Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Hansard source

In many respects, it does not give me any particular pleasure to speak on this motion. Indeed, if we had a government that displayed any degree of competence, then we would not have a need for this motion in the first place. But we all know that that would be wishful thinking and much too much to ask or expect when it comes to the Gillard government.

Whoever is responsible for the abolition of the PrimaryConnections and Science by Doing programs should hang their head in shame, because what they have done is axe programs that have proven highly effective. What they have done is axe programs that addressed genuine problems. What they have done is axe programs that identified and corrected flaws in previous approaches to science education. What they have also done is undercut past funding and compromise extraordinary amounts of work, time and effort that have been invested by the Academy of Science, schools and teachers and a host of other science bodies and figures over recent years to roll out, promote and optimise the considerable benefits of each of the two programs. And all this at a time when most experts in the field argue that Australia desperately needs programs like these that successfully tackle issues such as improving support and training for science teachers and addressing the declining levels of scientific literacy among our students compared to other countries.

Unfortunately, I am not completely sure how or why the government came to its decision to abolish the two programs, because, in typical Labor fashion, it has subsequently tried to silence all discussion about it and simply make the issue disappear from public view. There has been no serious explanation of the reasons for the decision. Indeed, my understanding is that it has not even been rationalised behind closed doors, by either Minister Garrett or Minister Carr, to any of the key stakeholders, let alone to the public. In fact, we even had the disarming sight at estimates in February of Senator Carr, the science minister and a former schoolteacher no less, belligerently arguing that this whole matter had absolutely nothing to do with him.

I can only assume the motivation is a misjudged and mean-spirited attempt at a budget saving. But it is not exactly as though the continuation of the programs would have been either a huge or unjustified drain on the public purse. In fact, the outlay is minimal in relative terms, especially when set against its impacts and contrasted with the billions of dollars that the government have splurged on all manner of wasteful projects, which they of course continue to do. We are talking about $11.5 million over the next five years for the two programs combined, and less than $5 million over the next two years. Let us also bear in mind that these programs would have both become self-sustaining in only a short time in any case if they were allowed to continue.

But, sadly, this government is so weak and unaccountable that it has not even bothered to explain itself at all. As a result, a trail of bewilderment, anger and frustration has been left in its wake, all the way from the Academy of Science, which was the architect of the programs, to the participating teachers and students, to former Prime Minister's Prizes for Science winners, to professional science and literacy associations, to the Australian Primary Principals Association, to the Australian Council of Deans of Education, right through to the many other Australians who were benefiting both directly and indirectly from the operation of these programs. In respect of the PrimaryConnections program alone, extensive analysis and evaluation of the initiative indicates that there have been significantly improved levels of confidence, engagement and competence amongst teachers. Similarly, there has been substantial field evidence pointing to increased interest, enthusiasm and knowledge among students, not to mention widespread uptake, with the program proving so popular that more than 55 per cent of all primary schools have ordered units. Likewise, Science by Doing, whilst at an earlier stage, not only has been allowing for more practical hands-on teaching of science to secondary students but also has been engaging those students more actively with science through an inquiry based approach.

These have all been great outcomes—indeed the kinds of outcomes for which educators, scientists and politicians have yearned for many years. But now these gains have been thrown down the drain. It is quite some irony that the Labor Party thinks it is perfectly acceptable to waste billions on overpriced school halls yet cannot even bother to find a tiny fraction of that amount to devote to successful programs for the teachers and children inside those halls. It is about as contradictory as making a lot of grand rhetorical flourishes about the importance of a new science curriculum but not even bothering to make sure that teachers are adequately trained and supported to be able to teach it. It makes about as much sense as bemoaning the poor state of Indigenous education but then discontinuing initiatives that have been widely praised for imparting noticeable improvements in the ways that many Indigenous children are learning and understanding the science lessons they are being taught. It is about as logical as touting the importance of the Inspiring Australia initiative to promote science in Australia on the one hand but then slashing support for crucial science education measures for the nation's children on the other hand.

Unfortunately such acts simply continue the tale of ongoing degradation of the importance of science by this government. To be sure, it professes an interest in science, particularly at moments when it waxes lyrical about climate change, and it does make a lot of grand claims about being determined to commit to evidence based decisions. But the reality is very different. In reality such interest is based purely on all of its usual political expediency. Regrettably, scientists, science agencies and organisations and science journalists have been shamefully mistreated by this government. Let us look at some of the examples. Whether you are, for instance, a Chief Scientist who never even gets to meet the Prime Minister, a science journalist personally denigrated under the cloak of Senate estimates, an individual scientist whose findings are censored and then rewritten just to make them politically palatable or a CSIRO scientist whose pay claims are ignored while the science minister is crowing about supposedly record funding to the organisation, the story is the same: you are valued by this government only so long as you do not get in the way by disagreeing with Labor Party lines.

This government always does merely what it thinks will garner it the most votes. It ditches the initiatives, policies and programs when it thinks that such actions will not cause significant political fallout. Presumably, it believes that a decision to cut the budget for science education will not receive much media coverage and will not have severe political repercussions. Of course it is perfectly prepared to risk damaging the quality of science teaching to our schools as a result. But, just because you do not hear loud voices of disapproval of, disappointment with and anger towards this government, does it mean they are not there? They add to the perception of a government that is desperate and out of touch and that has no vision for this nation. How can you have a vision when you gut something as important as science education by $11½ million dollars? It makes a mockery of the government's so-called education revolution.

There is at least a small glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, because it is not too late for the government to admit to its many failings in the area of science. Everyone knows it. Everyone out there has long crowed that the emperor has no clothes. The most sensible way for the government to begin would be to apologise for its error in axing these education programs, concede it is a decision it got badly wrong and reinstate the funding. Sadly, though, I will not be holding my breath, because one of the enduring features of this government is that not only does it have bad instincts and not only does it make bad decisions without consultation but, rather than repair the damage, it usually makes the situation worse by digging its heels in.

I strongly support the member for Sturt's motion and I condemn the government for its continued short-sightedness. As the shadow minister for, amongst other things, science, I am deeply disturbed by the anxiety it has caused in the broader science community and I ask the government to reconsider its position. It will not be front-page news that you have done another backflip, but you might just get some credit out there in the science community where it counts. And you might just be putting in place one of those very important educational building blocks. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context