Dave Ananth says the recent student loan interest relief is not designed to bring disengaged borrowers back so that recovery can be restarted

Student loan interest relief is now law. Inland Revenue has new powers to cancel interest for some overseas-based borrowers, following the enactment of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025–26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Act 2026.

It sounds like reform. It is not.

For many borrowers, the issue is not the law. It is the moment they stop engaging because the number no longer feels real or repayable.

The relief is structured so that most overseas borrowers will never reach it, because it only applies after they have already re-engaged with Inland Revenue and begun repaying their loan. That is not a technical flaw. It is the central problem.

The legislation inserts new provisions into the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011, including sections 138A, 141B and 145A. In simple terms, it allows Inland Revenue to cancel loan interest where a borrower complies with an instalment arrangement, cancel late payment interest in similar circumstances, and exercise broader discretion to grant relief in defined cases. In some cases, once a borrower complies with an instalment arrangement, the Commissioner must cancel both loan interest and late payment interest.

On paper, that looks balanced.

In practice, it misses the point entirely.

Every one of these mechanisms depends on the borrower having already come back into the system. A borrower who remains disengaged cannot access any of this relief. That is not a secondary issue. That is the system.

For overseas-based borrowers, the core problem is not interest. It is disengagement.

A large population of New Zealanders living overseas hold student loan balances and are not in active repayment. They account for the majority of overdue student loan debt. Many are not ignoring the system out of defiance. They have simply reached a point where the numbers no longer make sense to them.

That is where the system breaks.

Balances compound over time. Interest continues to accrue. From April 2026, both loan interest and late payment interest rates increase again . What may have started as a manageable obligation becomes something else entirely.

There is a tipping point.

Once a borrower believes the balance is no longer realistically repayable, disengagement becomes the rational response. At that point, policy settings at the back end of the system are irrelevant.

The current framework does nothing to intervene at that moment.

Relief is available, but only after re-engagement. That assumes the very behaviour the policy is supposed to encourage. It does not reduce the barrier to coming back. It does not change the initial decision to disengage. It does not create a credible pathway back into the system for those who have already stepped away.

That is the design flaw.

There is also a second problem, which is not addressed in the legislation but is visible in practice.

Borrowers disengage not just because of interest. They disengage because of perception.

When a borrower sees a balance of $150,000 or $200,000, they do not see a structured liability. They see something final. Fixed. Unmanageable. Not worth engaging with.

That perception is wrong.

That number is not what you will pay.

Inland Revenue does not operate on the assumption that the face value of the loan will be recovered in full in every case. The system operates through arrangements, negotiated outcomes, and staged compliance. The balance is a starting point. It is not the end point.

In practice, I see this repeatedly. Once borrowers re-engage, outcomes are often more workable than the balance suggests. But that pathway is not visible at the point where borrowers make the decision to disengage.

So, they step away.

This is where the current policy framework fails completely. It introduces discretionary relief at the back end but does nothing to address the psychological barrier at the front end.

If the objective is to improve recovery, then the system must first solve the re-engagement problem.

That requires a different approach.

The first is clarity. Borrowers need to understand that the number they see is not necessarily what they will ultimately pay. Inland Revenue deals in outcomes, not face values. Until that is made explicit, large balances will continue to drive disengagement.

The second is lowering the barrier to first contact.

At present, many borrowers assume that engaging with Inland Revenue means committing to immediate repayment, exposure to enforcement, or being locked into an arrangement they cannot meet. That assumption is enough to keep them out of the system.

It is also incorrect.

Initial engagement does not require commitment. It does not require immediate payment. It does not lock a borrower into an arrangement. It is simply the reopening of a conversation.

That distinction matters.

If borrowers understood that they can speak to Inland Revenue without committing to anything, engagement would increase. At the moment, the system presents engagement as a high-stakes decision. It needs to be reframed as a low-risk first step.

Without that shift, discretionary relief will continue to sit unused by the very group it is intended to assist.

There is also the issue of how the relief is administered.

The framework relies heavily on discretion. Each case requires an application, supporting material, assessment, and a defensible decision. Inland Revenue must consider individual circumstances while maintaining consistency across a large number of cases.

That is not simplification.

It is administrative complexity.

Where a large number of cases share similar characteristics, overseas borrowers, extended disengagement, compounded balances, a discretionary model turns what could have been a standardised process into a series of individual files. That increases cost, increases time, and introduces variability in outcomes.

Two borrowers in similar positions can receive different outcomes depending on how their case is presented, when they engage, and how discretion is applied.

That is not theoretical. It is operational reality.

A rule-based or cohort-based approach would have been more effective. Relief could have been applied automatically to borrowers who meet defined re-entry criteria. Fixed thresholds. Consistent application. Reduced administrative burden.

Instead, the system has chosen case-by-case discretion in an area where standardisation was both possible and practical.

That is a policy choice.

What the legislation ultimately does is clarify its own objective.

It is focused on recovery.

The relief provisions are designed to resolve cases where borrowers are already close to compliance, where the issue is the size of the balance rather than the behaviour of the borrower. They are not designed to bring disengaged borrowers back into the system.

That distinction is critical.

A recovery mechanism operates after re-engagement. A re-engagement strategy operates at the point where the borrower decides whether to return.

This legislation does the former. It does not do the latter.

In practice, the position remains unchanged.

Borrowers who engage early have options. Borrowers who delay face compounding balances and reduced flexibility. That is not a policy statement. It is how the system operates.

Student loan interest relief is now law.

But for most overseas borrowers, it will remain out of reach.

Until that changes, the system will continue to lose the very borrowers it is trying to recover from.

The law offers relief. The system still does not offer a reason to come back.

^Footnotes

^{[1] Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025–26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Act 2026, inserted on 31 March 2026, inserting sections 138A, 141B, and 145A into the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011.}

^{[2] Inland Revenue, Student loan interest and fees, confirming overseas borrower interest and late payment interest rates applying from 1 April 2026.}

^{[3] Inland Revenue Annual Report (latest available), noting overseas-based borrowers account for the majority of overdue student loan debt and a minority are in active repayment.}

^{[4] Inland Revenue and Government policy material accompanying enactment of the 2026 Act, indicating a focus on recovery and compliance outcomes rather than front-end re-engagement.}

---

Dave Ananth is a principal at Meridian Partners, specialising in IRD disputes, enforcement, and student loan matters. His background, profile and contact details are here.