Hughes Darren: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8166] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak on the second reading of an excellent piece of legislation the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). What this legislation does is further extend the great work that this Government has done since its election in 1999 to make the student loan scheme legislation a fairer more equitable and a more decent piece of legislation. We have heard from different speakers tonight exactly how this bill achieves that. 
As Hone Harawira was saying there has been a long history in the whole area of how we support students in New Zealand. In actual fact at one point in 1998 the then Treasurer was promoting a universal tertiary tuition allowance that would be paid to all students from the year 2000 but as soon as New Zealand First left the coalition Government the National Party turned its back on that. 
The bill of course amends the famous original 1990s student loan scheme introduced by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD—a man who has a long record when it comes to tertiary education in New Zealand; he went up and down New Zealand in 1990 saying that the “toll gate” which was what he called the Labour flat fee of $1250 to study at university in New Zealand would be removed or he would resign as Minister. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s right and he signed it. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: He signed that pledge card up and down New Zealand. 
Then National became the Government and rather than Dr Lockwood Smith getting rid of the fee he said to the university and polytech councils: “Oh you decide whether you want to charge a fee or not. Of course I won’t give you any money to get rid of the fee so you will probably have to keep on charging one.” Then when people demanded his resignation up and down New Zealand he said: “Oh well it’s not me it is the university councils that are charging the fee. I have abolished the fee. I have told them they don’t need to charge it.” Of course they had no money to pay for it they would have had to sack all their staff they couldn’t provide any classes for any students but there was no fee—Dr Lockwood Smith had spoken. 
Dr Smith gets very upset in the Chamber whenever we challenge him on his policy at the time. There were times when the Minister of Education as he then was would visit university campuses around New Zealand and have to beat a hasty retreat to the bathroom and climb out the lavatory window— 
Moana Mackey 
: Laboratory! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That is what the problem was—it was a laboratory window! He had to climb out of the science lab window in order to get away from braying student protesters who knew that the National Party had not been consistent with its 1990 policy. So that is how we ended up with the student loan scheme. 
Of course the Labour Party—in Opposition in those days—did not support the scheme because we could see the big problems that would result from the fact that so much expectation had been built up by National’s promises in 1990 that were not delivered. Labour came to the Government benches in 1999 and said that as a first step we should remove interest on student loans while students are still studying. 
The only slight hint of bitterness I have about that policy is that the day I was graduating from Victoria University was the day the new Cabinet was being sworn in so I did not benefit from that policy by one single dollar. When I was a student at university we paid interest every single time we borrowed money. So what would happen is that at the end of every year we owed more money than we had borrowed because we were paying interest the whole time and that never seemed fair. We could accept that we had to pay for some of our education because we knew that the Government could not pay for the whole lot so at one level we could understand that. But I always felt it was really unfair that a time when the Government was lending us money because it accepted we could not earn money to pay for our own rent food books and whatever it was charging us interest for the use of that money whereas if we did not have anything to do at all the Government would be giving us money by way of the benefit system. I am really pleased that we put in some positive incentives for students back when that scheme came in. 
Of course the National Party opposed that scheme and voted against it in the House. It said that students should pay interest while they were studying. So first of all we had the broken promise around the fee. Then National said that students should pay interest while they are studying and it opposed Labour’s legislation. Then we had the doozy of them all. Labour said at the last election that if it were returned to Government and given the faith and the privilege of 3 more years in Government it would like to lead a coalition of parties in the House that votes to abolish interest if those students stayed in New Zealand. It was a way of saying to people that once they had finished their studies and they were working in their career if they decided to stay in New Zealand the Government would not charge them any interest on their student loan— it would be a straight repayment of the money that they had borrowed. 
The Government had this fantastic idea that people would repay what they borrowed. It seems pretty fair to me. The National Party went up and down New Zealand campaigning against that policy as well. National members said: “No no students should pay not just what they have borrowed they should pay money on top of that as well.” But students are trying to improve not only themselves—obviously there is a private benefit—but also our country and our community. National did not want to put any value on that at all. They said: “No no education is entirely a private personal gain there is no benefit to society in it so therefore you should pay interest while you are studying.” I think that response is pretty bad but the worst part about it was that the National Party went and told people a whole lot of things that were not consistent with the truth in relation to the cost of that policy. 
They said that it was a bribe by the Labour Party. This was from the same people who were running around the country promising tax cuts at a cost of $7000 million. They were tax cuts that would see all of us sitting in this Chamber getting $92 a week in tax cuts tomorrow when our pay goes through while the people that we represent—or certainly the people we represent on this side of the Chamber—get absolutely nothing from it whereas in actual fact from 1 April every child gets $10 per week under Working for Families. That was going to be cancelled under National to pay for the tax cuts. 
