Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) Link to this
I move, That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Later, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 November 2009, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). The purpose of this motion is to bring forward the report back of this bill to ensure its enactment before Christmas.
At the outset it is worth remembering that although this bill may be comparatively small in scope, the student loan scheme represents over half a million borrowers and has a nominal value of about $9.6 billion. It makes sense, therefore, to take continuing steps to ensure that this substantial Crown asset continues to be managed in a way that is both efficient and consistent. With this in mind, the bill introduces a suite of mainly technical changes to the student loan scheme repayment rules. Their purpose is to ensure that the law on the repayment of student loans is clear, that it is consistent, and that it operates as intended.
The bill also extends interest-free loans to two special groups, in recognition of the high value of tertiary education in building a strong economy. The first of these changes makes interest-free loans available to borrowers who live in countries that are part of the realm of New Zealand, provided they are present in one of those countries for at least 183 consecutive days. This change will give borrowers from Niue, the Cook Islands, or Tokelau the same interest-free privileges as New Zealand - based borrowers. It recognises the importance of further education in building an informed and well-trained workforce in these countries, which share a special relationship with New Zealand. As the Ross Dependency is also part of the realm of New Zealand, borrowers who go there may also qualify for an interest-free loan.
The 183-day requirement to be present in the country is the same criterion that has to be met by New Zealand - based borrowers to qualify for interest-free loan status. It was introduced on 1 April 2006 to encourage borrowers to remain in New Zealand, or to return home from overseas and make their contribution to New Zealand’s economy. The bill also applies the same 183-day requirement to borrowers from what I would describe as realm countries, so that they have an incentive to return home after their studies to make a positive contribution towards their own country’s future.
Recognising the similar value that students who pursue study overseas bring to New Zealand, the bill also extends interest-free loans to include students who further their education overseas through full-time study under formal exchange programmes or under formal agreements between New Zealand and overseas tertiary education providers. This has been an area of some debate in recent times, and it will be a significant and welcome provision for a number of students currently studying overseas.
The remaining changes in this bill are of a technical or a remedial nature to ensure that the bill works as it was intended. They include an amendment to correct an unintended change to the hardship relief provisions that were made by the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Act 2007. That unintended change had the effect of restricting the years for which hardship relief from repayments could be claimed. The bill restores the position that applied previously, and allows hardship relief to be granted for any earlier tax year to borrowers for whom payment would cause serious hardship.
To help ensure that borrowers pay their correct loan repayments, the bill also introduces a change allowing the Inland Revenue Department to raise the compulsory repayment deduction rate from 10 percent to 15 percent. That change can be applied to borrowers who have not had the correct deductions made or whose repayments are overdue.
A further amendment corrects a technicality so that borrowers returning to New Zealand who wish to fully repay their loans before they have met the 183-day requirement to qualify for an interest-free loan will be able to do so. It is simply absurd to penalise students who return home to New Zealand earlier than that and who want to start making repayments. This legislation corrects that anomaly.
These amendments and the remaining technical amendments will help ensure that the student loan scheme works as it should, and that it fulfils its purpose of maintaining a well-educated workforce for our country’s current and future needs. On that basis I am very happy to commend this small but significant bill to the House.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
I rise to take a brief call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the bill to the House. Labour will be supporting the measure.
I just want to make a couple of points in response to what I see as some of the major provisions in this bill, albeit one that is fairly technical in nature. First of all, interest-free loans were introduced effective from 1 April 2006 by the Labour Government specifically for the purpose of encouraging New Zealand students to stay in New Zealand to study or to work. One of the patterns that became apparent during the exercise of the student loan scheme was that students would complete their degrees and leave New Zealand as soon as possible because they could get a stay or a holiday from payments while they were overseas. The purpose of making interest-free loans applicable was to encourage our brightest and best to stay here. This bill seeks to provide that same facility and same motivation to students who reside normally in what are still quaintly called parts of the realm of New Zealand—that is, Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency—for half a year. The 183-day figure simply represents half a year. Extending the interest-free loan provision to these borrowers is justifiable because our particular relationship with these people is more than simply administrative and legislative; it binds us quite closely to them in all sorts of ways. So extending this provision of being able to access interest-free loans even when they return to their home country for a period is a reasonable thing to do.
I also make mention of some of the anomalies that have been corrected, which the Minister alluded to briefly in his introductory speech. Restoring the hardship relief provisions to reflect their original intention is, I think, an appropriate thing to do. The intention of legislation sometimes gets a little distorted in practice, and over time we can see where things are beginning to strain at the outer limits of legislation. Corrections of anomalies that become apparent are required; that is a good thing.
I also wish to refer to the provision in this legislation that allows for students who are going overseas to study on arrangements that are reciprocal or scholarship arrangements to also access interest-free loans. That provision is hugely important for the development of our human capital in New Zealand. If all our brightest and best students go offshore to pursue postgraduate study and we cannot entice them to come back with an interest-free loan, then we defeat the purpose of New Zealand’s very good tertiary education system. It seems to me that this mechanism is useful and will encourage New Zealand students to take up postgraduate study in the first instance. Although I would not for a moment denigrate any of the postgraduate facilities that we have in this country, because they are exceptional and they hold their own place in the world’s league tables of tertiary and postgraduate research institutions, sometimes having the opportunity to study postgraduate courses offshore allows our young people to come back with a different perspective, a renewed vision of what is possible for New Zealand, and, in fact, an overseas degree that can only help to enhance the human capital in New Zealand.
The other technical amendments in this legislation do not require a great deal of analysis or comment. I am willing and keen to support this bill as it stands. Thank you.
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) Link to this
It is a pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. The bill has two parts. I acknowledge the two previous speakers, Peter Dunne and Maryan Street, and I generally endorse their comments. I think the previous speaker alluded to the fact that Labour will be supporting the bill being referred to the Education and Science Committee.
Yes, it will, and I appreciate that. I also note the Minister of Revenue’s comment in his introductory speech that this bill will, hopefully, pass through its stages and become law before Christmas. That is very good and sensible.
