Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is great to be able to stand and speak against the Student Loan Scheme (First Home Repayment Diversion) Amendment Bill here this afternoon. Firstly I just have some comments on the speeches that we have heard here today. Grant Robertson who has quickly left the Chamber—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot mention the absence of a member.TODD MULLER: He was just a bit too quick Mr Assistant Speaker. I have not seen Grant Robertson that animated since he was the Otago student union president. He sits across the other side of the House and tries to take on the Government in the finance portfolio and barely creates a ripple but when it comes to issues with respect to student loans and the history of his involvement in the education sector he cannot help himself. He has a particular view that somehow the scheme is flawed. He fought against it when he was a young student president. He has not let it go; it has formed his political perspective regardless of the outcomes in terms of participation and the effect that it has in enabling people in this country to be successful—that is irrelevant from Grant Robertson's perspective.It was very nice to hear Phil Twyford reference the bill for 25 seconds. Ultimately the Labour Party view is that this bill will not do anything to impact in any way the structural challenges that we are addressing with respect to housing challenges particularly in the high-growth communities. It was quite a shock to hear Darroch Ball from New Zealand First. I think it is the first time in this House that I have said Hear hear!". It was great to hear his rational perspective.Clayton Mitchell: I thought you were more intelligent!TODD MULLER: It was quite extraordinary. From the Labour Party perspective—and we heard it from Michael Woods—the view is that somehow they want to position themselves as being fiscally responsible but they are constantly supporting these Green Party ideas which is more money more spending and a constant call on the State.Let us just have a look at some of the actual cost implications of this bill. Let us assume that there is wide take-up—100 percent take-up—and the diversion period is for just 5 years. The annual operating cost of this proposal is $80 million to $200 million plus the one-off impairment cost of about $1.2 billion. The annual operation cost is as much as $200 million. This is yet again an example of a party and an Opposition group that holds the view that the way we resolve issues in this country is just to throw more and more money on it.I think David Seymour's deconstruction of this bill is probably the best that I have heard in recent times. It does not work. It adds cost to the individual because it is a debt that is deferred. [Interruption] Gareth Hughes the debt is a debt; you actually have to pay it off. That is the deal. You actually cannot contract yourself out of that obligation. It is a very generous obligation that we have in place; 82 percent of the cost is covered by the taxpayer. This is a student loan scheme that is seen as one of the most generous in the world. It has facilitated extraordinary outcomes for New Zealand in the 25 years—25 years—now that this has been in place. It has worked extremely well.There is this view that somehow—Hon Member: Rubbish!TODD MULLER: It is not rubbish. There is this view that somehow having this debt has impacted homeownership. But a study from Victoria University of Wellington looking at household wealth in New Zealand and the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies reached the following conclusions—very explicit—that the presence and size of a student loan did not appear to affect the probability of a couple having a mortgage at all. The presence of a student loan had no effect on mortgage size the loan size had only a very minor weak effect on the size of the mortgage and it absolutely had no effect on the couple's decisions with respect to children. It is seen by those who are entering our tertiary education sector as a very effective way of helping fund and facilitate them to a career that delivers better returns for them and their families. This is poorly thought-out legislation and I am very comfortable to oppose it."