National said that we could not afford the student loan policy; that we could not afford not to have interest on student loans; but that we could afford its $7 billion tax cut package—the biggest bribe in history. Of course after the election we passed the other amendment bill that sits alongside this legislation and the cost of the scheme has been dramatically less than what National said. Did National members apologise for that? Oh no they still give the same speeches saying what an expensive policy it is despite the fact that it has come in way under what John Key and his co-leader Mr English said all through the election campaign when they held the finance and education roles and before they came together in their current interesting combination. They said they were going to absolutely oppose what Labour had done. 
Moana Mackey 
: But would they reverse it? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Moana Mackey asks a good question. Would they reverse that policy? Opposition members are very quiet. Mr Peachey the former principal had a lot to say before. He had even rehearsed a line in case I interjected on him which I felt really pleased about. He had sat up in his office working out an alliteration of three words together that had the word “Kapiti” in it. 
Moana Mackey 
: Otaki was too hard. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Otaki was far too hard. He thought “O” might be for “Owesome” in that regard I guess. He was fine with his first line but when we asked him for a second line we realised that he will have to work on it. I am sure that next time he is in the House we will get two lines and we will be able to ask for three. There was a time when Tamaki was much quicker on its feet in that regard but I guess time moves on in politics. 
I want to know from the National members whether they will get rid of interest-free student loans. There is silence from members opposite. They will not even look up. They made so much noise during the 2005 election campaign when they were busting their guts to get into this place. They wanted to talk about the student loan policy and how unaffordable it was but tonight they sit quiet. 
It reminds me of the speeches National members used to give about one standard of citizenship and how Maori were privileged in New Zealand. But we never hear those speeches any more either. Half of the members on National’s list got their seats in this Chamber generated on the back of party votes that were anti-Maori but they have forgotten all that now. So now we know that National’s Maori policy is parked up. 
I suspect that their silence means they might be in support of Labour’s interest-free student loan policy but because John Key has not gone on television to announce it yet they cannot say. The sad thing for National backbenchers is that they are too scared to say in Parliament what a National Government might do because they are not sure what John Key has announced yet. The unusual policy that other parties have of deciding their policy together in the caucus room first—that really weird way of running politics—is not how it is done in the National Party. If people want to know what National’s policy is they should get out of bed early on a Saturday morning turn on  
Agenda 
 and they will see what John Key has to say. 
I am looking forward to hearing what John Key says about interest-free student loans. [ 
Interruption 
] What did Mr Borrows say? 
Chester Borrows 
: It was a real good show last week. Did you see it? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I saw him on the television and I have to say that it was very off-putting early on a Saturday morning. But Mr Borrows has spoken up. That is as close as we will get to the National Party policy on interest on student loans—somebody with the surname Borrows. It is appropriate that he is the only National MP who wants to interject when we are putting a few questions across the House. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s a hollow interjection. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: It is another hollow interjection. They love their hollow words over there. Not much has changed from the night-time reading of  
The Hollow Men 
. I am looking forward to the sequel coming out— 
The Shallow Men 
—which will tell us about all the things we are hearing now the flip-flop jandals on the roof and all the public relations disasters.  
 The great thing about the National Party is that we have only to wait. We do not have to wait very long; all its things turn to disaster. But this bill will make a lot of difference for the students who go overseas for 3 years. They will get the holiday from the interest which means they can get around the world before they have to start repaying their loans. That will make a big difference I think and it goes to the heart of the tension: it is great to keep our young people at home with their new skills but on the other hand when we live at the bottom of the world— 
Ron Mark 
: Maybe the Brethren could fund the student loans. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I am sure. The Exclusive Brethren do not believe in tertiary education. Their kids are not allowed to go to university which is maybe why the National Party is so silent on it. They did not want any policies that might actually benefit the kids who are normal Christians or indeed who are secular agnostic. No no—they had to be only for the Exclusive Brethren kids. So that is the National Party for us. 
The Government wants to see young people staying in New Zealand with their new skills but when people live at the bottom of the world it is also important that they make connections. They see that the world is a big place and they go and do their OE. I think that Labour has always supported that to build up the diaspora of people around the world who understand what we are trying to do here in New Zealand. The legislation will give students a 3-year window to do that and if they stay beyond the 3 years there is a mechanism for repayment to make sure that they do not get behind in all the penalties and that sort of thing. 
So the bill is very important in the next wave of reform of student loans. I think we are making a very important change. I have supported all of them because I think that consistency is a reasonably important thing in politics; the National Party has opposed most of them and tonight is in favour of this one. I am not quite sure why that is. In conclusion I say that I strongly support the bill. It is another great example of the work we are doing to help young people in New Zealand.