Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, on behalf of the Greens, I can indicate that we will gladly support the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Additional Jurisdictions) Bill 2024. This is a journey that began back in 2015, when the Department of Justice issued a discussion paper on a single tribunal for Tasmania. The first act was enacted by the parliament in 2020. That established the initial skeleton, if you like, that TASCAT grew from as some resources and capacity were put into this new entity. In 2021, the consequential amendments bill went through, which further fleshed out TASCAT’s area of jurisdiction.
Today, we are here with a large piece of legislation which amends, on my count – and I could have under- or over‑counted – 73 acts. Numerous regulations, acts from the Adoptions act to the Burials and Cremations act – the working with children and vulnerable people registration scheme. It is a bill that is sweeping in its effect, in many ways, because of the streamlining that it does of administrative and civil processes. Fundamentally, what this bill does is bring the administrative appeals division of the Magistrates Court and the Property Agents Board under the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and make a number of other consequential and miscellaneous amendments. It does give effect to recommendation 18.3, I think, of the commission of inquiry relating to the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People scheme.
The Magistrates Court of Tasmania’s administrative appeals division has been operating for more than 20 years. One of the features of a tribunal that was mentioned in the Leader of Government Business’s speech is that for a person seeking administrative review, that is to them a matter of justice, then taking that matter before a tribunal that has specific dedicated streams, which probably in most instances have specialist capacity within the review processes. A tribunal administrative or civil review process would be more informal and much less daunting for a person who is aggrieved. For example, when you read in here, that their deer farm licence has not been renewed, would have been required, ordinarily, to go into the Magistrates Court to hear that appeal heard, but can now take that matter to TASCAT. It is a significant justice reform, and full credit to the first attorney‑general who initiated this work, the late Vanessa Goodwin, and also to the former attorney‑general Elise Archer, who took much of this work through in her time. I think this is legislation on which we can all broadly agree.
There are a number of issues that are raised in my mind as I go through the bill. It is still mystifying, Mr President, that we have brought under the jurisdiction of TASCAT the entire administrative appeals division of the Magistrates Court and a whole range of other bodies that previously heard appeals, but a decision has been made not to bring the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board (TRAB) under the jurisdiction of TASCAT. Now, TRAB as a body has frustrated both industry participants and animal welfare advocates. If you have a look at the data on TRAB’s decision‑making, regrettably there have been times, in fact it is a consistent pattern, when the stewards lay a charge or suspend an industry participant and that matter is appealed to TRAB, regrettably, invariably ‑ it happened with Ben Yole ‑ TRAB tends to come down on the slightly softer side of the industry participant. Stewards have been frustrated by that as well. It certainly does not instil faith in the integrity of the racing industry. It was a very good argument for bringing the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board under TASCAT.
As I understand it from our initial briefing late last year or early this year – probably late last year at this stage – there are only two administrative review entities that are now not captured within TASCAT. That is the Legal Profession Board and the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board. Now, at one level I can actually see the argument for not bringing the Legal Profession Board under TASCAT because colleagues – judges, and former judges, for example – will be sitting on TASCAT. I can understand why the legal profession might want to retain its powers. However, there is not a good argument for not bringing the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board under TASCAT. Indeed, the discussion paper produced by the Department of Justice in 2015, identified that the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board as suitable for inclusion within a civil and administrative model, such as we now have in place under TASCAT. The paper, the DoJ paper, said that comparable racing boards had been included under similar civil administrative tribunals in Queensland as we understand it, other states have not taken this path. Queensland has done it though, a very large jurisdiction with a sizeable racing industry-. It is certainly not the case it is not possible to bring the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board under TASCAT.
We believe a deliberate decision has been made to hive off, if you like, keep as a closed shop, the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board. We did have a look at trying to amend this bill to bring TRAB under TASCAT. It is a significant amendment task, but it is certainly something I will be filing in my mind because there is no solid argument not to bring TRAB into TASCAT. There was a follow up paper in 2016 which looked at the matter of TRAB in more detail. It feels to me like the industry got into Department of Justice and said ‘no thank you very much.’ It was an options paper and it was informed by advice, according to the department, provided by relevant officers within those bodies.
The Department of Justice had sought advice from the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board and other entities – I am sure as part of that consultation process – and been told by TRAB they did not want to be included. As we read it, TRAB officers provided advice to the DOJ’s options paper about whether or not they thought it was suitable they should be included. The options paper found the majority of jurisdictions for amalgamation within TASCAT fall within the Department of Justice’s ambit. Well, a number of them do not and I was talking before about deer farm licences, for example, which is certainly not a Department of Justice matter.
We have animal welfare issues in the bill before us, we have amendments to health legislation, food safety legislation, fire service legislation, the Nature Conservation Act 2002, the Public Health Act 1997. We have included veterinary surgeons within TASCATS jurisdiction, we have all manner of boards and administrative bodies that are not within the Department of Justice’s ambit. They are well and truly administered by other agencies and TRAB is one of these.
