Robertson Grant: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): The Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) represents a disingenuous and confused Government when it comes to the issue of student loans and student support. It is disingenuous because despite all the high-minded rhetoric about the importance of getting our loanspaid back the Government knows that doing this will affect very few loans. It will get very very little money back as a result of this bill but it is waving a giant big stick around that will have the effect of saying to many young New Zealanders overseas: “Don’t come home. Don’t bother. We don’t want to see you. We don’t want your contribution.” So on the one hand it is the big proud Paul Goldsmith standing up and saying “We’re not going to stand up for loan defaulters.” but on the other hand all through the documentation the message is “We’re not really going to use it.” So in other words it is disingenuous.The Government is trying to look good. It is a gimmick. It is not a proper policy to see student loans paid back. It is not a proper policy that talks to young New Zealanders overseas and says: “Come back home and contribute to your country.” It is a disingenuous gimmick from the National Government to look like it is being tough on loan defaulters and to look like it is doing something about getting student loans paid back but in reality all it is doing is putting a gimmick in front of New Zealanders.This is a Government that is out of touch with those New Zealanders overseas who have that debt. I think that all members of Parliament will have received communications from people affected by this legislation. The overwhelming message from young New Zealanders overseas to us in those communications is: “This is putting me off coming home. This is making me say ‘Why should I come back to my country?’.”This Government if it was really serious about getting student loan debt repaid would be looking at other sorts of arrangements which we discussed in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. For instance we could have a repayment regime that is actually about what people living overseas can afford to pay—not some arbitrary measure that has been set in this bill but rather an earnings-based assessment. We were told by the officials: “Oh that’s too difficult.” Well it is not. For the vast majority of people they are living in countries where we have agreements that could facilitate that and we do. We are talking here about Australia and the United Kingdom. It is actually perfectly possible to come up with a regime that is about what people can afford to pay. One of the most common things we hear is that it is too complicated and it is too much money or it is not a realistic assessment of what someone is earning and their outgoings overseas. A Government committed to getting repayments would actually sit down and work out a regime where that could happen. But instead this Government wants to come up with a policy that frankly as well as being disingenuous is unworkable.At this point in the debate I would love to be able to refer to the pros and cons of this idea from the regulatory impact statement. There were a variety of options proposed for what could be done to increase repayments. The pros and cons for this particular one—border restrictions—are not here. They are not in the regulatory impact statement. They have been withheld from it. So the National Government does not actually want us to know what the arguments for and the arguments against this were. It just wants to come to the House and say: “Agree with this gimmick. It will sound good. It sounds like we’re doing something about it.” Well that is simply not good enough.It is not good enough to expect this House to agree to a provision that fundamentally changes what has been a civil matter the repayment of loans and turns it into a criminal matter. That is a serious change. If the National Government wants parties in this House to support that it should at least come with some evidence. It should at least come and say “This is why we think this will work.” But instead the regulatory impact statement is completely silent on the pros and cons—and in particular the cons—of this proposal. That is because it is not really designed to work. It is actually designed as a gimmick.What is in the paper as it outlines this option is the fact that it says—I will read you a piece. Think about how this will work: “Once the borrower is located at the airport Police would make a judgement as to whether to execute the arrest warrant or not. It is important for Police to use their discretion and the decision to make an arrest may have consequences for other passengers the airline and airport security. It may not be appropriate for example to arrest a single adult accompanying a young child if adequate arrangements cannot be made for the child.” Oh well maybe if we make arrangements for the child we will just go around and arrest people! This is ridiculous policy. It sounds like a farcical situation. The police have told us quite clearly that they do not have the resources to be sitting at the airport trying to work out whether to arrest people or not. It is a farcical policy and without proper justification.What the Government could have done in this bill was talk about what it could do to make the student loan scheme fairer. While this bill has been winding its way through Parliament the Government has made a number of changes to the student loan scheme and the student allowance scheme. It has abolished postgraduate allowances. No postgraduate student in New Zealand can now get an allowance. Along with a number of other members of this House I have been visiting university campuses over the orientation period. I have been told at our two largest universities that there has been a significant impact on the number of postgraduate enrolments.For those people who can continue to do postgraduate study there is a massive increase in debt because they will have to use a student loan scheme that does not adequately fund their living costs. In fact a number of people particularly psychologists architects ophthalmologists and those who have to do postgraduate qualifications in order to practise are leaving going overseas because once again the Government is saying: “There’s no reason to stay in New Zealand. We don’t value a postgraduate qualification if you are not rich enough to be able to pay your way yourself.” That is not good enough. So that happened while this bill was going through the House.Also what happened were the restrictions on access to loans and allowances based on age. If you are over 55 years old you cannot borrow living costs under the student loan scheme which limits the opportunities for people to retrain. If you are over 40 under this National Government there are 3 years of entitlement for allowances through your whole lifetime and it is retrospectively applied as well. If you got 3 years of allowances in your twenties and you then worked but you lost your job you then think: “I need to retrain. I need to do something so I can contribute to the economy.” This National Government says: “We don’t value you. You can’t have an allowance. You have to apply for a loan which you won’t be able to afford to live on.”John Hayes: Not true. Not true. Telling porkies.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is true Mr Hayes. Read your own policy Mr Hayes. There are no allowances if you are over 40 if you have already had 3 years of allowances. But it goes on—it goes on. It used to be that when you came to New Zealand as a new migrant you had to wait for 2 years before you could draw on the student loan and support scheme. Now it is 3 years. I have had people in my office who want to be in training and contributing to New Zealand. They have migrated to New Zealand and they want to start a life here but they are not able to do that because of the policy of this Government.So while this bill has been going through the House access to the student loan and allowance scheme has been cut back. The Government has introduced an administration fee on the student loan scheme because it was not brave enough to reintroduce interest on student loans which we know it wants to do. The Government has put on an administration fee—another additional cost.We could have been having a conversation on this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) about how we use the student loan scheme to get more people into tertiary education and to give more people the opportunity to benefit themselves their communities and their families. But instead we have a silly gimmicky disingenuous policy that criminalises a whole lot of New Zealanders. It sends a message to those New Zealanders overseas: “Don’t come home. Don’t come back to contribute to your country.” On this side of the House we believe this is a backward step. It is a silly policy.What we should be doing is saying to New Zealanders overseas: “There will be opportunities for you.” I can assure those people who are overseas and their families here in New Zealand who are listening today that under a Labour-led Government we will ensure that the student loan and allowance scheme actually works to encourage people into education. Steven Joyce has said he wants to dampen demand for tertiary education. I want to see enrolments increase qualifications increase and the tertiary education system contributing to a positive future for all New Zealanders. Under this Government it is a total failure. This bill is a ridiculous gimmick and we will oppose it.