9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
to the Minister for Tertiary Education
Why did the Government make the performance element of the student loan scheme that requires a borrower to pass more than half their course over a 2-year period retrospective to include courses taken in 2009, when it was introduced in Budget 2010?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) Link to this
The Government put the performance element in place to encourage students to use taxpayers’ generous support of their academic study wisely, and because we want to avoid the situation where students who are not succeeding academically are stung with thousands of dollars of debt and have no qualification to help them pay back that debt. With regard to commencing with 2009 data, we have acknowledged at the outset an element of retrospectivity, and we have made it clear that if students are showing strong progress this year, or have legitimate reasons for their past performances, then StudyLink has the discretion to consider their individual cases for having their student loans extended.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting statement from the Minister, but the question asked why—it was looking for a reason. We got an explanation of what was happening in the process, but there was no attempt to explain why it was retrospective.
Mr SPEAKERI went through the reasons why we introduced the performance element, and I acknowledged the retrospectivity, which links the two together, and then I said what the students could do about it. I think it was a very clear and full answer.
I think the member is being a little pedantic given that he has further supplementary questions. The Minister did not try to be political. I think he made a genuine attempt to answer that question. He said the Government acknowledged why it was retrospective. The reason it has introduced the measure, including why it is retrospective, is to improve performance. The quality of an answer is something the Speaker cannot judge, but it seemed to be a reasonable answer.
How does the Minister think it is fair that thousands of students will not be eligible for student loans next year on the basis of having failed courses in 2009, at a time when they had no idea that the Government was going to introduce this requirement?
As I have just said to the member, if students are showing strong progress in 2010, or have legitimate reasons for their past poor performances, then StudyLink has the discretion to consider their individual cases, and it can.
Is the Minister aware that some tertiary institutions have estimated that more than 20 percent of their students are at risk of not being eligible for student loans next year as a result of making the performance element retrospective; if so, will he be compensating institutions for that loss of funding?
I am aware via the media that one institution has claimed that, and let us think about what that means. It means that that institution is saying that 20 percent of its students are failing more than half their courses, not over just 1 year but 2 years. I have a problem with any institution doing that, because that says there are big issues with pastoral care and big issues with encouraging their students to achieve academically. I think that institution has much wider issues that it needs to address.
Has the Minister made any public statement that has acknowledged the retrospectivity of the performance element of the student loan scheme before today?
On the day the decision was released in the Budget, there was a press release and a series of questions and answers about it, I say to Mr Robertson. It seems to me that you are one of the few people who have not been awake since then, because you are now raising it as an issue, not in May—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was reasonably straightforward. It asked whether the Minister had made any public statement on that.
Hon Bill EnglishWe will not have interjections. It was my fault; I apologise to the member that that happened. The Hon Bill English should know better than to interject during a point of order. The Minister did answer the question. He disputed it. The question, which was a fair question, asked whether the Minister had made any public statement about the retrospectivity aspect of this issue. The Minister said he did make that clear, I think, on the day of the Budget in a press release in answers to questions. It sounded to me like it was attached to that press release. I acknowledge that the Minister then threw in a bit of a political gibe in suggesting that the member had not noticed that—in slightly different language—but I do not think it was a particularly vicious political gibe, and at least he answered the question. Had he started his answer that way, I would have pulled him up totally, but at least he did answer the question.
Hon Annette KingI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is just one part of your ruling I think you omitted. In fact, the Minister brought you into the debate. He addressed the member as “you”, and I remember that a poor old member who asked a question yesterday was made to apologise for including you in an interjection.
Mr Speaker, I apologise profusely for drawing you into it. I was, of course, referring to Mr Robertson being asleep at the time.
This is a different matter. I seek leave to table—I would not normally do this, but I will in light of the Minister’s answer—the Minister’s press statement on Budget day, on this matter, which did not contain any questions and answers.