Adams Amy: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20742] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I will take a call on the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme Bill but I do not want to traverse the ground covered in my contribution in the second reading debate when I went through in a nutshell the salient parts of the bill as I saw them. I will briefly touch on some of the blatant inaccuracies and misrepresentations from members opposite in this respect because I think they need to be addressed. The first of those is to do with the fees. Both Labour and the Green Party have expressed their concerns about those. They have expressed outrage and indignation about this one-off $60 establishment fee which is charged when the student loan is first taken out— 
Grant Robertson 
: It was 50. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —it was $50; that is right so it has gone up a whole $10 as a one-off fee—and about the $40 Inland Revenue Department administration fee. 
It is worth pointing out that the changes that this Government has made to the student loan system are about making the system sustainable into the future because the total debt is not in fact $11 billion as the last speaker David Shearer said. The student loan debt book currently sits at over $12 billion and within 3 years that will be well in excess of $14 billion. This is a huge item on the Government balance sheet and we have to ensure that it is sustainable as we go forward so the changes we have made have been very much about ensuring that. 
One part of that sustainability is being up front about the fact that there is a cost to run this system and that cost is around $17 million per year for the work done by the Ministry of Social Development which administers the StudyLink part which is covered by the $60 fee. So even previously there was a $50 set-up fee to cover those Ministry of Social Development costs of $17 million per annum. But the Inland Revenue Department has annual administration charges around the system of over $22 million a year so I think that having an administration fee of $40 per annum go towards that $22 million administration cost is absolutely justifiable and very sensible and as I say it goes to the sustainability of the student loan policy as we go forward. 
The other issue I want to touch on—and I touch on it only because Labour members have continually gone back to it albeit it is not in this bill—is the issue of borrowers aged over 55. A couple of points need to be made in order to set the record straight. Firstly those over 55 can still get student loans despite Mr Shearer’s repeated completely incorrect statements on that. They can get student loans for their tuition costs. 
Grant Robertson 
: They can’t get them for living costs. 
AMY ADAMS 
: Mr Shearer’s argument was that they could not access student loans whatsoever which is wrong. They can get student loans for their tuition costs. Do members know what is really interesting? Just a few days ago the media was reporting that the worst group for repaying student loans were the over-55-year-olds. The single worst group at making any repayments on their student loans were the over-55-year-olds. 
Let us be very clear that this bill does not in any way address the eligibility of over-55-year-olds. What it does is make the system sustainable as we go forward provide a contribution towards the administration costs of running the system and make the system easier for taxpayers to comply with and easier for student loan borrowers to comply with and that is to be commended. 
I encourage anyone listening to this debate to ignore the incorrect rhetoric coming from members opposite and focus on the fact that this bill is set up to make it easier for borrowers to comply and to make the scheme sustainable in terms of its administration costs. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour members can bleat and moan to their heart’s content but that is not what this bill is about and their contentions are simply wrong. With those few words I commend the bill to the House.