Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2019.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:30): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill. In starting to speak on this, I will say that I am a little surprised that I am speaking on this bill. The opposition had been informed that we were proceeding with the bill to which we just had second readings, and that that would be the first thing we do today. Apparently at the last minute it gets adjourned off, for whatever reason. Apparently we revolve around meetings that other people have in terms of the business of this council. Most of us are here because we have a job as legislators in this chamber and that is what our first priority is, but not everybody sees it that way.

I do note that there are people in the gallery who have come to hear this bill being debated. Whether this is a tactic not to allow those people who have given up their time today to see the democratic process and see what we do in this place, I do not know. But, we have people who represent hardworking emergency services officers—those who protect us. Their representatives, who put forward their wishes to us, deserve the right to see what people in this chamber think. I think it is absolutely disrespectful for this chamber not to allow that to happen and to put off debate without informing anyone.

I register our strongest possible annoyance at the disrespect the government is showing not just the opposition, not just the crossbenchers, but also those who are here to hear the debate. It will not go away. We will debate the emergency services bill. It does not matter how often the government says, 'Someone's got a meeting so we don't want to do this.' That is their job; it is their job to do legislation regardless of a meeting or another excuse they try to make. With those words, I will talk about the statutes amendment bill, and I will foreshadow that maybe there is other legislation that is on the Notice Paper. There is the rate capping legislation, there is the labour hire legislation—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am just—

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition, I have given you a long bit of rope to make your political polemic, which is not relevant to the bill. I have given you a fair go. Let's get to the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Alright, thank you, Mr President. I rise today to indicate that Labor supports the SACAT bill with the exception of clause 161 which allows the Attorney-General of her own volition to appoint assessors without cabinet approval and without Executive Council and the governor's involvement. We will not be supporting that one aspect in the SACAT bill. The bill brings together a number of other jurisdictions to SACAT, or makes some amendments to existing jurisdictions. I do not intend to go through the exhaustive list already provided in the second reading explanation.

I would like to very briefly thank, on this occasion, the Attorney-General and her staff for providing comprehensive answers to questions asked during the briefing, as well as debate in the bill in the other place. As I flagged earlier, one of the amendments to this bill will 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. During debate in the other place on this bill, the Attorney-General advised that ministers currently appoint assessors for use in the District Court and the Administrative and Disciplinary Division.

The Attorney-General also advised that should the amendment succeed, assessor appointments would be made on recommendation of the president of the tribunal. Frankly, that is not our concern. We believe that the current appointment mechanism, where assessors must be approved by cabinet and appointed by the Governor provides an important oversight function and should be retained. The Attorney-General advised in the other chamber that, and I quote:

I think it is fair to say that the machinery of this bill will not rise or fall without the passage of this matter.

I would encourage to take the Attorney-General's invitation to heart and retain the existing appointment oversight function. With those few words, I indicate that Labor supports the majority of this bill but will oppose section 161. I also indicate that we might consider debating very soon the labour hire or the rate capping bill rather than what the government wants to do with the disrespect that they have shown us.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (11:34): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill 2019. When reviewing bills, I consider that we need to take into account whether it will make a service more accessible, whether it will make a process more efficient and whether the change is fair. The bill seeks to confer additional jurisdictions to SACAT, a body established to provide an administrative and civil alternative dispute resolution process, using a range of approaches to achieve efficient and fair solutions to disputes and reviews.

The expansion and inclusion of the following jurisdictions are proposed by the bill: equal opportunity complaints, South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal, disciplinary functions of the Architectural Practice Board, disciplinary functions of the Veterinary Surgeons Board, a range of disciplinary proceedings and appeals currently heard in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court, appeals against licensing decisions, administrative approvals and appeals to the Magistrates Court. One of the primary reasons for transferring some of these jurisdictions is because they can get bogged down in the court system and therefore delay justice. The advantage of the tribunal is that it can initiative alternative approaches to resolve matters in both a cost-effective and expeditious manner.

I want to raise concerns about the issue of resourcing. I know there has been much discussion in the other chamber that there is no need for additional resourcing in terms of the expansion of jurisdiction. However, if we are going to focus on an alternative dispute resolution process in the tribunal in order to conciliate and mediate disputes, there is a need for additional resources to be placed in the tribunal in the area of dispute resolution. It cannot be done by one person, not with the transfer of the various jurisdictions.

It is most apparent, when we take into consideration some of the bodies that are transferring, that they have significant resourcing challenges. Rather than thanking Her Honour Justice Judy Hughes for her willingness to absorb these jurisdictions, whilst acknowledging that the extra work will increase their workload, the Attorney-General should be doing what she can to ensure adequate resourcing be provided to assist in the management of the workload as a result of the transfer.

When reviewing the bill I took a heavy interest in part 2, clause 78, amendments pertaining to SAET. I am anecdotally aware that there are only a handful of cases that are employment related that fall under the Equal Opportunity Act per year. As such, I do believe that it is appropriate that they be conferred to SACAT rather than SAET, with the provision that SAET has the ability to hear matters involving equal opportunity and employment matters where they interrelate.

The second component of the bill is the notion of the Attorney-General having powers to appoint assessors without cabinet approval and without the Governor appointing such assessors, in clause 160 to be precise. Currently, assessors are appointed by the Governor following cabinet consideration. I am yet to receive a reputable reason as to why this should change, especially given the importance of their role in several matters considered by SACAT. I do not see how this amendment makes the process more efficient, nor do I believe it is a fair change.

With these words I reiterate Labor's willingness to support the majority of the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill 2019 and look forward to continuing to consult with the community to ensure SACAT is able to continue to promote the best principles of public administration, including independence, natural justice and procedural fairness, quality and consistent decisions, and transparency and accountability.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (11:39): This is a long but fairly simple bill which expands the jurisdiction of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The list of areas of potential dispute that are being transferred to the tribunal has been known for some little while. When this new tribunal was created, the former government flagged its intention that there would be a staged transfer of jurisdiction to it. Members would recall that the first cab off the rank was residential tenancies. I think the guardianship board jurisdiction was next, and we have since then seen a staged and orderly transfer of responsibility to this new jurisdiction.

When they sought the Greens' views on this, the government offered a briefing. My response was that it was a pretty straightforward bill transferring responsibility, so I did not need a briefing. However, I did remind the government of what happened last time. What happened last time was that the bill was put forward, debate was commenced in parliament, and key stakeholders were not even aware that the legislation was proposed to change jurisdiction. The example that I give is that when the guardianship board jurisdiction was being transferred, my first phone call was to the Mental Health Coalition.

Their response to me was, 'What are you talking about? What do you mean the jurisdiction's changing?' My reaction to their response was to say in parliament, 'Let's hold this process up and make sure that everyone who needs to be consulted is consulted.' So I reminded the government that they had handled that badly last time, and I think they have learnt from the mistake. Within a very short period of time, they shot back to me a list of 70 organisations that had been consulted about this change of jurisdiction. I certainly will not read them all out. The vast bulk of them relate to the health practitioner regulation national law.

I am pleased that the government appears to have consulted fully and widely. My only evidence for that is the list that was provided to me by the government and the fact that my inbox is completely devoid of any criticism of the bill from any of these organisations. I do not think there is anyone who has been taken by surprise that the jurisdiction of SACAT is expanding, so I think this bill pretty much falls within the definition of routine.

Having said that, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has flagged that they will be opposing one clause relating to assessors. We look forward to the committee debate and hearing the Leader of the Opposition's arguments and the government's response in relation to that particular clause. However, as I see it, the rest of the bill is fairly uncontentious, and I look forward to its speedy passage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.