Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14588] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. Right at the beginning I want to say that United Future believes that there is actually no need for this bill and that therefore there is no need for it to proceed. Tonight I will touch on a couple of reasons for that view and hopefully I will not go over the ground that others have touched on. 
The legislation is based on some assumptions that could be challenged or that are flawed at their very bottom. The Minister has given some plausible reasons why this bill is required yet after the first reading when I sat on the Education and Science Committee and listened intently to the submitters to find out what they had to say on the bill it was pretty clear to me that not a single one of the submitters said yes to this bill coming forward in any shape or form. So I listened to the officials to see whether they had anything to say that would justify or vindicate the bill and I am still in the same frame of mind. There is nothing that validates this bill being in our midst tonight. 
 In fact I think some of the assumptions that lie behind this bill are so flawed that fixing something that flawed is really just a waste of time. It is a waste of time for all the submitters who came and offered their positions their thoughts and their reasons. It is a waste of time for the select committee to have gone through all that to no avail and also in this House tonight. It could have been solved in yet another way. 
One of the premises that I see in this bill is that the public sector providers are considered to be very safe whereas private providers are high risk. We in United Future promoted a minority view on this bill because we were not at all convinced when one took out certain clauses—clause 4(3) and clause 5 which came out under pressure I believe from the submitters—that there was any reason for this bill to exist. It decimated the very basis for this bill to exist and therefore we as a party will not be voting in favour of this particular reading. 
The Government stated also that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—which has been accused by a number of speakers tonight and which is a gatekeeper for all private training establishments—would be put on a much stronger basis and a more rigorous set of regulations and that it would be strengthened in the future. The Government stated that it would ensure better quality control systems that better auditing procedures would be available and that an approved fees protection programme would be set up to overcome the weaknesses reflected in these cases that have been the basis for this bill. So I say and United Future says that if in fact the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is going to be strengthened to do all of this then why do we need the bill because quite honestly once the New Zealand Qualifications Authority gets up to speed there is no need for all this therefore further supporting our position that we are not in favour of this bill. 
 Again as others have said why should honest and good providers be punished when they have no say as to who comes into it? In fact the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee—and I would like Parliament to understand they are not private training establishment people—stated: “It is a ludicrous suggestion that quality providers be financially responsible for less reputable providers that fail to take appropriate action to safeguard their financial viability. To suggest such a course of action in any other industry would be decried as reprehensible and going completely against the grain of good business practice.” 
That was part of that committee’s submission in a sense saying what we have been saying in this House tonight. This bill by the way was brought as a shock to the industry without any genuine form of consultation. The Minister and the ministry thought that they could just foist it on us and that we would all agree and go home feeling nice for agreeing. But the failure of two private training establishments which was the basis of this panic bill was a false premise. It reminds me very much of the adage: “One swallow does not a summer make.” One failure does not mean that all of the private training establishment sector is a failure. Therefore there is a false premise for doing this. 
I believe that the real reason the Minister panicked and the ministry forced this bill before the House tonight is simply to cover up for the incompetence as others have made known of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority itself. The Association of Private Providers of English Language stated in its submission: “Our opposition to the entire bill remains intact.” It says that the Paramount Institute situation outlined in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of June 13 raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the student fee protection policy and its enforcement by NZQA. 
Now this particular institution was not the basis for the bill but subsequent to all the cuff and fluff about this in June this year another organisation fell over because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority did not enforce things correctly. The submission went on to state: “We have and will continue to work with NZQA on improving an enforcement of that policy but we do not see any way in which we can directly manage the risk of PTE closures. The Government through NZQA controls entry to and exit from the PTE sector and our members cannot see why they should bear the risk of NZQA’s decision.” That submission underlines what a lot of others have said which is that this bill is just a cover up for an incompetent New Zealand Qualifications Authority and possibly on the side also for the tertiary education sector. For instance no responsible action has been taken against the directors of Modern Age and I believe that the Government was trying to cover up for that. 
What are the solutions? I believe that we should abandon this bill tonight. The Minister should look at alternative arrangements such as insurance programmes bonding regimes something like the International Air Transport Association has for the airlines; possibly change the visa regulations and adopt the Australian measures on how to handle overseas students tighten up the regulations for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority when private training establishments and others are trading insolvently and stop further division and antagonism which I believe the levies have caused every provider in this country be they universities polytechnics or private training establishments. Also the Government and the Minister should be working in a supportive manner with all providers to encourage all of them to strive for excellence in education in this country.