Senator CARR (Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) (4:06 PM) —This is a measure to give ministers power to define regulations for any consequential expenses that a defaulting provider should pay back to a student in addition to any course money. We have heard from Senator Hanson-Young that the government should put some more money in. We have heard from Senator Cormann that, if the government were fair dinkum, we would pay more money as well.

Senator Cormann —I didn’t say ‘pay more money’.

Senator CARR —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.

Senator Cormann —We absolutely did not. You never brought it on.

Senator CARR —You denied it being treated last year. You refused it last year.

Senator Cormann —You never brought it on.

Senator CARR —Senator, I sought to have it incorporated last year within the list of bills. You refused to have it. So some time, we presume, in the next sitting period, we are expected to bring this bill back. I trust it will be only three weeks, but we all understand how this place works. We all understand what you do to the legislative program in this chamber. You cannot guarantee it will be three weeks. You could take weeks and weeks to get around to coming up to having the will, the whim or the otherwise inclination to deal with this matter again. So the industry may well be without protection for weeks and weeks while you rethink your irresponsible position.

We have a situation where the current arrangement for the re-registration of colleges is underway. We have a series of measures being undertaken by this government to tighten up the regulations in this industry and to strengthen the quality assurance regime in this country—and what is happening? The Liberal Party are frustrating those measures. You are moving to protect the shonks once again, as you did in government. You refuse to act because you saw it was in your interests to play these silly games.

The government has moved quickly to address the problems which are emerging in the industry. We have sought a series of measures through the states to enforce a tougher regime to protect students. We will not, however, be getting out a blank cheque to fund shonky dealers whose colleges collapse, leaving us totally exposed when it comes to the question of consequential expenses. Imagine what a rorter could do with that. What an amazing proposition! Senator Xenophon, this morning you were offered a proposition in my presence by the Deputy Prime Minister about having these matters dealt with—

Senator Cormann —It was this afternoon, actually.

Senator CARR —Well, in my presence, by the Deputy Prime Minister—that these matters would be dealt with through Baird and dealt with properly, efficiently and thoroughly so that the matter would be back here within six months. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she could have a bill ready to introduce to the parliament by June, but that is not good enough for you. That is fine. You understand that is what you have rejected. What we will have to do is have the matter dealt with in the House of Representatives and have it recommitted to the Senate at some point in the coming period. I trust you will have the interest to get around to dealing with it, since you think you can run the government from the opposition benches, since you believe your mission in life is to oppose. Your view is that you must be as unconstructive as you can be and you are proving it once again. I look forward to the public debate on this question. I look forward to you explaining how you can vote for totally uncapped, unfunded propositions of this type. Such economic irresponsibility, I am sure, will be a matter of interest not just to this industry but to the public at large.