Mr Key – a paperboy in his youth – said he found out about the move at Cabinet on Monday and did not regret it despite the publicity.

He found out on Monday? After the Budget had gone to print? Definitely a game of blame Bill going on here. I imagine the conversation at Cabinet on Monday must have gone something like this, ” Ah, John, we’ve got this thing called the Budget on Thursday. Nothing much for you to worry about….”

But, wait, there’s more Mr Key goes on to say

A lot of people didn’t know they were entitled to them so they didn’t bother claiming. The amounts were fairly small and overall we have been trying to clean up the tax code

Yes, that’s right the amounts are “fairly small”, that is the point! It’s tax on children who earn less than $45 a week, of course the amounts are small. That’s why the credit is there, so they can get those very small amounts back.

And yes some people didn’t bother claiming, but obviously quite a few did given that the government gets $14 million out of this.

What a load of spin and nonsense for a piece of penny pinching from the pockets of paper boys and girls.

Trying to find some time between speeches to write up a post on the Budget, but in the meantime this photo montage from a reader seems to get it about right.

Is future eligibility going to be four years of allowances or 200 weeks?

Steven Joyce caused huge confusion last Thursday by talking about allowances stopping after four years. This was wrong. It is clear that the change he is proposing is to restrict allowances to 200 weeks. This would equate to five years of allowances for most undergraduate courses. This has acted as the default rate of allowances unless you were doing a “long course”. This includes most degrees, postgraduate and longer courses. If you were doing these courses you were eligible for another 50, 100 or more weeks worth of allowances depending on the length of the course. That is now gone.

If you have used up your 200 weeks already does this mean you will be ineligible for future allowances?

I asked Mr Joyce about a case such as this in Parliament today. He said the “final transitional arrangements will be confirmed in the Budget”, but he did go on to acknowledge that the example I gave (a real one) of a student who had used their 200 weeks already and was in the first year of a two year Masters programme would not be eligible for allowances next year.

How many people will be affected by the allowance changes?

Half an answer today as Mr Joyce admitted 4000 to 5000 postgraduate students would no longer be eligible for allowances. He did not give the number of those who would not get allowances because of the changes to parental income thresholds.

Can the government change the terms of student loan contracts that have already been signed to increase the repayment rate to 12% without the agreement of the borrower?

Sadly, yes. Clause 203 of the Student Loan Act says that the Act will override anything that is in a loan contract. The Act contains the repayment rate, but also has a clause 37(3) that says that if the rate is changed by regulation then that rate is deemed to be the rate rather than the one listed in the Act. So, basically the government can do anything it likes to a loan contract as long as it is in the Act. One small caveat is that, through Clause 20, they do have to inform borrowers of any changes to their loan contracts within seven months of the change. Let’s see if they manage that.

There have been a number of questions about limited full time students and how this effects them, which I am chasing up with the Minister. Will come back when I get the results.

As I said the other day I can not believe that Steven Joyce would make these announcements without more information being available. Its simply not fair on students, graduates and their families.

This is irresponsible and cynical. Pre-budget announcements are nothing new, I know that, but if you are going to do do them, how about actually giving details about what you are going to do? Student support is one of those areas where the details matter to individual students and their families. Many students live financially fragile lives, and little changes mean a lot. For families trying to support their children and plan their future, announcements like this have significance. Judging by the questions I am getting on email and on Twitter people are confused, and it is no wonder.

The reason it is cynical is that this is about getting the bad news away before the Budget so that on the day Mr Joyce can show how he is putting some more money into research and certain courses. The robbing Peter part of the equation out of the way, it will be time to pay Paul on Budget Day.

As to the substance of the announcement, they are giving all graduates with loans a pay cut by increasing the repayment rate and they are cutting access to allowances, including limiting eligibility to four years. This is significant. This means no allowances for people in later years of studying medicine, engineering, architecture, veterinary science or for post graduate study or double degrees. In short the very things the government says it wants.

There are still loads of questions unanswered about the detail of the announcement (such as what happens to those in the middle of longer degrees, do four years of allowances at any time in the past make you ineligible from next year?) but the overall message is clear; this government simply sees tertiary education more as a cost to be cut than an investment in our collective future.

Barack Obama and Jimmy Fallon in fine form last night in this sketch from Jimmy’s Late Night show. Fallon has a regular ’slow jam’ segment, and has Obama as his special guest on this one. Very funny, and great work from the President. The issue here is a proposal to increase the rate of interest on student loans, which the President is opposing. As he says

Now is not the time to make school more expensive for our young people

Let’s hope Steven Joyce is listening to that come Budget time.

This morning the spouse of one of the diplomats at the service said that what she loved about the New Zealand services was that it could be relaxed and at the same time so moving. It is true here in Wellington that people wander up stand where and as they wish. There are a few seats, a small official party, but otherwise its a fully egalitarian event. The cup of tea afterwards at the Pipitea Marae is even more so.

Nice changes have been evident in recent years. I like that we now sing the Australian anthem along with the New Zealand one. I love that some of the remaining WW2 veterans are the ones who really belt out the Maori version of our anthem.

The parade has fewer veterans, but more family members. The crowd gets bigger, but the atmosphere does not change. I guess its kind of hard to change the dawn.

