Tanczos Nandor: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:709] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I did not sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the consideration of this bill. Nevertheless I would like to take the opportunity to speak to it specifically because of the provisions it contains regarding student loans. Student loans and student debt were a key issue for the Green Party at the last election and at the election before that. It is an issue we take very seriously. We do that because if members take a long-term view of student loans they will have to conclude that student loan debt is unaffordable both for the individuals who hold it and for our country as a whole. 
I have spoken many many times in this House about the broader social and economic issues and the impact of student loan debt. No mechanism was put in place by the previous National Government when it introduced the student loan scheme to measure its impact or to monitor or review it. Nevertheless the evidence is growing that there is a significant impact on fertility rates—that people are not having children or are delaying having children as a result of their student loan debt. There is evidence of its effects on migration rates. There is evidence of its effects on urbanisation particularly of professionals. We know that it affects people’s study and career choices and distorts people’s academic study and we know that it has significant effects on people’s ability to buy housing. Of course the interest rate has been a significant driver of all of those effects. 
It seems to me that for young people—and old people—who have a student loan debt the most debilitating thing must be to graduate from their courses of study and face a long future of debt knowing that they can continue to make payments but that the impact of those payments on reducing their debt will be minimal. I am talking in particular not about the high-earning graduates that we hear so much about but about the people who go into socially good careers—our social workers our nurses our teachers—who require a tertiary education to practise but who go into their careers in the knowledge that their rates of pay will be so low that they will make very little impact over a long period of time in reducing their student debt. 
Sometimes I wonder why those people even go into those careers at all given the enormous disincentives that current Government policy provides for them. Of course they do it because of their conscience because of their aroha and because of their concern for the broader social good. That should inspire the members of this House when we think about the social policy that we enact in this Chamber. For the sake of those people I am very pleased to see this bill which enacts parts of the agreement between the Government and the Greens and of the agreements between the Government and other parties. We see it as moving in the direction of Green Party policy around tertiary education. 
 Some people have opposed this measure and the National Party has made much of that because it thinks it will lead to students maxing out their student loans so they can invest the money and make a profit. Fortunately not everyone thinks like a National Party spokesperson on finance. Students take loans because they have no choice. They have to pay their fees their court costs their rent their power bill— 
Ron Mark 
: Court costs? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Sorry I meant course costs. Excuse me! Students also have to eat. For students aged under 25 years there is no support for living costs and they have to borrow just to pay for their living costs. In 1999 when the Government and the Greens passed legislation to make student loans interest-free for the period of study the National Party said that all the students would rush to take out loans so they could invest the money and make profits. Of course the reality is that that just did not happen. The take-up rate barely moved. I think we can take that as a good indication. 
Others oppose the bill because they say that it is unfair on those who have already paid off their loans in the past. My comment would be to say it was good on them for being able to afford to do that. I congratulate them on having done that—absolutely. But my concern is for those who cannot afford to pay off their loans: those who do not have the high-earning careers and who are doing things like social work. I have been around the country—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not know whether Ann Tolley has been around the country—and I have spoken to those people about the serious hardships that they face because they have chosen a career that is for the good of our country not just for the good of their own bank account. It seems to me that it is not a valid argument to say that we should maintain an injustice because to remove it would be unfair to those who had suffered in the past. That cannot be an argument for maintaining the onerous interest rates on student loan debt. 
Of course the bill as well as removing interest on student loans while a person stays in Aotearoa also raises the parental income thresholds for eligibility for student allowances for under-25-year-olds. The Green Party supports that. The Greens actually support a universal student living allowance. We believe full-time students should be paid a living allowance at the level of the unemployment benefit. We see no reason why people who enter into tertiary education should be the only people who are considered to be financially dependent on their parents until they are aged 25 years despite the obvious evidence to the contrary for many of those students. However although we support a universal student allowance we recognise that this bill is a step in the right direction. 
The eligibility for student allowances was the subject of much discussion between the Green Party and the Government after the election. 
 In fact I remember when at a New Zealand University Students Association conference representatives of a number of parties signed a pledge to the association stating that they would support an extended eligibility for the student allowance. It is good to see that Parliament is in the process of enacting that. 
There is an argument that raising the parental income thresholds is not the right approach in terms of making steps towards a universal student allowance. Rather than increasing the parental income thresholds it would be better to lower the age limit because in principle that addresses the age discrimination aspect. By raising the parental income thresholds we are reinforcing the principle that the age of 25 is a valid and legitimate basis for discrimination and we do not believe that. Nevertheless although we think in principle that lowering the age limit might have been a better approach we still support raising the parental income thresholds. 
The Green Party remains absolutely committed to a free tertiary education system and to a universal student allowance as I have said. We remain committed to capping and reducing tertiary education fees. Of course that really raises questions about the levels of investment in tertiary education and the priorities around where that money is being spent. We also retain our commitment to a loan write-off scheme for historic debt. We say that if people stay in the country we should be writing off their student debt year for year. If someone stays in the country and works—paid or unpaid—for every year that person stays we should write off the debt accumulated in a year of study. Nevertheless we recognise that we are not the Government. We are abstaining on confidence and supply. We have an agreement with the Government on various areas and this is one that we have discussed with it. This measure is a small step in the right direction and one that we are pleased to support in its passage through the House.