"Those lazy, ungrateful students!"

I'm reading some of the public feedback to the media's coverage of the government's suggested changes to funding for tertiary education, and I wanted to share my opinion on the subject.

"Talked to a bunch of them yesterday and half of them aren't 100% sure what they're protesting about. Embarrassing".

Actually, there is probably some truth to this.  Students have a bad habit of protesting just for the hell of it.  Hey, if you can march and cause a bit of havoc, so be it.  Such Fun (moist plinth).

However I would imagine that those who are organising the march have a good understanding of the political implications of this legislation.  Altering a student loan to be only four years rather than five years rules out the option of getting any government support beyond Honours Level.  This includes any students wanting to do a doctorate or even masters thesis.
  
This will limit those who get to do masters to those who want to gather HUUGE student loans, get further support from their parents or those who can get scholarships.   I get that a lot of students do get scholarships beyond Honours level, but not all of them.
New Zealand's wage gap with Australia is already large, and burdening those who can't afford to pay of their current student loans with more debt is only going to make it worse, with students heading off overseas to avoid these, and thus contributing to another economy.

"Shouldn't they be studying"

If they honestly believe that expressing their political views is worth taking a couple of hours off class, then that should be their decision.

Political expression is our right as New Zealanders.  Should nurses not have striked to ensure they get fair pay?  Meat workers?  Teachers?  Should those against apartheid not have protested in the Springbok tours?

"These people should try studying in America and see how much they like it there"

Comparing ourselves to others is all well and good, but we should be striving to have the best system we can.  Being better than someone else is not the same as being the best one can be.  Yes, we are lucky to have interest free student loans, to have our education heavily subsidised but there's always room for improvement.

"No they should get a job like most students to pay for study, no rely on other people to pay for them to live"

Most students only have time, at most, for a part-time job.  The way student loans and allowances are set up students can only earn so much money before it starts cutting into this.

And most students DO work.  They have part-time work during term and they'll work full-time over the summer to save for their studies, or to cover the gap in the support they'd otherwise have while studying.

On top of this, most students are expected to be studying 40 hours a week to meet course requirements.  Part of the labour movement is that people should only have to work 40 hours a week - should students be exempt from this?

So, by this logic, students should be expected to 60 + hours a week to earn enough money JUST TO SURVIVE?  Surely students would get better results if they were allowed to concentrate on their studies, rather than having to worry about balancing work and study and everything else that's happening at this important time in their lives.

I agree, students do gain personal benefits from education.  But so does society.  An investment in our brightest will ensure that we get the society we should be aiming for.

Students should have the CHOICE to work if they so see fit - if they want extra money for an occasional luxury, they shouldn't have to work just to cover the cost of living while studying a full-time week as well.


Come on folks, we are trying to have a highly trained, intelligent workforce able to move our economy forward.  We are trying to prevent our best and our brightest from leaving our country for more opportunities overseas.  Rather than providing more options for students, especially those from lower socio-economic demographics, it seems we are limiting higher education to those who can afford it.

Another two cents in regards to the gay marriage debate.

So there's been a bit of a kerfuffle recently in regards to gay marriage.  Apparently some big wig has come out in support of it in the States, and, well, because the US is talking about it, it must be important.  And, because I'm that kinda guy, I'm going to put my voice into the argument.

As a point of interest and context, I think it's important to point out that John Key, despite all his recent talk of 'not being personally opposed to gay marriage' did vote against the Civil Union Legislation when it was last in the House.  It's interesting to see that it's only when Obama comes out in support of gay marriage that he begins to express positive (or at the very least neutral) views on the subject - where were these views when there were gay rights marches in Wellington for the last two years, such as the Legalise Love or the Queer the Night Rallies?  Hell, where were these when Tony Simpson wrote to Judith Collins earlier this year?  It's not until Obama actually takes an interest in the subject that suddenly Key becomes interested.  To paraphrase Jon Stewart, John Key has been taking the 'Mother' approach... "Well, if it were up to me darling, I'd let you go to the party.  I'd even buy you a six pack to take with you!  But you know how your father is with such things!"

But I digress.

First off, my personal stance.  I would never get 'married'.  I think marriage as we understand it in the Western construct has too much baggage behind it - the association with chattels, the strong Christian overtones are just two points of contention for me.  I wouldn't get married in the same way that, even if I believed in God, I wouldn't go to Church - I really don't want to belong to an institution that doesn't want me as a member. 

I know they're only a minority (in this country at least), but when you have conservatives coming out and making statements like 'the purpose of marriage is to provide a safe environment for legitimate offspring', that 'gay marriage weakens the institution', that 'it's a slippery slope.. What's next?  Legitimising polygamy?  Bestiality?', well, it's not an institution that I'm jumping up and down to be a part of.

That's why, personally, if my partner and I were to enter into a legal arrangement I would personally prefer a civil union of some description.  I think a legal recognition of our relationship that isn't mired in the history of marriage would suit me better.  My personal opinion is that civil unions also allow those who enter into them a certain amount more flexibility in how they choose to define this agreement outside of law than marriage, which comes with certain cultural expectations, however that's just me, I'm sure there are plenty of people in marriages who are choosing to define these relationships how they see fit as well.

The problem I have with civil unions in the New Zealand is that the Civil Union legislation falls short of securing the same rights, particularly in regards to family law - adoption and parenting laws are different.  However as someone who is not planning on having children any time soon, this really doesn't matter too much to me.

But despite my objections to the institute of marriage, I think gay and lesbians should be allowed to wed the person they love, if that's what they want.  While personally I disagree with the institution, I don't think my personal views on the subject, or the views of social conservatives, should influence law makers in this respect.  If those in the LGBT community want to enter into an institution that I personally disagree with, who am I to stop them? Their relationship, their marriage, does nothing to weaken the relationship I have with my partner.  It does nothing to weaken the marriage of Colin Craig or Mitt Romney or anyone else.

Also until Civil Unions offer EXACTLY the same rights as married couples, until they have exactly the same protections to families as those of marriages, warts and all, then Civil Unions will continue to be the poor cousin of marriages.  While Civil Union legislation as it stands is fine for me should I ever want to go through with it, it may not suit all the LGBT community.