Having failed to convince the Senate crossbench of the merit of Christopher Pyne’s deregulation of university fees, the government has now determined to try to convince voters of its case with a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign. In doing so, it has managed to alienate exactly the senators it needs to convince to secure passage of its legislation — including Queensland PUP Senator Glenn Lazarus, who savaged the campaign yesterday.
The campaign wouldn’t be necessary if the government had developed its deregulatory policy in consultation with all stakeholders and then explained the need for deregulation and the benefits of it to the sector and to voters. Instead, the government misled voters before the election by saying there would be no cuts to university funding, then sprung a massive cut of 20% on the sector in the budget and used that cut as a justification for deregulation.
At no stage has Pyne effectively articulated the rationale for the policy in a meaningful way to voters, and at no stage has he done the basics to address what he terms a “scare campaign” by Labor and the Greens over deregulated fees. It’s impossible to determine whether it’s a scare campaign or not, because the government has refused to provide any modelling about the impact of its policies — indeed it claims not to have done any.
The cost of Pyne’s failure, and the government’s mendacity, is now to be borne by taxpayers in an advertising campaign that — typically of this cack-handed government — is already proving counter-productive. The government might be best served by dumping the campaign and taking the whole summer off to rethink not merely how it communicates, but how it determines its policies in the first place. The experience of 2014 suggests both are deeply flawed.
14 thoughts on “Crikey says: tell it to us straight, Christopher”
AR
December 10, 2014 at 7:35 amI’d have to start leaning towards this government’s actions as some bizarre performance theatre were it not for Ockham’s battleaxe – in a choice between incompetence, malevolence and stupidity, pick all three and any other dubious attributes that happen to be lying around.
Like Oz editorials & columnists, nobody could be so stupid, morally myopic/purblind or bigotted as to think they are rational so one has to wonder at whom the drivel is aimed and what must be thought of those so targetted.
drsmithy
December 10, 2014 at 9:56 amThis issue is just another story about cross bench senators falling for the lure of public acclaim by backing yet more magic pudding economic policy where the downtrodden taxpayer has infinite resources to hand out on ever more free stuff for everyone.
We can read the Australian ourselves, you don’t need to transpose it here.
David Hand
December 10, 2014 at 12:56 pmI’m shocked and disappointed doctor!
All this time, I believed I would bestow my wisdom here and the Australian would transpose me!
Norman Hanscombe
December 10, 2014 at 1:05 pmFor the many fervent posters seemingly ignorant of how Australian Universities use their moneys:
1. Government money is given to Universities when students enroll and is retained by universities even if students drop out.
2. Money given for a student enrolling in a course isn’t always used for teaching that course.
3. That money doesn’t even have to be used for teaching at all.
In practice, Government moneys may be used for:
1. Building high-rise apartments for full-fee paying overseas students.
2. Issuing legal threats.
3. Bullying Staff and Students who dare question the ways in which Government money granted for teaching is actually used, and buying the silence of Staff and Students who might otherwise spill the beans.
As I’ve posted before, if I’m wrong about any of this, then I’m ready to apologise as soon as the Vice Chancellors state in writing that what I’ve said is happening is not happening in Australia.