I speak in debate on the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment Bill 2023. Before I dig into the guts of my speech, I commend the member for Cessnock for his fabulous contribution. In particular he spoke about the work that the Government is doing. He would know all about hard work; he is one of the hardest working members in this House and he represents Cessnock, a constituency that is known for the hard work that its workers do. I thank the member for Cessnock. The bill makes miscellaneous amendments to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Those amendments come about from the recommendations of a statutory review.

By way of background, the NCAT—or the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal—commenced operation on 1 January 2014. In doing so, it replaced 22 former tribunals. In my part of the world, people all too often do not have the means to tackle the sometimes gargantuan hurdles of the legal process. NCAT provides a means for them to get justice. It does that through reducing the complexity of the previous tribunal system by providing a single point of access for most. It uses simplified language, and the means to get a hearing and achieve justice are much more straightforward.

I do not want to cast aspersions on our many lawyer friends in this House and the other place, but sometimes we do need simple, commonsense language in hearings to achieve justice. NCAT certainly helps in that regard. An important example of where NCAT has made things simpler—especially in my part of the world, where there is lots of growth in housing—is with the Dividing Fences Act. Anyone who has been a councillor—I note a former mayor of Blacktown and a former Liverpool councillor are in the Chamber—would know that, believe it or not, you get quite a few inquiries about fence disputes: They are too high, they are not long enough, or they have fallen down. "There was a party and my neighbour pushed it over."

The election results in Leppington show there are lots of socialist red fences and there will be many more for many years to come. As we know, prior to the commencement of NCAT, such matters would bog down councils and local councillors. The tribunal has provided a way to sort some of those issues out. NCAT has also made things simpler with building disputes. I have a specific example. I will not name the builder or the client. I happened to deal with it a couple of months ago. Someone was the victim of what can only be described as a shoddy builder. There was poor concreting work. They had actually gone through Fair Trading a couple of times and they were not satisfied with the resolution. They, in fact, used NCAT. That story is all too often repeated throughout my electorate of Leppington, where lots of new housing is underway.

Items [1] to [8] and [13] make amendments broadly in the interests of efficient conduct of proceedings in the tribunal. Items [9] to [12] clarify aspects of procedure related to restrictions on publication of tribunal information. Items [14] to [17] clarify the functions and constitution of the Occupational Division in relation to matters arising under the Legal Profession Uniform Law and the Legal Professional Uniform Law Application Act 2014. Items [18] and [19] update some outdated cross-references to other legislation. There is some tidying up there. Items [20] to [23] make amendments intended to clarify and render more efficient the functions of the Guardianship Division.

How did we get here? A review commenced in 2019 received 94 initial submissions from 82 different stakeholders. That demonstrates that the work that has gone into the bill represents a comprehensive sample of the tribunal's various user groups. Amongst them were legal service providers and stakeholders such as Legal Aid, the Law Society, the Bar Association and the wonderful folks at the Marrickville Legal Centre; and disability advocacy bodies from the disability space, such as the Council for Intellectual Disability, the Mental Health Coordinating Council and Dementia Australia. Of course, NCAT deals with quite a few property disputes, so there was stakeholder consultation with tenancy and property advisory bodies, including the Tenants' Union of NSW, Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services, the good folks at the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, and some of the other peak bodies involved with caravan and camping, for some of the people who like to get out and about.

The report made a number of recommendations in relation to legislative amendments. They are intended to clarify the operation of certain provisions, improve the efficiency of the tribunal proceedings and make specific amendments relating to the Occupational Division and the Guardianship Division. The bill implements the recommendations and also makes minor amendments. Earlier I raised the issue of non‑action and that, when people are taken to Fair Trading or then to NCAT, they do not act. There was some grey area around that. The bill includes specific amendments to strengthen some of the tribunal's powers in relation to contempt. In court proceedings, rule 33.12 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 expressly makes failure to comply with a summons issued by the court a contempt. However, there is some grey area and some uncertainty about whether that applies to the tribunal given the rules do not otherwise apply to it.

Item [12] of schedule 1 to the bill puts that beyond doubt. It clarifies it by expressly providing for it in the tribunal's governing statute rather than relying on court‑specific procedural rules. Once again, the Government is getting on with the job of governing. Government members are doing the heavy lifting in terms of the speaking list for this particular debate. I am happy to have contributed to it. The bill is sensible. There has been wide consultation and it makes some important updates to a body used widely by people in my part of the world who would otherwise find access to fair and equitable justice out of the reach of their hip pockets. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to further debate.