Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Kia orana to you. In the first and second readings of this bill I spoke predominantly about my great concern about some of the significant aspects of this bill this Education Amendment Bill such as the removal of national standards and also effectively the abolition of partnership schools. There is a huge amount in this bill and as we go through the committee stage of the bill it is clear that this is fundamentally flawed legislation for which this Minister will be remembered and history will judge him very poorly for it. I say this to the Minister: I have respect for him but there are ideological decisions that are being reflected in just about every clause of this bill that are not what the public of New Zealand is asking for. They may well be what some of the union leaders have asked for but they are certainly not what the people in my electorate and those in the electorates of my colleagues are hearing from our constituents.Since we're in the committee stage I want to commend some of my colleagues who are around me and behind me tonight for the very considered amendments they've put forward. And as other members have done I want to ask the Minister please to take a call. It is good that he is here but he must respond to a number of the questions and the concerns that are being raised by him. If we look for a few moments at the fees-free regime on one level that sounds very attractive. After all who wouldn't want to have the opportunity to enrol in a course of study that he or she might not be able to afford were it not for this policy? So on that level it sounds attractive.But unfortunately what this does is it creates an incentive for some people who are not really suited to a course of tertiary study to enrol because effectively there is no consequence for making the wrong decision. I would have thought that it made more sense to create an incentive for commitment and achievement and application during the course of study. If you were going to introduce one year of fees-free why not put it on the end of the course of study to say We recognise that over the course of study you've accumulated a student loan debt."—and in some cases it's quite significant. Both of my children have substantial student loans. In fact they are quite eye-watering and I know that that's true of many of their friends as well. Had they had an opportunity at the end of their course of study after they had done well and passed all of their papers—not necessarily passed every paper but shown that they were really committed to the study—it would have sent a message about applying themselves. To have this policy applied at the final year—and it's not just for university study; it's also for trades courses and all sorts of things available through the polytechs—would have created at least the message that if you apply yourself and show that you are really making the most of your opportunity we'll reward you at that point. But oh no—here we have something that sends an incentive at the beginning which may be good for some but is certainly not good for all.So I want to ask the Minister: how much fraud is he aware of in the tertiary education fees-free regime? Because I don't think we've had an answer to that question and yet New Zealanders would be very interested in hearing the answer and they would expect the Minister to be able to tell them. So how much fraud is already apparent and has become known to the authorities in our tertiary education fees-free regime? Next comes the question to the Minister: how concerned is he personally about that issue? Is that sufficient for him to say "Well perhaps it's time just to take a step back to think again about whether we're heading down the right path here." because I can assure him that there are many New Zealanders who do feel that this is something that should be looked at very carefully. New Zealanders are forced to be very generous in supporting our tertiary students because of this particular policy. We were already very generous because on average tertiary courses are subsidised to the effect of around about 75 percent. That was before this particular policy was introduced. While again that sounds pretty attractive what we have to look at is the fact that the sons and daughters of people who are earning some of the highest incomes in this land are being subsidised by people on the minimum wage and benefits through the tax system and there is something fundamentally wrong about that I would have thought. Again it's a sort of one-size-fits-all approach to an issue where that is just inappropriate. So I would ask the Minister to comment on that as well. Why should the sons and daughters of people who are earning the figures of say a member of Parliament a Cabinet Minister a leading doctor a specialist a magistrate a District Court judge—I'm showing my age in using that term. Why should people who are in a family of that sort receive the subsidy from the people in my electorate who are really struggling to make ends meet on the minimum wage? That is what is happening at the moment. Now one answer to that—and it's an answer I accept—would be that this is a way of helping people to reach a level where they can support themselves and have a better life for themselves and for their families. That's great—no argument with that. I don't think anybody in this Chamber would argue with that but the way in which it is being achieved is fundamentally flawed. And I hope that the Minister will explain why he thinks that is fair to the people who are doing it tough in our country at the moment.Could I turn to commending two of the Supplementary Order Papers that I think in this area are particularly meritorious because as we look at the fact that the wrong signals are being sent another wrong signal is surely being sent about there being no consequences for fraud. Simeon Brown the member for Pakuranga has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 127 a very good Supplementary Order Paper. We spoke about it earlier and I want to commend his comments and add my support to it because what he is saying is: why should there be in a particular clause the phrase "without reasonable excuse" in respect of making a fraudulent declaration? Mr Brown's amendment removes that phrase as it's a very serious offence. It's not just an offence against legislation; it's an offence against the taxpayers of this country. It is an offence against those people who as I've mentioned are doing it tough in our communities and earning the minimum wage. If we say there won't even be a sanction for committing that sort of behaviour then the law is frankly an ass and I hope that Mr Brown's Supplementary Order Paper therefore will achieve the support of members across the Chamber. Let me also add my support to Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of Jo Hayes which would see in clause 15(2) the insertion after new section 292A(4) of this provision: " (4A) A person who commits an offence against subsection (3) will on conviction become ineligible to receive a loan interest write-off under section 137 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011 for the balance of their student loan." Well I would be fascinated to hear if any member opposite is going to argue against that very sensible amendment.I am concerned that we are not hearing from members opposite. We have at least heard from the Green Party member but we are not hearing from Labour members opposite and I would like them to stand up and explain—if they're not going to support Jo Hayes' very sensible Supplementary Order Paper why not? I say to those members opposite that they owe the public of New Zealand a very clear explanation because why on earth should somebody who has defrauded the taxpayer who has willingly and wilfully supplied totally inaccurate information not face some sort of consequence? Nobody else in any other area of life would be able to get away with that sort of behaviour. Fraud is fraud. A false declaration if given wilfully and knowingly is a very serious offence so I call on the Labour members opposite either to explain why they wouldn't support that Supplementary Order Paper or just to get up and do it—give it their support.So I look forward to taking calls later in this committee stage on some other aspects of the bill but in this call I wanted to focus on those aspects related to our tertiary fees-free and loans policies because they are serious. They haven't had a lot of attention prior to now because there have been some very big issues that have dominated the first and second readings but in the committee stage members on this side of the Chamber are very concerned to get these finer points of the legislation right. There are ways that this bill could be improved. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are listening. I look forward to their support for the Supplementary Order Papers that my colleagues are putting forward."