Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The objectives of this bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012, are twofold. Firstly, the bill reinstates the student contribution amount for mathematics, statistics and science units of study to its pre-2009 level for domestic students commencing a course of study on or after 1 January 2013. Secondly, the bill removes eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and the Higher Education Loan Program schemes for Australian citizens who commence a course of study after 1 January 2013 and who do not intend to reside in Australia during the course of their study.

As such, the bill represents a reversal of Labor's 2007 election commitment. The discount on the student contribution for mathematics, statistics and science courses was first introduced by the Rudd government in December 2008 to take effect from 1 January 2009. Ms Gillard was the minister for education at the time, but I think it is fair to say that the real driver of this policy was Mr Rudd himself. The aim was to encourage more students to undertake mathematics, statistics and science courses, which were identified as being areas of domestic need for graduates. It has long been a concern, but this initiative only survived for four years. Its reversal stems from the midyear economic forecast for 2011-12 announced on 28 November 2011. The minister responsible for tertiary education, Senator Evans, has said the reason maths and science undergraduates would have to pay the full rate of student contribution, which will raise the contribution from $4,691 to $8,353—not quite double, but certainly a significant increase—was that the government's policy of making them national priority areas had simply not delivered a noticeable difference in the country's dearth of maths and science graduates. It has not made much of a difference. To be fair, the government also argued that this student contribution discount was opposed by Professor Denise Bradley's 2009 review of higher education in Australia. I think that also is fair enough, and it is true, but I think it is also fair to say that much of the impetus of this measure derives from it being a significant savings measure—and in these times of fiscal austerity I can understand that as well.

In the same vein, the removal of eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and the Higher Education Loan Program schemes for Australian citizens studying overseas also implements a 2012-13 government budget announcement. The removal of eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and the HELP schemes for Australian citizens who commence a course of study after 1 January 2013 and who will not be resident in Australia for any of their course of study will affect those Australian citizens who are living overseas and intend to study online with Australian providers. Students undertaking study as part of a formal exchange or study-abroad program for some of the units in their course will not be affected. The government has said that, and that is correct. The government believes its funding priority should be to support those students who are most likely to pursue careers in Australia, commence repayment of their HELP debts and use their education to benefit Australia's workforce and the economic needs of our country. While the language is one of fairness—and I endorse the government's language at least—here too the budgetary considerations have undoubtedly played a role.

Let me take you to the bill's main provision. The removal of the discount will affect all those who are currently undertaking maths, statistics and science courses from 1 January next year, so they will have to pay the full student contribution for any units commenced after 1 January next year. The government argues that the majority of students undertaking maths and science units following the discount coming into place in 2009 were not enrolled in a maths or science course of study, nor were they studying an education course. So it seems clear that, as far as providing incentives, the HELP discount encouraged more students to take maths, science and statistics units, but as part of their arts and other degrees. But the government claims that it did not substantially increase the number of maths and science graduates in the workforce—and, of course, that was the original intention of the subsidy—and it did not improve the supply of maths and science teachers either. So, in effect, the policy intention of the subsidy was never fulfilled.

This is clearly a problem—and all honourable senators know that—not just here in Australia, but in other developed nations and often throughout the English-speaking world. I know it is a problem in Great Britain and in the United States. Australia is simply not producing enough engineers and enough scientists—professionals who build, construct and develop things, as opposed to professionals who work in the realm of words, ideas and services—professionals like senators. We are not producing enough to sustain an advanced economy that does not simply consume or produce intangibles, but also leads in development, innovation, research, manufacturing and construction. These are the drivers of future economic growth and productivity growth, not just the production of knowledge, but also the production of applied knowledge and the capacity to apply that knowledge. The Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, noted in his 2012 report entitled Mathematics, Engineering and Science in the National Interest:

Mathematics, Engineering and Science (MES) are fundamental to shaping the future of Australia, and the future of the world.

…   …   …

Our future lies in creating a high technology, high productivity economy; to innovate and to compete at the high-end of provision. To do so, the technical skills and scientific awareness of the entire workforce must be raised. The number of MES graduates needs to increase to allow industry to expand in these areas. Yet our current performance is wanting, and we compare poorly to our leading Asian neighbours.

Many of the developing countries around the world, particularly in our region—those in Asia and East Asia—seem to understand that, but in Australia we have either forgotten or we find it hard to understand.

