in previous years. I don't know why the minister thinks that he needs to
I call Tim MacIndoe. Thank you very much Madam Chair. In the first and
second readings of this bill I broke
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
the changes to
of National Standards and also the
abolition of partnership schools. There is a huge amount in this
bill. As we go through the committee stage
of the bill it is clear that this
is fundamentally flawing arelation for
which this minister will be
remembered
which this minister will be which
remembered and history will judge him very poorly for it.
I say this to
him very poorly for it. I say this remembered
him very poorly for it. I say this to the minister, I have respect
for him, but there
are idealogical 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
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. I
want to commend, since we are in
the committee stage I want to commend
some of my colleagues who are
around an behind me tonight for the
very considered amendments they have put
forward. 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 concerns
that are being raised by him. If we look
for a few moments at the
regime, on one level that sounds very attractive. After all, who
regime, on one level that sounds 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
attractive. But, Madam Chair, 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
incentive for commitment and achievement
achievement and application during the course of study. If
you were going to introduce one year of
of the course of study to say we recognise that over the course of
study you are accumulated
a student loan, debt, and in some cases it is
quite significant. Both of
my children
children have substantial student loans. In fact, they are
quite eye watering and I know that is true of
many of their friend as well. Had
many of their friend as well. Had
they had an opportunity
at the end of their course of diddy
after they had done well, passed
all of their papers and shown They really
commit toad the study, to have applied
this policy at the final year, it is
not just for university study
but also trade courses and all sorts of other
things available
things available through the polytechs would have created the
things available through the message that if you apply
yourself and show that you are really making
the most of your opportunity we will
reward you at this point. Oh
no, here we have something that
sends an incentive at the beginning which may
be good for
some but certainly not good for all. I want to ask
the minister how much fraud is he aware
of in the
of in the tertiary education
think we've had an answer to that question and
question and yet New Zealanders would be very
interested in hearing the answer and they would expect the
minister to be able to
the answer and they would expect the
has become known to the authorities
question to the minister, how concerned is he personally
about that issue. Is
that sufficient for him to say perhaps it is time just
him to say perhaps it is 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
supporting our tertiary students because of this particular policy.
We were already very
generous because, on average, tertiary
We were already very generous We
We were already very generous courses are subsidised to
the effect of around
courses are subsidised to the effect
this particular policy was this particular policy was
introduced. While again that sounds
pretty attractive, what we have to
pretty attractive, what we have to
look at is the fact that the sons
and daughters of people
look at is the fact that the sons
earning some of the highest incomes earning some of the highest incomes
in this land
are being subsidised by people on the minimum wage and
benefits through their
tax system and there is something fundamentally
wrong about
wrong about that, I would have thought. Again, it is sort of
a
issue where that is just inappropriate. So I'd
ask the minister to comment on that as
well. Why should...
The Hon Tim MacIndoe. Why should the The Hon Tim MacIndoe. 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
Member of Parliament, a Cabinet
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
really struggling to make ends meet
happening at the moment. Now one answer to that, Madam Chair, and it
is 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, and that's great.
No argument with that. I don't think
anybody in this House 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
fair to the people who are doing it will
fair to the people who are doing it tough in our country at the
moment. Can I turn to commending two
of the Supplementary Order Paper
that I think, in this area, are
we look at the fact that the wrong signals are being sent another wrong
signal is surely being sent
about their
their being no consequences for fraud. Simeon Brown, the member for
Pakuranga has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 127,
he 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 a phrase in a particular clause of a
bill that says there doesn't have to
declaration. It is a very serious offence and it's not just an
offence against legislation, it is 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
mentioned, are doing it tough in our
communities and earning
the minimum wage. If we say that there won't
even be a
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
Mr Brown's Supplementary Order Paper
therefore will achieve the support
of members across the House. Let me
also add my support to
number 132, Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the
name of Joanne Hayes, which
would see the insertion in clause
15(2), after the new section 292A(4)
of
commits an offence against commits an offence against
subsection 3 will, on
conviction, be ineligible to receive a loan
interest
ineligible to receive a loan of the student loan scheme act
for the balance of
of the student loan scheme act for
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 are not
going to support Joanne Hayes'
very sensible Supplementary
sensible Supplementary Order Paper, why not because I say to those
members opposite that they owe the
public of New Zealand
a very clear explanation.
Because
Because why on earth should somebody who has defrauded the taxpayer,
who has
who has defrauded the taxpayer, who has willingly and wilfully supplied
totally inaccurate information
not face some
totally inaccurate information not
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
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
they are serious, they haven't had a lot of attention prior till now
because there have been
some very big issues that
have dominated the first and second
readings, but in this committee
this committee stage members on this side of the House are
very concerned to get these finer points
of the legislation right. There are way
that
legislation right. There are way
be improved. I hope the Minister is looking
looking forward. be
I call the Hon Chris Hipkins. It is a good time to respond to a few
of the issues raised by members of the
Opposition thus far.
the issues raised by members of the Opposition thus far. I'll work
with the contribution by Tim Macindoe. His first