Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8279] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The National Party is supporting the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) because we desperately need to send the message that we want our best and our brightest back in New Zealand. However that does not mean that we have not and will not continue to debate this bill vigorously. Let us be very very clear about what we are dealing with here. This was not—is not—carefully thought out logically worked through planned policy. It was policy made on the run announced 8 or 10 days before an election for the sole purpose of gaining an advantage in what was a very tight closely fought race. Let us never ever forget that. The people of New Zealand have not had the opportunity to sit back and reflect in order to determine whether this is really what they wanted to do and the House in passing this legislation needs to be respectful of that. 
During the debate we had quite an interesting little exchange about the nature of parliamentary representation and the role of taxation. I want to come back to that for a moment because I used the example—and it is important that this House is respectful of the people I am about to talk about—of a group of mums and dads whom I met in the Glen Innes part of my electorate the other day who wanted to talk to me about their circumstances. All of them have children in schools. All the mums and dads between them were doing three or four jobs—often meaning they did not spend enough time with their children—just to make ends meet. It is the taxation of those sorts of people as well as other New Zealanders that is going to pay for what some call an election bribe. 
At the moment when one talks to these people and looks into their eyes—and I will come to tax cuts in a moment Mr Assistant Speaker—one sees tears; soon we will see anger. It is important that when this House legislates to spend taxpayers’ money it respects the taxpayers who are putting up that money. Many of the children in those families will not have the opportunity to benefit from this legislation. They will not miss that opportunity because they are unintelligent for these children are intelligent nor because of the fact that their parents live in State homes—although they do live in State homes. Neither will they miss this opportunity because their parents are victims of a low-wage high taxation economy. They are missing this opportunity—and this is what their parents have difficulty understanding—because too many of them are trapped in schools in which they are not learning. Too often the children in schools that have the protection of teacher unions will not reach a level of achievement that will enable them even to think about university. 
Before anybody mocks and laughs at what I have just said I will give a practical example of what I am dealing with at the moment. In 2005 76 percent of year 11 Maori students at a secondary school in my electorate of Tamaki failed to achieve level 1 National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Most of the parents of those young men and women pay taxes. It is those children’s misfortune to be in a school where the academic performance is well below what it is reasonable to expect. Those youngsters do not have the opportunity to aspire to a university education. So when this House— 
Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. I was about to bring the member to order. He has to address the bill. He cannot go too wide of it. I ask the member to desist and to come back to the bill. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I bow to the superior wisdom of the junior Government whip. 
Darren Hughes 
: Get used to it! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: “Get used to it!” he says. I say in coming back to the bill that we are spending taxpayers’ money. It is very important that those young men and women who will benefit from for example the 3-year holiday are duly respectful of the taxpayer and the money that will contribute to that. 
This bill comes out of the principal Act the Student Loan Scheme Act of 1992. In the debate when we canvassed the evolution of the student loan scheme and that sort of thing it was necessary to deliver a bit of a history lesson to members on the other side just to point out to them that the student loan scheme was born in a time of major economic crisis for New Zealand—a crisis that resulted from the behaviour of the 1987-90 Cabinet. We should never ever lose sight of that. When listening to young members in this House talk about how people like themselves will benefit from this legislation—and they will—let us not lose sight of the fact that we are spending taxpayers’ money. 
I issue a challenge. When I spoke in the second reading debate the speaker for the Greens got up and responded to my speech with haughty indignance. I invite the Green Party to take a call and tell this House that when I talk about respect for taxpayers I am not wrong—that I am not wrong about the young New Zealanders who will not have the opportunity to benefit from getting a tertiary education travelling overseas and taking a 3-year holiday on their loan. Yet their parents are contributing to make this bill policy. I invite that party to take a call and tell this House and the people of New Zealand that I am wrong. In fact I issue a wider invitation to any apologists for the present Government whatever party they may come from to get on their feet in this House and tell members I am wrong. 
The passage of this bill will ease the administration of the student loan scheme and that is good; it is most unusual that things coming from a Labour Government are made easier. It was very very complex legislation for the Education and Science Committee to deal with. The committee was very very well led by Mr Donnelly who was ably assisted by officials from the Inland Revenue Department and I would like to believe that members on this side of the House actually played a significant if largely unacknowledged role in helping to unravel what we all know is a little bit of a mess and at least made it tidy. 
This bill sends a very clear message to graduates with loans. We want them back in New Zealand. We need them back in New Zealand. We understand that they want to travel. We actually want them to travel. We encourage them to broaden their experience but we also want the young graduates with loans to understand that they have a responsibility: if you borrow the money then you pay it back. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to the Speaker. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; it is my inexperience as you will understand. It is important that borrowers understand that there is an obligation and an expectation on the part of their fellow New Zealanders that they pay the money back. That is why the select committee has agreed to include in the bill the ability for the Inland Revenue Department to match information with the Customs Service so that a better clearer and fairer record can be kept. 
But in conclusion let this House be very very clear about what it is doing today. It is legislating to fulfil a bribe given by a Government to buy a closely fought election.