Martin Tracey: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5548. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). I am pleased to see the bill back. I think it provides us with some opportunities. 
First of all just to address what the bill deals with right now we are pleased to see that it broadens the definition of income and that it aligns the definition of income with the definition used for similar entitlements such as the Working for Families tax credit. New Zealand First believes that the more things are equal and understandable the easier it is for the taxpayers to actually participate inside the system. They can make sure that they are filling out their tax returns correctly or that they know what they have access to. The more variations to that the more difficult it is for our citizens to participate fully. So we like the fact that the definition is being expanded and that that will make it easier for our citizens. 
We are also pleased to see that one of the objectives is to ensure that the aligning of those understandings or definitions should help make sure that when students are pursued for repayments to their loan we have a really clear understanding of their ability to repay. We certainly do not want to place ourselves or our citizens in a situation where they are pursued by the Inland Revenue Department when they are not truly in reality in a position to repay their student loan. We are hopeful that this will avoid that situation. 
The information matching between the New Zealand Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department—identity matching—is always a little iffy. One always has to be careful about it particularly when a State is doing it. However people have responsibilities to pay their debts particularly when those debts are to the country that has supported them. Those obligations need to be met. They need to be met before people take a holiday or before they decide that they are going to start a new life somewhere else. So although we believe that the Privacy Commissioner needs to keep an eye on all this sort of matching that goes on around the information of our citizens we are supportive of that information matching inside this bill. 
I want to pick up on a couple of things however. There are some practical amendments in there. Clauses 7 18 and 19 seem like particularly practical solutions to us. New Zealanders who are returning from being an overseas-based borrower to New Zealand—and it is their intention to come back to build a life here now—can contact the Inland Revenue Department. They can tell it that they are going to be staying—they have bought a house they have got married they are going to be staying and they are going to meet the 183-day qualifying period. There is now an opportunity there for the Inland Revenue Department to assess their repayment obligations earlier and to have a look at that criteria to make sure that when that citizen is returning to New Zealand and committing themselves to the country that process can be shortened. We think that that is a very practical and reasonable outcome. 
Clause 23 amends section 154 which enables borrowers with unpaid amounts to enter into an arrangement with the commissioner to pay by instalments. The amendment enables a borrower to also enter into a pre-emptive arrangement in relation to an amount where the amount is not yet due but the borrower knows that he or she will not be able to meet the repayment obligation in full and on time. It is a very practical very sensible clause. I would encourage once this bill goes through any citizen who knows they have just been made redundant before they get into strife to make contact in this sort of a way with the commissioner and say: “I can see that I’m going to run into a problem. Can I please work out a solution?”. Again it is a very very very sensible clause being put in there. 
There are a couple of things that we think this opens the door for. I am hopeful that New Zealand First can have some influence perhaps to make some further amendments to what are fairly technical amendments to this bill. I want to pick up and make sure that we understand that there is a constant conversation inside this House around tertiary education. To me—and perhaps my understanding is wrong and I apologise for that if I am taking it the wrong way—the conversations always seem when we come to student loans and student debt to be around university students. It is as if there are no other students in New Zealand—no trade school students no Unitec students no polytech students no bakers no builders no labourers. It is as if there are none of the other people who are also participating in this scheme. Sometimes it is a little bit disturbing when we talk about particularly supporting our high achievers—just our high achievers. I would like to see conversations like this extend so that their success is valued and acknowledged so that those students who go into institutions like Unitec who go into polytechs who become our bakers and our builders who have gained and require student allowances and have student loans are also recognised in these conversations. It is not about just university students. 
I think the other thing to mention is to pick up on what my Labour colleague mentioned which was in respect of the access for those 55-plus to some of these allowances. There is a term that we use a lot inside of educational literature and it is “lifelong learners”. I do not see how we can stand on and say that we want to have a community of lifelong learners if we are going to start shutting doors on people—55-plus is not old any more. I am almost 50 myself and I can tell you that it is not old any more. I would like to think that if I require a second career at 55 I will be able to get a student allowance and actually be able to participate in some lifelong learning so that I can continue to support my family perhaps in some other environment. 
We also talk about fairness. People talk about fairness. I raised this when the amendment bill came into the House the first time round. There is no fairness when New Zealand - based borrowers cannot access a repayment holiday. Whether it be 1 year or 3 years there is no fairness there. New Zealand students who choose to go overseas have access to something that a person who stays here in New Zealand does not have access to. At the time my example was that of a young couple where let us say they both have a student loan and they have their first child. They are still working but their financial circumstances have changed. They cannot access a 1-year repayment holiday while they readjust their expenses. I would like to think that while this bill transitions through the House perhaps there is an opportunity for us to have a think about that and actually make that fair—make that fair for all New Zealand students who access student loans. 
The other part that I mentioned the first time the bill came into this House was around the repayment holiday being attached to the loan not the person. Again the circumstances I used related to that same young woman in the first instance with the young family. She had a student loan. She took a repayment holiday. It is attached to her not to the loan. She took that holiday and then paid off the loan over a period of time. She is now in her 40s. She wants to go back to university. She wants to retrain. She gets another student loan. She is back out in the workforce. Her marriage breaks up. She requires some time once again in her lifetime to reassess her financial circumstances. She has already proven to us the State that she is a good risk. She has already paid off one loan. Why can the repayment holiday not be attached to the loan so that this lady in her circumstances could take another repayment holiday as required inside those circumstances? Generally we are very happy to support this bill but I will be looking to try to have some influence over those sorts of issues. Thank you.