Mapp Wayne: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14752] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As is well known from the previous speakers and from our votes National is opposed to this bill. Fundamentally we are opposed to it because it is discriminatory and in addition reflects the lazy answer. It is the easiest answer the Government can come up with without really listening to the sector itself. Extensive evidence was given by various submitters to the Education and Science Committee about other options: insurance bonds trust funds and the like all of which were industry-based solutions as opposed to a Government-imposed solution. After all in other sectors where there are questions of protecting people affected by a particular industry or institution the result is a collective fund insurance policy or indemnity policy organised by the industry itself not controlled by the Government. That is the distinction is it not? That is the distinction between the Law Society and other similar entities and this solution. This is the Government solution—the statist solution. 
When that occurs there is a responsibility. For instance at the very least the sector should be able to rely on the governance entity the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to do its work properly. But it does not. For instance about 12 months ago the New Zealand Qualifications Authority knew that the Paramount Institute of Auckland which was a private tertiary provider was in trouble. At that point the deficiency was about $200000. Over the succeeding 10 months that deficiency grew to $800000 which effectively now becomes an impost on all other private tertiary providers. So the sector is caught in a bind. It has to pay this money which is mandated by the Government. It relies on the State entity the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be the monitoring agency. If that agency was doing its job properly the funds represented by the levy would be reduced and therefore ultimately the levy would be reduced. So not only are the providers stuck with the levy but the bad supervision by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which the Minister is well aware of causes the levy to be significantly higher than it otherwise would be. 
I listened to the various speakers on Part 1. A person tuning into the radio just to hear this debate might well think New Zealand First is supporting the Government and that has been referred to. But even those members and they are well-known these days to be the tail that is wagged by the Government dog—[ 
Interruption 
] Well that is a phrase we are apparently not allowed to use so I will say that they are the tail that is wagged by the Government dog. Even they see the deficiency. So one would think that the Government would take on board that all sensible parties in this House and I even include New Zealand First in that category for this particular purpose are voting against the bill with the exception of the Green Party—and everyone knows that that party is not sensible. 
So essentially the votes by the parties in this House demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Government’s solution here. The proper approach was to listen to the industry and look at the solutions that the industry was prepared to come up with—and it would check those with the Insurance Council in particular. That would have been a reasonable approach. Everyone recognises that there is a problem to be dealt with. What the industry does not want is the statist discriminatory approach—the lazy reversion to type by Labour—in imposing a centralised levy with poor supervision by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.