South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:16): I seek leave to make another ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On 30 March 2015, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) opened its doors to the public. The main purpose of SACAT is, amongst other things, to promote the best principles of public administration and to ensure easy access to justice. At the time of its commencement, the SACAT was vested with the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Guardianship Board, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and the Housing Appeal Panel.

Section 96 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 requires that a review of the SACAT be conducted as soon as practicable after the SACAT's second year of operation. The review is to include an assessment of the SACAT'S performance, its success in meeting its main objectives and consideration of whether an extension of the SACAT's jurisdiction is advantageous.

The government commissioned retired Supreme Court Justice, the Hon. David Bleby QC, to undertake the statutory review, who finalised the review report on 1 August 2017. I acknowledge the input provided by members, staff, volunteers, interested parties and the users of SACAT, who engaged in various surveys and interviews for the purposes of the review. I also bring before the honourable members, the government's response to the recommendations made in the review, which is based on much consideration as well as consultation with the President of the SACAT, the Hon. Justice Judy Hughes. While not all the recommendations in the review are accepted, the government welcomes the findings of the review as a catalyst for the implementation of legislative and organisational changes, including the broadening of the SACAT's jurisdiction.

The review of the Hon. David Bleby QC found that SACAT is an evolving functional body that generally delivers on its key objectives. Of course, there are improvements that can be made, and the review contains 51 recommendations on how to improve SACAT's future operations across a range of areas, including legislative change, membership structure and workflow, co-location, technology, training and development, fees and jurisdictional extension. The government's response provides a position in relation to each of the 51 recommendations specifically.

For the current purpose, I will speak to the government's broad response to each area of recommended reform. In relation to legislative change, the review found that while the main objectives of the act are commendable, they create tensions that require a balance that is not easy to achieve. For example, consistency, transparency, accountability and procedural fairness must be balanced against accessibility and fast processing. The review made several recommendations for amendments to the act to allow for the improved efficiency of SACAT.

These recommendations are largely supported, and the government intends to move amendments to the Statutes Amendment (SACAT No. 2) Bill 2017 to implement these recommendations. The recommendations relating to the membership structure and workflow of SACAT largely relate to the levels of membership and the distribution between full-time, part-time and sessional appointments. The review recommended that the President of SACAT be engaged on a full-time basis. I am pleased to say that this recommendation has already been implemented in the appointment of the Hon. Justice Judy Hughes as Justice of the Supreme Court and full-time President of SACAT, effective from 4 July 2017.

The review also recommended that there ought to be at least one full-time deputy president and that the proportion of sessional to permanent members ought to be reviewed. The government intends to continue to investigate the feasibility of these recommendations. I would like to take this time to thank former president, the Hon. Justice Greg Parker, and the former deputy president, Judge Susanne Cole, for their leadership and commitment to SACAT in the first two years of its operation.

Some of the strongest recommendations in the review focused on the SACAT's separate premises, highlighting the adverse consequences of operating in two locations, and improvements that could be achieved by co-location. The government accepts the rationale behind these recommendations and will work towards attaining co-location for SACAT.

In relation to the use of technology within SACAT, the review acknowledged that, despite difficulties with implementation, the SACAT has been bold in implementing its electronic management system. The government generally supports the findings in relation to the technology platforms used by SACAT. The review made a number of recommendations in relation to the training and development for members. The review generally found that the present quality of training is inadequate and requires significant reform and resources, with the goal of ensuring high-quality and consistent decision-making. SACAT is currently undertaking a review of member training with a view to improving induction training and expanding the ways in which training is delivered.

Turning now to SACAT fees, the review found that the fees and waiver policy has been major contributors to the substantial and unbudgeted increase in the number of applications that have been received by SACAT. It is my understanding that tribunals across Australia have faced similar circumstances. The review found that the fees affect SACAT's budget in two ways—first, that lower fees reduce the likelihood of achieving cost recovery; and, secondly, that increased accessibility results in increased costs associated with providing the service.

The government accepts the recommendations in relation to fees in principle, one of which is that a comprehensive fee review ought to be undertaken. This may include the development of a concession and waiver policy and the need to provide a range of fees for applications. However, I note the importance of maintaining the balance between regulating the demand for services and ensuring that services remain accessible for members of the public.

When it comes to extending SACAT's jurisdiction, the review made a number of recommendations for the extension of the jurisdiction and noted that such extensions depend on adequate resourcing. While the government does not agree with all jurisdictions recommended to be conferred on SACAT, I am pleased to advise that the government has already announced that it intends for the jurisdiction of SACAT to be significantly increased by way of the Statutes Amendment (SACAT No. 2) Bill 2017 which is currently before the parliament. The review agreed with the additions to SACAT's jurisdiction as posited within this bill.

In conclusion, I thank the Hon. Justice Bleby for his independent review of SACAT and all those who participated to ensure its veracity and applicability. The government is committed to the continuous improvement of SACAT so it can best meet the needs of the South Australian community. Section 96 (2) of the act requires that the minister cause a copy of the SACAT report to be laid before both houses of parliament within six sitting days after receiving the report. I am pleased to table the Hon. David Bleby QC's review report as well as the government's response to the recommendations of the review.

Report received and ordered to be published.