Martin Tracey: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8662. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). But before I begin on the statements I wish to make around the first part of the bill I just want to pick up on the fact that David Cunliffe mentioned intergenerational fairness and Holly Walker mentioned intergenerational equity. I think on behalf of New Zealand First I would like to express our disappointment that we have lost the goal of actually returning to a time when the debt that is recognised by our young people through the provision of education is the debt of their time their skill and their commitment to their country as opposed to a financial debt. I think it is a shame that it appears that Labour and the Greens have decided to move away from that being a goal that New Zealand First still holds through greater income across the whole of the nation so that we can support our young people more. 
With regard to the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) I would like to spend the moments that I have addressing the Supplementary Order Paper 184 amendments to clause 10 in Part 1 which I have on the Table. I mentioned these at the first and second readings and I apologise for the fact that I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee so I was unable to bring this comment to the select committee at the time but I have now brought the amendments to the Committee. 
Supplementary Order Paper 184 in my name seeks to address the concept of fairness. It is a word that is used in the preamble of this bill and we have already heard it several times this evening. I want to be clear around why the amendments to the two clauses that I have placed on this Supplementary Order Paper should be supported by all members of this Committee to address the fairness for New Zealand based borrowers. For New Zealanders with student loans who choose to stay at home who choose not to troop overseas but to remain in the country paying their taxes both direct and indirect and using their skills to benefit the nation my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to address the fairness of the repayment holiday. Right now there is no recognition that New Zealand - based borrowers can find themselves in circumstances of financial stress. 
For example let us take a hypothetical New Zealand two-parent two-child family residing in Gisborne. Both of the partners have pursued higher education and they carry student loans. In the last 3 months the company with whom partner A was employed has shifted its production lock stock and barrel to Melbourne Australia. Partner A now through no fault of their own has found themselves without income. Obviously under the current legislation partner A is not required to keep up their loan repayments as their personal income has fallen below the repayment threshold but what about partner B’s income? This family is now totally dependent upon partner B’s income. This family has been able to go to their bank the one holding their mortgage and gain recognition of their financial difficulty and gain a mortgage holiday from that institution. My Supplementary Order Paper would allow this New Zealand family to take the same set of difficult circumstances to their Government via the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and gain a 1-year repayment holiday while they rework their finances. That is the first part of my Supplementary Order Paper 184. 
The second part of Supplementary Order Paper 184 is to shift the 1-year repayment holiday limit from the individual to the loan. It is another small yet practical step to address fairness. Let us take the case of a 25-year-old engineering student who has completed her degree and has been lucky enough to find employment in her chosen field. While at university she met the love of her life and went on to purchase a home here in New Zealand and begin a family. Let us imagine that this young woman is actually partner B in the previous example. If my Supplementary Order Paper passes the commissioner would quite rightly recognise the financial difficulty that this young family had and would grant this young woman a 1-year repayment holiday from that initial loan. Under current legislation this would have completely used up this citizen’s repayment holiday entitlement. This young woman goes on to repay her student loan in full after that 1-year repayment break. 
Fast-forward 20 years. That young woman is now a confident 45-year-old. Her children have grown and now as a lifelong learner she returns to university to upskill to enhance her ability to add value to New Zealand. She needs to avail herself of another student loan to complete that study. Thankfully she is only 45 not 55 or she would be totally out of luck but that is another story. Now she completes that study and once again takes up full employment. Within 4 years she and her family suffer the loss of her partner through an accident. This event obviously has a substantial effect on this lady’s life in many ways. One of these ways is her ability to meet the financial commitments they made jointly. My Supplementary Order Paper 184 would recognise that this New Zealand - based borrower has not had a repayment holiday on this particular loan. It would recognise that she met all her previous repayment obligations in respect of her previous loan and there should be no impediment for this New Zealand - based borrower to gain another 1-year repayment holiday due to hardship. 
I believe that cost could be or will be used as an argument to suggest that my Supplementary Order Paper should be voted down. I would argue that just as the Minister cannot predict how many students with loans will seek a repayment holiday on the basis of travelling overseas in any given financial year nor can he expect a flurry of applications from New Zealand - based borrowers or predict such a flurry should this Supplementary Order Paper become part of the amendment bill. So I contend that this particular argument should be dismissed especially considering that the commissioner would have the ability to grant these repayment holidays under a set of criteria unlike the ability of overseas-based borrowers to leave the country without any required clearance. We come back to fairness so I ask all the parties in this Chamber to support my Supplementary Order Paper 184 for the fairness of New Zealand - based borrowers. Thank you.