Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Anyone listening to this debate would think that there is fervent opposition to the measures in the Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The coalition is supporting the government's measure, but I rise to speak against the measures in this bill.

Schedule 1 of the bill increases the student contribution amount for mathematics, statistics and science units of study from 1 January 2013. The Greens oppose this measure because we believe that government investment in science is critical to ensure that this country is well positioned for a low-pollution, post-carbon economy. If we are to meet the challenges of addressing climate change and the transition to a sustainable society then we must invest in science. More than that, if we are to have an economy which can compete in the world when the mining bubble bursts, we are going to need massive investment in science and education. Our future economy will rely on high-quality science and maths education in this country.

Unfortunately, we rank in the bottom half of OECD countries—we are 20th of 30—when it comes to the number of university graduates emerging with a science or engineering degree. In 2008 the government reduced HECS contributions for maths, statistics and science from $7,260 per unit to the lowest level of $4,077, equivalent to the national priority places for education and nursing. As a result of that, in 2009 undergraduate applications for natural and physical sciences went up by 17.1 per cent compared with 2008 and increased again in 2010 by 13.1 per cent. According to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations:

… the two years' growth more than reversed the declines in demand for this field between 2004 and 2008. This growth follows a suite of measures introduced in the 2008-09 Budget to encourage enrolments in Mathematics and Science.'

In 2009 the now Prime Minister and then Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations welcomed those increased applications, stating that the 17 per cent increase was 'reversing declining interest and falling applications since 2004'. In my electorate, the University of Melbourne science program went from approximately 800 students in 2007 to 2,000 students in 2011, more than doubling in four years. The government appeared to recognise the long-term need to encourage students into science and maths by introducing the priority HECS rates. However, it did not take a long-term approach when it cancelled the priority rates last year—a move that would almost double HECS fees for new maths and science students. How can science and maths be national priorities and then, three years later, not be?

In the original MYEFO announcement we were told existing students would be spared the increase but this is no longer the case. Students who began their studies under one set of financial rules will be hit with a HECS increase they could not have foreseen, did not expect and do not deserve. While wealthy mining companies get close to $9 billion a year in handouts, we should not be taking close to a billion dollars from science and maths education to balance the budget. This saving is a false economy. We welcome the government's budget measures which reinstate funding for important programs in maths and science education in schools. The $54 million government investment in programs such as Science by Doing and PrimaryConnections is welcome. Boosting maths and science education in schools is smart; cutting it in universities is not. Fifty-four million dollars is a lot of money but it is tiny compared to the amounts that will be removed by this bill.

I am also concerned that the government used the report of the Bradley review to justify the HECS increase. HECS fees for the sciences and for maths were lowered in 2009 when they were made a national priority—however the Bradley review was completed in December 2008. My concerns regarding these cuts were echoed by the Australian Academy of Science, which noted:

Australia’s robust economic future depends upon innovation. This is not the time to withdraw support for the next generation of scientists and mathematicians.

When the measures were announced last year the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute asked, 'Where to now for maths and stats?' I ask this question again today. The government stated that they did not believe the reduced HECS rates for maths and science were delivering value for money. If they truly believe that, where is the alternative proposal?

We should spend more on science, not less. I note that the recent report by the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest, opened with the observation:

There is a global perception that a workforce with a substantial proportion educated in Mathematics, Engineering and Science (MES) is essential to future prosperity.

I concur with that and the Greens concur with that. We need a culture that addresses national goals and prepares Australia for emerging challenges and opportunities. We need a culture that invests in science. We need a society that values research and innovation.

My vision is that Australia should increase both public and private expenditure on research and development until it represents three per cent of GDP. This call has been echoed by the Australian Academy of Science, which called for an increase in Australia's research and development expenditure to at least three per cent of GDP by 2020. Research excellence is precious but researchers are often in a battle for survival, where costs are rising more quickly than the level of funding and career opportunities are limited. We should be encouraging people to study science and maths and creating career paths for them that harness and reward their skills. We can only benefit from such measures.

It will cost money in the short term but science and research are long-term investments and they should be made with a long-term vision. Dr Ian Dobson, who reported to the Chief Scientist on the state of enrolments, is reported as saying:

These things take time. It takes a generation, but you just can't do it in the political timeframe. [Politicians will] never admit this, but basically they're just thinking of the next election and the next budget.

Unfortunately I think Dr Dobson is correct, but I suspect he would be happy if this House proved him wrong. I urge the government to reconsider, and I urge coalition members—who will no doubt make strong statements about the government measures—to justify their support for the government on this.

We live in a society where we are giving at least $9 billion in handouts a year to wealthy mining corporations who send up to 83 per cent of their profits overseas. We only get to dig these things up and sell them once. We should be taking some of the proceeds of this mining boom and setting ourselves up for the post-mining economy. That economy is not only going to be a low-carbon economy but one based on our brains—on science, mathematics, research and innovation. I heartily commend the government's $54 million investment in science and maths education but, given that it is dwarfed by the cuts to science and maths made by this bill, one wonders what it means for something to be a national priority.

See this speech in context