Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14286] 
9. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Why did the Government make the performance element of the student loan scheme that requires a borrower to pass more than half their course over a 2-year period retrospective to include courses taken in 2009 when it was introduced in Budget 2010? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The Government put the performance element in place to encourage students to use taxpayers’ generous support of their academic study wisely and because we want to avoid the situation where students who are not succeeding academically are stung with thousands of dollars of debt and have no qualification to help them pay back that debt. With regard to commencing with 2009 data we have acknowledged at the outset an element of retrospectivity and we have made it clear that if students are showing strong progress this year or have legitimate reasons for their past performances then StudyLink has the discretion to consider their individual cases for having their student loans extended. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an interesting statement from the Minister but the question asked why—it was looking for a reason. We got an explanation of what was happening in the process but there was no attempt to explain why it was retrospective. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wishes to add further to his answer I am very happy for that. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I went through the reasons why we introduced the performance element and I acknowledged the retrospectivity which links the two together and then I said what the students could do about it. I think it was a very clear and full answer. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is being a little pedantic given that he has further supplementary questions. The Minister did not try to be political. I think he made a genuine attempt to answer that question. He said the Government acknowledged why it was retrospective. The reason it has introduced the measure including why it is retrospective is to improve performance. The quality of an answer is something the Speaker cannot judge but it seemed to be a reasonable answer. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister think it is fair that thousands of students will not be eligible for student loans next year on the basis of having failed courses in 2009 at a time when they had no idea that the Government was going to introduce this requirement? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have just said to the member if students are showing strong progress in 2010 or have legitimate reasons for their past poor performances then StudyLink has the discretion to consider their individual cases and it can. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Minister aware that some tertiary institutions have estimated that more than 20 percent of their students are at risk of not being eligible for student loans next year as a result of making the performance element retrospective; if so will he be compensating institutions for that loss of funding? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am aware via the media that one institution has claimed that and let us think about what that means. It means that that institution is saying that 20 percent of its students are failing more than half their courses not over just 1 year but 2 years. I have a problem with any institution doing that because that says there are big issues with pastoral care and big issues with encouraging their students to achieve academically. I think that institution has much wider issues that it needs to address. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the Minister made any public statement that has acknowledged the retrospectivity of the performance element of the student loan scheme before today? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: On the day the decision was released in the Budget there was a press release and a series of questions and answers about it I say to Mr Robertson. It seems to me that you are one of the few people who have not been awake since then because you are now raising it as an issue not in May— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was reasonably straightforward. It asked whether the Minister had made any public statement on that. 
Hon Bill English 
: He answered it. You didn’t like the answer. 
Grant Robertson 
: He did not I say to Mr English. He answered about the department and not about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not have interjections. It was my fault; I apologise to the member that that happened. The Hon Bill English should know better than to interject during a point of order. The Minister did answer the question. He disputed it. The question which was a fair question asked whether the Minister had made any public statement about the retrospectivity aspect of this issue. The Minister said he did make that clear I think on the day of the Budget in a press release in answers to questions. It sounded to me like it was attached to that press release. I acknowledge that the Minister then threw in a bit of a political gibe in suggesting that the member had not noticed that—in slightly different language—but I do not think it was a particularly vicious political gibe and at least he answered the question. Had he started his answer that way I would have pulled him up totally but at least he did answer the question. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is just one part of your ruling I think you omitted. In fact the Minister brought you into the debate. He addressed the member as “you” and I remember that a poor old member who asked a question yesterday was made to apologise for including you in an interjection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Speaker I apologise profusely for drawing you into it. I was of course referring to Mr Robertson being asleep at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The only fair thing for me to do now is to hear Grant Robertson. 
Grant Robertson 
: This is a different matter. I seek leave to table—I would not normally do this but I will in light of the Minister’s answer—the Minister’s press statement on Budget day on this matter which did not contain any questions and answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.