SSAT Child Support Review General Directions 2012 [F2012L02459]-Concluded Matters [2013] AUSStaCSDLM 127 (21 March 2013)

• SSAT Child Support Review General Directions 2012 [F2012L02459]
• Insufficient information regarding consultation

---

SSAT Child Support Review General Directions 2012 [F2012L02459]

Purpose	Provides for the procedures to be followed in relation to child support review hearings before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT)
Last day to disallow	15 May 2013
Authorising legislation	Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988
Department	Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

ISSUE:

Insufficient information regarding consultation

Section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken in relation to a proposed instrument, particularly where that instrument is likely to have an effect on business. Section 18, however, provides that in some circumstances such consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The ES which must accompany an instrument is required to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken (section 26). With reference to these requirements, the committee notes that the ES for the instrument states that consultation was not required in this case due to both its urgency and the fact that its effect is 'largely machinery in nature' and 'will not substantially affect or alter reviews by the SSAT'. First, the committee considers that the ES does not adequately explain the circumstances leading to the urgency of the instrument, particularly as to whether there was a reasonable opportunity to anticipate the need for the changes effected by the instrument (arising from the development and passage of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Act 2012, Second, the committee considers that the statement that the instrument is 'largely machinery' implies that it may also have more substantial effects that could have a bearing on the conclusion that consultation was unnecessary or inappropriate in this case [the committee sought further information from the minister and requested that, if necessary, the ES be updated in accordance with the requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003].

MINISTER'S RESPONSE:

The minister advised that there was a period of approximately one month to prepare the directions, which commenced the day after the changes made by the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Act 2012. The minister further advised that there were two areas in which the directions altered existing arrangements. First, section 18 of the directions permits an SSAT member to communicate protected information to a person if that information concerns a threat to the life, health or welfare of a person (reflecting a new subsection 16(3A) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988). Second, section 31, which establishes procedures for dealing with requests for reinstatement of a child support application previously dismissed by the SSAT, reflects changes to section 100 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. This change gives the Principal Member powers to reinstate a child support application that had been dismissed in certain circumstances, as previously there had been no capacity to reinstate a child support application that had been dismissed by the SSAT.

COMMITTEE RESPONSE:

The committee thanks the minister for her response and has concluded its interest in the matter.