Clark David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). I feel that Part 3 is a really lovely encapsulation of the whole bill because it contains the aspects or themes that we see—I shall not speak about the whole bill but the aspects and themes that it covers—paralleled throughout the bill. We have as Dr Megan Woods has so eloquently enunciated a number of clauses that refer to the broader definition of income which is the aspect of the bill that is about fairness and that is about making sure that the student loan scheme is sustainable over the longer term. We on this side of the Chamber do believe in student support. We believe that it is something that is good for New Zealand and is good for those individuals involved. It leads to future prosperity. We would like to see more of it as New Zealand can afford it over time. We think this is a good thing. So the broadening of definitions is the part that we support. 
Then as we move on through this part we see that this part of the bill also contains the amendments relating to the repeal of provisions on the 10 percent bonus which of course is a Peter Dunne U-turn. This bill is rife with U-turns. This nicely encapsulated in Part 3 is not only the broadening of the definition of income which we support but the kind of embarrassment of a Government U-turn contained in this legislation. There are many of those through the bill and we have discussed the various U-turns contained in this bill in previous parts of the debate in the Committee stage. 
Finally at the end of the bill in clause 68 we also have some tidying-up. That tidying-up relates to the rushed changes that went through in Budget 2012. There we saw the Government make eligibility for student support much more difficult. We saw changes that restricted access. We saw in there an increase in the repayments threshold so that students who were on relatively modest incomes were forced to pay back a larger portion sooner and those with dependent children and so on will be feeling the pinch of that. 
So in Part 3 of the bill we have all different aspects of the bill reflected. It is kind of typical of the wider bill. We have the good intent we have the embarrassing back-down and we have the tidy-up the sweep-up after the Minister on some previous mistakes. 
The sweep-up at the end there relates to those eligibility and support mechanisms that we talked about rushing through in Budget 2012 the repayment thresholds that were adjusted in Budget 2012 and the reduced access to support. That again points to the differing attitudes between the two larger parties in this Parliament. If we remember back it was National that introduced student loans in the first place. It sought to make it a bit more challenging for students to attend university. Labour introduced interest-free student loans which made student loans more accessible and more affordable. Then subsequently this Government has introduced administration fees on those loans—a way of introducing interest again without introducing interest again. That is a clever back-door trick if you like to try to make sure there are charges on loans without going back on the promise not to introduce interest back on to loans. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s a Clayton’s broken— 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: It is a Clayton’s— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Being fair like clauses 63 to 66. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Yes that is right; my colleagues are right there. So Part 3 of the bill encapsulates nicely the themes that stretch across the bill. 
Labour will be supporting the bill for the fact that it is an attempt to go after those who are avoiding paying their due. We support that. We know that there are 101000 student loan borrowers living overseas. Roughly half of those are of no fixed abode—their address is not known to the taxman who collects those things. A total of $2.67 billion is owed which is a phenomenal amount. The average amount of default is somewhere between $7000 and $8000 and there are 14000 borrowers in default with debts of over $10000. It seems unfair and galling to those who are making an effort to pay back their student loans when they see others getting away with not doing it. So it is essential that this broadened definition of income is applied and that the efforts to collect that money are realistic and forthright and the data-matching proposal seems to get to that extent. Whether it can be implemented of course is a different matter. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Mr Chairman. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Chairman.