Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

To save time, I will address both the Labor and Democrat amendments. Obviously, in my second reading contribution I outlined some of our concerns. The Australian Democrats recognise and agree with the intent of the Labor Party amendment. I mentioned that we decided to draft it differently; Labor’s is not our preferred way. But I think we are both trying to ensure that the substance of the note inserted into the replacement explanatory memorandum is reflected in the legislation. I believe that our amendment, despite government criticisms, does that. We will be moving that amendment and asking the Senate to agree to it; in the interim we will support the Labor Party amendment as a next best try. But we recognise the view of the chamber.

In relation to the amendment that I will move, we believe the amendment clarifies the proposed subsection 48(2) in making sure that it does not include prescribed events as indicated. Again, this has been the subject of some discussion for a number of months now. Section 48 of the Student Assistance Act 1973 states:

If a prescribed event happens in relation to a person who is receiving, or entitled to receive, an amount under a financial supplement contract or a current special educational assistance scheme, the person must notify the Department, in accordance with the regulations, of the happening of the event within 14 days.

The proposed section 48(2) would allow the incorporation of an instrument ‘as in force or existing from time to time’ in regulations prescribing events for the purposes of section 48 of the act, and in accordance with section 14 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, which seeks to eliminate the need to make new regulations whenever the guide to Commonwealth payments is altered.

The proposed subsection should not allow changes to be made to prescribed events; however, this is not clear in the legislation. With the amendment before the chamber and the Democrat amendment we are trying to reflect in the legislation the intention, as we understand it, outlined in the replacement memorandum, because currently it is just not clear. The two amendments, and in particular the amendment that I will be moving on behalf of the Democrats, make clear that prescribed events are not included in the proposed subsection. Thus, proposed subsection 48(2) does not:

... permit the creation, determination or variation of prescribed events by extrinsic materials. Prescribed events may only be determined expressly by the regulations.

We are ensuring that ‘notifying’ does not include prescribed events.

When the time comes I will move that amendment, but I will not seek to address it or that of the Labor Party again. I also wish to give senators notice that I will seek a division on the amendment of the Democrats. I suspect the Labor Party is doing the same thing. So we are giving the Senate due warning, depending on the outcome. You never know—we might get lucky. I am feeling lucky. Go on, Amanda, make my day!