"Student Loan Rebuild Plan 'Offensive'"

What a fascinating and confrontational article.

When I first heard of Sir Paul Callaghan's suggestion that overseas NZ graduates should pay off their loan to support Christchurch, a few thoughts came to mind:

1. If they cared about Christchurch enough to do that, they probably would have made a donation already.
2. Logistically, would their student repayments go directly to Christchurch? No. Whereas if they donate (through Red Cross or other), at least they know it is helping directly, which surely makes more sense if you genuinely want to help rebuild.
3. Would the repayment amounts make a difference anyway? [And on a related note, why on earth do you get to waive your repayments when you go overseas anyway? I don't really get that.]

So I thought it was a little redundant and resigned it to the pile of 'news stories of no interest to me'. Then I read this article and I just got a whole lot more interested in the furore! Haha.

Some of my favourite emotive quotes:

• From the two Hong Kong ex-NZ graduates: "Approaching New Zealand's poorest and most indebted demographic for a hand out is not appropriate." BAHAHAHAH. Ex-pat graduand Kiwis are NZ's poorest and most indebted demographic?? Get over yourself. That's simply offensive, and surely incorrect. 
• and: "As Sir Paul Callaghan readily admits, his education was free... As the holder of a doctorate in physics, he surely owes his country a substantial debt. And if not Sir Paul, what about all those other baby boomers who enjoyed a free education?" Ha! I can almost see the steam coming out of the reading Baby Boomers' ears. Free education? The rebuttal from Sir P.C later proves my point: "I worked from 5am to 8pm in the freezing works right through the summer for five seasons to put myself through university. My parents were unable to support me. And in those days people paid 66 cents in the dollar marginal tax, just as I did for 20 years after graduating."
• and: "Perhaps if young New Zealanders didn't have such crippling debt from their education and such miserable prospects for employment and home ownership, they would not have been forced offshore in the first place." Now that is a fair point.
• And although I don't agree with him on this fully, Sir Paul sums up with: "Our overseas graduates are not our poorest and most indebted. Christchurch and New Zealand is full of seriously poor people for whom the idea of travelling and living overseas is merely a dream."

Gotta love the controversy.