Bills

Statutes Amendment (SACAT Federal Diversity Jurisdiction) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2018.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:02): I thank honourable members for their indication of support for this bill. The Leader of the Opposition asked questions in his contribution about what other SACAT matters might be affected by the High Court decision in Burns v Corbett and how this will impact on resourcing.

The bill is designed to operate in relation to any kind of matter that attracts the Burns v Corbett principle and which SACAT is therefore precluded from dealing with because it involves the exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction. The bill does not deal directly with residential tenancies matters. It is intended to apply to any matter that involves the exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction and is therefore outside of SACAT's jurisdiction. However, the bill was drafted with residential tenancies matters specifically in contemplation, as SACAT has identified these as the primary types of matters affected.

Whether other SACAT matter types are affected by Burns v Corbett and hence attract the operation of the bill provisions is not a straightforward question. It will turn on whether the dispute involves the exercise by SACAT of judicial power as opposed to administrative authority, which is not a straightforward one. It will also depend on the degree of likelihood of interstate residents being parties to that type of dispute.

SACAT has only identified residential tenancies disputes and potentially disputes analogous to those that arise under the Residential Parks Act, South Australian Housing Trust Act, Retirement Villages Act and South Australian Co-operative and Community Housing Act as being immediately impacted by Burns v Corbett, although it is primarily residential tenancies disputes affected in terms of any significant volume of matters.

As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, it is intended that an eligible SACAT member will be appointed as an auxiliary magistrate to deal with the affected matters, as the Magistrates Court but sitting at SACAT's premises, and that applications will be taken to have been made to the court. Therefore, as previously advised to the opposition, there should be only minimal, if any, resource impact on the court.

Importantly, also, the impact on the parties will be minimised to the greatest extent possible by having their application deemed to have been made to the Magistrates Court, with the same application fee as to SACAT and matters able to be heard at SACAT premises, as well as the SACAT bailiff still being able to enforce vacant possession orders under the Residential Tenancies Act.

I look forward, on behalf of the government, to the passage of this bill to address the impact on SACAT of the High Court decision in Burns v Corbett and to ensure that parties are not left without a forum to resolve their disputes where a party resides interstate, including, most pressingly, disputes under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that we do not have a lot of questions. We have a couple of very small questions at clause 1 and then we will not have any as we go through the rest of the clauses. I thank the Leader of the Government, representing the Attorney-General, for answering the couple of questions we had during the second reading debate.

I appreciate the answers that where there are, in the residential tenancies jurisdiction, fees that are imposed, whether they be for lodgement, even though it is now as if it were a magistrate hearing it, as I understand it, will remain as the SACAT fees rather than the Magistrates Court fees. Can I get confirmation of that?

Secondly, if there are other jurisdictions impacted, is it intended that the fees for lodging proceedings or anything during the proceedings would remain SACAT fees rather than Magistrates Court fees?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that, yes, that is the case.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I know the answer to this also, but just for the clarity of putting it into Hansard, will any avenues or appeals that would arise as a result of a decision of someone acting as an auxiliary magistrate, even though they are in the SACAT jurisdiction, still be the same as if it were SACAT rather than the Magistrates Court?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that, no, it will be at the level of a District Court review.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess what I am asking is: could anyone be worse off; that is, before this legislation, if they had gone through the SACAT process they may have had other avenues of appeal that might have been less costly than going straight to the District Court. What I am getting at is: is there any chance one of the parties before SACAT could be worse off because they are essentially forced up the rung in terms of where they have to appeal to?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, they will not be worse off, based on my advice; that is, the fee for this District Court review would be $160, which is actually less than the SACAT internal review, which is $545. So it is actually less costly than the SACAT internal review.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member, and it is reassuring to know that someone is not going to be worse off in terms of starting a review process. In terms of an appeal to the District Court, could it be more onerous on a person if they were representing themselves, for instance, as a lot of people do at an appeals tribunal like SACAT? Is there any chance they could be worse off once they get into the appeal process, perhaps needing legal representation that they might not have otherwise needed for an internal review?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised no, that these District Court reviews are done informally, so they can be conducted in virtually the same way as the SACAT review would have been done. So if you were representing yourself, you are still entitled to do that with this District Court review that is proposed here. From that viewpoint, my advice is no, it should not be the case.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 7) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.