Huo Raymond: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is a 5-minute call. Thank you. I rise to take a call in support of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and to register a concern in relation to unnecessary regulation-making powers in proposed new section 17 in clause 39(4) of the bill which we do not support. We supported this bill because we supported the principle of fairness. We are happy to see that some loopholes in the student loan scheme are being closed under this bill. 
This bill makes two key changes to the student loan scheme. First it broadens the definition of “income” to include income from trusts companies superannuation schemes etc. This means that borrowers’ repayments will reflect all income not just wages. The second key change is to allow information sharing between the Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department so that the Inland Revenue Department can have access to the contact details of overseas-based borrowers who are in serious default. 
 Labour is supporting this bill as these changes should make the repayment of student loans fairer. Student loan repayments are a huge burden on hundreds of thousands of Kiwis. For those struggling to pay off student debt while paying the bills and saving for a house it is galling to hear of overseas-based borrowers making no attempt whatsoever to pay back loans. Labour expects every borrower to make an equal effort to pay back their student loan no matter whether they are overseas or at home. 
A similar principle of fairness applies to this bill’s measures to expand the definition of “income”—as some of my colleagues covered earlier in this House—to include business profits income from trusts and other sources of income. Those who receive income from a company a trust a superannuation scheme or other sources should be treated in the same way as those who earn a weekly wage. According to Treasury broadening the definition of “income” will save the Crown approximately $7.5 million over the next 5 years. 
Regarding subclause 39(4) which inserts an unnecessary regulation-making power there is a good opinion article by Professor John Burrows and I urge members across the board—especially the Government members—to have a good look at the article to appreciate the nature and scope of this regulation-making power. It states: “Some of those regulation-making powers simply allow for the addition of new transitional provisions to those already existing but many of them are what we call ‘Henry VIII clauses’ in that they enable a regulation to change or override the words of the Act itself. Such clauses enable the executive to override the word of a Parliament. Parliament makes laws by an open and transparent process with opportunity for scrutiny in select committee public submissions and debates in the House by which those opposing the bill can express their views. A Henry VIII clause allows the executive to override statutory provisions passed by Parliament with none of these safeguards.” 
Although—borrowing Professor John Burrows’ words—sometimes transitional regulation-making powers are a necessary evil in this modern complex legislative world we should discipline ourselves to ensure that Parliament makes laws by open and transparent processes. Thank you.