Our society has shifted—for we are indeed talking about a societal change—and the aspirations, dreams and interests of our young people have seemingly shifted. Without wanting to yearn for a golden age, I do recall when I was young that I wanted to be an astronaut and I wanted to build and make things. Instead I became a lawyer and went into politics, so I did all the wrong things! But when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, there were different cultural aspirations which have now largely changed. At that time, scientific and technical careers seemed exciting to me, with the challenge of exploring the solar system. You might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, solving problems and building things. Presents I received as a child included things like microscopes, telescopes and chemistry sets. That is how it was back then. Forty years later, it is no longer so. It is neither the time nor the place to work out why that has happened and to debate the cultural change, except perhaps to realise that it has happened. I do not think there is any doubt that that has occurred.

I cannot help but think that part of the explanation for the change might be that the war on science and technology that has been waged over the past four decades by some parts of the environmental movement, some parts of the media, some parts of the entertainment industry and indeed the intelligentsia—sometimes for good reasons, I acknowledge, but more often for quite preposterous ones—is finally coming home to roost. So many young people in the last few generations have been brought up in what I might call a techno-pessimistic world. More often than not, science has been seen as creating problems rather than solving them. Science has been seen not as the solver of problems but as the progenitor or creator of problems. Technology, growth and development are too often seen as destroying the world rather than saving it. The narrative about science and technology has been one of countless scares and horror stories: nuclear energy, global warming, pollution, carcinogenics, resource exhaustion, exploitation of nature, destruction of the environment for the sake of development, scarcity, man-made natural disasters and so on. That can inculcate a certain technophobia among young people.

Generation X, Generation Y and, indeed, the Millennials have grown up fearing the food they eat and the air they breathe. They are sometimes even ashamed of the lifestyle and consumption practices they engage in—literally sometimes petrified that they live in the shadow of an apocalypse brought about by human ignorance and greed. If you read the newspapers and watch the latest Hollywood blockbusters you find that scientists and engineers are now the bad guys. They are not part of the solution but part of the problem. And we wonder why our young people, brought up on such a rich diet of fearmongering and science-phobia, would rather choose a career as a crusading journalist, an accountant or a business consultant—let alone as a lawyer or a politician—than as a scientist. They go down that route because of a certain culturally inculcated technophobia. As Australia's Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, said in his address to the National Press Club last year:

If we want to be a scientifically literate nation—we simply must inculcate the coming generations with an enthusiasm for the wonder, beauty and endless potential of science.

Science is awe inspiring—we need to stir the imagination of our youth so they pursue a career in science or, at the very least, grow into informed decisions makers who have some understanding of science and how it works.

Some of us in the room will remember the heady days of space travel and television as defining scientific images of our time.

The time has come to rekindle this type of excitement.

And there is no shortage of inspiration—the SKA and the Giant Magellan Telescopes, the Large Hadron Collider, the promise of commercial space flights, sustaining our environment and curing diseases are all big projects that stir the imagination and reinforce the importance of science to us all.

As part of raising an appreciation of science we need to make sure the coming generations are equipped to handle and make the most of the seemingly endless potential and applications of science in their lives.

We need science teachers and we need to support them through their careers. We need students. It won’t work without either. And to get them we will need to be careful, strategic and willing to invest.

To tackle and overcome the challenges of our time—we need science.

This is perhaps easier said than done. I acknowledge that Senator Evans and Senator Kim Carr have spoken frequently, and sometimes eloquently, about this subject. Offering discounts in HELP loans for science, statistics and mathematics courses might not have been the right answer and the right incentive to encourage more of our young people to undertake study and future careers in these fields—and I think honourable senators will accept that—but the problem does remain, and I suspect that it will be more difficult to solve than just tinkering with HECS-HELP, like the government has tried to do. These sorts of problems, which result from long-term, large-scale societal changes, will arguably need an effort to inspire similar long-term, large-scale societal change in the opposite direction. It will take plenty of time, plenty of resources and, I suspect, quite a bit of imagination.

The coalition will not oppose this bill, but we remain concerned about this problem and we hope that the government's new budget measure, 'Mathematics and science—increasing participation in schools and universities', will help to rectify this situation. Encouragingly, the government does appear to have heeded the Chief Scientist's recommendations in the Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest report, with the 2012-13 budget including $54 million over four years for this measure. Rather than entirely focusing on university-level participation in maths and science, the program aims to encourage school-age students to study these areas. The opposition think that is a good thing. We join the government in that.

This is an acknowledgement of the link between students' areas of interest in school and their study choices at university level. Hopefully, through emphasising the importance and continuing relevance of maths and science throughout schooling, this measure will raise the demand for university places in the fields of science—something the lowering of student contribution rates apparently failed to achieve.

