The Annual Report of the Student Loan Scheme is out, and it gives some pause for thought. Almost $14 billion has been borrowed since the scheme began in 1992, with about $6.4 billion being paid back.

I was one of those original borrowers. There were some quirks to the scheme back then that have been ironed out. You could borrow the money for your fees and choose if it went to your bank account or directly to your institution. I had two friends who developed a rapid interest and then equally rapid loss of interest in dentistry one year. That is now not possible. You were paid in large installments (quarterly?), but could call a phone number and get money earlier if you needed it. I recall a shouted conversation into the pay phone in the bottle store of the Captain Cook one night. Now the living costs are paid in fortnighly installments.

I strongly opposed the scheme on its introduction. It was symptomatic of a government pulling money out of the tertiary sector and make education less accessible. Fees were going up, allowances were disappearing. The interest, both while studying and afterwards was a horrific barrier to repayment and indeed for some to borrowing in the first place. Labour in office got rid of the interest, capped fees and widened eligibility for allowances, and the scheme became more acceptable. Yet still it shackles young graduates with a large debt as they start their working life. I can say from my electorate work, it is still having an impact on some people borrowing for first homes.

But what can we replace it with that does not create further inequities and is affordable alongside the rest of the government’s priorities? The longer the scheme goes on, the more difficult it is get rid off. Labour went into the 2008 election with a policy that would have given all students an allowance, phased in over a four year period. This would significantly reduce the debt burden on students, but it is expensive (the annual cost then was estimated at around $210 million annually) especially in tighter financial times.

Other options that are live internationally include graduate taxes that eliminates the upfront cost barriers and have a time limit on them. There are also systems with more scholarships, bonding and employer contributions. Of course the ultimate answer its to invest more into tertiary education to help create the skilled workforce and inclusive society we want and need. But it has to be balanced against, health, housing, super and all the other things governments must do.

We are working on our tertiary policy now. Labour’s policy remains to make tertiary education progressively more affordable and accessible. We also want a quality system, which means resourcing tertiary institutions well, and understanding the changing way that people are accessing education. In the fifth Labour government we put a lot of attention on student support, in the future we also need to ensure that overall quality is enhanced, and not just universities either, but vocational and industry training too.

Whatever, we do need to see tertiary education as an investment in our collective future well being, and an integral part of developing a productive economy.