Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13720] 
10.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does the Government’s decision to subject married students under 25 years of age to parental income testing for the purposes of assessing eligibility for student allowances reflect the view that they are still financially dependent on their parents? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: This decision reflects the Government’s intention to apply the parental income test in a consistent manner to all students who do not have dependent children whether they are married single or in a de facto relationship. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the Minister clarify in what capacity she is answering the question. We have read in the newspaper that the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) is on bereavement leave and has been replaced for the time being by the Hon Margaret Wilson. I would be interested to know whether she actually is the Minister or whether she is replying on behalf of the Minister because over coming weeks I myself might be asking her questions and I would like to know whether she will be answering as the Minister or as the Attorney-General on his behalf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My understanding is that she is the Minister. She will be Acting Minister because the Minister is on leave. I now have a document in front of me. She is the Acting Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: So should she then begin her answers by replying as the Minister and not saying that she is replying on behalf of the Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Technically I suppose yes and she was wrong. 
Hon Bill English 
: It is not just technical. I know how important it is to these Ministers as to whether they are on behalf of the Minister or the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion she is the Minister. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does she agree that the decision to get married implies a degree of financial co-dependence that supplants any notion of continued parental support; if not does she know of any married couple that still relies on its parents for pocket money? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I apologise to the member for not getting my designation correct. I am happy to answer any questions from him in the future. Yes I do know of many instances—in fact not only parents but aunts and uncles. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What other allowance changes affecting students under 25 years of age were made as part of Budget 2004? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Two changes were made to the parental income thresholds. Firstly over 36000 students will now benefit from changes to the current thresholds. The lower parental income threshold is increased from $28000 to $33696 and the upper threshold is increased from $50572 to $62148. Furthermore from now on parental income thresholds will be annually adjusted for inflation so eligibility will no longer be eroded by inflation as it was in the 1990s. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the increase in thresholds cost the Government an additional $55 million which will go to students but that the measure referred to here saves the Government $50 million so students are only about $5 million better off? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I cannot confirm the accuracy of those figures but I am happy to check them for the member. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Did the Associate Minister or even the Minister discuss with United Future prior to the delivery of the Budget that the change mentioned in the primary question had to be made because current policy according to the Ministry of Education discriminates in favour of married people—a situation that her Government could not possibly countenance? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member is correct. Not only this Government but the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requires that the legislation be consistent. I also note that United Future did welcome the changes that were made at the time. 
Metiria Turei 
: How can this Government justify removing student allowances for married students claiming it contravenes human rights legislation by discriminating against de facto and single students when this Government continues to discriminate on the basis of age and when there is no good reason to justify treating a 24-year-old differently to a 25-year-old? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government took advice on this precise point because there might well seem to be an illogicality about it. However the age was set in the past I understand by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith at the time the policy came in. In the assessment that was done under the New Zealand Bill of Rights legislation the advice I received was that it was not discriminatory in this particular set of circumstances. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that students who have worked for 96 weeks before commencing study will now also have to be tested for student allowances based on their parents’ income because not to do so would be to discriminate on the basis of employment; and if so what is so wrong about assessing students on their own income when they have clearly already demonstrated financial independence from their parents? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The point is to assess the financial position of the students at the time of the application not on whether they have a work history. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Why does the Government argue that it is discrimination on the basis of employment to exempt those who have worked before study from parental income testing yet it is somehow not discrimination on the basis of employment to allow those who are under 25 on the dole to have their eligibility assessed on their own income? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The purpose behind the policy is to assess the financial position of the students at the time they are seeking the allowance.