Obviously, TRAB is a Tasmania racing creature. The argument that it is because it is not under the auspices of the Department of Justice just simply does not hold water when you walk your way through the many clauses in this bill. Another argument that was made at the time was there might be some difficulty because it is not within the DOJ ambit, there would be some delay in incorporating bodies such as TRAB into TASCAT, because it was not within DOJ’s suite of bodies and boards. I suppose the argument goes that it could move across into TASCAT in a simpler manner and did not have cross-departmental conversations to be had.
We have to take the long game here and have a look at what is in the best interests of Tasmania, integrity and civil justice. As my colleague, Dr Woodruff, in her second reading on this bill, said downstairs; there is no sound argument for not including the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board into TASCAT other than giving the industry what it wants. Another argument is that TRAB is a specialised body and has specialised skills and that it would not be suitable to expect those skills could be properly replicated within TASCAT.
Well, with respect, there is a whole range of specialist skills, people with specialist skills, who will be working to the streams in TASCAT. It is arrogant, in fact, for those who have successfully advocated for TRAB to stay outside TASCAT to suggest that the business of the racing appeals board is far too complicated to have it overseen by a civil and administration tribunal, which has responsibility for all civil and administrative appeal decisions, except for those relating to the racing industry and those relating to lawyers.
We have all the different boards and bodies that are represented here, the Relationships Act 2003, the Fire Services Act 1979, the Water Management Act 1999, Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation 1988, the Mental Health Tribunal, the Public Health Act 1997. Those streams are now within TASCAT and they will all require specialist expertise. In fact, there is a new stream established, Community, children’s and families, which will most certainly require specialist expertise and a trauma-informed approach. Every argument that we have had put to us, not that it is in the nature of an argument, but every case that has been made to us for not including the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board under TASCAT’s jurisdiction holds no water at all. To us, it speaks of an industry which has far too much influence.
I note the concerns raised by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Sarah Bolt, in correspondence that was part of the stakeholder engagement, but also with a number of members of parliament. The issues she raised regarded when a complaint is not accepted or part rejected. She says:
It would be arduous for a complainant to seek a review at the tribunal on a decision to not accept a complaint. For it to be sent back to the Commissioner for decision on its merits, to then have the complaint rejected on substance by the Commissioner and the complainant required to seek another review at the tribunal if they disagree with the subsequent decision.
The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner makes a number of points in her responses to the consultation process, but ultimately two things. Thank you very much to the departmental officers for that briefing we have received,. As we understand it, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner had indicated there was a broader suite of reforms she was examining to the Anti-Discrimination Act, which, is a very important and powerful piece of legislation and legislation that impacts on our culture and the way we treat our people. That work is clearly still ongoing. The report of a review into the Anti-Discrimination Act has not been delivered yet. I understand why the department has defaulted to the current provisions for review, for a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, which currently, has to be heard before the Supreme Court as a result of recent case law.
Ultimately, what the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner says, which is reassuring. Notwithstanding, the above points that she makes:
I am supportive of the proposed amendment. The overriding factor is the ability to seek a review at the tribunal. The amendment will go some way to increasing access to justice.
The Greens are reassured by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner’s relative level of comfort. The point she raises about a process that a person might get caught up in if their complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is either not accepted or only accepted in part. Where, they seek a review and you will have this circular process ongoing through TASCAT, potentially. Which is, certainly for the person who is going through that process, not going to be fun at all.
I look forward to the committee stage of the bill. I note we are incorporating the complaints under the Animal Welfare Act under TASCAT. It would be really terrific if the government would come in here one day before too long with some meaningful changes to the Animal Welfare Act. It is 1993 legislation ‑ that makes it more than 30 years old. It has only ever been tinkered with by governments. We have had the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), which used to have on it the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, RSPCA, had a representative from the Shooters on there. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which you would not call a radical, progressive entity, made a series of recommendations to government back in 2009, to be fair ‑ prior to this government ‑ to the then‑minister for primary industries, Bryan Green. Nothing was done in response to AWAC’s recommendations until sometime later, and then it was only modest tinkering.
We have had some minor changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1993 that increased penalties and, very minorly, increased the powers of authorised officers. The act, to this day, remains insufficient, because it does not recognise that animals are sentient. Its cruelty provisions are grossly deficient. You have to prove, for example, that a person intended to torture an animal. It is not the test that we apply when someone tortures a child or another person. Their intent is irrelevant. The fact of their actions is what matters in justice. So it should be with the animal welfare act. A court should not have to determine that a person intended to torture or kill an animal.
I could not let that opportunity go by. I really do hope that this government recognises community expectations have shifted substantially. People expect animals, whatever sphere of human influence they are in, to be treated with respect and humanely. In the times we are in, I believe there is a deepening understanding that animals are sentient. They have emotions, they feel pain, they feel happiness, they feel love. We have legislation in the Animal Welfare Act 1993 which is hard in its heart. That is something that I hope to take up in this place in the not‑too‑distant future. I hope that government recognises that it has the responsibility and the power to bring in some substantive and meaningful changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1993 to bring it in line with community expectations.
With those few words, I can indicate that we will happily support this bill. It is good legislation and it will make access to justice simpler, and hopefully cheaper and fairer.
