Page 1572 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Seventeen submissions were received during the public consultation period. The submissions showed a high degree of support for an increase to the civil dispute jurisdiction of the tribunal, and general support for amendment to the requirements of appointment as president of ACAT. Some stakeholders were keen to ensure, however, that any reform to ACAT supports the key objectives of that institution: that it be an informal, accessible, and low cost alternative to the courts. These concerns were key considerations for the government in the development of this bill.
The bill proposes to make two key amendments in response to the review: to increase the ACAT’s civil dispute jurisdiction from $10,000 to $25,000, and require the president of the ACAT to be either a magistrate or eligible for appointment as a magistrate.
Firstly, in relation to the increase to the civil dispute jurisdiction, currently, the ACAT’s civil dispute jurisdiction provides an alternative forum to the courts in which the community can resolve civil disputes, such as claims relating to the supply of goods and services, debt recovery and the recovery of damages caused by negligence or tort. Section 18 of the ACAT act gives the ACAT power to hear and determine civil disputes for claims of $10,000 or less. This jurisdiction has not changed since the inception of the tribunal in 2009. Prior to that, a $10,000 jurisdiction had been in place at the ACT Small Claims Court since 1997. As the jurisdictional limit in real terms decreases over time, the ability of Canberrans to seek redress through the ACAT has been affected.
After careful consideration of the responses to the discussion paper, this bill contains amendments to increase the exclusive jurisdiction of ACAT to hear and determine civil disputes for claims of $25,000 or less. These amendments will ensure that the civil dispute jurisdiction of the tribunal is appropriate to address the needs of our community.
The ACAT already hears a range of matters, including residential tenancy disputes, discrimination matters, and matters relating to the provision of utilities. The increase to the civil dispute jurisdiction does not affect any other jurisdiction of the tribunal.
As I outlined above, the vast majority of respondents to the government’s discussion paper indicated strong support for an increase to the civil dispute jurisdiction, with a number advocating for a far larger increase to $50,000. The ACAT has one of the widest civil jurisdictions of the state and territory super tribunals and, as a result, it is difficult to predict with certainty the impact that an increase in jurisdiction would have on the number of matters that would come before it under these changes. While it is clear that the ACAT is able to manage a higher jurisdiction, the government considers it prudent to have an incremental increase to $25,000 in order to monitor any impacts on the culture or resourcing needs of the tribunal.
The bill will also make consequential amendments to the Magistrates Court Act to reflect this increase in jurisdiction. Specifically, section 266A is being amended to provide exclusive jurisdiction to the ACAT for civil disputes of no more than $25,000.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video