George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

It is more than absurd for Senator Carr, in the course of two contributions briefly separated in time, on the one hand to be condemning the government for imposing safeguards to ensure that there is no opportunity for universities to manipulate these arrangements to deny to Australian students the opportunity of Commonwealth supported places and, at the same time, to say that the vice of this legislation is that it provides for full fee paying places. Senator Carr condemns the safeguards that would avoid the very outcome that he condemns.

While I am on my feet, can I add to my earlier answer to Senator Stott Despoja’s questions. It has also been drawn to my attention that, in the summing-up of the second reading debate on 13 June in the other place, not Ms Bishop but Mr Nairn, speaking on her behalf, also addressed this issue. Let me read what he said:

This bill will relax the caps on Commonwealth supported and domestic full-fee-paying undergraduate student places. Labor has suggested that universities will en masse convert Commonwealth supported places into full-fee-paying places and will turn their backs on students seeking to take up a Commonwealth supported place. The Australian government expects universities to act responsibly and will not let this happen. Government policy remains that universities must offer their Commonwealth supported places in a discipline cluster before they offer full-fee-paying places. Any significant shifts in student load between clusters must be approved through the funding agreements between the Australian government and universities. The Australian government will not let Australian universities walk away from their obligation to ensure access for Australians who want, and who are eligible for, a university education.

So that is three times, Senator Stott Despoja: in Ms Bishop’s response in the consideration in detail stage in the other place, in Mr Nairn’s speech on her behalf summing up the second reading debate, and in my response, which had been prepared in the minister’s office, to the question posed first by Senator Joyce and then posed again by you. I think it would be very difficult to maintain that there has been any want of transparency or clarification of the government’s position in view of those three considered statements.