As the two speakers said, the bill is very useful and timely. They noted, as I do, that it introduces a number of remedial and technical changes to ensure the student loan scheme continues to function as intended. The bill also extends interest-free loans to borrowers who live in countries that are part of the realm of New Zealand; I have not actually heard the term “realm” for quite some time.
I turn to some of the numbers. The impact of the student loan scheme on our economy and on our accounts—on the books, if you like—is very, very significant. There are over half a million borrowers under the student loan scheme, and the nominal value is something around $9.5 billion to $10.5 billion. It is quite a significant Crown asset, and it should be managed in the best way possible, just as any other asset of the Crown—or of the taxpayer, at least—should be managed in an efficient and consistent manner.
We all know that the interest on student loans is now zero percent, yet they are still an investment. Yes, there is a financial impact on the Crown’s accounts, depending on how that interest is written off from day one—how the opportunity cost of that interest is foregone. It goes without saying—I will say it anyway—that the lower interest rates across the economy are, the less the investment in interest-free student loans costs our economy. None the less, the scheme is still an investment. It is an investment in the future of New Zealand and in future taxpayers. So anything we can do to make it more efficient, better, more transparent, and fairer—as this bill does—we should continue to do.
The Minister outlined a number of technical aspects in his first reading speech. Interestingly, the bill will make interest-free loans available to borrowers who live in countries that are part of the realm of New Zealand—as I said before, Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency.
The Ross Dependency part interests me, and it may also interest you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, as your electorate is a bit closer to that part of the world than where I live is. It is a simple change to align borrowers there with other New Zealand borrowers, who must meet the requirement to be present in one of those countries or in New Zealand for 183 days. One could argue that those in the Ross Dependency have their interest frozen, if you like, or that it is on ice—to be a bit light-hearted about this bill.
Yes, it is.
A taxpayer-friendly piece is also proposed in the legislation, and that is a change that allows the Inland Revenue Department to increase the standard repayment reduction rate from 10 percent to 15 percent where borrowers have failed to have the correct deductions made. The higher rate will apply to the under-deductions, including any late-payment penalties to be fully repaid. The taxpayer has on-lent to borrowers at zero interest cost, so there is already a significant subsidy or advantage to write-off for, or investment in—whatever one likes to call it—the borrower. I think most parties across the House will applaud anything to make the scheme more efficient, fairer for other student loan borrowers, and more transparent. I think we have heard that so far.
A point I would like to pick up, which one of the other speakers spoke to, is one of the technical changes. It makes student loans interest-free for borrowers who return to New Zealand and fully repay their loans before they have been back 183 days, which is, of course, the tax residency threshold. That is welcoming home New Zealanders who return and pay off the loan early. Technically, before this bill is passed, that is actually the case. From the taxpayers’ point of view, we do not want that liability on the books if we do not need it. From the borrowers’ point of view, they have been overseas, have done their OE, and have got some money together. They come back to New Zealand with some capital and, lo and behold, if they are able to pay off the loan within 183 days, they fully qualify for the interest-free provision. That is a very, very good part of this bill.
The bill has only two parts. As other speakers have noticed, it is quite short. I look forward to speaking on the rest of the bill during its passage through the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.
STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
I stand to speak in support of the first reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. As Mr Foss mentioned, the name is almost longer than the bill. This bill is, by and large, a technical bill, but it enshrines a couple of important philosophies that we, as the Labour Party, value, and that is one of the main reasons why I support this bill.
It has always been Labour Party philosophy to help foster the economic development of our Pasifika brothers and sisters. The bill also builds on Labour’s fantastic law of giving interest-free student loans to all students. What wonderful legislation that was! It was Labour legislation, of course. Education has to be the cornerstone of economic development. I have a poster on my wall that has a quote from Malcolm X. That quote is: “Without education, you are not going anywhere in this world.” Those powerful words are from a man who discovered the power and value of education as a tool to instigate change in a world that demanded change, and to make a difference in a world where difference is needed to drive independence, sustainable economic growth, and a higher standard of living.
This bill makes some technical amendments, but, by and large, it does three things. First, it allows those from the nations of Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency who have come to New Zealand to seek educational opportunities to return home in order to put their education and learning into practice. Secondly, it provides an incentive to those currently resident in the aforementioned countries to come to New Zealand to be educated, then return home to families, friends, and jobs while achieving the same advantages as citizens domiciled already in New Zealand. Thirdly, it provides opportunities for New Zealand citizens who may wish to travel to Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency in order to pursue professional opportunities for any number of reasons. This bill also allows interest-free loans for students engaged in full-time study overseas under a formal exchange programme approved by the New Zealand Government or a formal agreement between a New Zealand education provider and an overseas tertiary education provider.
But I have one problem with this bill. I have a grave concern that the National Government will look to repeal the interest-free student loan provisions, thereby necessitating my being back in this House within 2 years in order to repeal this amendment legislation. That is a real fear. We have discussed it, and the National Government has actually signalled it. Why do I have this concern? Well, the National Government has shown that its priorities are all wrong. In fact, when it comes to education, which is what this bill basically deals with, Mr Key’s priorities are dreadful. He has effectively been robbing the poor to give to the rich.
John HayesI ask members where all that education money has gone. Where has all that education money been stolen from? The Prime Minister, Mr English, every other National member—including Mr Hayes—the Māori Party, and the ACT MPs have stolen $13 million from adult and community education by arrogantly closing night classes, thereby taking away the ability of thousands of New Zealanders to better themselves through education in order to become productive members of their communities and society.
The irony is that we are agreeing on the first reading of a bill—I do not know the fiscal implications of this bill, but I am sure that the Minister of Revenue will explain it at some stage—that enhances educational opportunities for those wishing to go to or return to Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency. This bill is aspirational. With regard to this bill, the Minister of Revenue, Mr Dunne, has said: “This is another positive step that will allow people to further their studies overseas in a way that will benefit New Zealand in the longer term.” I totally agree with the Minister, and that is why I am supporting this bill. But with all due respect, I ask: what about those who live here and who want to stay in New Zealand and study in New Zealand?
The National Government, including that member over there, has stolen the educational opportunities of thousands of New Zealanders. This is simply not fair and it represents incorrect priorities.
