Now, at least in terms of tertiary education, her party is promising to go even further, giving every New Zealander three years' free study, or upskilling or trades training. The detail is still a little blurry, but what we do know is that those who think this is a good idea will have to return three consecutive Labour governments to reap their full reward.
The cost, we're told, will be manageable if it is funded by the tax cuts National is apparently planning to give the wealthy. The final cost of $1.2 billion per annum seems a bit light to be honest, but even if that's 'all' it amounts to, and even if a future government can find it, cost isn't the issue. There is a much more important principle.
To begin with, let's dispel the myth that tertiary education used to be free. It wasn't at least in the 1970s. In those days university entrance paid 90 per cent of a student's course fees. That's more generous than the 70 per cent the taxpayer stumps up for now, but enrolment wasn't free.
Then, as now, there was also the not inconsiderable cost of books, and for those who could not stay at home while studying there was the even more considerable cost of accommodation.
In those halcyon days university was less unattainable for some than it is now, simply because the cost was beyond many provincial teenagers and their parents, even if they could find the cash for course fees. Whatever today's generation of students tell you, that wasn't fair, and it wasn't good for New Zealand.
Student loans were designed to fix that. They have made university more accessible to more people, but they are abused by some. We are told that the 10 biggest defaulters currently owe more than $300,000 each, while 6000 owe $100,000 or more. Presumably that's thanks to interest; it is difficult to imagine that the most profligate of students could run up a debt that size without it.
We are being brainwashed into accepting that university graduates are embarking upon their careers saddled with an unpayable debt. Rubbish. They might be in debt, but few would genuinely find that debt unmanageable - the average is around $14,000. Most would happily spend more than that on a car without bleating that they can't pay it back. Many do pay what they owe without complaint.
What Labour is doing with this policy is pandering to the entitlement culture that is now deeply embedded in society. Some, it seems, are happy to borrow the money so they can 'set themselves up for life' which is what we are told they are doing, with no intention of paying it back. Labour's answer to that is to make the first three years of their education free to them. That would certainly solve the student debt problem, but it would not be fair, and it would not achieve what Labour says it will.
Andrew Little hasn't quite gone as far as revive Helen Clark's dream of a Knowledge Economy, although he's hinting at it. But if that is to be our economic and social salvation it's been a long time coming.Like Closing the Gaps, it never amounted to much more than an election slogan, and this new promise won't do any more in terms of lifting our collective rate of academic achievement or reducing our reliance on dairy exports and tourism.
Giving people free stuff has never been the answer, and never will be. Those who point out the fundamental unfairness of the extent to which the taxpayer has long supported university students compared with those who enter the trades have a good point - a plumbing apprentice might be earning as they learn, but is expected to make a significant financial investment in their own future. That's as it should be, not only for prospective plumbers but for doctors, lawyers, engineers and teachers.
Not only is it human nature that people value something they have earned themselves much more than something that is given to them, but offering free education for all would be extraordinarily wasteful.
Rather than funding people who have no inclination, apart from a natural enthusiasm for accepting something that's not going to cost them anything, and no ability to benefit from an expensive education, taxpayers should be offering a hand to those who really can benefit, and will thus benefit their country.
The first step should be to cull the ridiculous courses now on offer. Get rid of the degrees in food presentation, ethnomusicology, interpreting, women's studies and gender studies (described by Auckland University as a rapidly expanding inter-disciplinary field of critical inquiry into how gender shapes our lives). If people want to do that sort of thing they should pay for it themselves. The taxpayer should only be investing in future doctors, lawyers (perhaps), engineers, teachers, nurses, people who will make this a better country. Their education should be free to them on the proviso that they won't disappear overseas the day they graduate.
The tertiary institutes would fight that tooth and nail. Their goal is to get as many bums on seats as possible, never mind what benefit might accrue to students or taxpayers. And if it's bad now in terms of useless qualifications it will be infinitely worse when qualifications are free to the students.
Years ago then Bay of Islands MP John Carter told the writer that no government would cull tertiary courses because of the impact that would have on unemployment. It was politically preferable to have tens of thousands of people counted as students, whatever the cost to the taxpayer, than on the dole. One suspects that nothing has changed.
If the taxpayer can do something to address the on-going shortage of tradesmen by reducing the cost of training we should talk about that, but three free years for all is an election bribe, pure and simple. And it's not difficult to imagine that Andrew Little knows he won't be called upon to deliver. Three elections in a row is a very long shot, albeit achievable if he can come up with policies that will make this country a more prosperous one. Giving stuff away to people whether they want it or not won't do that.
