Ardern Jacinda: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5874] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take this call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill because it strikes me that National still needs a re-education on the steps that were required before we could extend this policy to some of our overseas counterparts. As my colleague Chris Hipkins has already pointed out this change would not be welcome on behalf of some of the young students from Niue Tokelau or the Cook Islands if it were not first welcome for the students of New Zealand. 
I remind the National Party and now the National Government of its response to the most recent changes we saw in 2005 and also perhaps will give a little history lesson on where we started back in 1999. I can personally attest to the initial stages of the policy we are now discussing. When I started university in 1999 the policy meant that while students were still studying at university they had to pay interest on their student loans. A full-time student studying and paying interest on his or her student loan had absolutely no ability to start paying that loan back at that time. It was an unfair system it was an inequitable system and it changed people’s behaviours as a consequence. 
Students decided either not to go into tertiary education—a fact that my colleague across the House Mr Gilmore seems unaware of; it was not a question of simply not taking a loan as that was not a choice for a lot of students—or they simply made choices about the types of tertiary education they entered into. For instance I know of students—I was one—who considered where they studied based simply on whether they could reduce their loan by trying to study at a cheaper place and in a cheaper course. The access to the loan system and the way in which the loan system operated changed behaviours and it changed lives and I do not think we can forget that. 
I remember when it was first removed when the Labour Government came into office in 1999. It was one of the first things that Government did and it is something I remain immensely proud of. But let us fast-forward to 2005 because I think this is again relevant to the bill we are discussing today. The change in 2005 to remove interest on all student loans was not just a policy; it was a reflection of Labour’s values. It was a reflection of the view that education is a public good. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Education laughs at that notion which I find quite shameful. On this side of the House education is viewed as a public good that everyone can benefit from. We can see from the National Government’s view on accessibility to education that that is not a view that it holds. National’s response to that policy was first and foremost from its now Prime Minister John Key. He called it a bribe. Not only did he call it a bribe— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It was. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I hear the Minister say yes. If she thinks it is a bribe why was it not removed? Why did the Minister not reverse the policy and why is she now extending it if she thinks it is a bribe? I would be interested to hear her take a call on that. I think it is useful to reflect on what the now Minister of Finance also said at the time. One of his statements when this policy was introduced was: “Why would voters support a policy that benefits a few … but costs everyone else right now?”. Taken out of context I thought I was reading a response to the National Government’s tax policy which as we have demonstrated benefits 3 percent of the population but takes up one-third of the tax spend. So in my mind it is perhaps a statement that is misappropriated. Again I reiterate that we did not see that policy as benefiting just a few. The number of students whose lives are changed by this policy is enormous and this bill will do that for a number of students but in particular for students from Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau. 
As I have already pointed out sometimes there are two sides to the National Government’s position—in general on a number of issues but in particular on education issues. In fact I would liken its policies to playing a game of memory. We can flip over one card and get a short view of National’s view of the world but we need the matching card to understand the full game. Let me explain what I mean by that. Let us look at the Youth Guarantee policy. Youth Guarantee gives 2000 places to young people in our polytechnics. One card on its own does not look too bad but if we flip over the other card we see that the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand say that 6000 young people will be turned away from their places of education this year due to the caps that the National Government has put in place to restrict the access of our young people into these tertiary institutions—and this is in a recession! So we are robbing from 6000 and giving to 2000. In my summation we are depriving well over 4000 young people of a placement in tertiary education. 
Let us continue the memory game because I am having a little bit of fun with this. Let us flip over another card: the Government’s view on simplifying the loan repayment system. Peter Dunne made that announcement earlier in the year. There are a few fish-hooks in it that I am looking forward to discussing with the Minister in greater detail and I respect that consultation on this policy is going on. I think it is important to understand that we have the technicalities right. I have concerns about earnings from holiday jobs being forced into loan repayments. From my understanding and my experience of working around those who are trying to accumulate funds in their holidays that is the time when they build up the funds to get them through the following term. If loan repayments are automatically being deducted from those funds then I have concerns about the sustainability of that. But we can debate that issue further in the House and I look forward to that. But on student loans generally on the one card we see the Government putting through bills like this that extend them and make technical changes. On the other card I still see the rhetoric of the National Government which tells me that it never did and never will support this policy in its entirety and for what it actually stands for which is accessible education for all. So I am still waiting to see that other card being flipped over in this game of memory. I am still waiting and I do have dire concerns on that point. But I am sure that this side of the House will continue to hold the Government to account on what has been a flip-flop on this very important policy. 
I will reflect though on a particular provision of this bill which I have mentioned briefly and that is section 38AIA inserted by clause 13. It has been touched on by some of the members on both sides of the House. It explicitly sets out a provision for borrowers who are present in Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency for 183 or more consecutive days in order to encourage borrowers from those countries or that territory to return to their country and contribute to its development. And the bill goes on. It does not include just those students; it includes those who are enrolled with a New Zealand education provider and engaged in full-time study overseas—either a formal exchange programme approved by the New Zealand Government or a formal agreement between a new Zealand tertiary education provider and an overseas tertiary education provider. Both are covered. 
Why do I think this is important? Well recently I had the opportunity to travel to Niue and participate in and lead seminars on youth engagement and building youth opportunities for the young people in Niue. I have a particular connection to Niue through my family which I am very proud of. The strong message that came through from there was that Niueans are struggling to make sure they have both the opportunities and the necessary pull factors to bring their young people back to the island. 
John Hayes 
: Nine years of misguided Labour aid policy. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The least that we can do in New Zealand I say to Mr Hayes is ensure that we ourselves are not creating a deterrent for that to happen. 
John Hayes 
: Nine years of misguided aid policy did that. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I would be very happy to debate outside of this particular discussion Mr Hayes’ perspective on the New Zealand Labour Government’s position and the extensive work that it did with the Niuean Government. He perhaps holds some insights on this that he has not shared with me before. Perhaps outside of the Chamber we can discuss this. For now I welcome a change that will encourage young Niueans to return to Niue to contribute to the economy there and to lend their skills to that island nation. I am sure that will be well received in that place. 
John Hayes 
: Nine years to fix that and you have failed! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I say to Mr Hayes that I look forward to having what I am sure will be a very shallow discussion with him on the policies on Niue.