Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6619] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The contribution of the Green member Russel Norman to this debate on the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill is probably not worthy of comment but I need to say one thing: it must be nice to be in a situation where he can stand in this Chamber spend taxpayers’ money as if there was no tomorrow and know that he will never have to take responsibility for it because he will never be in Government. I wonder about all those New Zealanders who do not get to go to university all of those young people who leave school at 15 and go into the workforce and who are taxed from the moment they start work. They will never be able to aspire to the sort of income that graduates will be able to aspire to. All that the Green member’s contribution brought home to me was that his party represents narrow selfish and sectional interests. Thank heavens for the sake of the taxpayer that party will never be in a position to spend taxpayers’ money! 
The debate has been very interesting and I am gratified that Labour finally came to its senses and saw that in actual fact it had no choice but to accept this bill. It had no choice. There is a critical date in all of this: 1 April 2006. This legislation really has its beginnings at that point. That was the point when student loans became interest-free. From that time there has been a downward trend in the repayment of student loans. This bill is designed to adjust that balance. The most important word that has been used in this debate is “incentivise”. This relates to an effort by the Government—supported I am pleased to say by Labour—to incentivise students to repay their loans sooner. 
It was interesting as the debate progressed to see naive young members like Mr Nash stand up and lecture people like myself on financial literacy. I tell Mr Nash that people of my generation knew that their first obligation was to pay off their debt. That is financial literacy. For that member and others to suggest in this Chamber that there are better uses of taxpayers’ money that has been loaned to people than for those people to pay off their debt is I suggest financial illiteracy of the worst type. I have to ask whether Mr Nash and some of his other colleagues—one-term MPs is all they will ever be—have ever thought about the risk of putting money into places like finance companies or Auckland apartments. I issue a caution to all borrowers who listen to the health warning to be very very careful where they put their money. They should not listen to the financial illiterates in the Labour Party. They do not know a lot. It sounded good but they do not know a lot. 
The one message has to be that the best thing people can do—the key to their financial future—is to pay off debt as quickly as they possibly can. Let us imagine what a tragedy it would be if young person who had the opportunity to pay off part of their debt early put their money into some high-flying investment and then lost it. Do I need to remind Labour members of what happened in that party’s last years in Government? How many New Zealanders are now seriously financially disadvantaged because they did not pay off debt? 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.