CF v Michael Pervan
[2022] TASSC 58
•2 September 2022
[2022] TASSC 58
| COURT: | SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA |
| CITATION: | CF v Pervan [2022] TASSC 58 |
| PARTIES: | CF |
| v | |
| PERVAN, Michael | |
| FILE NO: | 3064/2021 |
| DELIVERED ON: | 2 September 2022 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Hobart |
| HEARING DATE: | 15 March 2022 |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Geason J |
| CATCHWORDS: |
Administrative Law – Judicial review – Reasons for administrative decisions – Obligation to give reasons – Whether dispositive decision made – Whether applicant is person aggrieved – No dispositive decision made by decision maker, no final or operative determination made under an enactment – Applicant is not person aggrieved – Appeal dismissed.
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] 170 CLR 321, Australian Conservation Foundation v The
Commonwealth [1980] 146 CLR 493, applied.
King v The Director of Housing [2013] 23 Tas R, Woods v Commissioner of Police [2021] TASSC 54, Griffith
University v Tang [2005] 221 CLR 99, Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable
Development [2014] HCA 50, 254 CLR 394, referred to.
Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas), s 35.
Aust Dig Administrative Law [1186]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant: In person Respondent: M Jehne
Solicitors:
Respondent: Office of the Solicitor-General
| Judgment Number: | [2022] TASSC 58 |
| Number of paragraphs: | 46 |
Serial No 58/2022 File No 3064/2021
CF v MICHAEL PERVAN
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT | GEASON J 2 September 2022 |
1 The applicant seeks an order compelling the respondent to provide a written statement of reasons pursuant to s 35 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas) (the Act) for what he contends constitutes a decision under that Act. The 'decision' is said to be constituted by the respondent neither taking nor initiating action under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (CYPTF Act) upon a notification to the Department of Communities Tasmania (the Department) on 7 October 2021. The notification related to the welfare of the applicant's daughter. The source of the notification is unknown.
2 The respondent opposes the order contending that:
(a) no decision was made; (b) if there was a decision, it was not "made…under an enactment" and (c) that in any event the applicant is not a "person aggrieved by the decision". 3 It is further submitted by the respondent that if there was a decision it falls within a class of decisions referred to in schedule 3 of the Act with the result that it is not a decision in respect of which the applicable part of the Act applies. The respondent relies on s 28(b) which is in these terms:
"28 Decision to which this Part applies
In this Part,
decision to which this Part applies means a decision that is a decision to which
this Act applies, but does not include –
(a) ….
(b) a decision included in a class of decisions set out in Schedule 3[1].
2 No 58/2022
[1] SCHEDULE 3 - Decisions for which reasons need not be given
4 The respondent further contends that "disclosure of information of a 'confidential nature'" (s 31(2)(b) of the Act) would be required if it were to furnish a true and accurate statement of reasons. It is submitted that a statement of reasons is not required in that circumstance: s 34(1) of the Act.
| The Act |
5 The applicant's request for reasons was made pursuant to s 29 of the Act:
"29 Request for statement of reasons
(1) If a person makes a decision to which this Part applies, a person who is entitled to make an application to the Court under section 17 relating to the decision may request the person to provide a written statement relating to the decision.
(2) The request must be made by written notice given to –
3 No 58/2022
(a) if the decision was made by the Governor-in-Council or by Cabinet, the
Minister responsible for the administration of the enactment; or
(b) in any other case, the person who made the decision."
6 He asserted a right to make such request as the father of the child and therefore a "person aggrieved" under s. 17 of the Act on the grounds that:
"17 Application for review of decision
(1) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies may apply to
the Court for an order of review relating to the decision.
(2) The application may be made on any one or more of the following grounds:
(a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice happened relating to the making
of the decision;
(b) that procedures that were required by law to be observed relating to the
making of the decision were not observed;
(c) that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction
to make the decision;
(d) that the decision was not authorised by the enactment under which it was
purported to be made;
(e) that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power
conferred by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;
(f) that the decision involved an error of law (whether or not the error appears
on the record of the decision);
(g) that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;
(h) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the
decision;
(i) that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.
(3) This section applies only to a decision made after the commencement of this Act."
