Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8823] 
2.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Why was the discussion document “Student Support in New Zealand” not released until this month when in January 2002 he announced that the Government would publish a discussion document canvassing options for reform of financial support provided to tertiary students in May 2002? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Education (Special Education)) 
 on behalf of the 
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: In January 2002 the Minister was confident that the document would be published in May. However competing priorities meant that that could not be achieved. Then a general election intervened which affected both the time frame and the scope of the work. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: In the light of his statement that options such as universal allowances and zero fees are simply not affordable why after 21 months does the discussion document fail to canvass alternative options for reform to student support as originally promised such as a savings scheme to help families put money aside for their children’s tertiary education? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The purpose of the document is to ensure that there is a common understanding of the operation of the system and of the constraints that any Government faces in respect of what has been described as big-ticket items. It is important those things are discussed. Submissions are open until the end of October. I hope all members of this House and those who have an interest in that area take the opportunity to make submissions on the discussion document. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the discussion document identify measures the Government has already undertaken to provide further financial support to tertiary students? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the document outlines a range of measures the two most important of which are committing more than $400 million to make the student loan scheme fairer in particular writing off interest whilst studying for full-time and other low-income students and committing around $440 million for fee stabilisation between 2001 and 2003. I note that the National Party regards the fees as “artificially low”. 
Simon Power 
: Is he really surprised that student leaders described the student support review as “a kick in the guts” and promised the Government a venomous campaign to acquaint it with student anger when the student support review was so late and offered so little? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I encourage all those students to make submissions in respect of the discussion document. It does give an opportunity for all students to do what a Government has to do and that is to identify what the priorities are. That member should wait until the student loan scheme annual report is published next month. He will find that it will have some very interesting statements about the impact of Government policies that we have already introduced on matters like student debt. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: If the consultation process clearly demonstrates demand for a universal student allowance over and above some of the initiatives already undertaken will the Minister pledge to do everything within his power to advance such a policy through the Budget process? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the member quite rightly identified such a matter would have to go through the Budget process and that is why it is so important that students do take the time to establish what their priorities are. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether he would do—in this case as Minister—everything in his power in respect of that budgetary process. The Minister made no attempt to answer the question whatsoever but gave just a stupid comment about students being consulted. This is just demeaning Parliament. Would she answer the question that she was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect she did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said she did. Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Let me finish my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have made a ruling and that ruling stands. It might not satisfy the member—a lot of answers do not—but there has to be further opportunity to carry on thereafter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek a point of clarification Mr Speaker. Will the Minister use her best endeavours with regard to the budgetary process or not? We are not any wiser about that issue and that was the question my colleague asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the Minister addressed the question. If she wants to add anything else she can. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not going to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that you are now on to question No. 2 today and in both cases you have had to ask Ministers to add something more. When they have added something more it has been after your intervention. We are at a point where they have given an answer that should have been given upfront in the beginning. So I want to raise with you Mr Speaker—and the senior Government whip can shake his head—that if Ministers are not going to answer questions then this is going to continue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to judge what the situation is in this regard. If I think that the Minister should add a little bit more I will say so otherwise I will carry on. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What justification can the Minister give the House—on the day before Suffrage Day—for a scheme where women take twice as long as men to repay their loans resulting in an education that costs them more than it costs men but leads to lower salaries than men’s; a scheme that has been criticised by the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: All of these matters will be taken into account. I note that we did not introduce the student loan scheme. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: In the light of the fact that the discussion document addresses eligibility for allowances will the Government look at shifting the parental income threshold which has not changed since 1992 and now excludes the 40 percent of New Zealand households with a combined income of over $50000; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I said in response to an earlier question this is a matter for the Budget process after the question of the discussion document is resolved. Therefore people are invited to make submissions on these important issues. The member’s point is a very good one and I am sure it will be taken into account. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: In the light of the fact that one of the principles in the discussion document is to ensure consistency with the wider social assistance system does he think it is fair that a student allowance scheme is based on the parental income of students up to the age of 25 when the same income testing is not applied to those under 25 years who are on an unemployment benefit who might be just as reliant on parental support yet by comparison are getting money for nothing? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I recall that being a point that we made at the time the scheme was introduced and that we always suspected that the National Party intended to introduce parental means-testing for benefits.