To sum up: while lawyers and sometimes indeed politicians are important to resolving disputes, it is scientists and allied disciplines that take us to the moon; that fight the empire of disease; and that truly give voice to human progress. From all of us, I think, more strength to their arm. The coalition will not oppose this bill.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012. I would like to preface my contribution to the bill by talking a bit about the history of Commonwealth support for higher education, because I think this is important in outlining the philosophy behind student contributions which underpins this bill.

The Whitlam government introduced free university education in Australia in 1974. That was a move which so many of today's baby boomers applaud, because it gave them the opportunity to attend university when they otherwise would have been unable to afford it. While this was an important social policy, it unfortunately did not address the inequity that existed in access to education. Access to university was limited and, while some students from lower income families got the chance to attend university, high academic achievers tended to be from higher income families. So students from higher income families were going to university fully subsidised by the Commonwealth government and then gaining the benefit of higher paid jobs that a university degree qualified them for. To make higher education more equitable, the government needed a policy that recognised that higher education has both a public and a private benefit but did not provide a barrier to access for low-income families.

I know there are some in the community who would extol the virtues of free university education like that that existed under both Whitlam and Fraser as Prime Ministers—and I agree that there is a strong argument for a substantial taxpayer contribution to the higher education sector, given the enormous economic and social benefits that it delivers to Australians. But let us also recognise that an average university graduate earns an additional $1.5 million over a lifetime compared to a school leaver with no further qualifications. That is a substantial benefit, and I doubt any fair-minded person would argue that graduates should not give something back to the sector, rather than have their education fully subsidised by taxpayers who miss out on this benefit.

The Higher Education Contribution Scheme, or HECS, was the predecessor to the current Higher Education Loans Program, or the HELP scheme. HECS was introduced in 1989 and had a number of major benefits for the university sector. It provided a revenue stream for government which could be used to expand the number of Commonwealth supported student places available. It removed the inequity of students who have the privilege of the private benefits of higher education not having to make a contribution for those benefits. Finally, the genius of the scheme was that HECS payments were deferred until students reached a certain level of income—meaning they were not required to pay back their debt until they had the capacity to do so. The deferred nature of HECS, now HELP, payments removes the disincentive to rural, remote and low-income students that upfront payments present.

Of course, there are many other barriers to higher education that disadvantaged students face, and this government is working hard to address them through scholarships, changes to youth allowance and various other policies which are having a positive effect. Between the years 2007 and 2011, we have seen a 30.7 per cent increase in the enrolment of commencing students from low-SES backgrounds and a 23.7 per cent increase in low-SES enrolments overall. I could go into more detail about these initiatives, but that is probably a debate for another time.

In terms of HELP payments, there is no evidence that student contributions at their current level are a deterrent to disadvantaged students. In fact, students are far more sensitive to the upfront costs of a university education such as relocation and living expenses. However, deferred student contributions do not cover the entire cost of a student's university tuition. In other words, students are subsidised by the Australian government, and this is in recognition of the public benefit that university education provides society more broadly.

Unfortunately, over time, we have seen a rapid decline in student enrolment in mathematics, statistics and science—an issue the Australian government is committed to addressing. That is why the Prime Minister asked the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, for advice on how to encourage increased university enrolments in these areas of study. To explain why we should be concerned about the declining participation in maths and science study at university, I will quote from the Chief Scientist, who said:

Mathematics, Engineering and Science (MES) are fundamental to shaping the future of Australia, and the future of the world … Our future lies in creating a high technology, high productivity economy; to innovate and to compete at the high-end of provision. To do so, the technical skills and scientific awareness of the entire workforce must be raised. The number of MES graduates needs to increase to allow industry to expand in these areas. Yet our current performance is wanting, and we compare poorly to our leading Asian neighbours.

In response to Professor Chubb's advice we provided funding of $54 million in the 2012-13 budget for measures to improve student engagement in maths and science.

This government is funding projects and courses that improve the quality of teacher training to improve the supply of qualified graduates entering maths and science teaching at school. We are funding the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute to provide scholarships and a range of intensive short courses for later year university maths students so that they can continue to provide support to mathematics researchers and students. The government is also funding innovative partnerships between universities and schools that are experiencing difficulty in engaging students in science and maths, have poor outcomes in maths and science or have low numbers of students going on to further study in these disciplines.

One of the great aspects of the schools component of the package is the expansion of the CSIRO programs Scientists in Schools and Mathematicians in Schools, which take interesting science and maths lessons to schools across Australia including those in regional areas. The previous speaker, Senator Mason, mentioned how we need to have more of that sort of thing going on so I am pleased to be able to say that we are expanding those programs.

