Page 3130 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There were some fairly appalling instances back then of very sharp practices. For example, a vehicle on which perhaps a few thousand dollars was owed but which was worth, or was assumed to be worth, a large sum of money would be sold for a few hundred dollars at an auction that complied with the then requirements of the South Australian Act in that it had been advertised in some obscure gazette; and the person was left still owing a debt, with no car; and somebody in the auto trade was picking up a cheap car and then reselling it. The attempt to balance the rights of the person to whom money is owed with the rights of the person who owes money is the exercise in this piece of law reform. The position prior to this Bill has been really a great opportunity for sharp practitioners on both sides. If you want to avoid paying a debt or avoid honouring a debt, there are lots of ways of running a merry dance through the courts. Equally, if you are a ruthless person to whom money is owed you can make life as miserable for the hapless debtor. The attempt in this exercise is to make life a little simpler.
Mr Humphries did raise one point of some substance - I am not saying that your other points were not of substance - in relation to the issue of Austudy. It was certainly not our intention to bring Austudy payments in, but it may be that we should have a specific exemption. We have excluded payments under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. It may be prudent to ensure that it is not caught because we do not think an Austudy allowance, as a scholarship, fits within the definition of wages or salary or within the definition of a pension.
It may be that having said that is sufficient, because that will clearly appear in the Hansard record of the speech; but, if the Opposition were minded to, we could quickly knock out an amendment which would add a (iv) to the exclusions, to cover a benefit or allowance payable to a person under the Student Assistance Act - we are not sure of the year of the Act - of the Commonwealth. We could, if you feel so inclined, accept such an amendment to make it clear that Austudy payments are not intended to be caught. Our advice at the moment is that they are not, because we do not think that an Austudy scholarship fits within the definition of a pension as properly defined; rather, it is a scholarship. As I say, I am happy to say that very clearly here in the in-principle debate, and that may be satisfactory. If we have any problems in the future we can have it amended. Mr Humphries raised the question: Did we intend to catch Austudy? Our answer is no, we did not, and we think it falls outside the definitions. We are happy to say so very clearly here. Alternatively, we could quickly draft an amendment. But I sometimes worry about the quickly drafted amendments. We sometimes get things wrong. Perhaps it is just better to say it clearly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .