Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill before the chamber. I join with our shadow minister Senator Mason in noting that the coalition does not oppose the legislation. We know that it is directed to reinstating the student contribution amount for mathematics, statistics and science units of study back to pre-2009 levels.

Whilst I note the intent of the legislation, and other speakers have spoken of the effect of it, it is somewhat ironic and interesting to reflect on what the long-term effect of this legislation will be. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you and I both know, we have only recently tabled in the chamber the report of the inquiry of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee into the shortage of engineering and related employment skills and it is to that which I refer. Whilst in the short term it would appear that there is sufficient reason for withdrawing this concession to students wanting to study in the areas of mathematics, statistics and science—in other words, those related directly to engineering and its related areas of professional development and employment—I think we saw in that report the end results of a circumstance in which there has been, to some extent, the removal of that support.

It is disappointing in the primary and particularly in the secondary education system of the last few years that not only is there a discouragement of the teaching of mathematics and sciences in the school system but we have fewer teachers who are interested in, skilled in or exciting pupils and students in the sciences, the mathematics and the statistics. It was, I think, one of the first recommendations of the references committee on its inquiry that there be an increased focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics proficiency amongst primary, high school and indeed adult students. How disappointing, in a sense, that we are here considering legislation that will probably have the exact opposite effect of increasing enthusiasm for participation and excellence in those areas.

It is to that that I wish to refer, because the inquiry learned what the enormous cost to the Australian community and the Australian economy is of there being a deficiency in and therefore a gap in the number of both professional and technical engineers available in Australia to support our growing country, our growing infrastructure and, at the moment, our declining productivity. The point was made that people with engineering skills and qualifications are a critical component of Australia's economy. Engineers are not only directly employed in a vast array of different industries, many of which are among Australia's most economically important, such as mining and infrastructure; they are essential for the underlining infrastructure projects that are so necessary for their maintenance and for their new development in this country, such as roads, power infrastructure, bridges and the like.

The committee received evidence from Skills Australia, now the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, which indicated that while Australia is producing more engineers than ever before, both at the professional and technical and trades levels, the growth is not sufficient to meet demand, and engineering skills shortages have been pronounced for many years. In fact, Skills Australia surveyed 50 engineering occupations, of which 47 were experiencing skills shortages in 2011, and yet here we are debating and apparently agreeing to legislation that will actually be a disincentive for students to work in the fields of mathematics, science and statistics. It causes me to wonder whether legislation that was introduced as recently as 2009 has run its course long enough for us to be able to make a decision in 2012 that it has not worked and therefore should be reversed.

Also presented to the engineering and skills related committee of inquiry was the fact that an application of growth rates of the last five years was forecasted for the Australian engineering and trades related workplaces of 2016, and based on that data a very conservative estimate is that we will need an increase in the number of professional and management engineers of some 37,000 people by 2016 and, at the technical and trade engineers level, some 6,000 people. That estimate has not been adjusted for the large increases in infrastructure and mining projects that we know are in the pipeline. Nor does it take account of those who will retire from the professions and the trades. Again, it causes me to ask the question: are we doing the right thing from a Commonwealth financial, economic and education point of view in removing incentives at this stage for what should be encouragement in the maths, the sciences and the statistics?

It was clear to the committee that the consequences of the skills shortage are being felt every day in this country by governments, the community, employees and employers. Entrenched engineering skills shortages, depending on their severity, are likely to reduce investment and productivity growth in Australia and result in poor quality or delayed construction projects. One of the disappointments for an engineer is that their failures are there for everybody to see. Of course, we know of examples of the Westgate Bridge and many others. Perhaps it is the same for doctors and veterinarians. At least we get a chance to bury our failures, but the failures of those engineers and their associated colleagues are of course there to be seen, heard of and read about for years to come.

The point made to the committee was that the resulting economic effects are felt in sectors as diverse as resources, roads and rail, manufacturing, construction and the development of infrastructure. Let us just put some dollars around that. Engineers Australia appeared before the committee in Perth and Brisbane, and their most conservative estimate was that the best estimate of the cost to the Australian economy for infrastructure projects which were poorly designed in the first place, for which there were insufficient tender documents prepared or for which there was insufficient consideration of tenders—for the delayed implementation of projects, poor implementation of projects or having to go back and rework the failed projects—was some $6,000 million a year to the Australian economy.

Given that so many of these projects are infrastructure projects funded by the taxpayer, you could say that a fair proportion of that $6 billion was a cost directly to the Australian taxpayer. It causes me to go back and look at the cost saving which is indicated in this particular bill, and I ask the question: is it good value for money to have done that? For example, Engineers Australia also advised us that, because of the delays in many of the projects as a result of the failure to be able to recruit engineers, the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management advised the committee that the loss of productivity as a result of peak hour congestion in Perth—not the most congested in Australia—is estimated at the moment to be $1.2 billion a year, growing to $2 billion by 2020. If that is the loss of productivity in the city of Perth, one could only speculate on what the equivalent loss must be when you add in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide to that area of scrutiny. I think we can see some of the evidence in this area.

Because of the inadequate number of engineers at both the professional level and the technical level, governments are unable to properly manage engineering contracts because either their contracting staff lack the necessary technical expertise, which directly undermines their ability to assess the engineering competencies of contractors and subcontractors, or the expertise just does not exist in the first place. That of course is of enormous concern. The committee was given a warning in relation to the Queensland floods of 2011—this was advice from the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia. Their warning was that the repair bills from the Queensland floods could blow-out by some 20 per cent—one-fifth—as a result of poor scoping due to a shortage of engineers. These are real figures presented by those who are doing the work.

In referring to mathematics and analytical skills, as the bill does allude, it was interesting to learn that many engineers are actually picked up by the finance industry, the insurance industry and the banking industry as actuaries because of their mathematical and analytical skills. So it is a two-part whammy. Those who would normally be coming through from courses in mathematics and other areas are finding their way into the world of finance, but not enough are coming through because we do not have adequate training at the primary and secondary level because we do not have the adequate skills amongst teachers to excite and interest these students, so the finance and banking industry are turning to engineers whose skills and training they obviously need.

In the report which has been tabled in this chamber on the issues associated with engineering and trades related skills, and the wide skills gap, the committee detailed a large number of examples where governments, universities and industry have implemented measures to respond to the challenges. The committee received evidence that demonstrated that government investment in industry and in education and training will not be enough to address skill shortages and that stronger partnerships between educational bodies and industry are needed to encourage more effective use of skills.

As Senator Mason has quite correctly said, the coalition will not oppose this legislation. But I have tried to draw to the attention of the chamber and the community the real cost to the Australian economy and the Australian community of a decision to cease encouraging the movement towards training and skilling in mathematics, sciences and analytical skills. I have listened carefully to the comments made by others. I have read the rationale presented to us in the speeches by Senator Wong, Senator Evans and others. Whilst I do not oppose this legislation, I do reflect on the fact that it is in the wrong direction and I can only hope that those alternative measures being put in place, as suggested by the Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb, may go somewhere towards healing that gap which I can see emerging as a result.