Where else has the money been stolen from? There is the $11 million that the Prime Minister, Mr English, and every other National, Māori Party, and ACT MP have stolen from those who are least able to afford to get into education, through the training incentive allowance. Solo parents who make a proactive choice to engage in education whilst bringing up their children have suddenly had that opportunity taken away from them. Can members believe that? These people are depending on the State at the moment. They wish to engage in education and to contribute, yet they have had that opportunity taken away from them. That is a true travesty. These guys would be paying tax for the rest of their lives if they became educated, yet the Government has pulled the rug away. That is dreadful. Where are those members’ priorities? They have gone; they have disappeared.
Then there is the healthy food in schools guideline. Mr Hayes would be interested in the healthy food in schools guideline. It may be a little late for him, but people in his electorate would love the healthy food in schools guideline. But his Government has removed it. You have taken it away. You get my point, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, but members opposite do not get the point. This Government has slashed, cut, burnt, decimated, and butchered educational opportunities for many New Zealanders from the cradle to the grave. Educational opportunity from the cradle to the grave is what generations of Labour Ministers of Finance, Prime Ministers, leaders, and Mr Goff have delivered, and that is what this Government is taking away.
Where has the money been taken from? It is from the high school night classes, adult and community education, and the training incentive allowance. Where has it gone to?
Carol BeaumontDead right. I can report that $35 million has been stolen from the poor and given to the rich—$35 million. It is Robin Hood in reverse. Key is a modern-day New Zealand Sheriff of Nottingham, or the “Sheriff of Nothing”, stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Actually, I tell members that we see in the pre-commentary on Bill English’s Tax Working Group report that it is suggesting raising GST to 15 percent, so that the Government can drop the top tax rates of 38 percent and 33 percent down to 30 percent. This was said by the Treasury representative on the Tax Working Group. I tell the 75 percent of New Zealanders who earn under $48,000 to watch out.
I come back to education. Do members know that $35 million has been given to private schools? Do they know why? I will tell members. It is because Minister English believes that everyone is entitled to free education. That was the reason he gave in this House. I tell members that I completely agree with Minister English: everyone deserves a free education. The parents who send their kids to private schools have the option to send their children to State schools, as well. They can send their children to the local State school. However, they choose the option of sending their child to a private school. Many who are undertaking adult and community education or who are taking up the training incentive allowance do not have that same option. Now they have no options, thanks to Mr English, Mr Key, and all those on that side of the House who voted for this Budget. For example, Mr Tremain and Mr Foss from Hawke’s Bay voted for cuts in adult and community education. These cuts affect over 6,000 people in Hawke’s Bay, as well as 314 tutors. The irony is that Minister Tolley used to be an adult and community education tutor in Napier. That irony is not lost on the vast majority of people whom I have talked to in the Bay.
The Labour Party has always believed that the first charge of a Government is to ensure that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to become productive citizens, be this through health, education, or any area that allows New Zealanders to optimise their opportunities. That is what this party is about: cradle to grave. Savage, Fraser, and that other chap all spoke about this in years past, and it is still the guiding philosophy of our current party and our fantastic leader, the next Prime Minister, Phil Goff. National has never had such a mandate or a belief system. That is why those members can slash and burn to such an extent without any conscience. That is why they can attend public meetings and pontificate about nothing, whilst ignoring the voices in the crowd that are baying for their blood. In 9 long months the priorities of this National Government have proved that those members cannot be trusted.
I support this bill, but I certainly do not support the approach of this Government of robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. Thank you.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. The Green Party likes some of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, especially the bit providing interest-free loans to overseas borrowers, but I am sorry to say that the love fest for the legislation stops right there. I will speak very briefly on the bill, because Metiria Turei, who is our spokeswoman on tertiary education, is not here tonight.
I acknowledge that if Malcolm X were here—he was referred to by the previous speaker, Stuart Nash—I very much doubt whether he would be supporting any aspect of any bill in the House that supported the student loan scheme in any way whatsoever. I am sure Malcolm X would have been horrified by the impact of the student loan scheme on this country and on the aspirations of young people in this country—particularly the impact of the student loan scheme on indigenous youth.
However, I will get down to the detail of the exemption and miscellaneous provisions of the bill. The bill makes several changes to student loans and replaces how the interest rate, where applicable, is set by a formula. The formula is identical to the formula currently in use, and the change is to take it out of regulation and put it into the principal Act. We do not have a problem with that provision. The bill also enables the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to increase the standard rate for repayment deductions from salary and wages from 10c in the dollar to up to 15c for borrowers who have failed to make the correct deductions. We have a problem with that provision, because for many people that increase is quite serious. The bill extends interest-free loans to borrowers from Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency. That is all good. We would really like to be able to support the bill, because we really believe in providing interest-free loans to our Pacific neighbours. That is very important. The relationship is absolutely vital and it enriches both our country and the rest of the Pacific. We also do not have a problem with a number of the non-controversial, technical amendments in the bill.
But we have to look at the context of the changes to the deductions. When we were consulted on the bill’s predecessor last year, we opposed its introduction on the basis that increasing the powers of the Inland Revenue Department to recover debt in this manner is a very bad move. One of the drivers of the bill, which was stated to us at the time, was that the Inland Revenue Department had mistakenly failed to collect from some borrowers, who are now in arrears. Compulsory student loan repayments already kick in at a low threshold. Increasing the deduction to 15c in the dollar would have a severe impact on some borrowers, because that low threshold, which is $19,084 gross, is not enough to live on. It is a scary amount of money to try to live on. Changing the deduction level could have a major impact.
The bill suggests that, alternatively, the department could simply allow those who are behind in their repayments to take longer to pay off their loans. We would rather see that happen. We are very, very concerned about the fact that the Inland Revenue Department made the mistake. Why should the students of this country pay for the tax department’s mistake? I do not know how many members have had the experience—I certainly have—of the tax department making a mistake and trying to make them pay for it. I do not think that approach should be applied to the students in this country. The Inland Revenue Department has to take responsibility for making mistakes. We should not penalise our students in that way. Regrettably, we cannot support the bill, although we support the overseas borrowing provisions.
