Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

What do you suggest would be the consequence of this amendment? What is the consequence of your vote for this amendment? When it comes to drawing up that big list of the things the Liberal Party will be supporting in the run-up to the next election, this will of course have to go on your list of commitments because you are now committing to spend an unlimited amount of money. It is not costed; it is uncapped, an unlimited amount of money which you are now proposing, which you are committing to. By voting for this, you are committing the Liberal Party to this position. There are no costings here. There is no detail provided here as to what consequential amendments you think are legitimate. It is reasonable to conclude that all consequential costs should be funded through this measure. Would they include, for instance, the initial cost of travel to Australia, accommodation and food costs and education agents’ costs? Perhaps travel, perhaps medical insurance, perhaps airport taxes should be included. Perhaps there are some domestic travel costs. Perhaps there are books that need to be compensated for. Perhaps there are computers that we need to fund. Perhaps there are other educational expenses. Then there is the $18,000 which each student must provide to show that they can support themselves while they are in the country. Is that part of the consequential costs of undertaking education in this country?

I would have thought, on any normal reading of any way in which an education system actually operates, that that is what you are signing up to. You are signing up to a Liberal government funding all of those things. That is what you are committing to. You are asking that taxpayers should refund any of these items. Perhaps there are others I have missed, because I bet there are enough shonky agents out there who can come up with other items which I have not included here.

Would Australian students studying overseas have access to such a refund? Would this be a result of Australian taxpayers’ money being sent back to overseas countries to fund these measures? Is that what you are proposing? It would seem a reasonable conclusion to draw that you are asking this government and presumably committing a future Liberal government to support an amendment—uncosted and such an ill-defined proposition—for which you have absolutely no idea of the full economic consequences of what you are saying. This is an example of economic irresponsibility. This shows why the Liberal Party is so risky when it comes to managing the affairs of this country.

The key element of the review which is being undertaken right now is about how consumer protection frameworks might be better reformed and how we might provide better protections to ensure the sustainability of the industry in this country. It is grossly premature to prejudge that measure by putting up this half-baked, ill-conceived measure, this uncosted, ill-defined, ill-considered proposition by which you are seeking to have the Commonwealth committed to an unlimited amount of funds. Given the circumstances, this Labor government will not be accepting it. Given the concern we have heard from senators about the delay in the passage of this legislation and despite the fact you denied passage of this legislation last year, I find it odd that you are now telling us that perhaps it is okay if this legislation comes back in the next sitting period because that is what you are voting for.