As with sportspeople, interesting and successful mathematicians and scientists can be the inspiration for students to pursue a career in maths or science. My own son studied physics as one of his majors at that great university, the University of Tasmania, and I know that he was very inspired by people he knew that were successful in that area. Only a couple of months ago, I was pleased to hear that the first Australian woman to win a Nobel Prize, Professor Elizabeth Blackburn, had returned to our home state of Tasmania to deliver a series of lectures aimed at inspiring high school students to study science. It is a great source of pride to me that my home state has produced a scientist of Professor Blackburn's calibre. I am sure she will inspire many young Tasmanians to take up a career in science.

Now that I have outlined the government's commitments to improving maths and science, I would like to turn to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill currently before the Senate. The bill, if passed, will reinstate the previous maximum student contribution for units of study in maths, statistics and science from 1 January 2013. Maths, science and statistics are currently classified as national priority units of study. In 2012, students were charged a reduced maximum student contribution of $4,250. Under this bill, the maximum contribution in 2013 will be increased to $8,363.

Universities are currently being provided with transitional loading as compensation for reduced student contribution amounts; however, this will cease when the student contribution amount increases. The national priority rate for these units, which was introduced in 2009, was not delivering value for money in terms of its desired outcomes. This experience was consistent with the findings of the 2008 Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education—that is, that there is no evidence that lower student contributions have a positive impact on student demand. Not only was there not increased demand for maths and science study but also the majority of students who were studying maths and science units were not enrolled in a maths or science course or an education course, so the measure was not contributing to the overall pool of maths and science graduates or increasing the supply to schools of maths and science teachers.

The government is continuing to provide incentives to study maths, statistics and science courses through the HECS-HELP benefits of maths and science graduates. Students who graduate from a natural and physical sciences course with a HECS-HELP debt and work in a relevant field of study can have their compulsory repayments reduced by more than $1,600. Graduates who work as a maths or science teacher may qualify for both the HECS-HELP benefit for maths and science graduates and the HECS-HELP benefit for teachers and can have their compulsory repayments reduced by more than $3,200.

There is another purpose to this bill. I go back to my previous point, that the purpose of the Commonwealth subsidising higher education places is for the public benefit higher education provides. There are around three-quarters of a million Australians living overseas, either permanently or long term. The government believes that our funding priorities should be to support those students who are most likely to pursue careers in Australia to repay their HELP debts and to use their education to benefit Australia. The bill will therefore remove the eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and the HELP scheme for Australian citizens who do not reside in Australia. This measure will not affect students undertaking studies overseas as a part of a formal exchange program, or those who are engaged in a study abroad program for some units of their course. In addition, the small number of students who are currently enrolled in Commonwealth supported places but are not resident in Australia will not be affected by this measure while they complete their current course of study.

The estimated number of people who may be affected by this measure is small: about 1,000 full-time equivalents; however, with the implementation of the demand-driven system and the increase in online delivery of teaching, we expect that there could be significant future growth in the number of Commonwealth supported students not living in Australia.

What the government seeks to achieve with this bill is to have a system of Commonwealth support for university students that will encourage access to university while providing the maximum benefit to Australia's workforce and economy. These measures will help support the additional investment that the government has made in the new, demand-driven funding system for Australian universities, and ensure that funding is better targeted and that more Australian students have the opportunity to go to university. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012 needs to be considered in the context of international education and economic trends. It is internationally recognised that a country's future and economic wellbeing, and its ability to compete in the global economy, are dependent on the skills that higher education brings. Economic frameworks have shifted from industrial and manufacturing sectors to science and technology, and to the provision of information and knowledge. Innovation using high-level maths and science is essential to solving the complex problems the world is facing: climate change, urban planning, health and medicine, transport, communications and information technology, and primary industries and production. This is reflected in the need for more highly skilled Australians, which is growing at 2.5 times the rate of jobs created for lower skilled employees. But we are falling behind in a catch 22. Education funding levels are slipping in real terms. Successive governments have failed to maintain and increase public investment in all levels of education, and thus have turned away from generational investment in this country's future in favour of the short-term political fix and big business demands.

The number of students studying maths and science in senior high school years has plummeted over the past decade. In 1992, 94 per cent of year 12 students studied science. By 2010, it had fallen to 51 per cent. That makes me personally very sad because we are clearly missing out on so much, as are so many students. The proportion of year 12 maths students studying advanced or intermediate maths has fallen from 41.3 per cent in 1995 to 29.7 per cent in 2010, with only 10 per cent studying advanced maths. The drop does not seem so dramatic but when you consider that we are now down to just below 30 per cent, it is a worrying trend like the trend in science. Conversely, the proportion of maths students studying elementary maths has risen from 37 to 50 per cent in the same period.

