POLICY & REFORM
campusreview. com. au
Triple fault
Flaws in consultation, implementation of prior reforms, and vision are all to blame for today’ s clouded, unfocused deregulation debate.
By Jan Thomas
No doubt, in years to come, history will look back on the current debate over deregulation as nothing more than a speed bump in the evolution of the higher education mix. In the pot will be claims from all political sides around equity, fairness, justice and the legitimacy of Australia’ s world ranking for university excellence.
As a vice-chancellor of a regional university, and having experienced the roller-coaster of the reform process over the past eight months, I believe ongoing rhetoric and emotional subterfuge has littered the discussion, and the whole process needs a better stratagem than what has been presented so far.
There has been nothing as mind-numbing as watching commentators trying to get their head around events as they unfolded during 2014. The resulting confusion, speculation, conflation of issues and partisan lobbying has added to a general sense of despair.
Structural reform to the sector is needed, but this is not the way it should occur.
It appears to me that, as the Senate prepares to discuss the revised legislation, there are a number of factors that will be remembered as contributing to the current malaise, with neither side of politics emerging as blameless on these fronts.
Firstly, it is impossible to condone any reform process that does not begin with a thorough consultation to get the issues on the table, fully discussed and comprehensively understood.
A lack of consultation prior to the May 2014 budget not only meant that the scope of the reforms took everyone by surprise – and hence put many immediately on the defensive – but also resulted in some elements of reform that were never going to fly being allowed to sit and fester on the table to contaminate the subsequent discussion.
Most notably, the proposed changes to interest rates on loans were so onerous for students that they were bound to rally strong opposition and generate distrust in the package as a whole. Although they were dropped six months down the track, the damage in terms of losing public trust had been done.
Proper consultation could have prevented this. What was mooted as consultation and engagement was little more than lip service. This was, at best, disguised by political hubbub that served to replace the prospect for rational dialogue, deliberation and debate prior to the setting of policy, leaving the need for partisan lobbying after policy settings had been locked in. The result is that all stakeholders feel obliged to view the process as a fight to the death – negotiation and compromise have been virtually impossible.
When coupled with the 24-hour news cycle, where there is little time allowed for reflection before news deadlines are met, this
14