Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin – Leader of the Greens) – Honourable Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for that very comprehensive second reading speech. It is a substantial bill that makes important deliberate movements from the Magistrates Court jurisdiction over to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This is the end of a lengthy process of transformation to bring together a whole range of disparate, separately organised and administered review and administrative bodies into one framework and one new jurisdiction in Tasmania. It is great that we are at the end of this. I do not think there are any other tranches coming down the line, are there, Attorney-General? Or you could speak to that in your second reading. I have not heard of anything else in the wings.
Mr Barnett – Not at the moment.
Dr WOODRUFF – There will be the usual minor amendments, I expect, over time. The Greens support the reforms that have been in place for years now and the legislation before us today.
I note that this is Cassy O’Connor MLC’s portfolio area and I am taking this bill through the House on her behalf. I thank the staff for the input and information they have provided to the Greens office.
I have very few comments to make, but I have a couple of things that are outstanding. The first of them is why was the Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board (TRAB) not included? I have heard various reasons given for this. We believe it was TRAB’s desire to remain as a separate body, outside of TASCAT, and that they lobbied hard to make sure that they were not brought in under this framework. We think that is a problem for integrity in the racing industry and the independence of decision-making about matters of integrity in the racing industry. It is a problem for the best interests of animals in the racing industry. The independence and integrity of TRAB is cast under a cloud by them not ending up under TASCAT.
A number of arguments have been given for why this is the case and I do not think they hold water. When Ms O’Connor asked why TRAB was not brought under the jurisdiction of TASCAT, several arguments were given in answer after budget Estimates.
There was a discussion paper produced by Department of Justice in 2015, A Single Tribunal for Tasmania. That discussion paper found that the Tasmanian Racing Appeals Board was amenable for inclusion within a civil and administrative model, such as we have under TASCAT, and that comparable racing boards had been included under similar civil administrative tribunals in Queensland. Other states have not done that, but Queensland has done that. It is certainly not the case that it is not possible to include TRAB under TASCAT. Queensland has done it.
A follow‑up paper in 2016 looked at the matter of TRAB in more detail. It was an options paper also produced in relation to a number of jurisdictions that sat outside of the Department of Justice, including TRAB. The department said:
It was informed by advice provided by relevant officers within those bodies.
In other words, as I read it, TRAB officers provided advice to the DOJ’s option paper about whether they thought it was suitable that they should be included under TASCAT. That options paper found that the ‘majority’ of jurisdictions for amalgamation within TASCAT fall within the Department of Justice’s ambit. Well, many of them do not. If we look at the bill before us, we have animal welfare, health, food, fire service, nature conservation, the Public Health Act, veterinary surgeons. We have all manner of boards and administrative bodies that are not within the Department of Justice’s ambit. They are within the ambit of other departments. TRAB would be one of those. The argument that because it is not under the DOJ ambit is a reason to not have TRAB in this legislation does not hold any water.
The second argument given was that there might be some difficulty because it is not within the DOJ ambit – that there would be some delay in incorporating bodies such as TRAB into TASCAT because it was not within the DOJ suite of bodies and boards that, I suppose the argument goes, could move across into TASCAT in a simpler manner and did not have cross‑departmental conversations to be had.
Again, we have to take the long game here and we have to look at what is in the best interests of Tasmania, integrity and civil justice. We do not believe that there is a sound argument for not including the Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board into TASCAT, which would make it as far from industry influence as possible and as independent as possible, and would make sure it is functioning in the same independent manner as TASCAT functions for all the other matters for the different separate bodies that are now incorporated within it.
Another argument is that TRAB is a specialised body and has specialised skills, and that it would not be suitable to expect that those skills could be properly replicated within TASCAT. Again, that does not hold water. All the different boards and bodies that are represented here ‑ the Relationships Act, the fire service, the Water Management Act, workers rehabilitation and compensation, the Public Health Act, the mental health tribunal – all of these things require people with expertise.
That was the basic argument for the formation of TASCAT in the first place: that none of the expertise of those separate boards and bodies would be lost by being incorporated into TASCAT. There is a mechanism within TASCAT to make sure that the people who are hearing civil and administrative matters have the specialist expertise that is needed in order to be able to do a proper job of making an assessment. That is the independent functioning of the tribunal, and they manage it on such serious matters as public guardianship, mental health orders and a whole range of other complicated, specialist areas.
The Greens have no doubt that the same system could not apply and the same specialist skills could not be made available to hearings under a TRAB lookalike within TASCAT rather than a standalone body. We do not buy it. We do not think it is good enough and I would like to hear some arguments from the Attorney‑General to the points that I have made, because his arguments do not really stack up. I know they have been presented as arguments, but they do not have any strength in our view.
On the matter of TRAB, this is obviously about a racing industry that is highly controversial for the manner it has operated over years now, including damage done to animals in the racing industry, the lack of proper regulations, the lack of independent oversight and the lack of investigations, which has consequences for proponents, trainers and racers who are involved in breaches of the racing rules and breaches of animal welfare. None of these things have been operating properly. There have been question marks at every stage over all the integrity bodies. The Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board is part of the universe of racing management and we think there is a strong argument for it to be incorporated under TASCAT.
The second point I want to make is that raised by the former Anti‑Discrimination Commissioner, Sarah Bolt. This is my first opportunity to mention her name in public since we have heard she will not be continuing with us. I want to commend the work of Sarah Bolt in her role as the Anti‑Discrimination Commissioner and point to some of her recent comments about this bill.
She wrote a number of submissions as part of the process of exposure drafts of this TASCAT additional jurisdictions bill. In the first instance, she raised an issue regarding the process of complaints being rejected by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, or a Commissioner rejecting that a complaint be able to be considered, and the possibility for a person going to the tribunal to get a review. She thought there was a matter of potential failures of access to justice by requiring a person to go on maybe two or multiple occasions in order for a complaint to be accepted for investigation.
She said recently, in October, that she welcomed an amendment which ensures that reviews of non-acceptance of complaints by the anti-discrimination commissioner can be sought by TASCAT rather than Supreme Court, but she still has concerns. She believes that it is preferable that a complainant to the anti-discrimination commissioner should not have to seek a review at the tribunal numerous times.
She has recommended a way that could be addressed within this bill, and she says that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 could be amended to stipulate that a complaint is either accepted or rejected, removing the third category of non-acceptance. Any review of a decision is also a merits review, with a complaint being sent back for investigation, rather than a new decision, in circumstances where the tribunal finds that the Commissioner has incorrectly rejected a complaint.
I would like the Attorney‑General to speak to the matter that has been raised by the Anti‑Discrimination Commissioner and talk about the recent comments and work that has been done with her office since the letter that she wrote to the Department of Justice on 5 October 2023.
There is a chain of correspondence that I have here from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. There is the letter of 5 October 2023; there is also a follow‑up letter in August this year. I understand that part of this matter is still outstanding. Could the Attorney‑General please provide an update of the exchange with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, and whether her matter was settled in the legislation here or whether there is an intention to look at any amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act that would satisfy the concern she raised about access to justice?
In simple form, she is trying to make it as simple as possible for complainants so that they do not have to have the runaround of having to seek multiple reviews. She is trying to make things as easy as possible, because it is the case, at the moment, that reviews can be accepted, rejected or not accepted. That is very confusing. I think her argument is that the third category of not acceptance be removed altogether. I can see that we are talking about the Anti-Discrimination Act, which is not the bill before us today, but her concerns relate to the bill before us today and where that has landed. I would appreciate you providing a bit more background, please, Attorney‑General.
With that, thank you for preparing this last tranche and the Greens are happy to support the bill.
