CAWA’s views on SAT
CAWA believes consumers have reason to be concerned about the rapid passage of the Legislation, the degree of consultation that took place before the Legislation was first tabled in Parliament and the planning re the implementation. These concerns are highlighted by points raised at the beginning of the Report in the Executive Summary of the Standing Committee (reproduced below). For example, one issue raised is the inadequacy of the Building design. The SAT Building underwent a refurbishment that reputedly cost tax payers between 8-12 million dollars, and it seems that it will need to undergo further modifications before it can be fully functional.
In November 2003, CAWA made two submissions to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation; one pertaining to the role of the Builders’ Registration Board and the other dealing with more general concerns re the SAT implementation process.
CAWA lobbied against SAT taking on the disciplinary functions of all industry boards. Generally CAWA Members who are associated with boards, or who sit on them have been impressed by the open, wide ranging discussion that occurs at disciplinary hearings and the expertise and integrity that is brought to the decision making. We acknowledge that these views may not apply to all industry Boards, and that there may be cronyism on some Boards. The Medical Board has certainly been criticised for this in the past. Perhaps equal industry and consumer representation on Boards would have been a solution. It is difficult to visualise how SAT will be able to bring the same range of expertise to the decision making process that occurs in the current Board system.
In its submission CAWA advocated that summary (minor) disciplinary matters be continued to be heard by existing industry Boards.
In its second submission CAWA raised concerns about the possible lack of assistance to consumers who would wish to bring cases before SAT under legislation such as the Equal Opportunity Act.
It also raised concerns about the Supreme Court being the only appeal avenue. CAWA believes it is in consumers’ interests to have some type of review mechanism built into the SAT process.
CAWA is also concerned that over time SAT, for administrative reasons, will:- formalise the Tribunal structure and make it more ‘court like’, and less accessible to consumers because of higher costs and a greater need for legal representation. It is important that the SAT is a low cost, easily accessible form of redress for WA consumers.
- not be able to make decisions in a timely manner, given that SAT consolidates more then 900 decisions and appeal rights arising under 137 Acts. It is in consumers’ interests to keep time lines short as possible. Many of these concerns were borne out by the comments in the Standing Committee’s Executive Summary in the Report