Robertson Grant: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20735] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Part 5 begins with clause 181 as you have so accurately stated for the Committee Mr Chair. It is a clause rewritten by the select committee but essentially it introduces the new $40 administration fee. 
Earlier in the debate some members across the Chamber asked what difference $40 makes. It does make a difference because it is a new fee being included in the student loan scheme. It means it has to be paid back. This is a new fee. It is something the Government is introducing and there needs to be a reason for introducing it. What we seem to see when we look at the regulatory impact statement and when we look at the bill and the justification for it is that there is not a justification for a new administration fee for the scheme. 
We are told that the good changes that we have all approved in Part 1 to provide for electronic arrangements for communication more transparency about loan balances and a better ability to communicate loan balances will save money. More loan repayments will be made as a result of the changes in this bill and that is a good thing. We have also learnt that a new computer system is on the way and that it will enable better easier and faster processing of matters related to student loans. 
If we put those two things together why does a new administration fee need to be introduced? I do not think the reasoning stacks up which is why it is easy for us on this side of the Chamber to become suspicious that this is effectively the beginning of interest by stealth on student loans. We know that National does not believe that student loans should be interest-free. Those of us who campaigned at the 2005 election will all remember the attitude of the National Party at that time to interest-free student loans. 
In this House John Key who was not then the leader of the National Party but I think possibly the finance spokesperson at the time said that he would oppose interest-free student loans with every bone in his body. The bones have shattered have they not? The bones were weak. Calcium deficiency in those bones— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Nothing wrong with having shattered bones. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is true I say to Mr Mallard. It is how one recovers from it I say to Mr Mallard; that is what it is. Unfortunately in the case of National members they have simply decided for political reasons to stick with the interest-free student loan scheme. 
Since National came into office in 2008 we have seen that its members bridle against that. Steven Joyce and John Key have both bridled against it saying that the policy of interest-free student loans does not make any sense. Steven Joyce has had officials desperately looking for ways they can—to quote him—“dampen demand for tertiary education”. What a ridiculous notion that is. It is being done through changes around the fringes of the student loan scheme. 
As has been mentioned earlier in this debate for instance the most recent of those changes is not allowing people over 55 years of age to borrow the living component of the student loan. I have had two people in my electorate office in recent times with concerns about the fact that they will not be able to retrain having gone out of the workforce in their 50s because they will not have access to that support. 
Those are the changes that have been made by this National Government around the student loan scheme but it cannot get to the interest-free part which is the bit it really wants to get to. So in clause 181 we have the replacement for that—the $40 fee. 
There is one good thing. It should be noted that under clause 181(2) if one is already paying the establishment fee—that is in the first year one sets up one’s loan—one will not have to pay the $40 fee. Well that is great. In the first year one gets away with just $60 but from the second year wherever one is it is effectively $100. It is effectively $100 when one adds the $60 and the $40. So borrowers are now being charged $100 for the management of their loan accounts. 
This is a new fee. I do not believe the Government has justified it sufficiently. I think that the evidence that came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee in fact shows that it is not necessary to introduce this new $40 fee under clause 181. 
I believe that it is a revenue grab. It does not make sense alongside the increased repayments that are expected to come in from this bill and it does not make sense alongside the savings that are meant to come in terms of efficiencies in other parts of the bill.