Bills

Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 June 2019.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:04): I am pleased today to stand to support the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill 2019. Why we as the Marshall Liberal government are putting this legislation through this place is all about the reason the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) was established in 2015. The ultimate objective of SACAT is to provide a single, low-cost and efficient forum for administrative and civil reviews whilst also giving the courts more time to focus on their core judicial functions. This is more evidence of the Marshall Liberal government streamlining efficiencies and procedures.

When it was established, the SACAT was conferred with jurisdiction to hear the following types of matters: housing disputes, including disputes about residential tenancy; residential parks; rooming houses; and retirement villages. Certainly, in line with the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, I was pleased to assist a former farming neighbour of mine who was involved in a situation. I was very pleased to go through the process with him and give him support during his tribunal matters. Whether it is about residential tenancies or other matters, these are all very important, and when individuals need support I am always more than happy to assist them in the process.

Other matters that came under SACAT were guardianship and administration, consent to medical treatment and advance care directives. When that legislation came through the house, I was heavily involved in the debate with the former health minister, the former member for Kaurna. Something else that came under their jurisdiction was mental health, which comprises another range of serious matters that need to be dealt with appropriately.

It has always been intended to transfer additional jurisdictions to SACAT in manageable stages. It has since taken on a number of jurisdictions related to local government, land and housing, taxation and superannuation, environment and farming, energy and resources, food safety and regulation, and community matters. This bill makes amendments to a range of acts to transfer additional jurisdictions on SACAT in line with the planned process. It also addresses some irregularities in the legislation used by SACAT and makes changes to improve the tribunal's efficiency.

A range of additional jurisdictions will come under this legislation, and the bill transfers the following jurisdictions to SACAT: equal opportunity complaints and exemption applications under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal, the disciplinary functions of the Architectural Practice Board of South Australia, the disciplinary functions of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia and certain existing ministerial reviews.

The bill also transfers a range of reviews, disciplinary proceedings and appeals currently heard in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court, appeals against certain hospital licensing decisions and a small number of administrative approvals and appeals from the Magistrates Court. Other amendments are coming in to address irregularities.

The bill clarifies the provisions in the SACAT Act concerning access by the public to recordings of proceedings, transcripts or any other documentary material admitted into evidence. This responds to concerns that, given the informality of the tribunal's workings, the current terminology creates uncertainty as to whether a document has in fact been admitted into evidence. To address this, the bill adopts a broader reference to documents, or other material produced or provided to SACAT, to ensure all relevant material can be captured.

An arbitrary restriction on access to photographs or videos held by SACAT will be removed to allow access in appropriate cases, such as residential tenancy matters. The bill also tidies up previously confusing rules for accessing sensitive material so that SACAT's permission will be required to access material of a prescribed class. This will include photographs, video recordings and other material of a sensitive nature, in addition to existing classes of sensitive material already prescribed in the regulations.

There are also amendments in this legislation, as I mentioned before, to achieve more efficiencies. The following amendments are aimed at improving the efficiency of the SACAT. There will be amendments around extending the offence of disrupting proceedings to include hearings by telephone and video link, and also to change the process of appointing SACAT assessors so that the minister—being the Attorney-General, rather than the Governor—will make appointments on recommendation of the SACAT president. This change preserves the status quo for many of the jurisdictions to be transferred to SACAT and will be more efficient.

There has been extensive consultation on this legislation. It has been conducted with all affected ministers, statutory officers, courts, boards and other bodies from whom functions will be transferred to SACAT. Representatives of the occupations and professions whose disciplinary functions will be transferred to SACAT were also consulted.

I applaud this bill being brought to this house by the Attorney-General and hope it has swift passage. I think it is very sensible legislation so that we can streamline matters that, in the past, have gone before various tribunals. A lot of that was tidied up in 2015 and now we are doing more progressive work to make sure that we are getting the SACAT more streamlined and more efficient. With those few words, I commend the bill.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:11): I rise to indicate that Labor supports the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill 2019—however, with the exception of clause 160, which allows the Attorney-General to appoint assessors without cabinet approval and without the Governor appointing such assessors. Labor believes that the current appointment mechanism provides a very important oversight function.

