Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share 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)