Because the prognosis for Australia's universities is poor under current policy settings, the onus is clearly on Kemp's critics to come up with constructive alternatives. John Howard and Kim Beazley have rushed to judgement, ruling out one policy option after another. The Prime Minister was clearly under immediate political pressure, while the Opposition leader was clearly buoyed by the opportunity that the leak afforded. Unwittingly, however, they may jointly have condemned Australian higher education policy to long-term paralysis. Complacency about the status quo is actually the most reprehensible of all the responses.
Criticism is healthy.
Policy proposals should be exposed to searching Cabinet discussion, public debate and parliamentary scrutiny. Where such debate is informed and constructive, the resulting adjustments make the result not only more acceptable politically, but usually also better, fairer and more workable. Some of Kemp's proposals certainly need serious reappraisal. Levying market interest rates on loan repayments threatens to create a significant financial disincentive for prospective students, and seems unnecessarily provocative. Failing to provide it would be like letting roads, bridges, air traffic control systems, health facilities, communications networks or other precious national infrastructure run down.