This support for the bill is also subject, rightly, to ongoing consultation with affected industry bodies and stakeholders. Many South Australians find themselves dealing with SACAT or having matters heard by it on issues that deeply affect their lives, their families, the industries they work in and the businesses they operate and, therefore, it is crucial that they are properly and deeply heard. I also indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill.

This bill brings a number of jurisdictions into SACAT or makes some amendments to existing jurisdictions. I do not intend to go through the exhaustive list, as the Attorney-General already did that in her second reading. We understand from advice provided by the Attorney-General's staff that three new jurisdictions that were not originally contemplated are being transferred to SACAT.

That advice outlined the following three jurisdictions: the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 function, currently under the Magistrates Court, pertaining to applications for change of sex and gender identity children; the appeals jurisdiction that currently sits with the District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division under the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Act 2013; and the appeal jurisdiction that currently sits with the District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division with regard to the Tattooing Industry Control Act 2015.

I certainly would not want to put words in the Attorney-General's mouth, but I would suggest that it would be helpful if she could outline the precise nature of those jurisdictions and why they, in particular, were transferred into SACAT. As mentioned, this bill also amends the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to allow the Attorney-General to directly appoint assessors under the SACAT Act.

I understand that currently assessors are appointed by the Governor following cabinet consideration. Again, the Attorney-General might like to outline why the appointment of assessors should no longer require cabinet consideration and appointment by the Governor, given the importance of their role in a number of matters considered by SACAT and given the need for those associated with those matters to have the utmost confidence in the appointment process in relation to those assessors.

As I think the member for Hammond also said, many South Australians find themselves at SACAT to have matters that are really important to their lives heard. It is therefore absolutely crucial that people have faith in those assessors and, indeed, all that are involved with their particular matters. I can indicate also that, through discussion with many members of our community, particularly those associated with the various bodies and areas that will potentially now be covered by SACAT, there are numerous questions that must also be answered about the resourcing for particular bodies as they transition to SACAT, particularly those who already face significant resourcing challenges as a result of various cuts that have been made to resourcing by this government.

With those few words, I once again indicate that Labor supports the majority of the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill 2019 but that we will continue to consult on the bill with South Australians, various stakeholders and industry bodies. I indicate that we will have various questions about the appointment processes for assessors and also in relation to resourcing for the various bodies as they transition to SACAT and continue their work there.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:16): I rise to provide some brief remarks in support of the bill. Like the member for Hammond, who has spoken before me this morning, I certainly hope to see the swift passage of this legislation through this house. The bill is another step in the process of conferral of jurisdiction on the tribunal. It has been envisaged from the outset and takes the tribunal that further step forward to the full conferral of jurisdiction. That has commenced, with the initial conferral of jurisdiction back in 2015, and has progressed each year since then.

I just want to take some moments to reflect on what is still the relatively brief history of the South Australian tribunal in our state, introduced, as it was, after some decades of advocacy via law reform bodies in our state with a view to the creation of a tribunal, effectively, with powers of general administrative review. The intent, of course, of the tribunal's conferral of jurisdiction is over the course of the series of steps to confer that general administrative review jurisdiction across the board, and the bill takes that forward. I will address those specific aspects of that conferral in a moment.

It is perhaps timely to reflect on the main objects of the tribunal as set out in section 8 of the act. The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 requires that the tribunal focus on a number of main areas in the discharge of its objectives. Those main objectives are, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to promote the best principles of public administration, including independence, the provision of natural justice and procedural fairness and high-quality, consistent decision-making, together with the transparency and accountability that one would expect of a court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction and its statutory functions in this environment.

As was observed by the first President of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Hon. Justice Greg Parker, in his report in the first year of operation of the tribunal, those main objectives also importantly include accessibility, fast processing and resolution of disputes, the keeping of costs to a minimum, using straightforward language, applying flexibility and ensuring consultation with stakeholders.

The very nature of the tribunal is to ensure that, in dealing with these civil and administrative matters, the process includes all those features as fully as is possible. As we fast-forward to the 2018 report and the report of the Hon. Justice Judy Hughes, we see that positive steps have been taken in the tribunal operating with regard to those main objectives over those intervening years.