There is a shortage of skilled, high-level maths and science teachers in our schools which is seriously limiting schools' ability to engage and educate in these areas. The falling graduate numbers are reflected in the average age of maths and science teachers in senior high school, which sits at 48 and 45 years respectively. Our Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb, identifies the lack of knowledgeable and inspirational teachers as a major factor in the looming science, technology, education and mathematics skills shortages. In 2010, just 550 out of 72,808 diploma of education graduates held any previous undergraduate science study. That is a dismally low figure.

Professor Chubb has identified an important point here: the role of inspirational teachers. I was incredibly fortunate when I was at Sydney Girls High School in having such a teacher, Mrs Komon, who taught me so much and inspired me to go on with my own science work. And Professor Geoff Prince, Director of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, has described the consequence of that dismally low figure as 'choking graduations in mathematics and statistics, particularly the number of graduates who become teachers'. Turning away from the Gonski report would add further to the spiral trend. It is bad policy, given what we know our country needs over the next few generations of students and teachers.

We can all agree that the number of university graduates in science and maths needs boosting. Australia's ratio of first university degrees awarded in science, technology, education and mathematics courses is abysmal for such a rich country. In 2002 it was at 22.2 per cent, well below the 33.3 per cent in Asia, Europe's 26.6 per cent or Russia's 33.1 per cent. In 2010 our figure had fallen to 18.8 per cent of graduates in these areas. As I read out those figures I am reminded of what we have heard about the wonderful Olympics in recent days and comparing our medal tally with other medal tallies. I have enjoyed the events so much, but I wish these figures gained similar prominence.

Professor Chubb notes that Australia needs around 13,500 STEM graduates—that is science, technology, education and mathematics—per annum for a decade just to keep up with those retiring, yet the demand for maths PhD graduates will rise to 55 per cent by 2020. Students are also dropping out of these subjects as their studies commence. Out of 180,393 commencing enrolments in science and engineering degrees in 2007, only 112,162 graduated in 2010. That is a worrying high attrition rate. And let us not forget the looming retirement of the academic workforce in our universities, with Professor Prince noting that by 2020 there will be more mathematics PhDs retiring from the Australian workforce than entering it.

The need to boost maths and science graduates was recognised with the then government's move from 2009 to treat mathematics, statistics and science courses as national priorities, increasing government funding per subject and lowering the HECS cost for students from $7,260 to $4,077. This bill seeks to reverse that. Its amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 do two things. They increase the maximum student contribution amount for mathematics, statistics and science units for all students from 1 January 2013—and we need to note that this will apply to new and continuing students. Secondly, they remove eligibility for Commonwealth supported places, CSPs, and income contingent loans for Australian citizens who are not resident in Australia during their course.

The government states that growth in bachelor-level natural and physical sciences has increased only marginally above the overall growth in the sector despite the HECS discounts and that the real investment needs to be in schools. This is acknowledged by a number of university sectors, but we are not anticipating a solution being found in a major increase in schools funding.

The education minister's office provides the following analysis. Discounted HECS in maths and science succeeded in raising the number of students taking natural and physical science courses by only 0.81 per cent, taking student numbers from 13.5 per cent in 2008 to 13.86 per cent in 2010. In 2009 and 2010 most students studying natural and physical science units were not enrolled in natural and physical science courses—obviously an important distinction. Students undertaking an education course of study and undertaking natural and physical science units in their course fell from 3.7 per cent in 2008 to 3.3 per cent in 2010. And, while growth in commencing students in the natural and physical sciences increased from 2008 to 2012, this was only marginally above the overall growth in the sector as a whole.

This analysis seems at odds with the 19.4 per cent rise in students commencing bachelor places across all sciences and mathematical science from 2008 to 2010, which is based on the available figures, compared with the 15.3 per cent rise across all other disciplines. Even the department noted that 'the two years growth more than reversed declines in demand for this field between 2004 and 2008'. The discrepancy may arise from counting first-year students undertaking compulsory maths and science units but not undertaking maths and science courses.

We accept that the numbers of graduating students in particular courses such as calculus, physics and chemistry are what counts. But Dr Dobson's report, commissioned by Professor Chubb's research, found that enrolments in science courses at all year levels did grow by 18,257 between 2002 and 2010 to 78,858 places. He also noted health course enrolments grew by 66,293 places to 162,611 in the same period, and management-commerce enrolments jumped by 96,719 enrolments to 325,508. But he did find an overall increase of university enrolments of 33 per cent, with enrolments in all levels of science rising by 30.1 per cent. He also found the expansion in 'science' did not come from the enabling sciences of chemistry, mathematics and physics, which remained static, but from behavioural and biological sciences and the non-sciences requiring first-year-unit study.

