Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank senators for their contributions, and there are a few points I think should be put on record. Senator Wong has apparently stated for the Labor Party that the most important issue is to ensure parliamentary oversight of eligibility and access criteria for student assistance. In response to that, it is important to say that the government has continued commitment to student income support. However, in this case, the concerns she has raised about this bill are based on a misunderstanding. The only instrument or other writing in question here is A guide to Australian Government payments. It sets out a statement of benefits and basic eligibility criteria. However, this instrument merely reflects details which are set out in the regulations. It is published quarterly for the information of the Australian public.

At present, every time A guide to Australian Government payments changes the department is required to amend regulation 5 in part 2 of the Student Assistance Regulations 2003. The current reference to the guide in those regulations is 20 September 2004. Right now, the reference is wrong and out of date. The current guide to Australian government payments—the one that applies to the Australian public—is in fact dated 20 March 2006 to 30 June 2006. Rather than amending the regulations every time a new version of A guide to Australian Government payments is issued, which is every quarter, the department seeks the flexibility to refer to any instrument or other writing as ‘in force or existing from time to time’ to save the requirement of this quarterly regulation change. That is the whole purpose of the government’s amendment: to avoid the obligation to amend the regulations every three months. You can clearly see that this obligation is now not fulfilled as punctually as required and this can therefore mislead the public as to the correct version of the guide in operation.

The purpose of the government’s amendment is not to hide new eligibility or access criteria. The government’s amendment has no impact on parliamentary scrutiny. As indicated clearly in the revised explanatory memoranda, prescribed events are all set out in the regulations. That is the principal purpose of the regulations and it is clear that there is no intention to depart from those arrangements—none at all. The government’s amendment is intended to avoid wasting departmental time and avoid any prospect of misleading the Australian public as to the most up-to-date version of the guide.

Labor’s amendment does not provide any assistance to the department; on the contrary, if it were accepted, Labor’s amendment would require the department to make a whole new second set of regulations. One set would relate to the procedures for notifying the department of a change of circumstances, which could refer to the other documents, like A guide to Australian Government payments, and a second set of regulations, which could refer to eligibility criteria and prescribed events. Quite the opposite of making it easier and simpler, it would get worse. There is no gain here for the Labor Party. There is no additional scrutiny of eligibility criteria and prescribed events. As is the case now, eligibility criteria and prescribed events would be set out in the student assistance regulations. There is no gain to the department, which wishes not to have to amend the regulation every three months. There is no gain for the public, who can be and are being misled by the reference to an old version of A guide to Australian Government payments.

The Australian Democrats amendment is similarly misdirected. Again, they do nothing to assist the waste of departmental time in amending the regulations every three months. Instead, they require that there be a second set of regulations. In this case, one set can relate to anything but prescribed events and can refer to or adopt other instruments or documents. Another set can relate to prescribed events. There is no gain for the Australian Democrats and, for the sake of clarity, let me go through it again. There is no additional scrutiny of eligibility criteria and prescribed events. As is the case now, the specific eligibility criteria and prescribed events would be set out in the regulations. There is no gain for the department because it still has the three-monthly problem and there is no gain for the public, who are currently being misled. It is just bureaucratic time wasting. We therefore do not accept either the Labor or Democrats amendments to the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.