Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14760] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak to Part 2 and in particular to clause 7 “Use of export education levy” which everybody is touching on. One of the previous speakers talked about this clause as clearly being a retrospective take. I think it goes far further than that. I think that not only is this clause retrospective because a growth fund has been built up but it really is equivalent to a land grab. Here is a fund that no one owns and no provider has asked to take back its money—it is just left over. I would say that in today’s world people would be somewhat shocked if we did a little land grab around New Zealand at this stage especially given all the sensitivities we now have. Here is the equivalent of that; it is called a fund. The Government grabs all that is left over because no one has the right to get the money back and apportion it out to those who gave to the fund. 
I find something of a paradox in the way we are handling this provision. The solution given in clause 6 is simply to state that the collection of the levy is a lawful process. So be it but why not look at some of the other solutions to the problem rather than to see a levy as the only solution? Submitters to the Education and Science Committee had a numbers of solutions that would solidify the industry and make it work properly. I think it may be good to use this call to go over one or two of those solutions and to remind Parliament of what the industry thinks about this legislation. The industry thinks that yes there needs to be some security and that there needs to be proper accountability for any failure. Nobody had another view on that. But it is true that if there is no solution other than a levy we are left with what we have before us and I think that is the worst of all solutions because it is something no one has any control over. 
Some of the solutions proposed by submitters were arranged around for instance setting up a proper bonding regime. One or two submitters said that if the export education industry saw itself as being on a par with the airline industry just like the International Air Transport Association it would bond itself or even that if the industry saw itself as being on a par with another form of profession such as the legal profession it would take on board a fiduciary fund so it would be able to stand in the place of rescuing those who failed and there would be proper accountability in that manner. There was also the suggestion that some proper arrangements could be made through an insurance programme and there were examples given to us of such arrangements. If I recall matters rightly a firm by the name of InterGlobal Insurance Services was suggested as an insurance firm that would look after—and does look after and can cater for—the students. I think one of the previous speakers made it very clear that we are here to ensure that students get their education and that is it. So an insurance programme or a bonding programme would be in line with bringing about proper accountability for failure. 
United Future is of the mind that those sorts of solutions would be much better to place upon education providers than a levy. Once again I say United Future is unhappy about the process and the intention of Part 2 of this bill so we will vote against it.