South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2025.)

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (11:32): I am pleased to close the debate on this legislation. The legislation covers a number of different elements, and I think the second reading contributions have covered them perhaps slightly repetitively, if I recall the concerns from the member opposite, but at least comprehensively. I therefore commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr TEAGUE: It has been the subject of the government's speech, and so raised both in this place and by the Attorney in the other place, that SACAT's jurisdiction has been expanded after the last time around in terms of addressing this diversity jurisdiction point. I think, for the record, that was by act No. 5 of 2018, in the last government fairly early on, in response to the High Court's decision in the first place in Burns v Corbett.

Given that reference to the subsequent expansion of SACAT's jurisdiction since part 3A was inserted into the act, I would just be interested if there is an opportunity for the government to indicate the expansion of the jurisdiction that has occurred. That might be a convenient point of reference for the committee, and in turn for the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Most relevantly, it was the EO jurisdiction. That is what drew the High Court's attention, but there are other elements, including health practitioners disciplinary and also some elements of child protection, that are relevant.

Mr TEAGUE: And in the same vein, the government has referred in the course of the second reading debate to several other jurisdictions having amended their equivalent civil and administrative tribunal legislation to use the term 'federal matters' generally and has adverted to consistency with those interstate approaches. Similarly for the purpose of the record, is it convenient for the minister just to indicate to the committee what are those other jurisdictions and is there now comprehensive consistency throughout the country or are there any outliers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sorry for the slight delay; we were just looking for a piece of research that we appear not to have with us today. Certainly, New South Wales has, and my adviser believes that it is more generally occurring across the country as well, but we do not have the evidence with us to substantiate that in detail.

Mr TEAGUE: This is my last one on clause 6, now having reference to the explanation of clauses that was inserted into Hansard by leave. I indicate therefore for the record and the committee that for clause 6—which is amending section 38A, of course—the explanation provides:

This clause deletes the definition of federal diversity jurisdiction and inserts a definition of federal jurisdiction, meaning the jurisdiction contemplated by section 75 or 76 of the Commonwealth Constitution. These amendments broaden the scope of Part 3A by expanding the class of matters which are able to be transferred by the Tribunal to the Magistrates Court for determination under the Part.

My question, or my note, in relation to that explanation is really a point of clarity. Where the explanation talks to that now expanded class of matters which are able to be transferred by the tribunal, it is really a question of: received by the tribunal and must be transferred to the Magistrates Court; and, so we are clear, the expanded jurisdiction will facilitate that necessary transfer to the Magistrates Court. That is a correct reading, is it not?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The current act has some elements where SACAT, having received the item and there being some question about its jurisdiction, may transfer. That 'may' remains in place; it is simply a broadening of the matters which might trigger SACAT doing that. So I think that is what you articulated, member, and asked for confirmation if that is correct.

Mr TEAGUE: It is expressed in terms of power but it is a choice of either.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a power to choose rather than a power that requires them to.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 9), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (11:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

This is one of those bills that will attract little attention outside the people directly affected by it in the functioning of the law and is therefore part of the business that this house undertakes that the general public have largely no idea goes on. Largely, when people come, they want to come and see the theatre of question time, they want to understand about the arguments and debates over crucial matters to everyday South Australians that can occur, and yet there is this whole other element of parliament—parliamentary business—which is the tidy process of making sure that laws operate as intended and are responsive to changing circumstances.

Having largely, although not exclusively, responsibility for the legislation that the Attorney-General initiates in the other place has been a privilege for me to understand that side of lawmaking, which simply keeps our entire judicial system operating appropriately. I am grateful to have been involved in this bill, grateful for the contribution of the members opposite in asking sensible questions, and I commend the bill to the house as a third reading.

Bill read a third time and passed.