Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I begin by saying just how disappointing it is that this government is showing contempt for this process of consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024. In the previous session that was held in this very room, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government did not bother to attend, the Minister for Communications did not bother to attend and the Minister for the Arts did not bother to attend. In this consideration in detail stage, concerning education, the Minister for Education could not be bothered to attend. This government came to power with a commitment to greater parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, and it is showing complete contempt for the principles that it campaigned on, the promises that it made to the Australian people, by failing to make available the appropriate cabinet ministers.

I can tell you this did not happen under the previous government. This previous government took this process seriously. I know that the member for Gippsland, in his distinguished service as a cabinet minister, always made sure he was here. Similarly, I always made sure as a cabinet minister that I took this process seriously. What we have had demonstrated today by the government today is complete contempt for the parliament, and every Labor parliamentarian here should be feeling ashamed of themselves that we have not had this process taken seriously. It is very important that that point be put on the record.

The sad reality is that the approach of this government to the education portfolio has been shambolic and slipshod. Let's have a look at what we've seen from the minister. Perhaps the reason the minister didn't want to attend is because his personal track record is so dismal. Instead of addressing the issues that it was promised in the lead-up to the election would be addressed, we've simply had a plethora of reviews being announced. There is a Productivity Commission review into child care. There is a school funding review. What is the need for the school funding review? The then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, made a commitment—and since coming to government the Prime Minister and the current minister have repeated the commitment—to fund government schools at 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Why is there a need to review? Get on and deliver the commitment. It's pretty straightforward. Then there's also the so-called Universities Accord. It appears frequently in the government's talking points, but it has not yet seen the light of day.

What we've seen in this budget is a whole range of cuts across the wide reach of the education portfolio: $756 million cut from government schools across the country; nearly $50 million cut from Closing the Gap educational initiatives; $36.9 million cut from the Strategic University Reform Fund and the Regional Research Collaboration Program; and $11.3 million cut from the national school reform fund and quality outcomes program. Then, of course, there is this minister's curious approach to the challenge that we now see with the indexation of HECS debts at 7.1 per cent, the highest in 30 years. Particularly, to add insult to injury, students are being charged indexation rates on debt they have already repaid in full. The opposition is very clear: we call on the government to repay Australians who are hit with indexation penalties on student loans they have already paid off.

I want to ask the minister the following questions. Perhaps this can be conveyed to him by carrier pigeon or some other method that the government members who are here might choose to use. Can the minister explain why he needs a review into school funding when he has already given his commitment to lock in the schooling resource standard funding? Can the minister confirm how many students will be impacted by the government's decision to roll out Startup Year loans? This Startup Year loan program is highly risky. It could cripple students with up to $23,600 of debt for full fee-paying university courses that they can currently do for free, such as those offered by the University of Technology Sydney's startup hub. Has the government commissioned any modelling to examine the full impact this scheme will have on students in the context of the cost-of-living crisis? Why is the government of the view that the Startup Year program is necessary, given that accelerator programs are offered at many universities across the country? (Time expired)

See this speech in context