Coddington Deborah: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14763] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 There are two important things missing from the part of the bill that contains the title and the commencement date. The first is that the legislation does not bind the Crown and the other is that the title does not reflect the true intent of the bill. The title should actually be “Education (Export Education Private Providers Levy) Amendment Bill” because it does not relate to all providers of export education. It relates only to private exporters of education. I have huge difficulty with that term anyway. 
We have reached the situation in New Zealand where we have forgotten that we are actually dealing with human beings in terms of export education. We are starting to think along the lines of fattening cattle for beef. That is something that gets lost in the economics of this sort of legislation and it is only the private providers that are punished by such legislation. There is absolutely no need for this legislation. If members looked at what was in place before it came into being they would see that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority had suggested that private tertiary educators were not being responsible—they were shirking their responsibilities—when it came to assuring students that tuition fees were safe. But that is absolutely not the case. If we go back to the history we find that the combined registered English language schools—CRELS as they were known—comprised a voluntary organisation they all belonged to. They all agreed without being forced by Government and without this sort of legislation that they would take on the students from fellow members of their organisation if those providers got into financial difficulty and could not provide their courses. That agreement was reaffirmed as being in place a week before the Modern Age Institute of Learning folded. The members knew that that institute was going to fold yet they stuck by the deal they had made whereby they would take on those students. 
Those were private institutions that were already acting responsibly. They are now going to be punished by this legislation. That is why if this title were a true reflection of the bill the words “private providers” should be in the title or there should be the clause in the bill that provides: “This Act binds the Crown.” It is the public institutions that will be allowed to get away with doing exactly what they have been doing. Many of the polytechs—not all; places like Unitec are not included in the association of polytechs—have been getting away with taking money for purposes and not using it for those purposes. It is the policy the Minister has set up. 
I would strongly argue that this title is misleading and any claims that private providers have behaved irresponsibly and should be punished are ridiculous. In fact the combined registered English language schools have actually had a legal opinion from Geoffrey Palmer that they had no extra liability after Modern Age collapsed and that they had fulfilled all their obligations in taking on those students. Even though they knew that Modern Age was going to collapse they still took them on. Yet this Minister is intent on bringing in this legislation that will punish them. Not only that the bill is being put through with a totally misleading title and it is allowing public institutions to be let off the hook. The bill is not necessary and it should be thrown out.