I make a general comment about the bill. The student loan scheme is possibly the most effective tool with which to depoliticise and alienate an entire generation. Here many of us sit as recipients of a publicly funded university education system. We paid maybe $125 per year for books for our courses. We left university debt free and burden free. We grew up thinking we had the right to an education and that we were valued members of a caring society that invested in us.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY Link to this
Some of us were. Some of us who are making the decisions here tonight got that free education. It did not work so well for tangata whenua, who were still experiencing the loss of lands, resources, and taonga katoa, including their language. But for those of us lucky enough to go to university, there was no debt. There was no questioning of whether we could ever afford to have a family or to buy a house. Sure, now everyone can go to university, but everyone must pay. Some of us who did not pay are not even listening to this speech. We did not have to pay. That is the irony of the situation. We, who were privileged enough to feel that our society invested in us and that we did not have to go overseas to get the money to pay back our debt, sit here in judgment, deciding that our students should increase the amount they are paying because the Inland Revenue Department made a mistake. The Green Party does not agree with that.
University used to be a place where students debated ideas and engaged with civic issues. Now they talk about how to pay back their debts. Now students are hard to enrage or activate. They are a passive, compliant, and debt-ridden mass who are focused on what they need to know in order to pass the test and get their qualification, so they can get a job and pay back their debt. That is not an intellectually rich environment; it is a place where ideas take second place to the debt mountain—the food bank, for some—and to the pernicious individualism of immediate, personal, indebted survival.
I was lucky to be a young person and a student when participating in political activity and lively dialogue within an education about ideas was the norm. But now if one goes to a university one will find people scurrying through the corridors not focused on anything to do with a civil society or a political society, but focused on how they can pass the test, on not being asked to discuss ideas, and on just getting through so they can get a proper job in order to pay off the debt. Now that we do not even have proper jobs because we are in a major recession, the Government is talking about increasing the amount some students might have to pay.
Much as we support the idea of interest-free borrowing for overseas students, we regret this bill. We stand, as we have stood before and will stand again, against the student loan scheme as a disempowering and ineffectual way to invest in young people. I listen to all the rhetoric in this House about the value of education. The bill is not about education; it is about the dollar. We have forgotten that education was once about investing in our young people, yet we wonder why they rush overseas, are deeply alienated from our communities, and think only of themselves. Let us look in the mirror. We cannot support the bill. Kia ora.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau e te Whare. I a tātau e kōrero nei i ngā take o te mātauranga, e tika ana kia huri ngā whakaaro ki tērā o ngā mātanga, ngā tohunga o roto o Tainui waka, kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi i ngā rā tata kua hipa. Ko Tūī Adams tērā. Kei runga ia i tōna marae o roto o Ngāti Maniapoto i tēnei pō, taku mōhio, koi nei te pō poroporoaki ki a ia. Āpōpō ka tukuna atu a ia ki te kōpū o Papatūānuku, e koro haere. Koia tērā i kaha tautoko nei i te āhuatanga o te Wānanga o Aotearoa i ngā tau kua hipa. Ē, ka tangi te ngākau ki a koe e koro.
Arā anō tērā o roto i Ngāti Tūwharetoa. He pērā anō te kōrero. Ko Arthur Smallman tērā, he uri o roto o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Pērā anō hoki te āhuatanga o te kōrero. Āpōpō ka tukuna atu ai ki te kōpū o Papatūānuku. Kōrua tahi. Koutou te hunga mate, haere, whakangaro atu.
Ka hoki mai anō rā ki tēnei pire ā-mātauranga nei. Tōna mutunga, he take mātauranga tēnei. Me kī, arā noa atu te rārangi kōrero mō ngā momo tūranga mahi e kimi haere nei i ētahi hei whakakīkī i ngā whāwhārua. Arā, ko ngā tākuta, ko ngā kaiako, ko ngā kaimahi hiko, kaimahi kōrere wai, nēhi niho, kaipūtaiao, kaihoahoa, kaiwhakatauira whare rānei, ā, tae atu ki te hunga kaiahuone, arā noa atu, arā noa atu. Koi nei ngā momo mahi i rongo nei i te ngau o te tapahi o te pūtea e kī ana, ko te pūtea tautoko akoranga. Ko te tikanga, ko ēnei pūtea he mea āwhina i te hunga e kimi mahi ana e pā ana ki tā rātau i ako ai nā runga i tōna ake hiahia, nā runga ake i tōna ao, nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā hiahia o te hunga mahi. Engari, ko te tahua pūtea o tēnei tau, āe, i tiaki pai mai te pūteā tautoko akoranga nei engari, nō te hunga anake i ako nei tae rā nō ki te taumata tuatoru me kī, ko te mea ngā wari noa iho ki tērā taumata. Engari, mēnā e hiahia ana rātau ki te kimi haere i ngā pūkenga mō te mahi, arā, ko ngā pūkenga e hiahiatia nei e te hunga tuku mahi kia eke atu ai ngā tāngata ki ngā taumata e wawatatia ana, kātahi te Kāwanatanga ka whakaputa i tētahi whakataunga heahea rawa atu, he taiapa i whakatūria i mua i te aroaro o te hunga ako. Me kī, he mea ngau nei ki te ngākau o te tangata puta noa i te motu, kua puta te kōrero, te āwanga nui nei ki te Kāwanatanga engari, auare ake. Kāore te Kāwanatanga i aro mai ki tā rātou i whakatakoto mai ai.
Arā nō te whakataukī o roto i te ao Māori, ko te kai o te rangatira he kōrero, me kī, kei te pūtake o tērā, ko tēnei mea te kōrero, he kōrero rangatira ki te rangatira, arā nō te tikanga o roto i tērā momo kōrero, me whakarongo ki tā te iwi e kōrero nei ka mutu, me wānanga i roto i te ngākau ka mutu, ā, me whakaputa kōrero i muri mai. He āhua pērā anō hoki te āhuatanga o te tāone nui o Tāmaki, i pērā rawa te kōrero. Ko te tikanga me kī tēnei Kāwanatanga, me whai te Minita Hide nei i tērā kōrero, ko te kai o te rangatira he kōrero, he wānanga i te āhuatanga o ngā tūru Māori i roto o Tāmaki.