As honourable members will recall, we have seen the particular challenge to the conferral of jurisdiction that was posed by the decision of the High Court in Burns v Corbett. The decision of the High Court in that case caused a review of the limitations on jurisdiction that can arise in circumstances where a tribunal is conferred with specific jurisdiction but is not a court, and the parliament has acted already with regard to necessary amendments in the aftermath of Burns v Corbett.

In this short history, over a series of stages we have seen the conferral of jurisdiction on this still relatively new tribunal. As one might expect, that has been met with questions of jurisdiction being dealt with in the courts and already some legislative response. I want to highlight also, in recognising the 2018 report of Justice Hughes, that, like Justice Parker before her, the report each year deals with the contemplated step-wise expansion of jurisdiction for the tribunal.

We note that in the 2017-18 financial year the tribunal's jurisdiction was expanded with reference to a quite wide range of legislation, including with respect to the Firearms Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the agriculture act and a number of other areas—a similar suite of legislation—further expanding the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This further step takes what I understand may be the penultimate step in the expansion of the jurisdiction ultimately to be conferred on the tribunal.

The particular legislation affected by this further round of expansion of jurisdiction is again quite wide ranging in 2019. It includes amendment to the Architectural Practice Act insofar as it confers upon the tribunal the disciplinary functions of the Architectural Practice Board of South Australia. As has been adverted to by the member from Reynell, it amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 by the conferral of jurisdiction pursuant to that act. There is a consequential amendment to a number of other acts resulting from the conferral of jurisdiction, and they are the subject of parts 5 through to 31. I do not pause to refer to each of them in turn, as they are plainly set out in the bill.

I refer briefly to the conferral of the disciplinary functions of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of SA. That is the subject of part 31 of the bill and that will be another aspect of the substantive conferral of jurisdiction that is the subject of this round of expansion. Insofar as the disciplinary functions of those professional boards are concerned, it is anticipated that the conferral of jurisdiction will, in those cases, have a substantive effect on the range of work that those boards otherwise do, so I make particular reference to the Architectural Practice Board and the Veterinary Surgeons Board in that context.

As I understood the member for Reynell, she referred to general support for the bill, with the exception of clause 160, and the need for ongoing stakeholder engagement. I do not cavil at the observation that it is important that there be ongoing stakeholder consultation. As I referred to earlier, the main objectives of the tribunal—those that are set out in section 8 of the act—all very much auger toward a tribunal that is doing all it can to ensure that it is, to use a catch-all, user friendly and orientated toward accessibility and efficiency. I certainly indicate that stakeholder engagement and ongoing consultation, as we continue these rounds of expansion of the jurisdiction of the tribunal, will continue to be important.

With that in mind, while there are 31 parts of the bill, I have made particular reference to the conferral of the disciplinary functions in relation to two of the professional courts. It might serve to illustrate the wideranging nature of the consultation that has occurred with stakeholders on this round to note that, as I understand it in relation to those aspects affecting the Veterinary Practice Act, consultation has taken place involving the Animal Welfare League of South Australia Inc., the Australian Veterinary Association SA/NT division, the Avicultural Society of South Australia, the Dog and Cat Management Board, Dogs SA, the Feline Association of SA, Greyhound Racing SA, Horse SA, Livestock SA, RSPCA SA Inc., Thoroughbred Racing SA, the Veterinary Defence Association Australia and the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia.

Those organisations—professional, voluntary, industry and otherwise—are of very wideranging interest in the veterinary space. Just to illustrate that question of stakeholder consultation, those bodies have been engaged, as I understand it, and honourable members in a variety of ways will have worked with and benefited from the contributions that those bodies make in their respective areas of particular focus in the short time that I have been in this place.

I have had occasion to deal extensively with Livestock SA and RSPCA SA Inc., to take just two of those by way of example. They are bodies that will be particularly interested in part 31 of the bill, and I am glad to note that they have been consulted as part of the process of this round of the expansion of jurisdiction.

