Ikaroa-Rawhiti MP Meka Whaitiri said Ms Bennett would just be shifting the problem from Auckland to Hawke's Bay, which already had more than 3100 people on the job seeker benefit and significant state house waiting lists. The government needed a smart, effective policy for housing and regional growth, she said, and this idea was neither.
Some communities, such as Ashburton, reportedly have empty houses and job vacancies, which would lend credence to the plan, but the point is that no one has a God-given right to live in Auckland, particularly if they have immigrated there, and even more particularly if they are reliant on charity, whether that be from a community organisation or the taxpayer, for a home and an income.
It defies all logic that people would seek to live in the country's most expensive community when they clearly can't support themselves there. This was once understood by most New Zealanders, but not any more. And those who have lined up to criticise this suggestion might have offered solutions of their own rather than simply decrying a minister who is trying to show some people at least that there are better options, and is even offering to help them meet the cost of pursuing those options.
Why Auckland is such a magnet for people who have no means whatsoever of supporting themselves is something of a mystery, although ethnic minorities do understandably tend to cluster together. If Ms Bennett can do anything to encourage some to look elsewhere for the homes and jobs they need without losing the support that might be offered by specific ethnic communities she should be applauded.
Meanwhile the fact that many of those who borrow to gain the tertiary education they need to improve their employment prospects or gain entry to a specific career share that sense of entitlement was cast into stark relief last week when 40-year-old Ngatokotoru Puna was arrested as he attempted to fly home to the Cook Islands. Mr Puna had borrowed $40,000 to obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree at Auckland University 20 years ago, and had somehow overlooked the fact that he would be expected to pay it back. The debt had now ballooned to $130,000, but his wife lost no time in blaming the IRD, which she said had been sending reminders to the wrong address.
To be fair, Mr Puna's income had only reached the threshold for loan repayment five years ago, but it can hardly have come as a surprise that the debt had not gone away. One is entitled to take the inference that he had no intention of paying it back, although he may not be as impecunious as he would have us believe.
He says he earns $35,000 a year, and has five children to feed. He said last week that he was now committed to making loan payments, but accepted that he would owe money to the IRD until the day he died. (In fact he doesn't owe anything to the IRD. He owes $130,000 to the New Zealand taxpayer).
Interestingly, he also had a $300,000 mortgage to service. How someone who is living on an annual income of $35,000 acquires a $300,000 mortgage warrants some explanation. Either Mr Puna and/or his family have some other significant source of income, or whoever lent him the $300,000 is generosity personified.
Mr Puna graciously accepts that he had been in the wrong for not keeping in touch with the IRD, and was going to "try and figure out something" to save others from his experience at Auckland airport. He was allowed to fly home when his family stumped up with $5000, and hopefully some arrangement has been made for the repayment of the balance.
Perhaps Mr Puna could be credited for doing the taxpayer a service though. News of his arrest has reportedly prompted a significant number of defaulters to contact the IRD and/or New Zealand media, expressing concern that one day they too will come home, and will find themselves in a cell. Apparently none of these people have availed themselves of repeated offers to organise payments on a basis that would not leave them in penury but would satisfy their legal (and moral) obligations.
Whether tertiary education should be free (to the student) is another, irrelevant, issue. The student loan system is what it is, and no one, surely, has ever signed up for a loan without understanding that one day they would have to pay it back. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some have never had any intention of doing that, happily turning themselves into exiles while taking full advantage of careers founded on qualifications gained at taxpayers' expense. It may be dawning on some now that one day they will want to come home, and the IRD will be waiting for them.
We are told that last year 5735 former students each owed more than $100,000. It wasn't known how many of them were living overseas, but most of the top 10, who each owed more than $290,000, were believed to have left the country.
There's more than a principle at stake here. The continuation of the student loan scheme depends upon borrowers paying the money back. If they don't we will inevitably reach the point where loans will no longer be available.
The government's response, which since March 2014 has enabled the issuing of arrest warrants for defaulters, is one option. The other, promoted last week by Labour, is to make education cheaper - basically give students what they want for nothing and ergo, there won't be a debt problem. Brilliant.
The heart of the issue though is the sense of entitlement, whether it be to a house, an income or a degree, that is subsidised by the taxpayer. Hopefully Ngatokotoru Puna won't be the last to discover that he's deluding himself.