Pērā anō hoki tēnei pire, kāre te Kāwanatanga i tino rongo i ngā hiahia o te hunga i whakatakoto kōrero ki mua i a rātau, i haere tika tonu ia ā-Kāwanatanga ki runga i tōna ake huarahi. Ko tēnei pire me kī, i whakawhānui te titiro ki tēnei mea te utu hua moni kore ki te hunga i tono nei i ētahi pūtea. Arā, me kī te hunga e noho mai rarā i Niue, i Kuki Airani, i Tokerau tae atu ki tēnā whenua o Ross Dependency me kī, roa ake i ngā rā e 183. Nā, ko te tino pūtake o tērā take, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, he pai tonu i te mea i tautoko nei i te hunga o ērā whenua ki te akoako i konei ka mutu, ka hoki rātau ki ō rātau ake whenua, ā, ka taka atu ngā painga ki reira, ki ērā whenua. He pai tonu ērā mea katoa. Nā, he paku rāwekeweke nei i te hanganga ture kia taea ai ngā mea tono moni nei me kī, he hunga mahi nei mō te kore moni, arā, o roto i ngā rōpū whakahaere āwhina tangata. Me kī, kāre rātau i rongo nei i ngā tikanga o tēnei o ngā pire mō ngā rā e pērā anō te roa, arā e 183 rā. E āhei ana te hunga nā aua tauira me kī, kua uru ki roto i ngā whare wānanga kei roto i tētahi wāhi ako ki te whai i tā rātau e pīrangi nei i tāwāhi, e wātea ata ki a rātau tēnei mea ko te utu hua moni kōre.
Arāanōētahi atu painga, kua rahi ake te utu moni whakahoki mai i te tekau hēneti o roto i te taara kotahi eke atu ai ki te tekau mā rima hēneti mō te hunga kua āhua tūreiti te whakahoki moni mai. E whakarahi ake anō rā i te wā hei whakahoki mai i te moni me te kore rongo nei i tētahi moni nui nei i runga ake i tērā i whakaritea mai ai, mai i te 15 rā ki te 30 rā. Nā tēnā, kaua koutou e noho i te pōhēhē, he pai tonu ēnei mea, he hua o roto o ēnei āhuatanga katoa. E hāngai tonu ana ki tā te Pāti Māori i whakatakoto mai ai i ngā tau kua hipa, arā, ko tēnei mea te mātauranga o roto i ngā whare wānanga, he koha hei whakatutuki i ngā moemoeā o te iwi. Te tikanga me whakawātea mai ngā huarahi katoa kia haere ā-ao Māori nei a wai ake ki roto i ngā whare wānanga mō te kore utu. Engari, arā nō ngā pātai kāore anō kia whakautua, ā, ka mutu kāore anō kia pātaia. Ko wai te hunga e whakariterite nei i ngā whāinga matua o te Kāwanatanga? Kei te whakarongo te Kāwanatanga ki a wai? He aha ngā momo huarahi o muri mai e mirimiri nei i te āhuatanga o te whāinga matua?
Ko tā mātou o te Pāti Māori i kī nei i mua, hiahia nō mātou ki te whakatakoto i tētahi utu whakaheke, arā, kia whakapāpaku i te utu ā te roanga o te wā. E ngana nei mātou ki te whakarahi ake i ngā huarahi katoa ki te tahua tauira nā runga i te āhuatanga o te whakatakoto i tētahi tahua tauira, arā, kia ōrite tōna taumata ki tērā o te pūtea mō te kore mahi.
He kōrero whakamutunga pea, ko tā mātou e kī nei kia ōrite te whakautu i ngā nama. Me tīmata i tērā ā te wā ka whiwhi i ngā kaitono i te pūtea tahi me te hāwhe i runga ake i te utu tau toharite. Me kī, me whakawātea mai ai ko te rima tau o waenganui hei whakahoki i te moni i muri mai o te putanga i te whare wānanga ka mutu, ka noho kore utu hua moni nei. Āe, tērā kōrero. Nō reira, ehara i te mea he kino tēnei pire, kāo, he pai tonu. Arā nō ngā painga mō te hunga e tono moni nei, ka whiwhi painga. Me kī, ka whakakao mai tēnei pire i tētahi hunga o roto i tēnei kāhui, arā, o te utu hua moni kore. Engari, koi nā te pūtake, kai a wai ngā painga?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all, the House. As we debate matters concerning education, it is appropriate that we turn our thoughts to that scholar and expert of the Tainui canoe in this field, Tūī Adams, who passed away recently. He lies in state on his Ngāti Maniapoto marae tonight. My understanding is that farewell tributes will be made to him tonight. Tomorrow he will be interred in the bowels of mother Earth. Depart, old one. During the past years he was a staunch supporter of aspects relating to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. Oh, how the heart grieves for you, old one.
I acknowledge that loss in Ngāti Tūwharetoa with the passing of Arthur Smallman, one of its descendants. Tonight is his last night as well, and tomorrow he will be interred in the bowels of mother Earth. That is both of you. Farewell to you, the dead. Disappear from view.
So I come back once again to this bill. After all, it is about education. There is an extensive list of occupations that have an ongoing skill shortage of trained staff: doctors, teachers, electricians, plumbers, dentists, scientists, engineers, architects, horticultural specialists, and so on. These are the occupations that were directly affected by the recent cuts to the training incentive allowance. Training incentive allowances help people to undertake employment-related training appropriate to their own situation and the demands of the labour market. Budget decisions this year retain the training incentive allowance if one is studying under level 3— the basic foundation skills at that level. But to achieve employable skills, those that employers actually need, skills that pave the way to a well-paid job or career, the Government made the crazy decision to place an obstacle in the way. It was heartbreaking and demoralising, and right throughout the country the people have spoken of their concerns, but to no avail. The people were ignored again.
We have a proverb in Māoridom: “Talk is the food of the chief.” In essence, that means that real chiefs listen to what the people say. They take it in, contemplate it, reflect on it, and then make informed decisions. The situation in the city of Auckland is somewhat like that proverb. Strictly speaking, this Government should be saying that Minister Hide should heed the proverb about talk being food to the chief, and debate the circumstances relating to the Māori seats in Auckland.
