Donnelly Brian: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14754] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to refer briefly to the remarks made by Dr Wayne Mapp with regard to New Zealand First and I have to say he demonstrated that some parties have not got out of the first-past-the-post mode. They have not worked out that what we are actually here for is to end up with a better New Zealand; and that there will be opportunities presented from time to time for parties to be able to work together with the Government to get the best possible outcome. An opportunity was presented in this particular case with regard to retrospective taxation of the export education providers and we were able to work with the Minister to be able to get an outcome that I believe was in the best interests of all concerned. 
Had the National Party had its way of just opposing opposing opposing and saying “This is bad.” then the export education providers would have had to stump up with an extra $1.7 million. So National can go along and tell them that that is what they believe should have been done to them. New Zealand First said: “No let’s use the opportunities to come up with a better outcome.” 
The point is and it has been made by Dr Mapp New Zealand First does not support this bill and we have not supported the export education levy since it was first introduced. That is largely because it has been so poorly done. It has been introduced without the ownership of the providers themselves and it was tacked on to a bill that had an industry training levy fund in it. The principles are that the members had to be balloted if they wanted to impose a levy; 66 percent of all those balloted had to return; and there had to be a 66 percent response in favour of it. That was the principle that was applied to industry training levies. Yet when it came to the export education sector it was: “Whacko! We’re slamming this down on top of you. You’re not going to have any say and if we want to come along and run right over the top of regulations we’ll do that also.” 
As I say New Zealand First does not believe that this bill has been done well. It has not been done in the best interest of the industry itself. We believe that in the long run there is a real problem when as the Government agency that accredits those who can provide—in other words the export education providers the private training establishments—they have no say in who can provide this form of export education but when it comes to the monitoring agency failing in doing its duty they are left carrying the can. 
That is wrong. If there is to be accountability we either have to have the market running it all and that is it or we have to have a decent monitoring agency; in which case we do not need to have to use this sort of mechanism to provide the insurance policies. Unfortunately we have not had that. Therefore New Zealand First asks why those who are doing it right and doing it well should end up having to carry the can when the agency of the Government itself has not done its job properly. 
I know that a lot of work is being done on this but at this particular time it still leaves one with a sense of insecurity about whether we have in fact got all the pieces in place. If we have not got the pieces in place then more private providers will be falling over. The levy will be raised; purely and simply again next year we will be debating the whole issue the same principle that the Minister has tried to put into this bill. So New Zealand First is not supportive of the bill. However we used the opportunities to work constructively with the Government and I think got the best possible outcomes. We are very pleased and proud to be able to stand here and say that that is what we did rather than simply oppose for the sake of opposing and costing the industry $1.7 million.