By Marina Cameron
On January 15, the federal government announced the composition and terms of reference of a new review of higher education. The review will cost $2 million and is expected to provide a blueprint for the 1998 federal budget and the "reform" of higher education over the next 20 years.
Minister for education Amanda Vanstone stated that the "government does not wish to limit the scope of the review committee's work in any way".
The National Union of Students, the National Tertiary Education and Industry Union and the Australian Education Union have criticised the legitimacy of a review which includes neither student nor staff representatives.
Far from being a broad-based team representing the different interests in the tertiary sector, the elite seven-person panel is very business-dominated. Retired elite private school principal Roderick West has been appointed to chair the review, his only real claims to fame being that he tutored Prince Charles in Latin and taught many prominent politicians.
The other reviewers are: Gary Banks (industry commissioner), Clem Doherty (retired management consultant), Lee Kwong Dow (dean of education, University of Melbourne), Lauchlan Chipman (vice-chancellor of the University of Central Queensland), Doreen Clark (business woman) and Peter Baume (medico, former NSW education minister and VC of the Australian National University).
The Greens, Democrats and ALP have also expressed concern over the industry flavour of the review, but the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee joined the Australian Business Chamber in applauding it.
Acting AVCC president Professor Geoff Wilson stated on January 18 that the government, through the inquiry, would be "trying very hard to achieve a significant shift from public to private funding". Far from opposing this, the AVCC has called for more deregulation of fees to make up funding shortfalls.
Resistance national coordinator Sean Healy told Green Left: "The bias of this review is very clear. It was first announced at the time of the federal budget, with the implication being that the government had not been able to cut as much as it wanted because of protests and widespread public opinion against education cuts. Now it wants an 'impartial arbiter' to rubber-stamp its 'vision' for higher education.
"Anyone who might have presented an alternative vision of quality, accessible, free and publicly funded education has been excluded from having any input. Students and staff, and all those who value education as a social rather than an industry resource, will have to make their voices known in other ways. Students are already planning activities for the start of semester, working up to a national day of action on March 27, and are calling on all others to join them."