This bill is similar, as well. The Government did not really hear the wishes of those who put submissions before them. Instead of listening, the Government went ahead and did what it wanted to do. This bill extends eligibility for interest-free student loans to borrowers living in Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency for a further 183 days. The point is that if we support people from these countries to study, they will then return to their lands, and contribute to development there. And that is all good. It also means legislation to ensure that borrowers who volunteer for overseas charitable organisations are exempt from the requirements to be home for at least 183 days. And it enables those students enrolled with a New Zealand provider but engaged in full-time study overseas to be eligible for interest-free student loans.
It does some other things along the way. It increases the repayment deductions from 10c in the dollar up to 15c, for those whose accounts are overdue. It increases the period in which a loan may be fully repaid without incurring additional interest, from 15 to 30 days. Do not get me wrong—these are all significant achievements in their own right. And they do fit well with the advocacy we have made from the Māori Party, that t ertiary education is a front-end investment in the nation’s future and should be freely available to all. But questions must continue to be asked. Who is calling the shots in determining Government policy? Who does the Government listen to? What are the deals being done to influence policy?
In our policy manifesto, the Māori Party made the commitment to introduce a fee reduction policy to reduce fees to a nominal level, over time. We also sought to increase access to student allowances by introducing a universal student allowance that will be set at the level of the unemployment benefit.
In conclusion, we recommended that student loan debt repayments perhaps should start only when borrowers are earning 1½ times the average wage, that there be a 5-year grace period for repayments after graduation, and that student loans remain interest-free. Yes, indeed. So, this is not a bad bill—not at all. It has its positives for those seeking loans. It brings more people into the loop of interest-free student loans. But I ask—and it is the nub—who precisely is benefiting from it .]
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this
I am very pleased to rise tonight to take a call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. The student loan scheme has become a central part of our tertiary education system. This bill is all about ensuring that it is working in the way in which it is intended, that it is a balanced scheme, and that it is applied fairly, equally, and appropriately. Most important, it is about ensuring that repayments are incentivised. That is a big plan for this Government, because we work on the basis that it is not good for people to have that debt hanging over them for longer than need be. It is not good for the country; it is not good for the borrowers. So anything we can do to incentivise borrowers to have that debt cleared away we would certainly support. We have this bill before us, and later in the year we will be looking at the repayment bonus, which will help achieve that goal.
The scheme, as we have heard, has over half a million borrowers. It has a nominal value of approximately $10 billion. The really important thing about the scheme is not the numbers; what is really important about it is that it enables every single New Zealander to advance his or her tertiary education. No New Zealander can say that funds are not there to be taken advantage of for his or her education, because the scheme is available to all.
I had just started my university education when the scheme came into force. It was really interesting to see the transition from the previous scheme, where that was not the case; fees were low, and students could do the proverbial 7-year, scenic tour BA. Students suddenly realised that they were there to get an asset that would help them and enrich their lives for many years to come. They realised that their education was an asset, and like every asset it had a value. By attributing that value to it, students started to understand that they were there to get an education that would put them in a better position for the rest of their lives. I, for one, had no problem paying for it. I had no problem racking up debt, and I certainly did not get any State assistance in terms of welfare allowances. I had to work very hard and I had my student loan, but I knew that tertiary education was my path to a brighter future. That is why I took it on.
I am a big proponent of the scheme, and, as I said, anything we can do to incentivise borrowers to pay back that debt sooner is worth supporting. As we have heard from the Minister of Revenue, the bill will encourage those within the realm of New Zealand—which is a bit of an antiquated term—to study. We have a special relationship with the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency, and we want to ensure that people there are treated in the same way as our own residents are. We are also ensuring that New Zealand residents who are studying full-time under approved schemes are entitled to an interest-free loan.
There are some very interesting and important technical amendments within the bill that tidy up issues. An interesting one is that the setting of the interest rate is moved from a matter set by regulation to a matter of primary importance that is in the primary legislation. That is a move I endorse. The rate now is the average Government bond yield rate, times a multiplier of 0.74 percent. It is moved to the primary legislation, which emphasises the importance of it.
The other important point that I want to touch on briefly is the entitlement of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to issue a 15 percent deduction rate where there is a shortfall in repayments, to ensure that that shortfall is caught up with quickly, and to move borrowers towards the goal of getting themselves debt free sooner.
The bill is an excellent bill. It is an overdue bill. I commend the Minister and I support the bill. Thank you.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
Here is a little bit of a history lesson for the member who just spoke, Amy Adams. She may have forgotten what her leader, John Key, said about interest-free student loans on the day that the previous Labour Government announced them. John Key called them unaffordable and irresponsible. He said it was a sad day for New Zealand.
Grant RobertsonIn fact, John Key said he was going to oppose interest-free student loans with every bone in his body. How times have changed. He must not have any bones left—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove—the medication will fix that—because here we are debating the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, a bill that actually extends interest-free student loans despite the change of Government. How times have changed, indeed.
I am very proud to take a call on this bill, which extends interest-free student loans. Labour is incredibly proud of the policy. It was introduced in 2005, and it was another step to making tertiary education a lot more affordable, after the massive increase in the cost of tertiary education that students experienced in the 1990s. Fees were rising by thousands of dollars a year, and there was very little support for students in the form of student allowances. What was even worse was that students were being charged interest on their loans while they were still studying, and it was compounding daily. When students were in no position to make any repayments on their loans, and when they should have been focused on studying, they were busy worrying about the massive growth in the interest on their student loan. The longer they studied, the higher it became.
I say to John Hayes that I have paid off my student loan. In fact, I made the final repayments only about 2 months ago. There is a little bit of a story behind that. There are one or two administrative problems with the student loan scheme. I paid off my student loan and I changed my tax code from MSL back to M. At the end of the year, when my tax return was done, I had overpaid some tax, so the Inland Revenue Department gave me a cheque for student loan repayments that I had overpaid, then created a new debt for me, which I would have had to start repaying under the MSL code. That was absolutely ridiculous. It is fair to say that I returned the cheque to the Inland Revenue Department, thanked it very much for the free money, which I had not asked for, and told it that I did not need the student loan any more. I gave the money back to the department. That highlights an administrative error, I think, in the way that student loans are administered. But there are other things too.