7 The respondent declined to provide reasons in accordance with his right not to do so in the circumstances outlined in s.30 of the Act:
"30 Decision maker must comply with request except in certain circumstances
(1) Subject to this section, a person to whom a request is made under section 29 (the 'decision maker') must, as soon as practicable, and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request, provide the statement to the person who made the request (the 'requester').
(2) If the decision maker is of the opinion that the requester was not entitled to make
the request, the decision maker may, within 28 days after receiving the request –
(a) give to the requester written notice of the decision maker's opinion; or
(b) apply to the Court under section 36 for an order declaring that the requester
was not entitled to make the request.
(3) If the decision maker gives a notice under subsection (2) or applies to the Court under section 36 , the decision maker is not required to comply with the request
unless –
4 No 58/2022
(a) the Court, on an application under section 35 , orders the decision maker to
give the statement; or(b) the decision maker has applied to the Court under section 36 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request and the Court refuses the application.
(4) The decision maker may refuse to prepare and give the statement if –
(a) in the case of a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was given to the requester, the relevant request was not made within 28 days after the day on which the document was given; or
(b) in any other case, the relevant request was not made within a reasonable
time after the decision was made.
(5) If subsection (4)(a) or (b) applies to the decision maker, the decision maker must give to the requester, within 14 days after receiving the relevant request, written notice
stating –
(a) that the statement will not be given to the requester; and
(b) the reasons why it will not be given.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b) , a request for a statement relating to a decision is taken to have been made within a reasonable time after the decision was made if the Court, on application by the requester, declares that the request was made within a reasonable time after the decision was made."
The Applicant's contentions
8 The applicant advances five contentions. I have reproduced these from his submission:
1 The applicant, being the father of a child the subject of a report about suicide ideation to Child Safety Services Communities Tasmania being the agency who made an adverse decision, is a "person aggrieved" under s 7 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas).
2 The applicant being a "person aggrieved" has standing under s 17 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas) to apply for review of a decision.
3 The applicant being entitled to make an application for review of a decision did make a valid request for written reasons of that decision under s 29 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas).
4 The decision maker refused to provide a written statement of its reasons under s 30 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas).
5 The applicant validly seeks orders of this Court under s 35 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas) to compel the decision maker to provide a written statement of reasons for its decision within a reasonable time as determined by this Court.
9 The applicant filed two affidavits upon which he relies. They were read into evidence. (The evidence referred to in the applicant's affidavit dated 3 February 2022, included allegations of family violence. That evidence was received for a non-hearsay purpose: ie, as evidence that the applicant believed the assertions were true, not as evidence of the matters asserted. The applicant consented to that course).
5 No 58/2022
Factual Matters
10 The applicant relies on the following matters:
1 That he is the father of the child said to be at risk.
2 That on 7 October 2021 a report about that child was made to the Department.
3 That on 25 October 2021 the applicant contacted an officer of that Department by email seeking information about the steps that had been taken by the Department to protect the child from family violence in the home.
4 That he had not been treated respectfully despite a right to respectful treatment enshrined in the CYPTF Act at s 10C(1)(b)
5 Claiming an expectation that he would be provided with a written statement of things done to protect his child "from the child abuse she has continually suffered under your service and which is continuing". This included advice as to "what qualified independent psychological advice" had been obtained to determine and access the nature and extent "of damage" to his daughter suffered from the "ongoing child abuse and trauma" inflicted by an identified person
which,"… continues … leading to statements of suicide (sic) ideation?"
6 Requesting a "complete and detailed statement of supports and actions taken … to protect my daughter" which he felt "…certain you can provide… today".
11 A reply came from an officer within the Department (about whom the applicant later complained to the Director). It was to the effect that "current concerns have been noted and it is seen that there is adequate and (sic) supports in place to maintain (her) wellbeing, as a result this conversation has now been closed." The applicant was further advised that if he had concerns around family violence he should contact Tasmania Police, and if he had concerns about the way the matter had been dealt with he should refer to the brochure attached to the email entitled "how to resolve your concern".
12 On 26 October 2021, the applicant contacted the author of that reply requesting "a statement of reasons for Child Safety Service Tasmania's decision to close [the] case. I make this request for the statement of reasons according to s 29 of the Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas)".
