by frog
So, the Government’s done a lot of boasting about student allowances in the past year or so. “Look!” it’s said again and again. “We’re making it easier for students to get an allowance, meaning that tens of thousands more will get them! Aren’t we generous and compassionate and kind?”
The “more and more students are getting allowances” line has been repeated so many times, it’s become almost second nature for government ministers to chuck it in to any tertiary education-related speech or press release. Take the following as five examples plucked at random from dozens.
David Benson-Pope, in April 2005:
Criteria for student allowances has been widened.
Trevor Mallard, March 2005:
The government is also investing around $223 million over the next four years to extend access to the Student Allowances Scheme. This is designed to benefit an extra 36,000 students, including 12,000 who will now be eligible for a full allowance.
Michael Cullen, in November 2004:
The biggest lift ever in the parental income threshold for student allowances means nearly 40,000 students will be eligible for either new or increased allowances.
Helen Clark in November 2004:
More money was found for student allowances this year, bringing the total number of those eligible up to fifty per cent of all students.
Steve Maharey in September 2004:
The key element of our $110 million package for students was an increase in eligibility for student allowances… More than 36,000 students will be better off as a result, including nearly 12,000 who will now be eligible for a full allowance.
The profound problem for the Government is that its changes haven’t worked, as Salient reports. The changes in the student allowance system they’re trumpeting above were announced in last year’s budget and came into effect this year. But figures out for the first quarter of this year show that the Government has actually given out allowances to fewer students and has given out less money this year compared with last year.
Last year, 43,422 students received a student allowance during the first quarter, for a total spend of about $55 million. This year, 40,434 students got an allowance, for a total spend of about $52 million.
So, what’s happened to the hundreds of millions of extra dollars for student allowances boasted about in ministers’ speeches? What’s happened to these mythical extra tens of thousands more students who’ll be getting student allowances. Seems that, at the moment, they’re figments of the Government’s imagination.
Even more damning, perhaps, is the figures during Labour’s second term. As Salient reports:
In the first quarter of 2005, only 40,434 students received an allowance, compared with 52,465 students in 2001. This sharp decline coincides with student numbers increasing by over 28% in the same period, meaning that the proportion of students receiving an allowance has dropped even more – by 32% in the space of four years.
Let it never be said again that this government has significantly improved the lot of students. Sadly, the figures tell a very different story.
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Mon, May 2nd, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It may seem churlish to point this out, but the government _has_ significantly improved the lot of students, by slowing the rate of growth in tuition fees and by making loans interest free. In my own case, if both policies had been in place for my period of full time studey, my student loan would be around $15k smaller than it is – and I call that a bloody big difference.
It does, though, need to be better, and as Mallard acknowledges in his responses in Salient, the govt was not expecting this outcome. I look forward to a fuller analysis of the figures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Government does deserve credit for making loans interest-free during the time of study. It was outrageous that the NZ Government sought to actually make money from what it was lending students, and Labour’s interest write-off policy was a welcome reverse of this lunacy.
However, I’m not sure that Labour deserves credit for “slowing the rate of growth in tuition fees”. What you’re saying, Jordan, is that while tuition fees are now much higher than when Labour came into office (a NZUSA survey released early this year suggested the average tuition fees for a full-time students had increased by 61 percent – from $3,499 to $5,644 – between 1998 and 2004), students should be grateful because they would have increased by even more had National remained in office. Well, I guess there’s some logic to that: we’re going to keep screwing you for more each year, but you should be thankful because the other guy would be ratcheting your fees by even more than we are! All with a smiley face, of course….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes, i dont really beleive that when a university can raise tuition fees by up to 10% (as was the case with medical students last year) and 4-5% for other students for just one year that the government is slowing the fees. thats just rediculous. my fees have been raised by over 15% since i started uni five years ago at least. plus, it will take me until im at least 40 to pay my student loan back (im 21) – assuming that i dont have children or get a mortgate etc. fees is only part of the problem, the student loan scheme is the other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)