I also want to talk about the fact that although interest-free student loans apply to diplomats and those on overseas postings, and I am sure Mr Hayes will be familiar with this, they do not apply to their partners. A diplomat who is sent offshore gets an interest-free student loan for the duration of the time that he or she is away, and that is something we support. But if the diplomat’s partner goes as well, from the advice that I have been given by a number of people who are affected it is my understanding that he or she does not get an interest-free student loan. That appears to be an anomaly, and I hope the Education and Science Committee will look at it when it considers the bill. For it to do so would be consistent with the purpose of the bill, which is about extending interest-free student loans to a new group of people, particularly those in the realm of New Zealand—that rather antiquated concept—and we also need to think about the people who fall through the cracks at the moment.
I want to pick up one or two of the comments made by Catherine Delahunty. I very much agreed with some of the concerns that she raised. She was lamenting the impact that the cost of tertiary education has had on the ability of students to participate in wider social activity, particularly student activism. I would say one thing in response to the points that Catherine Delahunty raised. The interest-free student loan scheme came about as a result—at least in part—of over a decade of student activism on the issue of student fees, student loans, student allowances, and the cost of tertiary education. Student activism is by no means dead, but students are now much more focused on making ends meet, and that is having an impact on some students’ study. They are more worried about the cost of education than they might have been 20 or 30 years ago, when the majority of the members of this House would have received their education at a fraction of the cost that students today have to pay for their tertiary education. I agreed with a lot of what Catherine Delahunty said.
The Labour Party supports this bill, however, because we support interest-free student loans. The previous Labour Government introduced interest-free student loans. It was an affordable and responsible commitment that the Labour Government made in 2005. Although the National Party did not think so at the time, it seems to have come round to the idea. That really highlights a difference in values. The National Party had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where it adopted the interest-free student loan scheme; it did not do so willingly. The previous Labour Government was very proud to introduce interest-free student loans, because part of our belief is that Governments should strive to reduce the barriers to participation in tertiary education.
One of the big barriers is cost. Rather than looking at increasing the cost of tertiary education, we should be looking all the time at ways that we can reduce the costs involved. Interest-free student loans built on, as I said before, our policy of no interest while studying. They built on the fee freeze that the Labour Government had introduced. Immediately upon taking office Labour froze fees at their 2000 levels, and then it introduced a fee maxima policy, which stopped fees increasing by huge amounts year after year, which had happened throughout the 1990s. Students would start their tertiary studies with no idea of how much they would end up paying by the time they finished. Fees would go up by thousands of dollars a year. A student might go into tertiary study thinking he or she could afford fees of $10,000, but by the time the student finished he or she might have paid $15,000 or $20,000. Putting that cap in place underscored the commitment of the previous Labour Government to control the cost of tertiary education and progressively work towards lowering the cost and lowering the barrier.
Labour did a number of things. We increased the access to student allowances. Significant numbers of additional students were made eligible for student allowances in the 2005 Budget, and a further swag of them, I believe, were made eligible in 2007. I do not have the exact year at the top of my head, but I think it was in 2007 that the next major increase in allowances was made. The goal of the Labour Government was to work towards a universal student allowance, which many members of this House enjoyed the benefit of when they undertook their own tertiary studies, but over time it has been taken away from future generations of students. We would like to see it reintroduced.
The Labour Party values quality, publicly funded education. In contrast, the National Government’s most important priority in the area of education was an extra $35 million for private schools. An extra $35 million for private schools was more important than funding for adult and community education. It was more important than funding to increase the number of apprentices. It was more important than increasing the number of training places in industry training. It was more important than increasing the funding for polytechnics and for trades-based training. Increased funding for private schools was this Government’s No. 1 priority for additional education spending. There is no planning and no sense of priority whatsoever from this Government. It took an extra $35 million and gave it to the most privileged students in the country, who already—
It gave it to 3.6 percent of students. It thought that was more important than funding special-needs education. It thought that $35 million for private schools was more important than funding special-needs education. That says a lot about this Government’s priorities.
In conclusion, I support this bill. It makes a number of quite common-sense, technical amendments to the student loan scheme. It is a shame the National Government is not more supportive of the whole concept of interest-free student loans. It is a shame it is not doing more to decrease the cost of tertiary education for students, because education is an investment in the future of our country. It is an investment in increasing productivity. It is an investment in a brighter future for New Zealand. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
I will not traverse all the issues that have already been covered tonight but will just cover two short points. Firstly, the provisions of the Student Loan Scheme Act will be extended to students who live in countries that are part of the New Zealand territories—Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau. I was on the recent Pacific mission led by our Prime Minister, and it was the most celebrated mission in many a year to go to the Pacific Islands. The people of those territories will see this bill as a very welcome addition to the services that New Zealand already provides for them.
Secondly, interest-free loans are to be extended to include students who are furthering their education overseas and through full-time study. They will be doing that through study programmes, exchange programmes, and formal agreements between New Zealand and other nations. I spent some time studying overseas and had to look for ways to fund my own education, so I say this provision will be very welcome to those people. We welcome students going overseas to pick up on new ideas, new ways of thinking, and innovative methods of doing things, and bringing those ideas back to our country in order that we may benefit through their contribution to our local economy and our local people. So this is a very welcome provision.
We should celebrate the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. Much has been said across the Chamber about student loans and their value. Having had my student loan for a number of years, I can say personally that it is a valuable scheme—not necessarily the interest-free scheme, but certainly the student loan scheme. It is a benefit to our country. I support the bill and I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to it.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to take this call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, because it strikes me that National still needs a re-education on the steps that were required before we could extend this policy to some of our overseas counterparts. As my colleague Chris Hipkins has already pointed out, this change would not be welcome on behalf of some of the young students from Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands if it were not first welcome for the students of New Zealand.
I remind the National Party and now the National Government of its response to the most recent changes we saw in 2005, and also perhaps will give a little history lesson on where we started back in 1999. I can personally attest to the initial stages of the policy we are now discussing. When I started university in 1999 the policy meant that while students were still studying at university they had to pay interest on their student loans. A full-time student, studying and paying interest on his or her student loan, had absolutely no ability to start paying that loan back at that time. It was an unfair system, it was an inequitable system, and it changed people’s behaviours as a consequence.
