Norman Russel William: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Norman Russel William: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6616] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei. It is paradoxical that today we are voting on the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill which according to Mr Mallard has a marginal positive benefit to the Government’s position given that the Government has just announced it is giving away $400 million to the worst polluters in the country. Since 1992 we have had a student loan scheme in New Zealand whereby students are required to borrow a significant proportion of their tertiary education costs. This scheme was a major deviation from the previous social contract which provided tertiary education at low cost to the public. The principle behind the earlier approach—because there was a principle behind the earlier approach—was sound. Education in general and tertiary education in particular is a significant public good. There are immeasurable benefits to the community and economy of a highly educated population. Therefore it is of great benefit to the public overall to have significant investment of public funds in public education. For example we know that the higher the level of a mother’s education the more likely her children will be to succeed in education. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. I seek leave for the Standing Order that requires a Minister to be present in the House to be set aside—although I see there is another Minister here—so that Kate Wilkinson can accompany me to the presentation of the pay equity petition that is occurring now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not really— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am seeking leave for the Standing Order to be set aside so that Kate Wilkinson can do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There is a Minister in the House. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that there are a number of Ministers in the House I would have thought that the application would be ruled out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is seeking leave. If members feel it is inappropriate they can refuse the leave. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is not granted. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: We know for example that education is a key means to alleviate poverty and particularly intergenerational poverty. We know that New Zealand since the 1980s has become a grossly unequal country and as the level of inequality has grown the level of educational inequality has also grown. However with the introduction of the student loan scheme that social contract was torn to bits. Instead the mantra of education as a private good was imposed and a whole generation of young New Zealanders have borne the brunt of that failed social experiment. 
Why has it failed? Because of the social and economic consequences our communities have suffered as a result. First the student loan scheme entrapped very young students who were in tertiary education in breach of basic contract law. The loan contracts were not enforceable against them. That loophole was quickly fixed but the consequences of loaning thousands of dollars to young people aged 16 and 17 years old is still being felt. These young people are offered no financial advice as to the consequences of borrowing for their fees. It is more than likely that the educational interests one pursues at 16 will be quite different from those one would pursue later in life and this leads to many young students borrowing for tertiary education degrees that they never use. The system also created an incentive for unscrupulous operators to rort the system. Some courses offered gadgets as incentives to young people who fooled by the hype took out thousands of dollars in loans to do courses of extremely dubious quality finding themselves at the end of the course thousands of dollars out of pocket and still out of work. 
Some remedy was made to resolve this but the core issue the cost of the systemic failure to provide quality tertiary education to New Zealanders as a matter of their citizenship remained. For as long as the user-pays approach is pursued some will rort the system and students will continue to pay and they do so all through their lives. We know that young people leave the country to pursue higher-paying jobs overseas and often stay there for longer than they would otherwise in order to pay off their loans. We know that young people delay purchasing housing because they must use their first 5 to 10 years of income to repay their loans rather than save for their first homes. We know that young couples delay having children because of the financial pressures placed on them by the student loan system and we know that Maori Pacific and women students are disproportionately affected by the loan scheme and have to pay for much longer periods than their Pakeha male counterparts. 
There has been a lot of tinkering with the student loan system and this bill is just another fiddle. This bill will benefit a minuscule number of students and otherwise provide no relief to the core problem of the student loan scheme. It is unfair and unjust. The Green Party is committed to a sustainable prosperous Aotearoa New Zealand that is ready to meet the challenges of this new century. That is what the Green New Deal is all about. We must invest in our communities in ways that will deal with the twin crises that face us—climate change and the recession. Investing in the education of our young people now is critical to our future prosperity. The Government has chosen to take New Zealand backwards instead. Cutting the training incentive allowance so that beneficiaries can no longer access that support to do degree courses is simply increasing poverty and pulling up the ladder after one has already climbed it. Slashing funding to universities and polytechnics is taking education out of the hands of those most vulnerable communities that need it the most. The Green Party opposes this bill. It will make no difference to the educational needs of those who need it the most.