Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister's comments; I honestly do. But, as Senator Cormann has eloquently put, proposed subsection (4) says:

Subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for a purpose that relates to the provision of any of the following services:

That is not the totality of things that the money could be spent on. It is not exclusionary. Does that make sense? Minister, if you look at subsection (1) you see it says:

A higher education provider must not spend an amount paid to the provider as a *student services and amenities fee to support:

(a) a political party; or

(b) the election of a person ...

That is specifically exclusionary. Proposed subsection (4) simply says those services can be provided. But other ones can be as well.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

It says:

Subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for a purpose ...

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Well, if that is the case, why is proposed subsection (1) in there?