Long time listeners to this programme will know that I’m not a major fan of the governments funding of the tertiary system.

It’s not that I’m not a fan of education it’s more that I’m not convinced it’s an efficient use of money and that it will not necessarily be the best way to get more tertiary students from disadvantaged homes.

The new regime seems overly generous, especially when you realise how many advantaged families will now be getting free tertiary education.  The sons and daughters of Kelburn or Remuera or Fendalton lawyers can continue the family’s advantage at very little cost.

Meanwhile, the disadvantaged of Opotiki or Kaitaia still face barriers in terms of travelling to the big smokes and finding and paying for accommodation.

This year the policy costs nearly $400 million and I wonder whether we’d extend education to more socioeconomic groups if the money had been targeted to the disadvantaged, say in the form of bursaries or scholarships.

But in saying that I raise the spectre of means testing.  A phrase that strikes fear in many New Zealanders.  Mainly because it’s been mentioned in regards to the pension, which it’s fair to say New Zealanders consider an entitlement.  A thank you for a lifetime of effort and taxpaying that is granted to all whether rich or poor, or whether you need it or not.

This is a government that also has an aversion to means testing.

We now learn that people wanting to buy one of the Government's affordably priced homes will not be income-tested.

That means high-income earners will not be blocked from purchasing one of the 100,000 planned houses to be built over 10 years, which will be priced at up to $650,000.

The only limit will be that purchasers are first home-buyers and permanent residents.

This strikes me as self-defeating.  Affordable housing is for those who struggle to afford it rather than those who already can.  I also wonder with the stock having a lifetime through generations just how affordable they will stay in future years especially if a band of affluent with free education and now affordable houses get their hands on them.

I often wondered why Labour, in particular, seem averse to targeting.  I asked a prominent commentator this a while back and he said that it’s Jacinda’s thing.  She is a big believer in universality. It reduces the resentment that the rich can form if they feel they are paying for the poor time and time again. We all benefit even if most of us don’t need it.

Unless we significantly increase the tax take this is something we can least afford.

It feels like wasted money.  It dilutes the benefits for the disadvantaged and deprives other areas of much needed and hard earned capital