Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 12 September 2013.) The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:53): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the passage of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill 2013. On Wednesday 24 July, the Attorney-General introduced the bill in the House of Assembly. The concept of a general appeals tribunal in South Australia dates back to the 1984 recommendation of the South Australian law reform committee. In that sense it is an idea that has had a long gestation through a Labor government, a Liberal government and a return to a Labor government. In 2006, the process for reviewing administrative decisions was itself reviewed by the Attorney-General's Department and the Law Society, which proposed a civil and administrative tribunal. The bill was the subject of a discussion paper released in August 2011, and I think it is worth noting that other than Tasmania, South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia without such a tribunal. The 2013-14 budget has allocated $4.9 million over four years in operating initiatives and $1.44 million in investing initiatives to establish the tribunal. Interestingly, a leaked November cabinet submission—one leak in a long line; perhaps the most noteworthy was yesterday's front page— The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: A fairly big front page. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, I thought so. As the honourable member reminds me, leaking ships sink. The leaked November cabinet submission had costed the project at $7.3 million over five years and relies on an ambitious start-up time frame to stay within budget. The Attorney-General indicated during estimates that the Sturt Street court building would become SACAT's new accommodation. The bill seeks to establish the tribunal in South Australia with jurisdiction 'to review certain administrative decisions and to act with respect to certain disciplinary, civil or other proceedings; to confer powers on the tribunal; and for other purposes', as contained in the act. The bill's stated intention is to create a one-stop shop for the community on a broad range of civil and administrative matters. Despite this, this bill itself does not provide any jurisdiction for the tribunal or for any particular matters to be referred to it; rather, it lays the foundation for other tribunals to be subsumed through subsequent amendment bills, and I am sure they will be brought forward in due course. The intention of having a multifaceted centralised tribunal will allow claims to be settled affordably and quickly without having to go through the usual court process. It is the hope of my party, and I am sure the parliament, that this can make justice more affordable and more accessible to South Australians. As I said at the beginning, the opposition supports the bill and the tribunal. However, the bill is not perfect. After all, the government itself has submitted 97 amendments to a bill with only 101 clauses. Stakeholders have suggested around another 80 amendments, which the opposition is considering. I would flag that stakeholders have raised their opposition to the clause in relation to abolishing the privilege against self-incrimination. I found it amazing that the government should include such a blanket provision in a bill; in other words, it is assuming that there is no place for the privilege against self-incrimination in any of the tribunals that might come into this bill. As I have indicated to the Attorney-General, that is a provision which the opposition finds unacceptable. The opposition will continue to look at those 80 suggested amendments, and it looks forward to the committee stage of the consideration of the bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.