Hutchison Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8231] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). This part deals in particular with the issues around data matching and the disclosure of arrival and departure information for the purposes of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992. 
I note that efforts have indeed been made to ensure that the amount of information given to customs officers is limited. New section 280H(4) which is inserted by clause 36 states: “If the Customs has arrival or departure information relating to a borrower the Chief Executive may for the purpose of this section supply to the Commissioner any of the following … (a) the borrower’s name: (b) the borrower’s date of birth: (c) the borrower’s tax file number: (d) the time and date on which the borrower arrived in or as the case may be departed from New Zealand.” But the provision goes on to state in new section 280I(3): “In accessing a database for the purpose of this section the Commissioner—(a) may only search for arrival or departure information relating to pre-selected borrowers who are of interest to the Commissioner; and (b) must not search for—(i) any information other than arrival or departure information; or (ii) any information about a person who is not a borrower.” 
In looking through the submissions on this bill from the New Zealand Law Society I noted that although on the one hand the society commented that this was a very complex bill and that the complexity of the repayment holiday and amnesty provisions was extremely difficult to follow and put into practice on the other hand with regard to data matching the society said that the bill did indeed allow only limited data to be shared between the Inland Revenue Department and the New Zealand Customs Service. It said that it was desirable to allow the Inland Revenue Department access to immigration records—in and out of New Zealand by borrowers—and that it was also desirable to have a limited form of data match to ensure as best as possible that the correct individuals were identified. 
The Law Society went on to say that the provisions around data matching are certainly appropriate. That can be reassuring to those civil libertarians who may be concerned that other inappropriate data is being checked up on at the same time. It is certainly reassuring to students who might have fears that they will be set upon by a border guard or dog and taken into custody or something similar. No such thing will happen— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: That’s our next one. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Oh that is the next one is it—the trained beagles that then go on to something more sinister? Certainly students can be reassured that this provision is only for the purposes of identification and to ensure that the loan system works as well as possible. 
We have only to reiterate that the initial reason for this legislation was that there were incentives for borrowers to go overseas and not to declare that they had an interest-free loan. They would not be charged interest if they went overseas and did not declare it but if they did declare it they would be charged interest. It seems as if all the 15 submitters and pretty well all the parties in Parliament are comfortable with this data-matching system. 
I guess the area we feel somewhat uncomfortable about is the fact that on the one hand the Government is saying that this might save us $24 million a year but on the other hand there is a real basic cost of this scheme to New Zealand in terms of its priorities. Of course that was identified by the OECD report into tertiary education in New Zealand. OECD officials described much of our system as being wonderful and having its own unique features. But in terms of prioritising when there was a limited amount of money to spend on education they questioned whether having this scheme was the right thing to do. Of course one has to be sceptical about the Labour Government putting this in as an election bribe.