Senator NEWMAN (Minster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) (5:26 PM) —I think Senator Evans needs to go back to the shadow minister, Mr Swan, and ask why it was that he was not properly briefed on this matter. My department has advised me that his office was briefed and given a copy of the Austudy regulation changes that I referred to earlier which I read from. I have here a copy of a facsimile to Michael Lye dated 16 June which says, `A copy of the explanatory statement which accompanied Austudy regulation changes brought in to stop back paying Austudy and Austudy PES.' It is signed by Jenny Myers from my department.

Senator Chris Evans —That is not in dispute, Minister.

Senator NEWMAN —You were asking about the regulations and saying you doubted—

Senator Chris Evans —I am just saying that is one example of regulations. There has been a range of regulations.

Senator NEWMAN —I understood from what you said that Mr Swan had not briefed you on that. It seems pretty unfair that you are sent in here to battle for the opposition when you have not been given sufficient background. Let me go back to the guts of what Senator Evans has just been saying. We are not reducing entitlements; we are fixing up a technical problem in a new bill that came in a little while ago. Therefore, there are no savings. We are not in fact changing or were we ever intending to change the situation. It was changed accidentally temporarily. So we are not reducing entitlements, therefore there are no savings, therefore the financial impact of this was not included in the explanatory memorandum because it is a technical amendment reverting to the original intention of the act.

Senator Chris Evans —I would like you to read the Hansard of that.

Senator NEWMAN —Can't you understand it?

Senator Chris Evans —I know what you are trying to say but I suspect—

Senator NEWMAN —There will be a new cost if it is not amended. That is what we are saying in response to Senator Bartlett about the question of the $8 million. We are trying to assess what the $8 million cost will be if we do not revert to the existing situation. Your approach will mean that the taxpayer will be up for something of the order of $8 million if we do not go back to the original situation. People will not have a reduction in payment. This is not a question of reducing payments to people. They have not been previously entitled to them: they have become entitled for a short period because of the drafting changes. So we are not reducing entitlements, therefore there are no saving but, if the amendment does not go through to fix up the drafting failure, then there will be a cost. I think that is pretty clear; I hope you find it clear.

Senator Chris Evans —It is logically nonsense!

Senator NEWMAN —It is absolutely truthful and logical. Senator Bartlett appears to understand this a bit better than you, Senator Evans. But I want to put this on the record because I am responding to some of the comments that you have made in the committee stage. I am afraid you do not have too many wings to fly with on this one. It was your government that recognised the problem back in 1993. It was accidentally amended in recent legislation. We are trying to put it back to what you put in, and if you do not support it and if we lose this then you will be causing the taxpayer to foot the bill for people who may be in the work force up to the time that they go on to study. That is an unintended consequence that nobody would think was appropriate. If there is any spare money to spend on income support for people, it should be on those who really need it, not people in those circumstances.