13 On 27 October 2021 the applicant contacted the Director of the Department making the same request, and expressing dissatisfaction with the "decision" of the officer who had replied to his earlier emails.
14 On 19 November 2021 the applicant received a reply from the Director of the Department in which he gave notice that it was his "opinion" that the applicant was "not entitled to make the request". The Director "wrote that "in my view the decision is not a decision to which this part applies" (see s 28 and s 4) and you are not a person entitled to make an application to the Court under s 17 because you are not a "person aggrieved" (s 7). "Accordingly I am not required to comply with your request (see s 30(3))".
15 The applicant was advised that he was entitled to apply to the Court under s 35 of the Act for an order compelling the provision of reasons.
Dealing with children: The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997
16 The CYPTF Act is applicable in this case. The object of that Act is articulated at s 7:
6 No 58/2022
"Object
(1) The object of this Act is to provide for the care and protection of children in a
manner that –
(a) maximises a child's best interests; and
(b) recognises that a child's family is the preferred environment for his or her
care and upbringing; and
(c) recognises that the responsibility for the protection of a child rests primarily
with the child's parents and family.
(2) The Minister is to seek to further the object of this Act in partnership with Government Agencies, councils, non-government organisations (whether incorporated or unincorporated), families and communities."
17 Part 1A of the Act identifies the principles to be observed in dealing with children. Section 10C provides that the family of a child has primary responsibility for the care, upbringing and development of the child and is entitled to be treated with respect at all times. Section 10D mirrors that principle, but in respect of the treatment of a child, and s 10E provides that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration when exercising powers under the Act. It identifies matters to be taken into account for that purpose as follows:
"Best interests of child
(1) In performing functions or exercising powers under this Act, the best interests of
the child must be the paramount consideration.
(2) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account in determining the bestinterests of a child, the following matters are to be taken into account for that purpose:
(a) the need to protect the child from physical, psychological and other harm
and from exploitation;
(b) the views of the child, having regard to the maturity and understanding of
the child;
(c) the capacity and willingness of the child's parents or other family members
to care for the child;
(d) the nature of the child's relationships with his or her parents, other family
members and other persons who are significant in the child's life, including
siblings;
(e) the child's need for stable and nurturing relationships with his or her parents,
other family members, other persons who are significant in the child's life and
the community;
(f) the child's need for stability in living arrangements;
(g) the child's physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, developmental and
educational needs;
(h) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood,
demonstrated by each of the child's guardians;
(i) the need to provide opportunities for the child to achieve his or her full
potential;
(j) the child's age, maturity, sex, sexuality and cultural, ethnic and religious
backgrounds;
(k) any other special characteristics of the child;
(l) the likely effect on the child of any changes in the child's circumstances;
(m) the least intrusive intervention possible in all the circumstances;(n) the opportunities available for assisting the child to recover from any trauma
experienced –
(i) in relation to being separated from his or her parents, family and
community; or(ii) as a result of abuse or neglect;
(o) any persuasive reports of the child being harmed or at risk of harm and the
cumulative effects of such harm or risk."7 No 58/2022
18 Section 13 of the Act required certain things to be done in particular circumstances:
"Responsibility to prevent abuse or neglect or certain behaviour
(1) An adult who knows, or believes or suspects on reasonable grounds, that a child is suffering, has suffered or is likely to suffer abuse or neglect has a responsibility to take steps to prevent the occurrence or further occurrence of the abuse or neglect.
(1A) If, while a woman is pregnant, an adult knows, or believes or suspects on
reasonable grounds, that the child of that pregnancy once born –(a) is reasonably likely to suffer abuse or neglect; or
(b) is reasonably likely to require medical treatment or other intervention as aresult of the behaviour of the woman, or another person with whom the woman
resides or is likely to reside, before the birth of the child –
that adult has a responsibility to take steps to prevent the occurrence of that abuse or
neglect or that behaviour."
19 Subsection 2 of that section provides:
"One step the adult may take to prevent the occurrence of abuse or neglect of a child, or behaviour referred to in subsection (1A)(b) , is to inform the Secretary or a
Community-Based Intake Service of –
(a) his or her knowledge, belief or suspicion; and
(b) the basis of that knowledge, belief or suspicion."