Dr Dobson still stated that the 2009 discount on HECS for maths and science students had been starting to generate more undergraduate domestic enrolments in the subjects and that abolishing this discount is a mistake. He said:

These things take time—it takes a generation—but you just can't do it in the political timeframe …

He said politicians will:

… never admit this, but basically they're just thinking of the next election and the next budget.

That is what I hope we can rise above in this important issue. This was echoed by Professor Geoff Prince, Director of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, criticising the axing of the HECS discount in December last year, saying that the money had gone into 'reducing the deficit'. For all their talk of a prosperous future for Australia, successive governments have been seriously failing generations of Australian students, and we are starting to realise the seriousness of the consequent shortages in skills vital to a healthy society that is competing in the new global economy.

The Greens acknowledge the government is spending $54 million to engage in maths and science through other programs, but we cannot support this measure that removes funding that encourages maths and science students until we see that a sufficient comparable program is put in place with commensurate funding being transferred to a more targeted area.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute some remarks about the Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The bill contains a few schedules. The first amends the Higher Education Support Act to reverse the 2008 Labor government decision to reduce the HECS-HELP fees for those students studying mathematics and science disciplines. It is quite ironic that this bill is before the chamber this week, as it is National Science Week—the irony continues, Senator Back. Schedule 2 of the bill removes the Commonwealth supported place contribution for those Australian citizens studying online whilst living overseas. Both measures will result in savings—congratulations to the Labor government—and the coalition will not be opposing the government's efforts in these areas.

However, I do have some remarks to make about the changes. The increase in contribution for mathematics and science units of study from the national priority level of $4,691 to the band 2 rate of $8,353 follows findings from the Bradley review that there is no evidence that indicates that lower amounts of student contributions to their university education have a positive impact on student demand. I guess that somebody needed to let the government know that when they implemented this policy.

There is a contradiction through the course of the debate on this bill—and we have heard several senators previously raise these issues—that I hope government senators can assist me with. The numbers—and I am speaking specifically of Parliamentary Library figures, and Senator Rhiannon made some commentary around those in her contribution—suggest that the effect of the incentive implemented was immediate. For example, in 2009 undergraduate applications for natural and physical sciences increased by 17 per cent, and again in 2010 by 13 per cent on the 2008 figures. In fact, DEEWR noted that the two years of growth experienced over that period of time more than reversed the decline in the number of students studying mathematics and science between 2004 and 2008. The great news was that the increase in applications to study mathematics and science flowed through to actual enrolments in courses that offered these units of study. When we compare those commencing a Bachelor of Mathematics or Science, the increase on 2008 commencements is 19.4 per cent, whereas the increase in student numbers across all other disciplines studying at universities is 15.3 per cent. The rate of increase for sciences was actually higher since the introduction of the HECS-HELP incentive. So I am unclear whether today's bill is a result of the program being such a success that it is being cancelled as it achieved the objective set, or whether it is being cancelled because no evidence exists that lowering HECS-HELP fees will actually result in increased enrolments.

Mathematics is one of my own areas of study. I find it a wonderful subject where logic and creativity combine with determination and perseverance to find solutions, and surely that is a characteristic we would like to encourage right throughout our society. In fact, it has always confused me why young people do not find sustenance in the simplicity of a mathematical argument when, as a linguistically challenged human being, mathematics has provided me with much joy. I want it on the record, though, that I am no mathematician. That decision was made at the end of a year 2 study of mathematics when the lecturer said, 'You're either going to be a mathematician or you're just going to be one of those people that is good at maths.' I went on to have more fun with my studies in sport and politics and so I am just okay with maths—I am not a mathematician.

But, as I was completing my studies, many of my peers explained that they hated mathematics. When you delved into why, they would invariably reply, 'Because of Mr So-and-so in year 9 and Ms What's-her-name in year 8,' so my desire to reverse that trend and do my little bit in turning young people onto the joys that I experienced through mathematics was born. There is a great Socrates quote around the role of teachers as inspirers—and we have heard Senator Back particularly talking about the role of teachers inspiring young people to study and to think. Socrates said:

Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.

I think that particularly for mathematics and science teachers it is about creating that sense of excitement and anticipation around those disciplines.

