Senator CARR(6.36 p.m.) —I understand the point you are making is that you cannot prevent students being selected from lower down the TER score and, therefore, you cannot protect the academic integrity of Australian universities on the basis of the introduction of the 25 per cent places. Minister, you also made the claim that if students really wanted to go to university they could borrow against their house.

Senator Vanstone —I didn't say that.

Senator CARR —I think you did indicate words to that effect.

Senator Vanstone —That is your ambiguity again.

Senator CARR —I think you did claim that somehow or other students who wanted to go to university could borrow money against their house. Is it not the case that your proposition, that this improves equity, is fundamentally flawed when one looks at the context in which you provide no financial assistance for students that wish to participate in university and who wish to—taking your analogy through—purchase a place, because there is no mechanism under this policy for borrowings against that place?

Is it not the case that any bank, lending on the basis indicated by Professor Chapman, `for human capital investments', unlike any other investment, has no saleable collateral in the event of default, as would be the case in a housing capital market? Perhaps you could indicate why Professor Chapman is wrong when he says, `This has arisen because slavery is against the law and the banks are thus unable to possess and sell the human capital development undertaken.' Is it not the case that banks will not lend against human capital in this way because of the absence of collateral? Therefore, students that do not have access to the resources are inherently disadvantaged by this policy. Is it not the case that there is no equity in this provision?