Senator BROWN (11:24 AM) —That compounds the problem for the government. In that case, take 88 per cent off the figures the government was just giving. The minister is saying that there will be a big cost impost on the public purse even with the fee-payers and that they are only paying a small percentage. So I ask: what is the problem with making sure that those contributions are met from the government purse under this formula? There will be a minimal reduction in the overall number of parents who can come but a huge rise in the number of those who come on a needs basis. So we will get this onto a proper humanitarian basis and not on the money barrier basis for those people who do not have a lot of money, which is the government philosophy: block people out if they are poor, if they are needy, if they do not have a bag of money, and welcome them in if they do.

That is what we object to and that is what the opposition objects to, and I know that is what the Democrats object to. The Greens are putting forward the Andren amendment, which does not fix the problem—it does not get rid of the people who can pay being able to come—but it does say, `Let's bring more balance to this and increase the number who can come who are otherwise prevented by the $60,000-plus impost.' The costs are not nearly as great as the government would make out, and I think the government knows that.

Question put: