Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Successive governments have failed. Labor governments, the last federal government, as well as state governments, have failed to adequately invest in public education. Because the matter at hand today is higher education, I will turn to the bill before us. I thought this was going to be my last opportunity to speak on higher education legislation in this place. A debate on such a topic would not be complete without the Democrats reminding everyone of our core belief that education at all levels should be publicly funded and accessible to all. It should be about your brains and not about your bank balance. But I see from the bills list which has just made its way around this place that I will have another opportunity. Next week we have another higher education bill before us dealing with some of the industrial relations measures that were promoted, I might say in quite a retrograde fashion, by the last government.

The bill before us, the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008, is one that the Australian Democrats will be supporting—not without qualification, of course. It implements a number of commitments made by the Labor Party before they came to office during the election campaign in 2007, including additional Commonwealth places in education and nursing, a good thing—tick; HECS-HELP; fee reductions for maths and science units, again another good thing and something the former government could perhaps have taken notice of many years ago; and the expansion of Commonwealth scholarships, another good thing. The big ticket item or the one that seems to be most contentious is the phasing out of full-fee degrees for domestic undergraduates. We are pleased to support in particular that last measure. As members of this chamber would know, we have long campaigned for a reinvestment by governments in our higher education system. A reduction in the contribution amounts for maths, stats and science is welcome on the face of it. These disciplines, we know, are fundamental to our ability to be innovative and to add value to our knowledge based economy, yet there are some pretty dire stories coming out of industry and academic sectors about the shortage of mathematicians and scientists in this country. A broad and complex approach needs to be adopted.

Obviously anything that reduces the barriers such as financial disincentives is a good thing and is one we support, but there are many other things we need to do. I have heard of major companies, such as BHP Billiton, having to import their mathematical talent from overseas. What does that say about our so-called clever country or education revolution, or whatever rhetoric we care to use in these debates, when we are importing from overseas the skilled professionals we should be able to produce in our own country?

The Democrats believe it is commendable that the government is attempting to address these particular skills shortages. I also wonder to what extent the reduction in a fee will address some of these issues. It is an important incentive to provide but a lot more needs to be done. It is always difficult to pinpoint why a student picks the course they do. Whether it is based on course cost or what a student has in mind to do as a career, all of these issues play a role in whether or not we get adequate numbers. In maths and science there is an issue to do with branding. Maths does not always immediately identify with a non-academic career path and science often conjures up images of lab work. Neither of these stereotypes do justice to the wealth of opportunities available to those who study maths and science. A fee reduction may help where a student is indecisive or is wavering between the choice of one course over another, but clearly the government needs to do more if they are serious about ensuring and encouraging increased participation in maths and science, and stats as well. We need high-quality teaching right throughout the school years and university. We also need to show the students who are at the cusp of tertiary education the variety of opportunities available to maths and science graduates so as to make these degrees as attractive as others whose career paths are more readily apparent, such as engineering. On that note, I might make a shameless plug of the Senate’s inquiry into space.