Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search


Girls Can Do Anything Except Pay Off Their Loans

‘Girls can do anything’ - except pay off their student loans, that is

Guest Opinion From Rebecca Elvin

The Human Rights Commission has decided to examine the New Zealand University Students Association’s claim that women with student loans are discriminated against because they take, on average, twice as long to clear their debt than men. This publicity stunt has forced our flawed loan system back onto the public stage.

I am a university student. I am female. I have a student loan. And I disagree with NZUSA’s attempt to convert the funding of my tertiary education into a gender or human rights issue.

It seems to me that NZUSA has confused two distinct ideas. The never ending quest for more rights and greater equality has been merged with the opportunity to try and bludgeon the growing debt monster that stalks tertiary students and recent graduates.

Camilla Belich, the NZUSA Women’s Rights Officer, claims that “the student loan scheme is unfair to women”. Belich’s sentiments highlight the confusion present between the symptom and the cause of the problem. The student loan scheme is unjust; however, its true impact is not confined to women. If it is an issue of discrimination, the scheme has prejudiced the future of an entire generation.

Such injustice points to a greater social problem than the student loan scheme itself. The present government cannot feasibly fund tertiary education for every person who wants it. Increasing social dysfunction and economic pressure mean that young people cannot rely on their family to help them through in the way they once did. As a result, the choice of tertiary education comes with a cost to the individual (often paid through a student loan).

Human rights were once about protecting citizens from state tyranny. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was forged after the Nuremberg Trials when the effects of totalitarianism were still fresh in most people’s minds. Rights and duties, and the interests of individuals, groups and societies were all intertwined. Today, however the right of the individual before the law has yielded to the rights of groups to equal treatment by the state. But, “equal treatment” in this case is a misnomer, because it means positive discrimination to give legal advantage to the current (equal) status of women.

By making the loan repayment scheme a human rights issue, we replace the universal basis of human rights with group empowerment rights created by the state. Attempts like this to bring equality through law undermine the very foundation of such rights—the inherent dignity that each of us has as a human being—and replaces it with state intervention. Human rights, once an instrument to affirm freedom, have become a tool of the state to ‘manufacture’ equality. The consequence of handing such power over to the state is exactly the opposite intended in the UDHR.

Considering the problem as a rights issue opens a Pandora’s Box of governmental engineering. Such interference erodes our ‘rights’, limits our freedom, marginalises our choices and removes any aspect of personal responsibility from our decision making.

Will the human rights commission recommend that the government legislate a set period within which we must pay off our loans? Will it take our earning capacity, our desire to have children, and any possible mortgages into account and manipulate the market to achieve the desired result? Where do the consequences of individual choice and personal responsibility fit into this charming utopia of equal outcomes? Or do such concepts no longer exist?

It is a simple fact that some people (for a variety of reasons) take longer than others to pay off their loan. What makes the alleged disparity between men and women greater than that between different ethnic or socio-economic groups, or even people with different qualifications or spending habits?

Consider for a moment one of the Seven Principles for Sound Public Policy from the Mackinac Center in Michigan: ‘A free people cannot be equal, and an equal people cannot be free. The more you have of the one, the less you have of the other’.

Expecting the government to uphold ‘rights’ and guarantee equal outcomes along with equal opportunity is a line of reasoning that, taken to its logical conclusion, smacks of Marxism. Applying such reasoning to the commercial sector would be farcical. Will banks be expected to now take into account such ‘difference’ between men and women when considering residential mortgages or commercial loans?

An analogy may be drawn with the over-representation of Maori in our prison system. A ‘level playing field’ cannot be created by minimising the role of free choice and sentencing Maori according to a different judicial standard to bring the statistics back in line with other cultural or ethnic groups within New Zealand. Instead, the solution must be found in addressing the social, cultural and economic factors that influence such a result. It is in this way that true justice and equity may be achieved.

We are all equal before the law. The student loan repayment criteria, like mortgage conditions and academic requirements to enter university, are the same for either sex. Inequality and limits on our freedom would arise only if the government were forced to alter such criteria. The loans scheme may be unjust, but it is an issue beyond discrimination and difference between the sexes.


Rebecca Elvin is a Student Intern at Maxim Institute’s Centre for Tomorrows Leaders. Maxim is a social policy think-tank –

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>



Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>


Get More From Scoop

Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news