Donnelly Brian: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14750] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 When I came down this week I received a note from one of the major players in the export education field. It thanked New Zealand First for the work that it had done in getting this particular legislation as right as it possibly could be. The final point was interesting: “Let us hope that this is the last time this Government and this Minister actually tries to get the export education levy right.” This is about the third crack that he has had at it. It started off under the Education Standards Bill with a levy on monitoring pastoral care. Then a Tertiary Education Reform Bill was ready for deliberation by the Education and Science Committee—there was 1 day to go—and the Minister threw on board an Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill that contravened the principles in the Tertiary Education Reform Bill. 
When that bill went to the select committee—the Minister did not want it to go to the select committee—we ended up with only two parties actually agreeing with it. One was the Government and the other was the Education New Zealand Trust. The Education New Zealand Trust was supposed to be representative of all the providers yet the providers came along in their own groups representing themselves and absolutely and utterly opposed the bill. The export education levy had not been laid down in front of them by the Minister. There had been no consultation and no buy-in. Of course we know what happened. Although some parties tried to get it as good as it possibly could be—and that meant some modifications of that legislation to make sure there was at least an element of consultation—it still was not good enough and when Carich and the Modern Age Institute of Learning fell over the Minister thought he would use the levy to cover the costs that the Government incurred in getting those people out of a ditch. That is not to mention the simple fact that in particular in the case of Modern Age the real villain was the Government’s monitoring agent the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which did not recognise that the activities Modern Age was getting up to signalled there was danger ahead. 
So the Minister decided to dig into the export education levy. There was only one little problem: it was ultra vires. He was not allowed to do it. So he decided that there was only one way to do it: “This is Clyde Dam stuff. We will do what the Nats have done in the past: we’ll just change the law and we will change it retrospectively.” That has been mentioned. Even though the regulations that went through in December 2003 set a 0.45 percent levy on all providers the Minister came along with this legislation which set a 0.7 percent levy. It is a completely new regime. I think both sides of the House were very uncomfortable with this particular issue and finally the Minister saw that he had perhaps overreacted— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Good discussions with Brian Donnelly. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Maybe it was a little bit like the Panoho case. But in fairness I think the worst excesses were caught in the end—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think the suggestion that a member in this Committee is a lapdog is certainly out of order. Mr English made that suggestion. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I listened very carefully to my learned colleague Mr English and he made no such imputation about an individual so there is simply no point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Did the member make such a remark? 
Hon Bill English 
: I was referring to the collective of New Zealand First and certainly not to an individual. You will notice that I used the plural which was “lapdogs” —not “lapdog” —so clearly the comment was in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A reference to a party is treated in the same way. It was not appropriate. The member should stand and withdraw that remark. 
Hon Bill English 
: Could you just explain that again? I am not exactly sure what the ruling is. I hope you are not suggesting that it is out of order to make a derogatory remark about another party in this Houseouse. That seems to me to be part of the business of Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A party is made up of members of the House and the remark was not appropriate. The member will withdraw. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I just get clarification on the ruling you have just made? Do we now take it that members cannot make a remark about a party that if applied to an individual would be regarded as out of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 47/1. If the member reads it he will see that it makes the situation quite clear. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the matter. It is finished. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I guess that scenario demonstrates that New Zealand First is here to constructively make a difference for the good rather than to play petty little games of the kind just demonstrated. The question that— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In terms of Speaker’s ruling 47/1 the member has just made a derogatory reference and used an offensive term. It was unparliamentary in my view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I did not hear it. Could the member clarify whether he used an offensive term? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Certainly to my mind I do not think I made an offensive remark at all. It certainly was not intended to be offensive. It was simply a description of some of the activity that was going on. I will withdraw it; I am quite happy to do that if it makes things easier. As I said we are here to be constructive not destructive. 
We already have a quite significant amendment that the Minister has put up on Supplementary Order Paper 240. He is inserting a whole paragraph as to what can be done with this levy which seems to me to get to the very intention of the bill in the first place. I ask the same question that was asked of me: has the Minister finished with this legislation or are there to be subsequent pieces of legislation? Have we finally got the export education levy operating in the manner that it should operate—that is serving the purpose of that particular industry? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the member want to help us? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I ask the Minister to take a call and to give this Committee some sort of guarantee that we will not be back here again debating some of the issues around the export education levy which in the long run will make us less competitive in this particular industry. The Minister is aware it is a very important industry to New Zealand. We have to make sure we get it right. We certainly are not doing it by continuing to have legislation come back to this House.