Statutes Amendment (SACAT Federal Diversity Jurisdiction) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:27): I rise today to indicate the Labor opposition's support for the Statutes Amendment (SACAT Federal Diversity Jurisdiction) Bill 2018. This statutes amendment bill deals with the High Court decision of Burns v Corbett, which has resulted in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal potentially being unable to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to, particularly, residential tenancy matters where one party resides interstate. The bill allows that, where SACAT is now potentially unable to exercise its jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court will effectively be swapped in to consider the dispute with the same powers and, as I understand it and the minister might confirm, the fees of SACAT.

Advice provided by the Attorney-General's Department shows that there are around 700 cases potentially impacted by the Burns v Corbett High Court decision. The opposition has been advised that these cases largely fall into the category of disputes where interstate landlords are seeking to either evict tenants or recover unpaid rent. The High Court decision potentially also impacts on other matters within SACAT's jurisdiction, which involves the exercise of judicial powers and involves residents of different states. However, the advice received through the Attorney-General's Department suggests that SACAT is yet to identify any other matters outside the residential tenancies area that may be impacted.

Officers from the Attorney-General's Department have also advised the opposition that the implementation of this bill will not have a resourcing impact on the Magistrates Court, as SACAT officials will be appointed as auxiliary magistrates. The Attorney-General, or whoever her representative is in this place, might be able to expand on these two points in their second reading response or in the committee stage, namely, what other matters might be affected by the High Court decision and how that resourcing will work.

I am also advised that other jurisdictions are affected by the High Court decision in different ways; for example, Victoria is currently considering how to deal with the matter. QCAT is a traditional jurisdiction rather than an administrative jurisdiction and therefore may not be affected, and it appears that WA and the Northern Territory do not have bodies that are affected. With those words, I indicate Labor's support for this bill and look forward to the government answering those questions in the second reading sum-up.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:30): I rise in support of this bill. The bill will allow for residential tenancy matters to be transferred to the Magistrates Court if a situation arises where the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, otherwise known as SACAT, would not be able to hear the matter.

I understand there is a need for this to occur due to a High Court decision that found that the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or NCAT, did not have the authority to hear matters that require them to exercise federal judicial powers. This came to light because the NCAT had to hear a dispute between residents of different states. The matter was referred to the High Court, which found that NCAT did not have the authority to hear the matter.

As there is no other jurisdiction in South Australia that can hear residential tenancy matters, this bill is a pre-emptive measure to ensure that South Australia will not be caught out if similar matters are presented to SACAT. I understand that any matters transferred to the Magistrates Court will have the same fee structure as if it were to be heard at SACAT, so members of the community will not be financially disadvantaged.

The court will also have the same powers and functions as SACAT conferred upon it. I understand that without this bill the community may face some issues with landlords being unable to take action against tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. The government has shown great forethought in moving this amendment, and I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.