Martin Tracey: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Martin Tracey: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1425] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to again state that we will be providing our conditional support for the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill to go to the third reading stage. New Zealand First supports the New Zealand - based contact person although we again reiterate that there is no indication in the papers that we have been able to access as to what will happen should that person choose not to provide subsequent contact details of the borrower. New Zealand First supports the exclusion of investment and business losses from the calculation of net income when accessing loan repayments.  
We take no issue with the reduction from a 3-year to a 1-year loan repayment holiday. I note that the Minister of Revenue explained to the Committee that one of the reasons why the 3-year term was incorporated originally was due to the lack of experience or reference points that would have factored into the best period of time for such a repayment holiday when this legislation was originally drafted. I would respectfully suggest that those involved should have actually gone and found themselves a debt collector or taken advice from a credit controller. It is a known reality that the longer debt is unpaid the less likely it is that it will be repaid. It is a known reality of those in those quoted professions that after 3 years you are exceptionally lucky to be able to track down that debtor. In the credit control world 6 months is about as far as you ever want to allow a debt to be neglected. But as I say New Zealand First will be supporting the 1-year repayment holiday amendment.  
I note the number of times my Labour and Green colleagues have used the example of New Zealanders not returning to this nation with their skills due to the shortening of the repayment holiday. Can I be so bold as to suggest that in some cases it might just have the opposite effect: if individuals have not found the job of their dreams overseas within a 12-month period then it may well be time to bring their skills back to New Zealand—to enter a no-interest environment and contribute to the nation that assisted them to obtain those skills in the first instance. But this bill is not about finding the job of individuals’ dreams; this bill is about debt reduction. Again from personal experience the sooner debtors address their debt the greater the likelihood that that debt will be repaid and the sooner the stress—and it is stressful to know that one has a debt—is removed.  
I want to take particular note of the words “fair” and “fairness” in discussion around this particular clause clause 17. If this bill is about being fair to New Zealand students with a student loan then why is it only those who leave our country who have an established recognition that sometimes life either through accident or design just does not go as planned and that people may need to take a break from those repayments? I gave an example yesterday of how that might manifest itself in the lives of women whether they are overseas or whether they are here in New Zealand.  
No bill works in isolation. This bill should not be just about debt reduction and obviously if the Minister is using words like “fair” and “fairness” it is not. But there is a bigger picture that this amendment could have brought to the issue of debt reduction. Couple that with the issue of skill retention and then we have a bill that really works for New Zealand if this bill extended itself to alternative debt reduction ideas such as New Zealand First’s dollar for dollar student loan reduction policy for those students who recognise that New Zealand assisted them to gain these qualifications by paying that forward through their skills by staying in New Zealand. That commitment should also be acknowledged.  
I need to close by saying that a $12 billion debt is not an asset; it is dead money and a contributor to our skills shortage. And although we support this bill going forward to its third reading we are disappointed with its lack of vision. Thank you.