Cunliffe David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman that was very kind of you—eventually. Thank you very very very much. 
I would like to take this opportunity to rise and speak to Part 3 of this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and do something that rather pains me which is to be nice to the Government. I am wanting to compliment the National Government for several changes that it is introducing in this part of the bill. Having said that I promise not to make a habit of this. I do not want people out there in listener land to think that we have completely lost our marbles but there are several changes here that make me think that Government members have become the Latter-day Saints of social democracy that they have discovered truth fairness and the Kiwi way because they are doing albeit a very small amount to shave some of the silver lining of the silver spoon that some are born with in their mouths— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Next will be CGT! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Who knows? Perhaps they will as Megan Woods has said introduce a capital gains tax to help the cause of fairness. But at least in this bill they are broadening the definition of income to include such things as—wait for it—trusts which the Law Commission tells us are being overused that we have one of the highest incidences of family trusts in this country. It is a major avoidance loophole and too often taxpayers are vesting assets in the hands of children simply for the purposes of minimising tax. But were any friend of the National Party doing that on this occasion—of this bill—the Government would be narrowing that avoidance loophole by saying that income from trusts will be calculated in the definition of income that is used to calculate student support entitlements. Likewise companies. That of course means a wide range of companies. It could even mean companies like I do not know Apple—Apple which is paying less than 1 percent of revenue in taxation in New Zealand even though its average profitability on revenue is over 20 percent worldwide. That would seem to be somewhat unfair but at least this bill is broadening the definition of income in student loan calculations to include income from companies as well as trusts— 
Todd McClay 
: There’s one more. You missed one out. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and superannuation schemes of which of course the member who is interjecting so rudely has many. That is of course a further broadening of the definition of income and that is a good proper and right thing to do. Why is that? I believe— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Part 3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes we are in Part 3; I am looking at clauses 63 to 66 and particularly at clause 63 which broadens the definition of “annual gross income” to include income from trusts companies and superannuation schemes. That is amplified in clause 64 which replaces section 73 and clause 65. 
That brings me to the “So what?” which is really pretty simple. In our extended families I will warrant that we know young people who are very very fixed on tertiary education and who almost no matter what the odds will go and do it. They will take on loans and they will pass the exams. We probably also in our heart of hearts have someone in our whanau who really is not cut out for tertiary education and that is just fine too; they will find their own path. What this series of reforms aims to do is to address that group in the middle: the kids who need a hand-up who need the power of the State to provide them with the confidence and the financial resources to stretch to tertiary education and the money that is involved in that needs to go a bit further. That is why the silver spoon brigade has to be able to count or should count their trust income their company income and their superannuation income. 
I am not quite sure how this actually got through the National caucus and why Todd McClay a trust fund baby from way back the esteemed chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee did not torpedo this out of pure self-interest but it seems he was outvoted if he did try and here it is on the Committee floor. We on this side of the Chamber think that this is a very good thing. It is a small—a very small—step in the cause of social justice from the National Government. 
That brings me to clause 67 and as David Clark has rightly pointed out this is perhaps the most exciting clause—a breathtaking clause—within Part 3. Why I hear you ask out there in TV land is clause 67 so exciting? Because it repeals the 10 percent silver spoon bonus repayment. Kids from rich—