20 Section 13 "imposes a responsibility on adults in the community at large to take steps to prevent child abuse and sets up one way of achieving that by informing the Secretary of that knowledge or concern, so that the Secretary can then take appropriate action under the 'Act' to mitigate that risk."
21 By s 14 of the Act certain persons are identified as having an obligation to give a notification. Such people are prescribed persons under the Act and the section requires that where such person "believes or suspects, on reasonable grounds, or knows that a child has or is being abused or neglected", or there is a reasonable likelihood thereof, a prescribed person must inform the Secretary of that "belief, suspicion or knowledge as soon as practicable after he or she forms the belief or suspicion or gains the knowledge".
22 As Mr Jehne for the respondent noted, powers under the Act mandating disclosure information are broad. They are subject to s 16 of the Act, which pertains to confidentiality. Section 16(2) of the Act imposes a strict obligation upon a person receiving a risk notification and a breach is a criminal offence.:
"(2) Subject to this section, a person who receives a risk notification from a notifier, or who otherwise becomes aware of the identity of a notifier because he or she is engaged in the administration of this Act, must not disclose the identity of the notifier
to any other person unless the disclosure –
(a) is made in the course of official duties under this Act to another person
acting in the course of official duties; or
(b) is made with the consent of the notifier; or
(c) is made by way of evidence adduced with leave granted by a court
under subsection (3) ; or(d) is made to a law enforcement agency.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 40 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
12 months, or both".
23 Finally, by s 17, the Secretary or a community based intake service, is not required to "take or initiate any action under the Act" in respect of a risk notification if the Secretary or the intake service "is satisfied" that the information or observations upon which the notification is based are not sufficient to constitute reasonable grounds for the belief or suspicion contained in the notification.
24 Similarly, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the notification, but that arrangements exist for the care and protection of the child "and the matter of the apparent abuse or
8 No 58/2022
neglect" or, "the likelihood of the child being killed or abused or neglected, has been or is being
adequately dealt with" no further action is required in respect of the notification.
25 The respondent submitted that s 17, "makes plain that there is no requirement or obligation for the Secretary to take or initiate any action under the Act in respect of a risk notification" in such circumstances.
26 Finally, by s 18 of the Act, provision is made for an assessment in circumstances where the Secretary believes or suspects reasonable grounds for the notification of risk exist. That is, where the Secretary believes or suspects that there are reasonable grounds for concluding that a child is at risk. Section 18 includes powers whereby the Secretary can obtain information which might not otherwise be available, and by s 19 the assistance of a police officer procured. Under s 20, the Secretary is empowered to require a child to be taken for an assessment and by s 21, short term custody of the child can be conferred upon the Secretary.
27 In short, broad powers are vested in the Secretary, including the power to make an assessment, obtain further information, procure the assistance of third parties for that purpose, and seek orders for the protection of an at risk child.
28 The system of notifications is an important one for ensuring that the community is engaged to identify at risk children so that the protections can be afforded to such children once an assessment of the notification has been undertaken by the Secretary.
29 Mr Jehne drew the Court's attention to the provisions of s 103 and 111A of the CYPTF Act. Those provisions relate to confidentiality. Indeed, the maintenance of confidentiality is emphasised in the Act to the point that a failure to maintain confidentiality is a criminal offence.
30 As well, provision is made for the protection of those who make a notification, through the grant of an immunity from civil or criminal liability in circumstances where the notifier has acted in good faith.
31 In short, the scheme of the CYPTF Act encourages, and sometimes requires persons to notify the Secretary where children are at risk, and the Act makes provision for information gathering so an assessment can be made of that risk. Confidentiality provisions protect such information, and those making a notification are afforded an indemnity from civil or criminal liability where they have acted in good faith.
A decision under the Act?
32 Assuming for a moment that the applicant is a person aggrieved under the Act, s 17 provides that such person has standing to apply for the review of a decision. As I have noted, the respondent contends that no decision has been made, such that s 17 of the Act is not engaged.
