Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and to highlight the problem that we have with our local education and overseas student numbers. What we have is a declining number of students undertaking secondary studies in hard sciences and maths, which has a flow-on effect on the Australian economy and indeed on our tertiary sector. At present students in years 11 and 12 are dropping physics, chemistry and maths in favour of easier humanities subjects, such as history and politics, to boost entrance scores. A lack of interest in maths, physics and chemistry at high school sees fewer enrolments at university, and this has a knock-on effect for Australia’s research and development capabilities. There is not only a reduction in numbers but a reduction in cut-off scores and qualities in an attempt to reverse the decline in numbers. The danger here is that we may seek to get more overseas students to fill the gaping hole within our domestic student numbers. In short, an early interest by students in science and maths has a multiplication factor that increases our nation’s research and development capabilities. Fostering an appreciation of the fundamentals of science will cause our culture of excellence to prosper and will create a strong base to ensure long-term economic growth.

I hold a doctorate in science and have experienced the many benefits of studying science. Students of science understand the world in a measured and analytical way. Applying the principles of scientific method makes students critical thinkers. This involves not only the answers that they find but, more critically, the questions that they ask. I firmly believe science and maths should be core subjects for every student up to year 12. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, of which I was deputy chair, was concerned by the trend against science and maths at the secondary level. I quote from our report into research training and research workforce issues in Australian universities:

The Committee is concerned that students currently shun subjects in the sciences, maths and humanities in favour of other subjects that appear easier or more attractive in terms of maximising tertiary entrance scores. This is likely to lead to fewer students acquiring the basic skills and knowledge that are required later in life to embark upon a research pathway.

…       …            …

Australian Academy of Science believes that:

… Australia will not be able to heighten its skills in mathematics and science until it ensures that prospective scientists are taught by teachers with degrees in the disciplines for which they are responsible … Only when programs are expanded to encourage high school students to study science and mathematics through teachers with degrees in their teaching disciplines can other issues such as tertiary level research training be fully addressed.

The government, to its credit, took up a number of the committee’s findings in its 2008 report. This led to modest increases in the uptake of science and maths related university courses, according to the 2009 university entrance acceptance statistics. But the government then took two steps back, dismantling the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, which was a vital cog driving research in universities. This was a major blow to our research capabilities. I believe we need more than modest increases in student numbers. We need a cultural shift in our attitudes to the hard sciences and maths. This will result in a significant boost to our research and development capabilities and have economic flow-on consequences.

China has made the seemingly obvious connection between investment in the sciences and maths and the multiplier effect on GDP growth. They are now reaping the economic and technological rewards. This is rather interesting: more than half of all Chinese students studying in China graduate in the hard sciences and engineering—I will repeat that: more than half—compared with a world average of 27 per cent and 17 per cent in the US. To give you some idea, in Australia in 2009 we had 13,638 completions in the natural and physical sciences and 8,367 in engineering, comprising 13.07 per cent of all domestic student completions. Contrast this 13.07 per cent in Australia with over 50 per cent in China. This is well below the OECD average when you take into account the brain drain that has plagued Australia for years. The number of students graduating in the hard sciences is a very real issue.

During the period of 1993 to 2003, China’s R&D expenditures grew faster than those of any other nation, pushing its share of world R&D investment from 3.6 per cent to 9.5 per cent. During the same period, the European Union’s share declined from 28.5 per cent to 25 per cent. Australia’s R&D expenditure, as a proportion of GDP, remains lower than the OECD average, although it has increased in recent years. This is a terrible indictment on a nation as prosperous as ours. Given our global economic and social position, our R&D expenditure should track at the upper end of the OECD nations. We should be at the top, not the bottom.

In January 2006, China initiated a 15-year medium- to long-term plan for the development of science and technology. The nation aims to become an innovation oriented society by 2020 and a world leader in science and technology by 2050. Under the plan, China wants to develop indigenous innovation capabilities and leapfrog into leading new industries by increasing R&D expenditures to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2020. China has also set ambitious research goals, such as becoming one of the top five countries in the world in the number of patents granted. In 1998, China’s research output was around 20,000 articles per year. In 2006 it reached 83,000, overtaking the traditional science powerhouses of Germany, Japan and the UK. Last year it exceeded 120,000 articles, second only to the US’s 360,000. Australia risks being left behind as countries like China streak ahead in R&D industries.

Australia’s approach to the sciences and maths is reflected indeed in this parliament. We are top-heavy with parliamentarians with arts and law degrees. China’s leadership, on the other hand, understands the value of the sciences and maths with eight of the nine politburo standing committee members holding engineering degrees.

I am not scaremongering about the rise of China. This is a statement of admiration, a pursuit of the facts that tell us that increases in research and development seen in China need to be replicated in Australia. Australia needs to set ambitious goals and commit funding in the long term. This is our Sputnik moment. In the 1950s when Russia launched its space program it frightened America so much that it began an unprecedented space program, an investment in science R&D, an investment in education in maths and the hard sciences, which resulted in technological advancements which are still being realised today. The example set by China should be our space race moment, not driven by a fear of Cold War hostilities but driven by an economic imperative that, if we fail to act, our economy could be left behind.

So how do we go about rectifying the current situation? Firstly, we need teachers trained in the areas of expertise who are keen to impart their passion and engage students. Paying these teachers as professionals—in other words, acknowledging the need to pay them more than other teachers—and giving these subjects more weight when it comes to university entrance exams are just two measures to encourage more students to study science and maths. I congratulate the University of Western Australia, which has begun to give greater weight to those subjects and hopefully this will help to address the slide against maths and science based subjects. But we must do more. Teaching, learning and advancements in research and development are at the core of ensuring that Australia has a prosperous economic future. But it all starts with the basics, with science and maths being a central cog in our children’s learning machine.

See this speech in context