Nash Stuart: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Nash Stuart: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2821] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand here to speak against the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. To tell the truth it is interesting—but predictable—that Labour MPs are the only ones standing up here to represent the views of the vast majority of hard-working New Zealanders who at this point in time are looking at ways of getting ahead—even keeping afloat. It is amazing to hear the former headmaster of one of our large State schools— 
Allan Peachey 
: Largest! 
STUART NASH 
: —largest State schools sounding so financially illiterate. What was Mr Peachey teaching his students there? It is amazing. The people of New Zealand are certainly not being represented by the current Government. Mr Peachey lost his touch before he even found it. 
It is like National’s tax cuts where $300 million tax cuts—or one-third—went to the top 3 percent of taxpayers. I ask Mr Mallard whether I got that right. Did one-third of tax cuts really go to 3 percent of taxpayers? That is nasty. That is hardly fair. Did I also hear right that if someone earns $40000 or less and has children he or she got no tax relief—nothing from the National Government tax cuts? That is not fair at all. 
It is like this bill. This bill is not aimed at ordinary Kiwis who forwent income to better themselves in tertiary education so as not only to enhance their own employment opportunities but to build on the nation’s competitive advantage of an educated workforce. I tell Mr Flavell that Sophia Blair said that “National’s voluntary repayment scheme [is] no bonus for most”. Goodness me! After listening to Mr Boscawen whose ideas were actually backed up by the Maori members raving on about the virtue of interest on student loans I worry—the virtues of interest on student loans? I assume that Mr Hide who is privy to Cabinet deliberations— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Probably not actually. 
STUART NASH 
:—yeah probably not—has told the honourable member Mr Boscawen that this policy will reintroduce interest on student loans. I ask Mr Hughes whether I heard that right. Is that what he was talking about? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You heard it right. You heard it here first. 
STUART NASH 
: Goodness me! Labour has already rewarded those people burdened with student debt by removing interest on student loans. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m just going to interject on the member. Richard Long had it in his column the other day. 
STUART NASH 
: Well we will get to Richard Long. I tell members that a very good friend of mine who is now a hard-working general practitioner in this wonderful Labour-held city of Wellington felt that he had an albatross around his neck and when Labour told him he would not have to pay interest on his student loan any more his decision whether to go overseas or stay in New Zealand was made. He stayed. He is now making a contribution in New Zealand as a medical doctor working with ordinary Kiwis because of Labour’s interest-free student loan legislation. 
Now we are at risk of having that legislation repealed. Shame! That man’s story is not unique to the thousands of New Zealand students all around the country with loans. Mr Peachey knows that well. 
Allan Peachey 
: Walter Nash would be turning in his grave. 
STUART NASH 
: Walter Nash is dead! Things are going well for students with loans because they are not paying interest. When I read with dread and loathing that a former chief of staff of the National Party— 
Allan Peachey 
: Walter Nash would be turning in his grave. 
STUART NASH 
: If Walter Nash were to hear that any Government would reintroduce interest on student loans and burden a generation with such debt he would rise from his grave come back into this House and tell that member off. 
When I heard Richard Long moot the idea of getting rid of interest-free student loans I thought: “Wow imagine that!”. Imagine the National Government getting rid of interest-free loans and going back to the days when students paid horrendous interest as the price of bettering themselves personally intellectually and professionally. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Quinn that Mr Long was one of National’s advisers. When I bought my first home I tacked my student loan on to the end of my mortgage because the interest I was paying on my student loan was higher than my mortgage rate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That would be right. 
STUART NASH 
: The interest on my student loan was higher than the market interest rates. I ask Mr English whether that is the future. Will that be a nasty surprise in the Budget? That will please the men and women of New Zealand! Imagine a Budget that removes promised tax relief and reintroduces interest on student loans—nasty. 
As mentioned this bill is aimed at those same individuals who gained the most from National’s tax policy. Is that what Mr Key meant when he said that those who receive tax cuts should donate them to charity? Is this bill another measure to favour the financially literate friends of the National Party? As my colleagues have pointed out this legislation will cause that number to dwindle even further. 
Let me tell members something about Kiwi student loan holders. A 2006 Statistics New Zealand publication entitled  
Student Loan Borrowers 1997-2004 
 stated: “Those who had studied at honours level or higher in their last year of borrowing had higher rates of full repayment … than average. … This could be attributed to higher levels of qualification leading to higher incomes. … This leads to faster rate of repayment.” Also the rates of full student loan repayment were highest for engineering and related technology courses. Funny that! I assume those graduates earn the most money. 
Students enrolled in food hospitality and personal service courses had the highest median amount of student loan. Those are not the jobs that bring in the huge dollars. Why does National not do something for those workers and reinstate Labour’s tax relief package? A quarter of student loan borrowers in 2005 were enrolled in society and culture courses. Are we saying that those graduates do not deserve any form of tax relief? Maybe they are the very lucky ones whose parents were in the top 3 percent of earners who received 30 percent of the National Government’s tax cuts. Nasty very nasty! 
The majority of borrowers identified themselves as European or Maori; however those who identified themselves as Pasifika people borrowed the highest amount. The number of borrowers at level 4 certificate was 6½ times more in 2004 than in 2007. Let me tell the members in this House that the statistics show that those most in need of student loan relief are young women especially Maori and Pasifika who have completed either bachelor or a level 1 to 3 certificate and who have studied at a private training establishment. I ask Mr Peachey whether this bill will help them. It will not at all and he knows it. 
Who will this bill help? I can tell Mr Dunne that it will not help those who need it. But then again none of his legislation has. I find it very difficult to believe that Peter Dunne once a Minister outside Cabinet in a Labour Government has such elitist philosophies at this time in the economic cycle. In fact I have an idea for him. Instead of this type of tax measure how about directing money into retraining for those whose dreams and aspirations have disappeared in the puff of redundancy? Why does Mr Dunne not do that? How about suggesting that to Mr English? 
I tell Mr Dunne of my real concern about how the Inland Revenue Department will be able to administer this bill given that National has cut 250 jobs from that department. Two hundred and fifty jobs from the Inland Revenue Department—and I hate to think what Mr Coleman is going to do to the Broadcasting Commission. It is going to have jobs slashed. Oh no! National says it is not going to sell Television New Zealand—this term. That is right! An accountant friend of mine phoned the Inland Revenue Department 2 days ago to organise payment for tax relief and he was told that he could not be dealt with for another 45 minutes and staff would phone him back. Yeah right! The old saying: “Don’t call us we’ll call you.” takes on a whole new meaning. I ask Mr Dunne again how the Inland Revenue Department will administer this bill with 250 fewer jobs. 
In conclusion I speak against this bill because it is inequitable unfair and not targeted at those people who really need the student relief package. This bill is also—I ask Mr Quinn to listen to this—a prelude to the reintroduction of interest on student loans. Mrs Tolley could not deny that Mr Peachey knows that Mr Boscawen signalled this and the Maori Party backed us. I will say that again: this bill is a prelude to reintroducing interest on student loans. I say to Mr Dunne that that is nasty. 
We on this side and all those hard-working Kiwis we represent had hoped that the honourable Minister who worked as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s junior would have seen some of Dr Cullen’s social democratic philosophies rub off on him. We had hoped that Mr Dunne might have developed a conscience and put forward a bill to help all those people with student loans and not a bill that is a prelude to the reintroduction of interest on student loans. That Minister is a true Tory. That Minister has shown his true colours. This is a true right-wing bill and heaven help that National Government when interest on student loans is reintroduced as this bill has signalled. Thank you.