33 "Decision" is not defined in the Act, but the concept of a decision is a subject of a number of authorities. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] 170 CLR 321 is the starting point. It has been applied in this State in a number of cases including King v The Director of Housing; Woods v Commissioner of Police [2021] TASSC 54. Bond is authority for the proposition that a decision is a determination which has a dispositive effect. Mason CJ said at 337 "a reviewable decision is one for which provision is made by or under statute. That will generally, but not always, entail a decision which is final or operative and determinative, at least in a practical sense, of the issue of fact falling for consideration."
9 No 58/2022
34 As I apprehend the applicant's contention, the conclusion reached by the Secretary to the effect that there was adequate support in place to maintain the child's wellbeing, was dispositive in respect of the notification which had been made to the Department.
35 The respondent's contention is that that conclusion was merely an intermediate step in the process of responding to the notification and no final or operative decision had been made. Rather, there was a continuous obligation on the Secretary which was engaged upon the notification. As it is put in the respondent's written submissions, "the respondent's continuous consideration of the risk posed to a
child in light of risk notifications and other information obtained by the Department is….not relevantly
a 'decision'. The consideration of the risk of abuse and neglect posed to a child is an iterative process which requires consideration of information which may point in different directions, or which might be afforded at different times. That information may have many different sources; a risk notification may be followed up by the respondent compulsory obtaining confidential information about a child's health and wellbeing from prescribed persons involved with a child, and by having an authorised officer access the child. A decision in light of a single risk notification not to take unspecified action under the CYPTF Act is not a final or operative decision that action will not be taken in relation to a child. It represents, rather, an overall assessment of that risk notification against all other information which may be held about that child by the Department at that particular point in time, which is necessarily subject to change as further information is received. A decision that action or orders under the CYPTF Act are not necessary at a particular point in time does not resolve any substantive issue of whether such action or orders might be necessary and appropriate to protect against a risk of harm in the future, following the receipt of other or further information. The failure to take action under the CYPTF Act is therefore not a decision for the purposes of the JR Act"(My emphasis)
36 I accept the respondent's submission as accurately reflecting the position. All that has occurred is that the Secretary has determined that for now, no further action is required because upon an assessment of the factual circumstances pertaining to the child, adequate support exists to provide for the child's wellbeing.
37 That is not a decision dispositive of the subject matter of the notification, nor is it determinative of the issue of the child's welfare. In the language of Bond, there has not been a final or operative determination of the notification. As it was put by Porter J in King v The Director of Housing [2013] 23
Tas R 353 there is not "… a final or operative decision, as distinct from an interim step taken in reaching a decision …". The Act makes no provision for review of an interim step, nor in turn, for a written
statement of reasons. That obligation attaches only to decisions (subject to certain criteria). There being no decision, the applicant cannot lawfully require a written statement of reasons under s 30 of the Act.
38 The respondent's second contention that there is not in any event a decision under an enactment, should also be accepted. The respondent sighted Griffith University v Tang [2005] 221 CLR 99 at 89:
"The determination of whether a decision is 'made….under an enactment' involves two
criteria: First, the decision must be expressly or impliedly required or authorised by the enactment; and, secondly, the decision must itself confer, alter or otherwise effect legal rights or obligations, and in that sense the decision must derive from the enactment. A
decision will only be 'made… under an enactment' if both these criteria are met".
39 The respondent conceded that the first criterion was satisfied because s 17 of the CYPTF Act expressly authorised the course taken. However because"...the decision was made not to take action under the CYPTF Act" there is no need to do anything under the Act to give effect to it:the "force of the decision does not derive from the enactment. Therefore it is not a decision to which the Act applies."
10 No 58/2022
Person Aggrieved?
40 In Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50, 254 CLR 394, Hayne and Bell JJ said this:
"The focus of the inquiry required by the words is upon the connection between the decision and interests of the person who claims to be aggrieved. The interests that may be adversely affected by a decision may take any of a variety of forms. They include, but are not confined to, legal rights, privileges, permissions or interests. And the central notion conveyed by the words is that the person claiming to be aggrieved can show that the decision will have an effect on his or her interests which is different from ('beyond') its effect on the public at large. Here, the effect was said to be economic."