Getting back to creating the nation's mathematics and science teachers, we have to bear in mind that it actually takes time to grow a teacher. These incentives have been in place for a very short time when you compare the situation with how long it takes to create a teacher: three years minimum of undergraduate training followed by a minimum of one year in a graduate diploma. By my arithmetic—and that is not my strong point when it comes to mathematics—that equals four years. The decision to axe the incentive has occurred precisely when the students are still in the undergraduate phase of their studies, so I would argue that we do not actually have all the data available to make the decision as to whether this has worked or not in terms of creating more teachers. Similarly, I would not argue that all students studying maths and science will become teachers; but nor should they, as the Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb, has made it clear in his investigation into the mathematics, engineering and science needs of our nation in his recent report handed down in May 2012.

But a simple assumption remains: to increase the number of people teaching maths and science we actually need to increase the number of people studying them before we can turn them on to teaching. We all have countless examples of people coming to the field of education later in life as circumstances and passions in life change. We should not hold everybody to the decisions they make at 18. I am sure there are many people in this place who have changed their minds since then. So increasing the number of people studying in these areas is crucial.

But the question remains: did the policy work? Another example: MYEFO cuts to this program were announced in November 2011, whilst in December 2011 we were using the same incentive—HECS FEE-HELP subsidisation fiddling—to promote study by early childhood graduates. It either works or it does not work. The government committed $658 million on a scheme where there was a lack of evidence that the measure would achieve its outcome of increasing the number of students studying, and therefore teaching, mathematics and science.

I want to return briefly to the Chief Scientist's report, which makes key recommendations around teachers inspiring young people in maths and science and recommendations on university scholarships and incentives to study and research in these areas. My hope is that the savings generated by the cutting of this incentive will be redirected to programs that are evidence based and that will actually result in increasing the number of people teaching maths and science, rather than disappearing into the budget.

The government's response is typically one of reductio ad absurdum, which is actually Latin for a mathematical contradiction. The simple description of a mathematical contradiction is that it is a statement that goes against an assumption. Within the political context there are several assumptions that underpin what we understand effective government to be. They are that the decisions to spend taxpayers' dollars are actually based on evidence. I would counter that the government's decisions around this area over probably the last three or four years are a mathematical contradiction.

Sound investment will provide a return—the policy outcome which is desired. In light of my previous comment this begs the questions: are these measures being removed because they are seen as a Rudd initiative and therefore politically motivated? Or is the current Labor Prime Minister conceding that the policy conceived and implemented while she was education minister was flawed and did not have the evidence on which to base the decision making? Either way it is contradictory and against every assumption underpinning good governance.

Schedule 2 of the bill concerns Australian students who are studying online through an Australian university whilst overseas. The amendment before us removes their eligibility for a Commonwealth supported place and the higher education loan scheme as a subsequence. This is on the rationale—on the assumption—that they are going to be less likely to return to Australia and hence be paying tax; the Australian coffers will not be filled by their repayment of their HECS debt.

Currently, irrespective of whether you are studying in Wycheproof or Warsaw you are classified by universities as either a domestic or an international student for their purposes. It is not where you are living; you can study online irrespective of where you live, and this is going to add to compliance costs for universities as they attempt to stratify domestic students as to where they are studying from. Currently, a domestic student is an Australian or New Zealand citizen, or an Australian permanent resident visa holder. But the only domestic students who are eligible for a Commonwealth supported place at an Australian university are Australian citizens. That is exactly as it should be. Taxpayers are assisting students in paying for their education through the Commonwealth supported place system because there is not only a personal benefit to a higher education but very definitely a public benefit. Whilst I appreciate that the impetus for driving this change was the setting up of a campus overseas and enrolling Australian citizens, we do not know where these young people will end up. We do not know that a decision not to return to Australia when young people are 21 will be made. We will not have the advantage of them returning home and contributing socially and economically to our nation. Similarly, when we are teaching online students there is an online classroom, and we cannot underestimate the richness of an online classroom—students from right around the world, each bringing their perspective to the topic under discussion.

A Commonwealth supported place is like the old HECS place, where a contribution towards their education is loaned to the student. The Commonwealth pays the amount loaned directly to the university and seeks repayment from the student through the ATO once the student is earning a certain income. In Australia a large component of the cost of educating a student at a university is covered by the Commonwealth. The measures before us, according to 2011-12 budget papers, list the saving as $25 million over the forward estimates for the changes in schedule 2. The government states its belief that its funding priority should be to support those students who are most likely to work and live in Australia for their careers.

