correspondence urged all current members to apply. I am advised that Mr Moore did not apply for appointment to the SACAT in any capacity.

Ms Chapman: That's it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's it.

At 17:54 the house adjourned until Wednesday 12 November 2014 at 11:00.