In relation to the other professional body that I referred to earlier, perhaps reflecting the unified nature of the profession in that regard, consultation has occurred in relation to the architectural profession in regard to those aspects of the bill that will affect changes to its professional practice board and so far as it affects the Architectural Practice Act. Those bodies include the Architectural Practice Board of South Australia itself, the Australian Institute of Architects South Australia chapter and the Consult Australia (formerly the Association of Consulting Architects Australia) South Australian branch.

With particular reference in this case to the observations of the member for Reynell about the importance of consultation, perhaps referenced to just those two discrete areas, it might serve to illustrate the wide range of interested bodies and, by extension, the importance of engaging widely when undertaking change of this nature.

There are extensive bodies of consultation that have occurred, as I understand it, in relation to the consumer and business aspects of the act. The industry bodies consulted are extensive and, of course, in regard to those aspects of health practitioner regulation that are affected, a very extensive body of consultation has occurred. I am glad to see that and I look forward to that continuing. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:36): I wish to thank all members who have made a contribution to the debate on the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill 2019. In particular, I recognise the indication of support for the bill by the opposition's leader, other than reference to the appointment by the Attorney-General without the Governor's endorsement in respect of assessors. I certainly hope to advise the committee in due course of the importance of this change and why we have presented it for consideration.

In respect of the matters that have been excluded from the bill, I think it is important that we place on the record our position. One of the new jurisdictions that was considered but is not being transferred to SACAT is the jurisdiction under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996, currently exercised by the Magistrates Court, in relation to applications for approvals and reviews regarding change of sex and gender identity of a child. These provisions were inserted into the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act later, in 2017, as part of the amendments to repeal the sexual reassignment act and amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to provide for alternate, less onerous processes for recognising changes of sex or gender.

SACAT had originally been scheduled to receive the Magistrates Court's previous broader jurisdiction over applications for change of sex and gender identity under the now repealed sexual reassignment act. The functions transferred in this bill are a small subset of the sexual reassignment act work previously undertaken by the Magistrates Court, which was originally planned to transfer to SACAT. Accordingly, I provide that explanation in the hope that it might assist those following this debate.

The second area of jurisdiction that was not included relates to the appeals function currently conferred on the District Court's Administrative and Disciplinary Division under the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Act 2013. This act postdated the original list of proposed SACAT jurisdictions and was added following a request from the then minister for health to transfer this jurisdiction to SACAT on the basis that SACAT offered a more accessible appeal forum than the ADD.

The third is the appeals function currently conferred on the ADD under the Tattooing Industry Control Act 2015, being appeals against decisions of the commissioner to disqualify a person from providing tattooing services or against a direction of an authorised officer requiring a person providing tattooing services to comply with specified requirements in order to minimise a risk to the safety of the public. This act postdated the original list of proposed SACAT jurisdictions and was added following an inquiry from Consumer and Business Services about whether these appeals should be transferred for consistency, since most other ADD appeals functions are proposed to transfer to SACAT.

A further matter raised was in relation to the decisions under the Electoral Act that are currently appealable to the ADD with an appeal function to transfer to SACAT under this bill. They are:

a decision by the Electoral Commissioner or an officer as to the enrolment of any claimant for enrolment;

a decision by an electoral registrar on an objection to the enrolment of an elector on a roll;

a decision by the Electoral Commissioner regarding the registration of a political party;

a decision by the Electoral Commissioner regarding the registration of a how-to-vote card; and

a decision of a prescribed class taken under this act by the Electoral Commissioner or an officer.

I am further advised that it does not appear that there are any prescribed in the regulations under the act at this stage.

There was also a query in respect of the difference between the employment agents and labour hire providers. I indicate to members that, whilst a comprehensive description of this is provided on the SafeWork SA website, for the benefit of the house I indicate that a person is required to be licensed as an employment agent if that person is, for monetary or other consideration, carrying on the business of acquiring workers for persons who desire to employ or engage others in any kind of work or acquiring employment for persons who desire to be employed or engaged by others in any kind of work.

