Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1)    Schedule 2, item 10, proposed subsection 48 (2), page 14 (line 15),

omit “notifying”

substitute

“procedures to be observed by a person who is notifying the Department”.

I want to pursue with the Minister for Education, Science and Training the question about the regulations. The amendment I am moving fulfils the commitment made by the Department of Education, Science and Training that a clarification statement would be made to explicitly state that prescribed events may only be determined expressly in the regulations. Of course, we are aware of the inclusion of the statement in the explanatory memorandum, so I recognise that both the department and the minister are acknowledging the validity of the concerns that we have raised about what I hope have been unintended consequences of the bill. These are concerns which, as the minister knows, have been raised in the inquiry by the Senate committee and by my own office in discussions with the department and with the former minister’s office. I am aware that such a statement in the amended explanatory memorandum would be considered relevant extrinsic material by any court considering this matter, but I would like to have an explanation from the minister as to why she believes it is preferable for the statement not to be in the bill, as my amendment is obviously seeking to do, and why it is that she has decided only to proceed as far as putting it in the explanatory memorandum rather than having a clear and explicit intention in the bill.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be accepting the amendment proposed by the member for Jagajaga. The opposition’s amendment to schedule 2, item 10 would fail to release the burdensome requirement on the department to update the regulations every time a new version of an instrument or other writing, as referred to in proposed new subsection 48(2), was made. This would have no impact on parliamentary scrutiny.

I will try to make this as simple as possible by providing an example. At the moment the only document referred to in the current student assistance regulations is the guide to Australian government payments, as in force at September 2004—a guide put out by Centrelink quarterly. At the moment the regulations do not in fact point to the current operative guide. The current operative guide is dated from 1 January 2006 to 19 March 2006. The fact that the regulations refer to an out-of-date guide does not have any effect on the application of the current version of the guide, but Labor’s amendment would still require the department to amend the regulations each time the version changed. As you can see, this does not always happen promptly. The result is that the regulations can provide misleading information to the public. The government’s proposed subsection 48(2) will mean that this should not occur in the future.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will consider the minister’s response and consider our position when the bill goes into the Senate. But we obviously have concerns about the capacity of the parliament to review these issues. I will proceed for now but we will consider the position as the bill proceeds.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could add something. I noted that, in her speech in the main debate, the member for Jagajaga referred to the Bills Digest and an interpretation of proposed new section 48 that obligations which are the prescribed events have always been and will always be in the regulations and therefore will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The proper interpretation of proposed new section 48 is that prescribed events can only be in the regulations. I would reject any other interpretation, and I believe that that has been made clear in the replacement explanatory memorandum.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.