Mapp Wayne: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14589] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Is it not an indictment when Labour has to rely on the discredited Greens as the sole party that wants to support this discredited legislation? Surely the Government should take on board that the parties that sat on the select committee and heard the evidence have drawn the conclusion and the fault lies with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. 
This bill really is an old-fashioned statist solution. When we run out of ideas just impose another round of costs on the private sector. All that does is excuse a lazy and not well organised New Zealand Qualifications Authority from proper supervision. Some would say it is incompetent and in fact there is considerable evidence of that. The  
Sunday Star-Times 
 article of 15 June refers to the fact that 1 year earlier the New Zealand Qualifications Authority had been advised of problems facing an English language school and it did nothing. When the debt reached $200000 it knew there was a problem but it did nothing until another $800000 of debts had accumulated. Only then did the authority act and apparently only on the advice of the police. The very institution that has been established by this Parliament to provide the prudential supervision failed in this particular case. It failed in respect of the Paramount Institute. This legislation reflects the lazy answer that excuses the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and imposes costs on the private sector. 
 Everyone would acknowledge that there have been difficulties amongst various private institutions and they have damaged the sector’s reputation internationally. There was a need for a solution. The solution does not lie in getting the successful institutions to bail out the bad. We heard a variety of solutions in the select committee. One solution for instance—and there were several suggestions—was compulsory insurance. We were told by the Insurance Council that such insurance is available. That is the first particular option. 
Proper accreditation would have been the second step. Of course that would have required the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—that fine august body—to perform and do the work. I guess that was not an option that the Government would look at because it would have required a serious and sharp review of the organisation. The third option was to have not just an initial accreditation but proper prudential supervision of the institutions as they continue their work. A fourth option was to put at least a significant proportion of student fees into trust accounts. 
All of those options would fundamentally have been private sector options. It would not have involved the successful private training establishments having to bail out the unsuccessful institutions. Those were the real choices facing the Government. Those were the choices requested by the private sector itself and it made that very clear in its submissions. 
We have only to think of perhaps one of the most successful Government institutions to find the model. For instance imagine banks were required to bail out failed banks. What would that say about the Reserve Bank? It would say that there was no proper supervision no proper accreditation and no proper analysis of capital adequacy ratios. All those things would reflect badly on the Reserve Bank. In fact the Reserve Bank does an excellent job of supervision. Surely that was the model that the Government should have followed. It could have said to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority: “Look at the successful institutions learn from them and then impose those solutions on the private sector with the agreement of the private sector.” Those were the choices out there. Instead this legislation is the lazy way out. 
As I said in my opening comments this is the statist solution. I am not surprised that the Green Party immediately responded and said: “Statist solution the answer must be yes.” because that is always the Greens solution. So we have a left-wing Government looking to a more left-wing partner as the model for governing our country. One would think that in 2004 there would have been lessons learnt and that the old statist solutions that come out of socialism would have been abandoned. In fact even if the Government had listened to its erstwhile coalition partner it may have gone for a more moderate solution. And when I say erstwhile coalition partner in this room there seems to be at least two others—United and dare I say it New Zealand First. Both those parties—[ 
Interruption 
] Is it not an interesting concept that New Zealand First members are denying that they want to prop up the Government? I sat on a select committee all last week listening to New Zealand First members propping up the Government on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. They need to understand that generally they do support the Government. They will be judged in a year’s time. 
The lessons were clear. Listen to the private sector listen to the members of the Education and Science Committee who heard the evidence and take note of them. What on earth is the point of having submissions and having thoughtful select committee members analysing those submissions and reporting back to the Parliament saying that this bill does not work? If the select committee process meant something and I would like to think it does one would expect the Government to say: “Gosh we really have got this one wrong. We need to go back to first base and review it again.” But no Mr Mallard with all his arrogance and his “he knows best” will just continue to impose his flawed and failed solutions on education. 
I want to conclude on this point. It will not work for the private training establishments it will not work for the compulsory sector and it does not work for the State-owned tertiary sector. I predict that the public will make its judgment in 12 months’ time that the Minister failed. Some of them will remember that this bill was one of the first signals of failure.