Hipkins Chris: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take a call on these amendments to the student loan scheme but I want to start by responding to some of the comments from David Bennett. I just cannot let them go unanswered. I want to start my contribution on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) by saying that it is somewhat ironic to be lectured by a Government that has clocked up a bigger Crown debt than any other Government in New Zealand’s history. It is lecturing us about debtrepayment yet it has clocked up a bigger debt than any Government in New Zealand’s history which will take generations—generations—to repay. At the end of this parliamentary term New Zealand will have more debt than we had at the end of Muldoon’s term in Government and that is Bill English’s legacy for New Zealand and John Key’s legacy for New Zealand.David Bennett talked about the people who really do the hard work and then of course excluded anyone with a tertiary education from that definition. He basically said that if you have a tertiary education in New Zealand by definition you are not one of the people who does the hard work and contributes to the New Zealand economy. You are one of the socialist elite if you have a tertiary education. That is just the typical anti-intellectual reverse elitism that we get from the National Government which hates anybody who might have an independent opinion and be able to think for themselves. In fact we do not have even a Prime Minister who can think for himself. He relies on Cameron Slater to tell him what he should think and we know that for a fact because he admitted it the other day.Well actually I think that if more New Zealanders had a tertiary education they would be able to see through the hollow spin that so frequently comes from this National Government and they would know that having a Government that is dictated to by Cameron Slater is not good for the health of the New Zealand democratic system. David Bennett seems to ignore the fact that we all benefit from an educated society. So yes the people who do not get out a student loan because they may get their education through a trade for example still benefit as part of a society from the people who do get a tertiary education.David Bennett: Oh socialist elite—socialism.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh and this makes me part of the socialist elite! I am part of the socialist elite if I point out that somebody who does not have a tertiary education but might have a trades qualification for example which they got through an apprenticeship—and that is fantastic—still benefits from the contribution to society made by the people who do get a degree or take out a student loan in order to support their study. And of course David Bennett ignores the fact that many tradespeople have student loans as well. Actually many many tradespeople have student loans as well. So I think that David Bennett’s anti-intellectualism does not contribute very much to this debate at all.I want to talk to the specific provisions in the bill and in particular what I would like to do is examine the regulatory impact statement which Treasury helpfully has released. The regulatory impact statement is one of the most useful resources that we get as parliamentarians. It enables us to look at the options that were canvassed by the Government to look at the pros and cons of each option and the reasons why the Government chose one option or the other and to weigh up the legislation before the House in light of the other alternatives available.I was interested to see for example what the pros and cons were for the arrest at the border provisions in this bill. Somewhat helpfully Treasury has redacted all of the analysis of the pros and cons of that particular provision which of course begs the question: what on earth is the point of a regulatory impact statement that is supposed to inform intelligent debate on a bill if it is all redacted and if it is all withheld from the people who are going to be taking part in the debate? It actually means that the regulatory impact statement is worse than useless and we have to ask what the point of it is. So unfortunately I cannot canvass in any great detail really the pros and cons of the alternatives that were considered by the Government because Treasury has not supplied them.It could well be of course that the Government did not consider any alternatives because we know that this is in fact a fairly hollow measure. It is not exactly going to suddenly result in a massive decrease in student loan borrowing or student loan debt. In fact it will have a negligible impact. This is more that the Government wants to be seen to be doing something about something. It fills up the legislative programme and makes the Government look busy. It does not really make a heck of a lot of difference but it makes the Government look busy and makes it look tough on all of those mean nasty people who do not repay their student loans. Of course we know that there are actually very few people in that category.I was very interested in looking at clauses 10 and 11 of this bill which deal with the sharing of borrowers’ contact details that are received from their passport renewals. For example under the current arrangement if somebody applies for a passport the Inland Revenue Department can obtain the contact details that they supply with their passport application only if they are in default on their student loan. This provision extends to everyone even if they are not in default on their student loan.I think that there is a very legitimate question to ask about this provision. Why would the Inland Revenue Department have the right to obtain somebody’s passport application details if they are not in default? If they have not done anything wrong what right does the Inland Revenue Department have to obtain their personal private information? I do not think the department does have the right. I do not think that there is a good reason for doing that. There is no case.I have read the regulatory impact statement. I have read this little document here—the commentary on the bill which Todd McClay the Minister of Revenue has put out. The case has not really been made at all as to why details can be given to the Inland Revenue Department in respect of somebody who has done nothing wrong has made all of the student loan repayments that they are required to make and applies for a passport because they want to go away on holiday. What right does the Government have to give that information which is submitted for a passport application to the Inland Revenue Department for the purposes of student loan administration when that person has done nothing wrong and when their repayments are up to date? There is actually no good reason for that. No case is made for that. This is just a case of the Government sharing people’s information willy-nilly. It may as well give it to the ACC and then everybody could have it.Grant Robertson: Or just give it to Judith Collins.CHRIS HIPKINS: Or just give it to Judith Collins—Grant Robertson: Or Cameron Slater.CHRIS HIPKINS: —or to Cameron Slater and then he could publish it and then John Key would know what everybody is up to of course because we know that that is one of John Key’s main channels of information. Actually no case is made for this information sharing. I think that Government departments should share information where there is good reason to do so. There is no good reason for sharing this information in the cases where people are not in default on their loans. If they are meeting all of their repayment obligations the Government should just leave them alone. And as long as they continue to do so good on them and I do not think that the Government has any right to be delving into their private personal passport applications.I want to come now to the arrest at the border provisions. I think that one of the really important messages that we want to send to student loan borrowers who are living overseas is that we want you to come home.Grant Robertson: Come home.CHRIS HIPKINS: We do want you to come home. We want you to contribute to New Zealand society. You are valued members of New Zealand society and we want to make it as easy as possible for you to come back. But of course what this Government has done is first of all made it more likely for people who are away overseas to get into default in the first place. Previously there was an amnesty or a holiday period from repayments. Those who went away on their OE for example might take 18 months off. That was fine. But this Government has reduced that period. People who go away on an OE might intend to be away for only 1 year but of course things happen. Things happen while people are away on their OE and they extend it. They might extend it to 18 months or 2 years but suddenly without ever having really thought about it before they left home—because they were only ever intending to be away for a year—they will find themselves in default on their student loan repayments.Most graduates go away for a year on their OE and I encourage them to do it because I think that they are better contributors to New Zealand society when they get back and that sense of perspective that somebody gets from travelling is good for New Zealand. So I would encourage them to do that. They go away for 1 year and they do not really think about their student loan and nor should they really need to because if they are away for only 1 year then there are no penalties for non-repayment. But previously that period was 3 years and it did allow for those situations.Of course I do not know what the overall experience of members of the House is but most of the people I know who go away overseas for a period of time are normally back within a couple of years. They go away—they might do a bit of a working holiday they do a bit of an OE—but then they do come back and when they come back they start repaying their student loans. These are the people who are now going to be captured by this Government’s somewhat Draconian and punitive measures. What it does is send a message to them that New Zealand does not want them back. Actually we do want them back. We do want to make it possible for people at the end of their study or at some point—they might have worked for a few years to save some money beforehand—to travel overseas and then we want to make it as easy as possible for them to come back. But not this Government—this Government does not seem to be interested in that.So I think that this bill is window dressing but it is actually sending the wrong messages in its window dressing. Yes people should repay their student loans but simply being punitive about it and threatening to arrest people at the border is not a progressive forward-looking move. It is actually quite retrograde. That is one of the reasons why the Labour Party is opposing this bill.