Given my former life as a teacher—and I am a parent of young people and I used to lecture at a university—I know how many young people study and leave our shores to take up work and travel options throughout their 20s. I am not confident of this assumption by the government that people who work, study and complete their degrees in an Australian institution within our shores are actually more likely to stay here and pay tax than those who do not.

I am not more confident when examining the number of mid-career professionals who are expats earning a living and paying tax overseas and have been in receipt of those same Commonwealth-supported placements, yet are not contributing back to our community and nation in the way the government intends this change to enact.

The mathematical contradiction continues, going against assumptions. Either way the government fails because of a lack of evidence. The fact remains that those citizens who are living overseas for whatever reason—they might be married to an expat who has a three-year contract—whilst they are overseas can take advantage of that opportunity in their life and complete the degree that they started, or a graduate diploma et cetera, online. It does not mean that when they finish they will be less likely to return.

This change also comes in the face of an increasing push by universities to increase their online offerings right across the board as technological advances make education via distance more accessible and of higher quality, and also because of the economic imperatives within universities themselves. It is the online delivery of higher education as an economic option available to our universities. So, whilst we are increasing the online offerings and encouraging students to participate in Australian institutions through the online environment, at the same time we are saying, 'You can do that only if you live within our shores.'

Deakin University has over 11,000 students studying off campus, with a large portion of those overseas. In fact, part of its strategic plan moving forward is to include at least one unit online as part of its offering. La Trobe University offers nine online promotional courses, with content freely available, and has 130,000 subscribers worldwide. This is a great story. Monash University offers 28 undergrad courses and 130 postgrad courses off campus and currently has 3,347 students studying off campus, many of them overseas. Open Universities similarly has 54,000 students, many of them Australian citizens who should have the right to participate and have a Commonwealth supported place at our Australian institutions irrespective of where their current situation in life places them in the world.

As universities tap into the economic benefits of delivering courses and units online, this trend will only continue, and that was actually stated by the minister in his speech as part of the assumptions underpinning the decisions. Yet the contradiction continues. The behaviour of this government is in direct opposition to the assumptions around equitable access to education for Australian citizens. Who is to say that our expat community, in the role that they play overseas, do not benefit Australia, which is one of the rationales presented by the government for this particular retraction of support? Surely our expat community benefit our economic and social future in the work that they are doing in this period of time in their lives in the various countries they exist in.

Similarly, there is a contradiction in rhetoric when we talk about engaging regionally. We want to engage internationally and we want our graduates to be the world's best, yet this policy setting discourages lifelong learning, because you cannot take advantage of an online course whilst you happen to be overseas. It treats some Australians differently to others in the area of educational access, and the coalition has been particularly passionate about ensuring that in our great nation there is no such inequity of access provisions. Geography should not matter. But we hear hollow words from hollow men and women. A real education revolution would increase both science and mathematics graduates and teachers. A revolution would mean that this government used evidence on which to base its funding decisions and inform the models to ensure our estimated $30 billion investment in education in this country delivers for both the individual and the community more generally.

Having voiced my concerns about the assumptions underpinning this legislation and the contradictory messages provided by the government on issues raised both in schedule 1 and in schedule 2, I would like to touch briefly on the difficulty in implementing these changes at a university level. I am curious to know how, when a young person—or an old person—goes to enrol in an online course at, let us say, Monash University, we will be working out where they live and what their intent is. Are they intending to stay in Australia for their entire career, pay their tax and ensure that their HECS debt is repaid in its entirety? Are they not planning to contribute to our ongoing efforts overseas? Are we going to be asking them whether they are planning to stay overseas forever and hence never return, in which case we as a nation will withdraw our support and they will not receive a Commonwealth supported place while they are overseas and studying? There are significant questions that I hope I will get to ask the minister at a later time, but the government's clumsy attempts to find savings in portfolios are something that I am in favour of and that I encourage, and I will not be opposing the bill. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to follow Senator McKenzie's words in the brief time before we go on to other business. I would like to echo the sentiments of my coalition colleagues, who have some concerns about—I will use these terms—the dumbing-down of some of our higher education areas, and particularly the importance of maths and science in respect of the future prosperity and innovation in our nation. The fact that science will play a pivotal role in Australia's future technological advancement is, I think, beyond any shadow of a doubt. If there are any concerns in the community, we only have to look at some of our Asian neighbours and competitors in the technological field, where there are an enormous number of graduates in the science, mathematics and engineering disciplines. They invest quite wisely in that education process, because there is an understanding about how important it is for the future of their countries. Australia cannot afford to be left behind in this race, because we do live in that global village where there is the flow of capital that will go to where the greatest minds can be tapped and potentially utilised. I will conclude my remarks there.

Debate interrupted.