Looking through the budget papers released today, I found myself wondering again at the lack of vision in the recent budget.
The adage that ‘a zero budget is what you get when you’re economy is failing’ rings true in the context of the documents. There is no vision for a better society and no credible plan to address the fundamental problems with our economy.
Amidst the budget papers Treasury has provided (some would say predictable) advice on reintroducing interest on student loans. It could be argued that this is Treasury’s prerogative – and it is. But generally Ministers will tell officials beforehand if they’re wasting their time – and energy will be put into more productive tasks. I expect the advice released signals that National Ministers have been actively considering putting interest back on student loans.
National have never liked the interest-free student loan policy that Labour introduced, and have added an ‘administration fee’ since coming to government. They’ve cut access to student allowances. Generally, they’re not afraid to restrict access to those with aspirations who are from poorer backgrounds and are otherwise unable to afford to study. That is because National see education as a cost rather than an investment.
More fool them.
Interest free student loans were an election bribe. Rich people benefited because instead of them loaning money to their children interest free, they simply borrowed from the government interest free. If interest free loans are so good, where is the policy to give government interest free loans to first time home borrowers?
Yeah, but the poories and middle class benefitted from it!
!!!!!!!!!
Rather than interest free the loans should be linked to inflation, it’s on fair that they pay some of the cost of lending the money.
If you want to be really cynical (I could not possibly be), you might wonder if the Nats realise that their real wealthy power base are happy to pay for their kids tertiary education if it keeps most of the hoi polloi off the campus. Key and Co`s attitude to education for the rest of us seems more like measuring us in a gross manner for literacy and maths, perhaps just to check that we can usefully serve the educated(born to rule?) masters? Sadly many middle NZers like this – destructive checking eg League Tables – don`t underestimate a ‘gnats’ ability to sting and yet persuade you that you get satisfaction from scratching
As I said – a bit cynical…. I hope
Ps I was bonded – can hold a restless body till it settles down… here, ie returns many-fold the state expense? OK, yeah – if there are jobs
The only reason interest-free loans were introduced was to help Labour win the 2005 election. They weren’t aimed at solving any particular problem with tertiary education so removing them wouldn’t cause a problem for the sector.
The only surprising thing about this is that National hasn’t already scrapped interest-free loans. The fact that they haven’t felt able to do that in the last three years is a very strong indication that National voters, ie the already well-off, are prime beneficiaries of the policy.
@ Psycho Milt
Well of course, at least earlier, some wealthy students took the cheap or free loan to finance business ventures and holidays. That some are proud of that is the measure of them…low. Those-such could be some of the ‘prime beneficiaries of the policy’, but rich or poor, if you give someone something it soon enough is seen as an entitlement by many – and you remove it at your peril. Probably, it is the middle NZ families that put Key and Co in power that particularly worry the Nat`s.
Tertiary education in several subjects is an investment if and only if there is also substantial investment in research and development in a range of industries – that gets good use out of those tertiary educated people.
Given that such investment has had excellent results overseas, it is surprising that neither Labour nor National are willing to substantially increase R & D. As a result, scientists, engineers and other technical types join the exodus across the tasman.
And where have you been hiding Ivy?
As Labour’s science, research and development spokesman for the past three years, David Shearer has repeatedly expressed Labour’s intention to make R&D programmes a cornerstone of their policy for future development. He has progressed a private/public partnership (yes, the right sort of PPP) to ensure that New Zealand’s scientists and industrial innovators can successfully advance their research in NZ without having to take their skills, and the investment that will inevitably flow from them, overseas.
Damn right Anne!
!!!!!!!!!!
Cool. Doubling our GDP spend on that then, or increasing it by 3 % like National?
@ Ivy,…No – We could do some sensible R & D and achieve huge returns rather than, for example, dig up the countryside for immensely expensive “Roads of national significance” ( eg Transmission Gulley which is the clearly more expensive Wgt`n access solution AND with a NEGATIVE cost benefit analysis!!) We should be wary of Gov`ts pushing populist nonsense. We need a channel ’7′ to investigate … Oh damn
Well, countries like Finland and Singapore spend about double the percentage of GDP on R and D that we do.
I’m not talking about pointless roading projects at all!
Research on what? Development of what? To what level? Anything new outside of the bog-standard ag-hort spectrum? For sale to an overseas enterprise? And then what? What’s left for the late-to-emigrate here in NZ who are hanging on in hope?
If someone was to say something like, ‘Explore and develop technologies and methodologies that reverse harms to our society and the environment that sustains us’ then people who see that as a mission to bring out their best and participate in – at ALL levels of society, can buy in and get working. They can see WII-FM and think/move according to their gifts and inclinations.
The person with quals isn’t going to go far unless there are people differently qualified who can ‘turn the learn’ into tangible measurable and evolving processes/products, then use, promote, sell them here and overseas.
Too much of the aspirational waffle fails to recognise that the ‘vision’ requires inter-dependency instead of the exclusivity of elites.
You won’t get anywhere without combining the different work and skills from self-taught to specialist into a focused whole. That mistake – picking ‘winners’ – has already been made, and the dole queues show it. And ‘mono-educating’ (tertiary) leaves far too many gifted and differently able with nowhere to shine.
Time to get it sorted, surely?
I am not middle or upper-class and yet am one of the people who have benefited from the interest free student loans. I am an ex street kid who managed to get off the streets, get the grades and come out with a Double BA (Political Science and History) and I am currently up skilling by doing a BAppSci (Psychology) part-time as I look at where the jobs are.
My student loan is currently sitting at just under $60,000; most of this is made up living costs ($150 p/w) during my 3.5 years study for my first degree.
While I am grateful for the loan and the opportunities it has opened up for me, which without the loan I would never have had access to it is always in the back of my mind. With the recent National Budget announcements around student loans I am starting to weigh up just doing a Diploma in Psychology vs a full degree and working out what additional benefit a couple of extra years study will get me. It is said when one has to weigh up good vs bad debt when one approaches study. I am also aware that some of the major banks are now taking student loans into account when people apply for home loans.
I have always worked while studying and have only claimed back my voluntary student loan repayments once (actually was this year) and used it for debt reduction.
Some argue that further study is a private good, I believe that it is a mixed good, the graduate benefits in terms of skills, higher wage etc while the public get goods/services from those graduates. Just think of how many people you will interact with today whose job requires further education and on-going professional development. New Zealand claims to have/developing a knowledge based economy while the current policies are selling it down the future. It was actually suggested to me by someone in HR at a Govt Department that I move overseas to gain more experience so i can get a job in New Zealand.
I am a big supporter of bonding and would like to see it used more in New Zealand and keep our graduates here. I know I could earn more overseas but I don’t want to go overseas, money isn’t everything and Australia is full of Australians.
Since when have grade inflation and credential creep constituted an investment?