The following organisations are excluded from the definition of an 'employment agent' and are not required to hold a licence:

a charitable organisation carrying on its activity on a non-profit basis;

an organisation or association that administers a group training scheme, jointly funded by the commonwealth and state governments, for the purposes of obtaining apprentices or trainees for persons who desire to employ or engage such a person in any kind of work, or obtaining employment for apprentices or trainees; and

an organisation that operates a labour hire business.

A labour hire arrangement is one where a labour hire company or agency provides individual workers to a client or to a host, where the workers are under the host company's direction. However, the labour hire company remains ultimately responsible for the workers—that is, their employee's remuneration. I trust that the information provided will assist members in understanding the matters that have been raised.

Finally, I indicate that I am not sure whether a comprehensive list of the persons consulted was provided at the briefing. I am happy to quickly run through who they are. The industry bodies consulted in relation to this bill were the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (SA Branch), the Ambulance Employees Association SA Inc., the Australasian College of Podiatric Surgeons, the Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association; the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine, the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses (SA Branch) Inc., the Australian College of Midwives (SA Branch) Inc. and the Australian College of Nursing.

Also consulted were the Australian Dental Association (SA Branch), the Australian Dental Prosthetists Association, the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association Inc., the Australian Medical Association SA, the Australian Natural Therapists Association, the Australian Osteopathic Association, the Australian Pharmacy Council Ltd, the Australian Physiotherapy Association (SA Branch), the Australian Physiotherapy Council, the Australian Podiatry Association and the Australian Psychological Society.

Other industry bodies consulted include the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, the Australian Traditional Medicine Society, the Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture Society of Australia, the Chiropractors Association of Australia (SA Branch), the Council on Chiropractic Education Australasia Ltd, the Dental Hygienists Association of Australia (SA Branch) Inc. and the Federation of Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture.

Also consulted were the Health Consumers Alliance of SA Inc., the Institute of Private Practising Psychologists, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Worker Association, Occupational Therapy Australia Ltd, Optometry South Australia Inc., Paramedics Australasia Ltd (SA Chapter), the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Limited (SA Branch), the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (SA Branch), the SA Salaried Medical Officers Association (SANT) President, the Australian Dental and Oral Health Therapists' Association Inc, the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SA and NT Branch) and the Society of Natural Therapists and Researchers Inc.

The industry bodies consulted in respect of the proposed amendments to the Veterinary Practice Act were the Animal Welfare League of SA Inc., the Australian Veterinary Association SA/NT Division, the Avicultural Society of South Australia Inc., the Dog and Cat Management Board, Dogs SA, the Feline Association of SA, Greyhound Racing SA, Horse SA; Livestock SA, RSPCA SA Inc., Thoroughbred Racing SA, the Veterinary Defence Association Australia Ltd and the Veterinary Surgeons Board of SA.

The industry bodies consulted in respect of the amendments to the Architectural Practice Act were the Architectural Practice Board of SA, the Australian Institute of Architects (South Australian Chapter) and the Association of Consulting Architects (South Australian Branch). In respect of the consumer and business services acts, the industry bodies consulted were the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors' Association; the APA Group, which is the Australian gas pipelines; the Association of Building Consultants Inc.; and the Australian Institute of Building (SA Chapter).

Other industry bodies consulted include the Australasian Timber Flooring Association, the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, the Automotive Repairers Council of Australia, Business SA, Communications Electrical Plumbing Union SA, the Construction Industry Training Board, the Hair and Beauty Industry and Employers Association of SA, the Housing Industry Association of SA, the Master Builders Association of SA, Master Landscapers of SA, the Master Painters, Decorators and Signwriters Association of SA, the Master Plumbers Association, the Motor Trade Association of SA, the National Electrical and Communications Association of SA, the National Fire Industry Association, the Office of the Technical Regulator and the Royal Automobile Association of SA.

I would like to refer to two of those organisations that were consulted, again to give some reassurance to the house of the consideration of the submissions given and the incorporation into the bill that is currently before the house. I wish to firstly place on the record my appreciation to those industry bodies that responded. This is a valuable contribution to lawmaking, in particular the importance of ensuring that we take into account all the practical applications that occur in relation to what we do here. I have certainly found this most valuable and important now, in government, to ensure that these are incorporated, the practical implementation, where it is brought to our attention.