41 French CJ and Keene J at [42] said, that the criterion may be satisfied if the person "is a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision".
42 The respondent also refers to Australian Conservation Foundation v The Commonwealth
[1980] 146 CLR 493, and in particular to the remarks of Gibbs J, as he was at the time, at 531:
"A person who is not interested within the meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principal or winning a contest, if his actions succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs, if his action fails. A belief, however strongly felt, that the law generally, or a particular law, should be observed, or that conduct of a particular kind should be prevented, does not suffice to give its possessor locus standi."
43 As the respondent notes, notwithstanding the applicant's close personal interest in his daughter's welfare, his interests are not adversely affected. That is because he is not by reason of his relationship to his daughter a person who is likely "to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction of righting a
wrong, upholding a principal or winning a contest,…or to suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense
of grievance…" in consequence of the course taken. I hold the applicant is not a "person aggrieved"
under the Act.
44 If follows from what precedes, that the applicant must fail. In the circumstances I need not consider the further arguments advanced by the respondent as to the effect of Schedule 3 of the Act and the disclosure of confidential information.
45 The application is dismissed.
46 I will hear the parties as to costs.
Section 28
1 Civil proceedings
Decisions relating to the institution or conduct of proceedings in civil courts or tribunals, including –
(a) decisions that relate to, or may result in, the bringing of such proceedings for the recovery of the proceeds of crime or the recovery of
pecuniary penalties arising from contraventions of enactments; and
(b) decisions relating to the investigation of persons for such contraventions or the recovery of the proceeds of crime; and
(c) decisions relating to the appointment of investigators or inspectors for the purposes of such investigations; and(d) decisions relating to the issue of search warrants under enactments; and
(e) decisions under enactments requiring –
(i) the production of documents or things; or
(ii) the giving of information; or(iii) the summoning of persons as witnesses.
2 Recovery proceedings
Decisions relating to the enforcement of judgments or orders for the recovery of amounts by –
(a) the State, a statutory authority or a council; or
(b) an officer or employee of the State, a statutory authority or a council.
3 Personnel management
Decisions relating to personnel management (including recruitment, training, promotion and organisation) relating to –
(a) the State Service; or
(b) any other service established by an enactment; or
(c) the staff of a statutory authority or council –
other than a decision relating to, and having regard to the particular characteristics of, or other circumstances relating to, a particular person.
4 Appointment decisions
Decisions relating to –
(a) the making of appointments –
(i) in the State Service; or
(ii) in another service established by an enactment; or(iii) to the staff of a statutory authority or council; and
(b) the engagement of persons as employees –
(i) under the State Service Act 2000 ; or
(ii) under another enactment that establishes a service; or(iii) by a statutory authority or council; and
(c) the making of appointments under an enactment or to an office established by, or under, an enactment.
5 Decisions of Commissioner for Police
Decisions of the Commissioner for Police relating to –
(a) the making of an appointment of a junior constable or trainee as defined in the Police Service Act 2003 or of a police officer or on promotion
of a police officer; or
(b) the making of a selection of a police officer for –
(i) a transfer; or
(ii) the temporary performance of duties; or
(c) an appeal against a police officer's promotion or selection for the temporary performance of duties.
6 Industrial matters
Decisions relating to the prevention or settlement of industrial disputes, or otherwise relating to industrial matters, relating to –
(a) the State Service; or
(b) another service established by an enactment; or(c) the staff of a statutory authority or council.
7 Council budgets
Decisions relating to the framing of budgets by councils.
8 Council rates
Decisions relating to the exercise of the power of councils –
(a) to make and levy rates; or
(b) to impose fees, charges, fares, rents and dues.
9 Tendering and awarding of contracts
Decisions relating to –
(a) the selection of a tenderer following the conduct of a competitive tendering process; and
(b) the awarding of contracts.
10 Commercial activities of Government Business Enterprises and certain statutory authorities
(1) Decisions of Government Business Enterprises, within the meaning of the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 , relating to their commercial
activities.
(2) Decisions of either one of the following statutory authorities relating to its commercial activities:
(a) TasTAFE, as continued by the TasTAFE (Skills and Training Business) Act 2021 ;
(b) Tourism Tasmania.
0
2
1