Keith Ng gets it half right on allowances

Keith Ng has a post on Public Address, and which he turned into a story for this week's Salient. It is a classic example of good, and bad, reporting.

It's good, because it hilights a figure that is important: the number of students getting allowances has, apparently fallen. This is not a good thing; it's contrary to the direction of declared government policy and it means fewer students than before are getting allowances.

It's bad, unfortunately, in many more ways than it's good. Keith did give Mallard some opportunity to respond, from the material on Public Address, but what he does not appear to have done is go away and research what falls out of Mallard's comments.

Mallard says there's a shift in enrolment patterns, generated by the booming economy and record low unemployment. Is there? Keith didn't ask (or if he did, he's not published the answer).

Mallard says that record employment means that household incomes have increased, leaving fewer students entitled to allowances, but that this is occuring faster than the government expected. Is this true? Keith didn't ask (or if he did, he's not published the answer).

The obvious follow-up to all Mallard's points would have been to go and investigate them, rather than to simply report the point about allowance numbers, get Mallard's responses and then publish.

If one accepts Mallard's points, then the reasons students aren't getting more allowances are all good ones: their families are better off; they themselves are earning more so hitting income thresholds, etc.

But we come back to the bind: Labour's promising to make more people eligible for allowances, but it seems that the modelling in MoE and Treasury has not taken into account compositional changes - but again, I'd like to see the facts on that.

If it's true, then I would like to see the govt increase a) parental income thresholds thresholds and b) the personal income thresholds until we hit the same amount that has been provided for in the Budgets of the past few years for allowance spending. It is a major opportunity, I would have thought, to be more student friendly in election year, and, blissfully, to be doing the right thing as well.

I might also note, like so many students of his generation, and like the failed lobbies by NZUSA in the past few years, there is precious little credit given to the millions spent on making loans more bearable and on limiting the increases in tuition fees. It would be a more balanced series of published articles if those were noted, as they are the other major part of the student support system.

So Keith, thanks for raising the issue. I hope you can explore this a bit more, and come up with answers to some of the questions Mallard raised.

Comments

[Keith Ng]

Work on a follow-up piece (which includes most of the points you mentioned) started the moment the first one went to the printers. That Mallard was in Saudi Arabia and out of phone contact didn't help - I only had one "window" to ask him questions. And now that he has returned, his schedule is very full, and, after reading my piece, his minders are not sure if he'll be available to talk to me. Nevermind - a follow-up is coming, anyway.

Coming, next week, to a student magazine near you. (And then going on Poll Dancer.)

[Keith Ng]

I feel compelled to point out the bottom-line, though, which is that Labour promised that more students would receive allowances in their second term and that there will be another 28,000 student allowances this year.

Instead of 28,000 up, it's 3,000 down, and instead of more students getting allowance in Labour's second term, less students have received an allowance during each successive year of Labour's second term.

Regardless of Mallard's justifications, the bottom-line is that Labour has broken a campaign promise to students.

[Chris]

I fail to see how Mallard can be blamed for less students taking up allowances than they are entitled to. It's the student's fault, not the government's.

[Graham watson]

The reason less students are ineligible is directly related to the Labour introduced policy linking the allowance to parental income. This applies until the age of 25, and is clearly inequitable.

Why should the level of support a young adult gets bear any relationship to the income status of their parents?

At what age are adults considered to be independent?

Answer those questions Mallard, or Jordan who seems to be acting as an apologist for him. Good on Keith Ng.

[Graham watson]

Oops, should read above 'eligible', not 'ineligible'.

[GeniusNZ]

Indeed - get rid of means testing onstudent loans.
besides it results in ridiculously high marginal tax rates

[Jordan]

There is no means testing on student loans.

I agree that the fact that allowance numbers are down not up is embarrassing, which is why I would like to see movement on a range of fronts to ensure more people do get them. Unfortunately, I don't write the government's education policy ;)

[Graham watson]

In 1999 Labour asked for the student vote and has since sold them out. Average fees have increased significantly since 1999 and student debt has more than doubled. Less people are eligible for the student allowance and the means test is ridiculous. Govt support (loans or allowances) has failed to keep pace with rising costs; food, transport, rent (esp in Akld). These are cold hard facts, if you don't dispute them I assume you agree.

Lets face it Jordan, students had a better deal in the late 90's under National when you were a student, than they do now. It may be hard for a partisan to accept but it is blunt reality.

And you were one of those who campaigned on the basis students would be better off by voting Labour. How many students left University to make a career on welfare, become a bureaucrat, or a maori broadcaster?

You may have been rewarded with a cosy job as a secretary to an MP, but thousands, no, tens of thousands of others have suffered as a result of your advice. How do you propose to atone for misleading your peers?