By letter of 16 April 2019, the then president of the Australian Medical Association (South Australia) Inc., Professor William Tam, responded to the draft legislation, indicating there was a concern relating to the reduction of health professionals on the panel of assessors to one. He states:

The AMA(SA) has significant concerns regarding section 109 of the draft bill 'Substitution of Part 3' beginning on page 38 of the bill, and particularly the first section: '8—Participation of Assessors on Tribunal'. In paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this section the proposed changes reduce the number of health professionals on the panel of assessors from having two of four members in total, to one of three members in total. In cases involving doctors, this will mean there is one doctor, rather than two doctors, on each panel, a significant reduction in proportional terms.

The AMA(SA) considers this to be inconsistent with the stated function of the tribunal under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, which is, in large part, to make a determination as to whether a practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct, unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory professional practice—and to make that determination in alignment with the views and perspectives of the practitioner's peers.

The definitions of these types of conduct as set out in the definitions section of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Schedule 2, Part 1, 5, pp.8-84) include, in each case, a requirement to measure whether the conduct or professional practice was 'substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of [an] equivalent level of training and experience'. This is a determination that is most appropriately made by a health professional of the same profession as the practitioner before the tribunal.

While the importance of also having non-medical representation on the panel is fully appreciated, it is the AMA(SA)'s position that the reduction in representation by doctors [on] the panel will shift the balance of the panel away from one with equal representation of health and non-health practitioners, and ultimately dilute both the core functions of the tribunal and the potential for successful outcomes based on profession-specific expertise and evidence.

I thank Mr Tam for this submission. It is an important matter he has alerted us to, as the proponents of this bill, and I am pleased to advise the house that his recommendations were incorporated and resolved in the bill currently before the parliament. Again, this is a classic example where that has been of great assistance to us and, I hope, to the parliament, when considering this matter.

The second matter relates to the Australian Veterinary Association SA Division. They provided a comprehensive submission on the draft Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill under consideration and raised a number of matters. I do not wish to read out all their matters of concern; they are of no less significance, but I just highlight one aspect of their submission. They state:

The Draft Bill sets out the nature of the panel of the assessors who would assist in hearings. This is listed as—

and then they replicate clause 64 of the bill. I will not read that, but I am sure those following this will understand what we are talking about. They go on to state:

Where the Tribunal sits with assessors, at least one should be a veterinarian and preferably a veterinarian with direct experience of clinical general practice (or the same kind of veterinary practice as is the subject of the complaint).

Can I say that again these matters have been incorporated in the bill that has been presented for the parliament's consideration, along with some other tidy-up matters. I thank them particularly for raising those issues.

I think it is fair to say that, because we rely so heavily on persons of the same discipline in training and experience to provide advice in relation to the alleged misconduct, usually of a peer, it is important that we value their work and appreciate the significance of their contribution in these determinations. It is also fair to say that it is not an easy job to do—that is, to step up and be critical of one's peers in making these determinations or in providing the evidence upon which an assessment can be relied on these determinations—and we thank them for doing it.

Sometimes it brings some frustration and criticism from others in the profession, particularly if the person who is being assessed has a particular view about the reliability or validity of what is being outlined in the evidence or report of the assessor. It is a pretty thankless task, in some ways, but it is an important one. Where we have these bodies, including various tribunals, to review this material and make decisions on it, it is absolutely critical that we have this information.

A further matter has been raised by the opposition, relating to the amendment of section 22 of the SACAT Act. This is, I suppose, to streamline the appointment of assessors who are to be appointed to this role. The proposal in this bill is to amend that section to provide that assessors are to be appointed by the Attorney-General on the recommendation of the SACAT president, rather than by the Governor on recommendations of the Attorney-General, as is the current practice.

This has been highlighted by the opposition as raising some concern, to the extent that they do not propose to support this proposed amendment. Currently, ministers appoint assessors for use in the District Court and the Administrative and Disciplinary Division proceedings under their particular acts. In light of this, and since acts contemplating the use of assessors generally require panels of multiple assessors to be appointed, the requirement for government appointment for each assessor will become overly burdensome.

