Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): In all of that noise from David Seymour in passionate defence of partnership schools or charter schools he did not really give a reason why they should not be covered by the Ombudsmen Act or the Official Information Act except at the very end where he said: Then people might ask them for information." That seems to be his objection. On those grounds I think every Government department would like to see themselves exempted from the Official Information Act as well. But the reality is that if Mr Seymour and the National Government are so proud of what partnership schools are doing why would they want them exempted from the Official Information Act? Why would they want them exempted from the Ombudsmen Act?I just want to talk particularly about the Ombudsmen Act for a moment. There is a provision and it was negotiated at select committee by Tracey Martin Catherine Delahunty me and others to ensure that part of the Ombudsmen Act would apply to partnership schools but only part of it and it was only in so far as it relates to disciplinary decisions stand downs suspensions and so on. But then I want you to consider the example that the Ombudsman gave us in his submission to the select committee which went much wider than simply those decisions around stand downs and suspensions. That was of a school which I am very familiar with where there were systemic bullying issues. The school failed the students involved the Ministry of Education failed the students and so did the Education Review Office. Ultimately it was the Ombudsman who got to the bottom of that situation ensured that it was brought to the light of day and ensured that the problem was dealt with. These were very serious problems including—I am not going to go into all of the details—the violation of students with a broomstick. All of the official agencies responsible for dealing with those problems failed those students. The Office of the Ombudsmen the last safeguard was the agency that finally dealt with it. If that was happening in a partnership school there would be no final safeguard available for those students.So if the ACT Party and the National Party are so proud of partnership schools so confident that they are supplying a higher quality education than every other school in the country so confident that they are so much more accountable why would they not want them to be covered by the Ombudsmen Act and by the Official Information Act?David Seymour: We answered that "Chippy".CHRIS HIPKINS: They have not actually answered it. All they have said is that they think it might be a bit too much work. That seems to be the sum total of David Seymour's argument. If somehow people were able to complain to the Ombudsman or ask for information under the Official Information Act then they might actually do so. Would that not be a terrible thing in the world of the National Party and in the world of the ACT Party?The Ombudsman came to the select committee when this bill was being debated and actually took the very unusual step of presenting before a select committee. The Ombudsman as an Officer of Parliament does that very rarely. In fact it has happened twice to my knowledge in the time that I have been an MP. Once was in this case and the other is now in the case of communities of online learning the online learning schools which the Government is also going to exempt from the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act. It is very unusual. The Ombudsman basically had to come along to the select committee to defend their very existence. Because if parts of the apparatus of government and schools are part of the apparatus of government are going to be exempted from the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act then the Ombudsman is really coming along to justify their very existence. That is quite an unusual thing. As I think the Ombudsman says it is a constitutional anomaly because actually the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act are parts of our constitutional framework. They are vitally important. They are part of the process of open and transparent government.I am not going to get into an argument with David Seymour about the performance of partnership schools or otherwise; there are plenty of opportunities for us to do that and we certainly do. That is a very legitimate thing for any political parties to be doing. I would encourage David Seymour to look not just with rose-tinted glasses at the performance of partnership schools but to actually have a realistic look at them. Actually look at some of the pitfalls and some of the problems that have been encountered because it has not been all sunshine. There have been some legitimate issues and rather than turning a blind eye to those perhaps he would like to deal with them. But no he is not going to. But we will debate those at another date because actually the purpose of this bill is quite a narrow one. It is not actually an attack on partnership schools. It is saying that they should simply be accountable to the public and that they should be subject to the same provisions and protections as State schools are when it comes to public transparency and accountability."