But most of all what I love is that it is a true community occasion, with all the generations represented. Wandering around as the day began to lighten up this morning I ran into families of all shapes and sizes. One boy said it was so early, he felt like it was really late. I know what he meant! Others were engaged in conversations about what different bits of the day meant. Others were taking the time to stroll through the grounds of Parliament and soak up another part of our history.

There was a small political element today that was not shied away from. The Wellington President of the RSA noted at the cuppa afterwards that this may have been the last service for The 7th battalion band who perform at ANZAC events in the region, and numerous other community events. They have had their very modest funding taken away. The penny pinching means that 7 of the 10 military bands around New Zealand will cease to exist from later this year. This is sad and wrong. There was some talk today that the band might continue to do ANZAC services without the backing of the military or the government. I hope they do, but more than that I hope the government reconsiders.

But overall this is not a day for politics. I get why some people still have mixed feelings about ANZAC Day. But I take my lead from the veteran I mentioned in the post linked to above. For him he was remembering his mates. This is a chance for the whole country to remember our mates- the past generations who made sacrifices. And to hope that future generations never need to face such things. Lest we forget.

In my early days with the the Party I sought out Murdo for advice and guidance. He seemed to know everyone and everything, and was willing to share it.

At the funeral today we heard from his family that Murdo lived his life in line with his values. Inclusive, caring, with absolute adherence to his sense of fairness and justice.

More than anything Murdo always put Labour, our values and purpose ahead of himself. He never forgot why he was there. That’s something we could all do with remembering.

So, for all the doers and workers in political parties, I pay my respects to Murdo MacMillan, a true Labour man. Rest in peace kind and gentle man.

In the absence of any real data on this its hard to say if there has been a spike in students going overseas to undertake undergraduate studies. Anecdotally there has been an increased presence of Australian universities holding recruitment sessions at some schools. Just how many students are taking them up is a piece of information worth knowing, and I welcome Sir Peter looking into it.

One thing is for sure and that is that Australian universities are now operating in an environment where targeting New Zealand students makes sense. They have had a number of funding increases in recent budgets and are operating in an uncapped environment when it comes to enrolments. Add to that the ease with which New Zealand students can enrol and be treated as domestic students in terms of fees, and the incentives are there on both sides.

All of which makes Steven Joyce’s comments in this story just bizzare. He says

Joyce said the election promise had not been about stopping the brain drain, but increasing the success of the New Zealand economy so more people felt they could be successful here.

”It doesn’t apply to undergraduates, it applies to people earning high incomes in New Zealand,” he said.

First off it is simply untrue to say National did not campaign on stopping the brain drain. Take a look at the billboards Mr Joyce, that is exactly what they promised. And the opposite has occured.

Moreover his laissez faire attitude to the departure of undergraduate students is bizarre. They are the future earners of high incomes! We have a hard enough time keeping our best and brightest here without waving them goodbye at 18.

Regardless of the accuracy of the claim of undergraduate flight, we do need to take another look at how we invest in the tertiary sector to ensure that we are getting the best outcomes for students and for New Zealand as a whole. There does need to be a focus on both ensuring equity of access and developing world class institutions. More from me on that soon. But in short we also need to see the sector as a key part of our economic growth agenda, not some drain on the country;s finances.

When I listen to Steven Joyce I sometimes feel that the whole tertiary education thing is a bit of nuisance to him, (eg his moves to “dampen demand” and the budgeted decline in tertiary funding) rather than the opportunity for economic and social progress that it should be.

But there is more to come. In answer to a written question I put in about reports that the Minister of Tertiary Education had received about changes to student support, came this answer from Steven Joyce.

I have received many reports and briefings regarding future student support arrangements since 1 August 2011, if the Member would care to be more specific I will endeavor to provide a response. However, the Member should note that many of these will relate to future Budget decisions and therefore will not be released prior to Budget day.

So students can expect changes to be announced on Budget Day. Rumours abound as to what the changes will be. I have heard talk of major changes around allowances that would effectively wipe them out in favour of loans. This would be hugely controversial and create major equity issues. Moreover it would have the effect of massively increasing the student loan balance which would seem to be the opposite of the government’s policy objective.

More likely is an implementation of National’s election manifesto statement about student loans that

Ensure students who borrow from the scheme are working towards qualifications that can attract an income that allows them to pay back the loan.

This relates to the already announced plans to publish the salaries of people with particular qualifications. It raises huge concerns. What courses will not be eligible for student loans? What time scale will be used to identify the income? Will other factors will be taken into account to assess the value of a course?

I am all for ensuring that tertiary education plays a major part in providing the skilled workforce that we need. I also think we need to keep a careful eye on the quality of courses, but that is not the same as saying students can only borrow for courses that attract a particular income. The salaries earned by graduates are not the be all and end all of the value of tertiary education. Bob Jones famously once said he would rather employ an arts graduate than a commerce graduate because they had been taught to think.

We need to have a wider view of the value of tertiary educaiton, firstly for the individuals concerned and what they learn, but also for society as a whole of having people who have undertaken a range of courses. We want musicians, designers, artists or whatever it might be that the Minister considers is not earning enough, don’t we? They might not have huge financial benefit, but they are important in a civilised society.

Budget Day could be very interesting, and possibly disturbing ifor students and future students.