lawful student loan changes in Budget?

[Bobh]

Changes signalled to the student loan scheme in Thursday's Budget will discriminate against older people and almost certainly breach human rights law, the Green Party said today.

In the lead-up to the Budget, Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce has signalled plans to restrict access to student loans for living costs for students over the age of 55.

"This is age discrimination, plain and simple," Green Party Tertiary Education Spokesperson Gareth Hughes said.

See here.

[qazwsxokmijn]

I think I could safely say that most if not all the senior students at Auckland uni are much more hard-working and intelligent people than most of their younger counterparts.....

[somebody]

I think I could safely say that most if not all the senior students at Auckland uni are much more hard-working and intelligent people than most of their younger counterparts.....

But... student loans and allowances are intended to help people who have (in theory) a lifetime to contribute back to the country.

If you start a degree at age 55 for example, by the time you graduate, you're so close to retirement age that 1) employers won't hire you since they want graduates they can mould, and 2) even if they did, they're only getting a few years of value out of you before you do retire. At that point you're stuck with a massive student loan you either take to your grave or pay off through your superannuation (which you should be using for food, power etc, enjoying your retirement etc.

By all means, if you choose to study that late in life, good on you - but don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

The same sentiment applies to people who decide to accumulate a massive student loan (or leach off the student allowance) and then head overseas without paying the money back.

[coldot]

So why weren't the Greens fighting age discrimination when Kiwi Saver was introduced and those 65 and older were denied the right to join! Those who were working at the time were often struggling to build up reserves in the light of Government assurance that ordinary savings wouldn't be enough for future years. I didn't hear the Greens jumping up and down about that blatant age discrimination. The working over 65s were severely disadvantaged compared to the 60 to 65 group who went on to pick up National Superannuation PLUS their Kiwi Saver handouts.

[johcar]

People actually pay attention to what the Greens have to say???!!! Bizarre!!! To me they are just white (not green) noise....

[porkster]

But... student loans and allowances are intended to help people who have (in theory) a lifetime to contribute back to the country.

So someone age 55 has already had "a lifetime to contribute back to the country." Why can't they use the same system they've been supporting for the last 38 years!!

If you start a degree at age 55 for example, by the time you graduate, you're so close to retirement age that 1) employers won't hire you since they want graduates they can mould, and 2) even if they did, they're only getting a few years of value out of you before you do retire. At that point you're stuck with a massive student loan you either take to your grave or pay off through your superannuation (which you should be using for food, power etc, enjoying your retirement etc.

What a lot of nonsense.
1) There is no retiring age, only an age at which you may retire and collect the NZ superanuation!
2) Jobs are no longer careers, the average person stays in a job for less than 10 years.
3) Who cares that you may not get a job.... it's not a prerequiste for University study. Ask all those art majors or history majors still flipping burgers

And yes it is descrimination, just because you have reasons (pretty poor ones) for not allowing someone over the age of 55 to do something doesn't mean your allow to discriminate!!!!

[pcuser42]

People actually pay attention to what the Greens have to say???!!! Bizarre!!! To me they are just white (not green) noise....

Only some things

[somebody]

What a lot of nonsense.
1) There is no retiring age, only an age at which you may retire and collect the NZ superanuation!
2) Jobs are no longer careers, the average person stays in a job for less than 10 years.
3) Who cares that you may not get a job.... it's not a prerequiste for University study. Ask all those art majors or history majors still flipping burgers

And yes it is descrimination, just because you have reasons (pretty poor ones) for not allowing someone over the age of 55 to do something doesn't mean your allow to discriminate!!!!

We discriminate all the time when it comes to dishing out taxpayer money. We discriminate on age for superannuation payments. We discriminate on income when funding medical care, schools, and welfare support. We discriminate on race when targetting programmes at high risk groups (anti-smoking campaigns etc). Just becuase something is "discrimination", is it inherently a bad thing? No.

There's a difference between stopping people from studying, and providing financial support to people who want to study. It's would be difficult to justify a law prohibiting those over 55 from going to university, but where financial assistance is being given, it should be given to those most in need, and to people from whom there will be the greatest return.

The Modern Apprenticeships programme for example is limited to those aged 16-21. The reason is simple - investing in people who are still early on in their working lives will provide a much better ROI than investing in people who may only have 10 years left in them before they will need to retire (for health reasons or whatever). The same logic should apply to student loans and allowances - government funding should be used to maximise benefits to the country.

In the last year, $10.7m of student loans have had to be written off because the recipients had become deceased. A large portion of that statistic will be from older borrowers who have taken up study late in life for personal or other reasons, and also taken their debt to the grave.

To address point 3) specifically, that's fine in theory, but not if the taxpayer is paying for it. The issue isn't about people wanting to go to do tertiary study, but rather who is going to pay for it. The point of government funding for tertiary education is to create graduates who (in theory) can then use what they've learned to contribute to the economy. This is one of the reasons why at certain times in NZ's history, university education was "free". Although this is a separate debate altogether, there is very little value in putting thousands of students a year through arts degrees (for example), only to come out with a $40k student loan and a minimum wage job at Mc Donalds. That's not good use of taxpayer money - it would be much better to put that money towards funding trades training programmes (more apprenticeships for electricians/builders/mechanics etc. to fill our skills shorages), or degrees which actually lead to jobs in the field of study; reduce tuition fees for those wanting to become doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, technologists etc. in exchange for graduates agreeing to stay and work in NZ for X number of years. These are the skills NZ needs to grow its economy and compete with countries like India and China who do focus on these "real" degrees.

[pctek]

If you start a degree at age 55, by the time you graduate, you're so close to retirement age .

Depends on your degree? probably not enough time to become a doctor but a 3 yr course? hardly near retirement and the goalpost will keep getting moved anyway, 65, next 67, next....so what should they do? Go on the dole?

[Bobh]

Many people who are over 55 may be looking for a career change. Older people may not necessarily want to go to University to earn a degree. There are options for short courses which will get them qualifications for the career of their choice. Over 55 year old people should have equal opportunity to get a Student Loan to attend these courses.