Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, May 11th, 2026 - 25 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
and no boats
/
https://bsky.app/profile/paullecomtephoto.nz/post/3mlkir5umqk2d
(full size https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:l43f5finrcugyqz534j5z265/bafkreigdqhmsvbb4v23vynrbr4dlh7xeuj6qdpezpvunwiclqkdg2puxfy )
This appears to confirm the government will break the contract all tertiary education students entered with them in 2024*, 2025, and 2026:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/11-05-2026/the-troubled-life-and-death-of-the-fees-free-tertiary-scheme
This is a gross dereliction of duty by a government which insists on certainty in policy decisions from others but rarely offers it themselves. Another is their supposed immediate lifting of the retirement age, literally stealing $40K from every New Zealander under 65, overnight.
Much hay to be harvested by Labour on these two fronts. Let's see if they are up to the task.
*I know the 2024 intake were still eligible for first year fees free so it's only the two years of young students who have had 10K ripped away and placed onto their debt ledger.
That’s not correct.
I'm 57. In 8 years I would be eligible for the pension at about $20K/year. Under Luxon's policy I have to wait 2 more years before I am eligible. A loss to me of $40K.
Please stop defending the National party on this. Did you not read Mike Smith’s post today???
I'm also 57… most increase proposals are loaded as increasing by 1 to 2 months a year.(so it takes 12 to 24 years to get a 2 year increase) Not an instant 2 year increase, that's grossly unfair… they's lose EVERY vote aged 62 to 67.
FFS! Do some fact-checking and critical thinking before you propagate bold (aka bizarre) claims.
Did you read it right?
There was no claim, just the observation that most proposals are phased in. The reason to protect the electoral chances of the government while improving the future budget forecasts.
Specsavers open at 9:00 am tomorrow but you can book your eye test online.
What claims did he make then?
Who’s “he”, Mb or Bfow? They made the same claim, more or less.
No, the response in 2.1.1.1 to 2.1.1, stated that there would be no impact on those age 57 and stated why.
The operative words re. timing were “immediate” and “instant”. Compare & contrast with “to begin lifting the age in 2037, phasing the age increase over a period of time.”
In addition, MB claimed a sudden jump of 2 years or something quite similar, so that he’d miss out in 8 years from now.
Stop making up nonsense here and perhaps you might like to keep up with the political climate?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-will-run-on-raising-super-age-as-soon-as-we-get-back-in-christopher-luxon/RTA6XYCZMBD3TND77OIZMTQRNI/
You’ll be fine.
He would need NZF to get the legislation passed.
Then Labour to retain the policy, or it would lapse before implementation.
Hipkins has already told him to ignore NZF and discuss this and wider superannuation policy with Labour.
Nope, he wouldn’t – Labour + National = sufficient (cf. Modern Slavery Bill).
It’s a [new-ish] National Party election policy, for GE-2026.
So you are saying that Luxon did not know what he was taking about when he said that he needed both parties to support it?
Or misspoke, meant or and yet said and.
IDK what Luxon ‘knew’ or ‘meant’ or ‘meant to say’ and I don’t care, really.
I replied to you @ 2.1.1.2.1, not to Luxon. Are you Luxon? I guess not.
Is it new policy?
There is an existing policy and there has been no indication of any change.
That is the certainty.
For mine there will be no change, Luxon just wants to pretend he is OECD adjacent as part of fiscal soundness posturing (budget mode).
[quasi-new] more to your liking?
It’s not Coalition policy and it got parked for the time being.
You may not have read the first bit of my comment where I have outlined an example of the National led government breaking a contract with Tertiary students.
You seem to have a lot of faith they will not do the same with those approaching retirement.
I don't.
PS, I just saw you quoted National party embedded journalist, Thomas Coughlan, in your attack. Not good. His opinion about what Luxon might or might not do means shit.
I did but I responded to the falsehood in another comment of yours.
I try to stick to facts & robust evidence rather than hypotheticals & speculation (aka reading tea leaves whilst smoking dope).
Your overly strong bias tends to cloud your thinking & commenting.
National has wanted to lift the retirement age for years and this wasn’t Thomas Coughlan’s doing, so your denunciation of Coughlan’s is worth zilch.
What “attack”!? Did I attack? Whom or what did I attack? When did I attack? Where did I attack? Full moon was a week ago and I don’t feel particularly aggressive at present!?
Yeah, you're correct about the total reality of what Luxon said.
But. The political numpty forgot that most people stop listening / reading after the first two sentences and phrased the statement in a way that gifted the opposition a goldmine. He hasn't got a clue.
As for expecting Labour and NZ first to agree to lifting the age, what's the guy smoking?
Yup, completely agree with you.
Also, political numpties or readers with poor eyesight, the effect is the same
One can sense the deliberation
The first year free of fees is transferred to the third year. So two years of savings occur, then it gets removed.
National did not campaign on removing pay equity etc.
It's absolute BS the repeat that those finishing study this year (3 year bachelor degree) are still eligible for final year fees free. They are not eligible for final years fees free because they qualified for first year fees free.
You are right, Willis, should she not be turfed out in November will have gotten away with paying zero fees free at all.
Why is it left up to we amateurs? Would some idiot professional journalist not take this on?