Cunliffe David: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9377] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat Gareth Hughes. We enjoyed his maiden speech and it is good to see him participating in this debate as a student loan holder. I had a student loan too but it was in the bad old days when we had to get our loans from a bank rather than from the Government. Yes it did look discouraging for a pretty good while. 
Labour supports the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill and I might say I still do not understand why the Greens do not. Much of it is about extending the coverage of the student loan provisions and that has to be good. In particular we support the extension to students living in Realm of New Zealand countries because they deserve the same constitutional privileges in this regard as people living within the standard New Zealand territorial boundary. 
I will begin by taking a step back and positioning this bill within the general ethos of the Labour Party’s approach to the question of tertiary study. It is fundamental to us—and it will always I believe be fundamental to us—that all citizens have the same if you like ethical value and moral worth and they all deserve the same opportunities to thrive and to make the very best of themselves in life. That is why we are for the many not the few. We think that if opportunities are spread equally not only do we improve the welfare of our community and strengthen our economy because equal societies perform better economically but we provide social mobility. We provide the opportunity for the son or daughter of—I used to study in Wales—a miner to aspire to all the same opportunities as the son or daughter of a doctor does. 
That approach is something that many members in this House have benefited from. Even some members opposite make a big deal of growing up in a State house or benefiting from the State education. What angers us is when we believe that members opposite are pulling up the ladder after themselves. Those kids who went to the State school or benefited from the State house have an extra obligation to make sure that today’s generation has the same opportunities that they had. 
That is why we are always a little suspicious when there is I have to say some ambiguity. The ambiguity is not so much in the bill as in the statements that various Ministers and members opposite have made. The Prime Minister for example said that he wants to take a careful look at the policy settings around student support. Well we wonder what that actually means. The policy is pretty clear: a student can take out an interest-free student loan and approximately 75 percent of the costs of a student’s tertiary study in New Zealand is covered by the State. That is so we do not create worse barriers to all young New Zealand people having access to education. 
As the Opposition spokesperson on finance I am well aware that that could not be more important than during a recession. Large large numbers of young people are unemployed. Over 45000 15 to 19-year-olds—12000 more than at the same time a year ago—are unemployed. That number increases to over 72000 young New Zealanders if we include the 20 to 24 age group. As my colleague and friend Carmel Sepuloni noted Maori and Pasifika students and I would add students from migrant backgrounds are overrepresented in those statistics because in a recession it is last on first off. In my electorate of New Lynn which I am passionate about 13.5 percent of my constituents are Pasifika 9 percent are Maori and wait for it 23 percent are of Asian origin many of them brand new. By the way the average income of the Asian population in my electorate is lower than that of either the Pasifika or the Maori because they are the most recent arrivals and are struggling to make their way in the job market. It is absolutely essential if we are to walk the talk about being a proud independent egalitarian country that stands up for decency fairness and the Kiwi way that we have an education system that is open to all. 
Members opposite often talk about freedom. Well freedom is not just the absence of regulation folks. Freedom and personal responsibility can be real only if we are free to do something because we are empowered and resourced to do it. There is an old philosophical debate about the question “Am I free to dine at the Ritz?”. Well there is no law against it but guys if we cannot pay the bill we cannot eat there. You are free to dine at the Ritz and you are free to get a tertiary education—not you Mr Chairperson; I am sure you had a fine education—one is free to get a tertiary education only if one can get a student loan to meet the costs of attendance and if one is not charged exorbitant fees for the privilege of doing so. Labour is now will be tomorrow and will always be 100 percent supportive of a strong tertiary education system with universal access to it. 
I commend a couple of things in this bill. I have mentioned the extraterritorial extension. Also I echo my Green colleague in saying that as a former Associate Minister of Revenue I support the idea of moving the formula into the primary legislation and not leaving it in regulations. First the formula is too important and second I think moving it settles any argument about whether the regulation should be amended. It takes pressure off the Minister when it is Parliament’s voice that has set the formula. That reflects the importance that Parliament should accord to a good student loan scheme. 
As I have said the inbuilt irony—and I do not want to be unfair to members opposite—is that we keep getting mixed signals from National members about whether their hearts are really in it with regard to the student loan scheme. Steven Joyce admitted that endorsing it in 2008 was only a political call. Well it seems that for that Minister everything is only a political call. What would he support even if the focus groups told him not to? What is so sacrosanct to Mr Joyce that it is beyond polling? I do not know what it is—and he has been in this Chamber for 15 months. 
By the way I say to Mr Joyce—if he is listening—that a single millimetre of broadband in the ground would be a really good idea. There was about $300 million worth ready to go 15 months ago when he cancelled the Broadband Investment Fund. That of course is very important to students because they are high users of broadband. I slip that in there as they say—surgically insert that broadband point. It would be a diversion to go on about the parlous state of the telecommunications industry at the moment so I will stop there. I am sure Mr Joyce is having a very busy day—apparently not as busy as the Prime Minister’s however. He will be very concerned about the conduct of the House and the shambolic nature of the Government’s business. What an interesting week it has been for the Government has it not? It throws the House into urgency for such matters of colossal importance as this bill. Worthy though it is and supporting it as we are why are we debating it in urgency in the dead of the morning? Why are we doing it in urgency? Why could it not be accorded a normal legislative process? Is the Government’s management of the House so terrible that it has— 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Yes. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes I believe it is. I think we have seen that demonstrated. I take the opportunity to commend our whips—Mr Mallard and Mr Hughes—and Mr Hipkins who has been supporting them. I think we have seen a pretty good example of constructive use by the Opposition of House procedure to assist the smooth functioning of the House. Of course we are very grateful for your role Mr Chairperson and that of the Assistant Speakers and the role of the Office of the Clerk in assisting the Government to get through its morning. 
I come back to the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. It is definitely worthy of support. Labour will support it because we are not about petty politics. We are about doing what is right for New Zealand and we are happy as an Opposition to see the Government doing things that we agree with. We are not here just to oppose carp and whine; we are here to do what is right for New Zealanders. The difference between the two sides of the House is that we are about the many not the few. Too often we see members opposite doing what is in the interest of the few not the many. Today we stand behind this small bill which further strengthens and broadens access to education for all New Zealanders.