I think it is fair to say that the machinery of this bill will not rise or fall without the passage of this matter. However, it is a matter that has the safeguard of the appointment being only on the recommendation of the SACAT president. The SACAT president, as is known to the parliament—I will refresh your memory if you do not remember—is Her Honour the Hon. Justice Judy Hughes, a member of the Supreme Court, and she undertakes this role.

It is fair to say that the current person holding the role of president or Attorney-General is not the standard upon which one makes law in this place. We do need to consider that, whoever occupies these positions, there is sufficient safeguard and supervision in relation to such appointments. To be perfectly frank, if the opposition were concerned that just the Attorney-General was going to have this role without advice from a party such as the SACAT president, I think that would be well founded.

Certainly, in my time, I have seen different persons occupy the role of Attorney-General and I would not have trusted some of them with making decisions. Nevertheless, there have been different colours through this role at different times. I want to reassure the house that, in considering this process, this is a matter that comes on the recommendation of the SACAT president and that it is not going to be a process where any Attorney-General of the time can pick and choose who they like in relation to this appointment. I hope that gives some reassurance.

If it is of assistance, I am further advised that there would be over 100 assessors for the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal matters. I am sure that, whilst our newly reappointed Governor is ready and willing to serve in any capacity he is called upon to do so, going through the exercise of working out all these assessors for appointment is an executive responsibility, which, I think, has been identified as being an onerous and, at the very least, cumbersome process, and therefore we would urge the opposition to reconsider their position in that regard.

In respect of SACAT, which is now under consideration for the extra work that will increase their workload, can I conclude by thanking Her Honour Justice Judy Hughes, members of her tribunal and members of her staff for two things: firstly, for the continued operation of a tribunal that has been outlined by the speakers as necessary for the efficient and accessible resolution of disputes as expeditiously as possible and, secondly, for her willingness to undertake these extra jurisdictions and absorb them into her court.

As the Attorney-General, I remark that she is one of the pleasing heads of jurisdictions and extra work does not raise any complaints from her. In fact, I can genuinely say that, when asked if she might need extra resources, she has frequently indicated that she has been able to absorb the extra workload within her staff.

I recognise the work of SACAT as a result of the report undertaken by former Supreme Court Justice David Bleby QC. He provided quite an extensive report. His number one recommendation was that the operations of SACAT, which had been split geographically—that is, guardianship matters in the ABC building, as it is often described, at Collinswood, and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal type matters in the city—should be in one location. I am pleased to report to the parliament that that has occurred and I am pleased to have been in office at the time, supervising that transfer. I have been to an opening, invited back Justice Parker, the first President of SACAT in South Australia, and generally been able to celebrate the fact that they are now operating from one premises.

This is very important because of two things: firstly, it is one location for the purposes of the work they do and the camaraderie that provides in respect of tribunal members and staff and, secondly, the Public Advocate has also moved her office to metropolitan Adelaide and is now geographically proximate to the SACAT operations.

The Public Advocate staff, in particular those who are making submissions to SACAT for those people who are largely disadvantaged in our community and require the support of the former guardianship board (now SACAT), provide representation, appointments of those to undertake that responsibility and, of course, the ancillary orders that are necessary to support persons who may be aged or infirm, who may have a dispute in their family connection or who may have no-one. It is an important role that we undertake in that regard. So that, too, has occurred and I think it has been an important initiative; it means that there has been some advance in that regard.

Recently, I attended the new offices of the Public Advocate and she has settled in her team. It seems that they are all very happy. Some are catching the train into work, and some are looking at the challenges of parking a vehicle, because for years they have been travelling out to Collinswood. Now they have the opportunity to access public transport, which has been a boon for a number of them. I am advised by some that their shopping habits have expanded because they are more proximate to retail facilities, which may or may not be a good thing. New-shoe therapy has never gone astray. Nevertheless, there are some real pluses in relation to the general morale of those teams who have to work constructively to ensure that we provide services for those persons in need.

With that, I again thank members who have made a contribution to this debate, and we will be available, of course, to answer anything else we can in committee.

Bill read a second time.