Students decided either not to go into tertiary education—a fact that my colleague across the House, Mr Gilmore, seems unaware of; it was not a question of simply not taking a loan, as that was not a choice for a lot of students—or they simply made choices about the types of tertiary education they entered into. For instance, I know of students—I was one—who considered where they studied based simply on whether they could reduce their loan by trying to study at a cheaper place and in a cheaper course. The access to the loan system, and the way in which the loan system operated, changed behaviours and it changed lives, and I do not think we can forget that.
I remember when it was first removed, when the Labour Government came into office in 1999. It was one of the first things that Government did, and it is something I remain immensely proud of. But let us fast-forward to 2005, because I think this is again relevant to the bill we are discussing today. The change in 2005 to remove interest on all student loans was not just a policy; it was a reflection of Labour’s values. It was a reflection of the view that education is a public good. [Interruption] The Minister of Education laughs at that notion, which I find quite shameful. On this side of the House education is viewed as a public good that everyone can benefit from. We can see from the National Government’s view on accessibility to education that that is not a view that it holds. National’s response to that policy was first and foremost from its now Prime Minister, John Key. He called it a bribe. Not only did he call it a bribe—
Hon Anne TolleyI hear the Minister say yes. If she thinks it is a bribe, why was it not removed? Why did the Minister not reverse the policy, and why is she now extending it if she thinks it is a bribe? I would be interested to hear her take a call on that. I think it is useful to reflect on what the now Minister of Finance also said at the time. One of his statements when this policy was introduced was: “Why would voters support a policy that benefits a few … but costs everyone else right now?”. Taken out of context, I thought I was reading a response to the National Government’s tax policy, which, as we have demonstrated, benefits 3 percent of the population but takes up one-third of the tax spend. So in my mind it is perhaps a statement that is misappropriated. Again I reiterate that we did not see that policy as benefiting just a few. The number of students whose lives are changed by this policy is enormous, and this bill will do that for a number of students, but in particular for students from Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau.
As I have already pointed out, sometimes there are two sides to the National Government’s position—in general on a number of issues, but in particular on education issues. In fact, I would liken its policies to playing a game of memory. We can flip over one card and get a short view of National’s view of the world, but we need the matching card to understand the full game. Let me explain what I mean by that. Let us look at the Youth Guarantee policy. Youth Guarantee gives 2,000 places to young people in our polytechnics. One card on its own does not look too bad, but if we flip over the other card we see that the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand say that 6,000 young people will be turned away from their places of education this year due to the caps that the National Government has put in place to restrict the access of our young people into these tertiary institutions—and this is in a recession! So we are robbing from 6,000 and giving to 2,000. In my summation we are depriving well over 4,000 young people of a placement in tertiary education.
Let us continue the memory game, because I am having a little bit of fun with this. Let us flip over another card: the Government’s view on simplifying the loan repayment system. Peter Dunne made that announcement earlier in the year. There are a few fish-hooks in it that I am looking forward to discussing with the Minister in greater detail, and I respect that consultation on this policy is going on. I think it is important to understand that we have the technicalities right. I have concerns about earnings from holiday jobs being forced into loan repayments. From my understanding and my experience of working around those who are trying to accumulate funds in their holidays, that is the time when they build up the funds to get them through the following term. If loan repayments are automatically being deducted from those funds, then I have concerns about the sustainability of that. But we can debate that issue further in the House and I look forward to that. But on student loans generally, on the one card we see the Government putting through bills like this that extend them and make technical changes. On the other card I still see the rhetoric of the National Government, which tells me that it never did, and never will, support this policy in its entirety and for what it actually stands for, which is accessible education for all. So I am still waiting to see that other card being flipped over in this game of memory. I am still waiting, and I do have dire concerns on that point. But I am sure that this side of the House will continue to hold the Government to account on what has been a flip-flop on this very important policy.
I will reflect, though, on a particular provision of this bill, which I have mentioned briefly, and that is section 38AIA, inserted by clause 13. It has been touched on by some of the members on both sides of the House. It explicitly sets out a provision for borrowers who are present in Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency for 183 or more consecutive days, in order to encourage borrowers from those countries or that territory to return to their country and contribute to its development. And the bill goes on. It does not include just those students; it includes those who are enrolled with a New Zealand education provider and engaged in full-time study overseas—either a formal exchange programme approved by the New Zealand Government or a formal agreement between a new Zealand tertiary education provider and an overseas tertiary education provider. Both are covered.
Why do I think this is important? Well, recently I had the opportunity to travel to Niue, and participate in and lead seminars on youth engagement and building youth opportunities for the young people in Niue. I have a particular connection to Niue through my family, which I am very proud of. The strong message that came through from there was that Niueans are struggling to make sure they have both the opportunities and the necessary pull factors to bring their young people back to the island.
The least that we can do in New Zealand, I say to Mr Hayes, is ensure that we ourselves are not creating a deterrent for that to happen.
I would be very happy to debate outside of this particular discussion Mr Hayes’ perspective on the New Zealand Labour Government’s position and the extensive work that it did with the Niuean Government. He perhaps holds some insights on this that he has not shared with me before. Perhaps outside of the Chamber we can discuss this. For now I welcome a change that will encourage young Niueans to return to Niue to contribute to the economy there, and to lend their skills to that island nation. I am sure that will be well received in that place.
I say to Mr Hayes that I look forward to having what I am sure will be a very shallow discussion with him on the policies on Niue.
AARON GILMORE (National) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise to support the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I have one thing to say: I say to my friend Frosty the snowman, who is currently in Antarctica, that this bill will allow him to get an interest-free student loan. How wonderful that will be! I say to Mr Frosty the snowman: “What a wonderful thing!”. Thank you very much.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 113
- New Zealand National 58
- New Zealand Labour 43
- Māori Party 5
- ACT New Zealand 5
- Progressive 1
- United Future 1
Noes 9
Bill read a first time.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) Link to this
I move, That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 November 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, and 190(1)(b) and (c).