Coddington Deborah: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14758] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 We are now addressing Part 2 and I will look at clause 7 which the Hon Bill English has already pointed out is retrospective. Under section 238I of the Education Act the levy that was taken was to be held in trust accounts for certain purposes. We are now seeing this new legislation because two institutions in particular—the Modern Age Institute of Learning and the Carich Training Centre—took money for one purpose and used it for another purpose and the students were not able to do the courses that they had enrolled for. We now see the Government changing the legislation so that it can take money for one purpose and use it for another purpose. I do not think that is on. Mr Mallard can stand up and explain why he thinks that is justified. Referring back to Part 1 which we have already debated I note that one of the new uses for which the levy can be put is to reimburse the Crown for any expenses it may incur in refunding students or putting them back into the same position they were in before the institution they had enrolled at failed to provide their course. In other words it is just a tax. 
The Minister should come clean and say that this is not a fund or a levy to reimburse students who are out of pocket. He stood up earlier in the second reading debate and said that this legislation was necessary as he did not want to see students out on the street because they did not have accommodation. But in truth this legislation shows that it is just an excuse for a Crown entity—and in this case it is the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which I note is going through its resources at a rate of knots and probably does need propping up—to take money off the private providers and use it to justify its own expenses. We have a huge conflict of interest whereby the New Zealand Qualifications Authority sets and monitors the regulations and entry rules—specifies those who can and cannot come in from overseas—and is also responsible for setting students right when the institutions fail to provide the courses that they say they will provide and for which they take fees. That same Crown entity can then reimburse itself from those funds—not only from the new funds that will be collected from the date that this legislation is passed but from any funds that are already accumulated and not spent on the day this Act comes into force as is stated in clause 7. There is a name for that. It starts with “h” and I am not allowed to use it but the Minister knows what it is. 
I invite the Minister to take a call and justify why these funds which have been paid in for special purposes—marketing etc.—can be taken out of that named account and used to reimburse a Crown entity for money it has spent on reimbursing students or putting students back into a similar situation to that before they were disadvantaged by the failure of a private sector provider. The Minister can choose to take a call on that or he can choose not to but I think it is an important issue that has not been addressed. In the Education and Science Committee we got rid of the retrospective clauses in this bill but there is still a retrospective provision here in clause 7. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister is obviously bored by it all. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Minister is bored by all the worry and angst that he is causing the private education sector. He just does not care how heavily he tramples on the private sector. He will tax that sector and use it to prop up a Crown entity and he will be cavalier about the whole thing.