Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share 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.