Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): It is members' Groundhog Day on the partnership school kura hourua policy. For the third time in this parliamentary term we are debating a bill drawn from the members' ballot designed by the Labour Party to do nothing more than score cheap political points against partnership schools kura hourua.First it was about ensuring that teachers at partnership schools kura hourua were registered with the Education Council ignorant of the fact that practically every teacher at these schools is registered with the Education Council and that those exceptions allowed under the law are adding extraordinary value to the students such as a retired air force engineer teaching engineering at Vanguard Military School. What is wrong with that? I will very quickly cover the second bill in the series. It said: Abolish partnership schools in spite of their success."Then we come to this bill tonight which would apply the Official Information Act (OIA) and the Ombudsmen Act to partnership schools. We have heard again just like every previous time that one of these anti - partnership school political stunt bills has come up from the Labour Party all of the misinformation from the Labour Party members. I have to ask whether they really just do not care enough to find out the details of the debate—or are they actually not up to the task of understanding modern public policy?There is Nanaia Mahuta trotting out the same line—that partnership schools have failed overseas. What evidence does she have in reference to that? It cannot be from Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes which has the most comprehensive study of charter schools anywhere in the world and which shows that charter schools outperform public or State schools in the United States. It cannot be from the C. D. Howe Institute in Canada which shows that charter schools outperform public schools in Alberta. It cannot be from Sweden where it has been shown that for poorer kids and kids whose parents have less educational attainment partnership schools—or free schools as they call them—particularly those that are allowed to make a profit have better outcomes. It cannot be that. She says it is blind ideology but if the evidence is all against the argument then what else does the Labour Party have?Then we heard it again: the hoary old chestnut from the member that partnership schools are funded at a different rate. Really I wonder how many times I have to come down to this House and explain the most simple matters of fact about this policy—that every school whether it be State whether it be partnership or whether it be a start-up integrated school gets additional funding to get it started in its early years when it is small. To compare a new school with an old school a start-up school with a developed school at scale and to try to represent that as an indication of the type of funding that the school type gets is frankly very very close to misleading the people watching at home because it is simply not true.We have heard that there are bonus payments to partnership schools. The member clearly has not done her homework. Actually it is the opposite: partnership schools have 1 percent of their payment withheld. They actually have to perform to get all of their payment which is the opposite of a bonus payment—but there is not much hope of the Labour Party picking up those sorts of details.It was said that there is not comparable education performance. Well there is some confusion around the way that we deal with participation-based rates and enrolment-based rates of passing in partnership schools versus State schools. But this was done precisely in order that we would be able to compare on a school-to-school level—something that was not possible with the existing State system.We heard that you are allowed to make a profit at a partnership school. Yes the education system is riven with profit. Whether it is the people who build the buildings or who manufacture the computers or who supply the textbooks—actually many people in education make a profit and what is wrong with that?I have now finished rebutting the falsehoods that we have heard so far and it has taken up half my time because there are so many falsehoods in this policy from the Labour Party. But what of this particular bill which would apply the Official Information Act to partnership schools kura hourua and bring them under the auspices of the Ombudsmen Act for all activities rather than simply enrolments expulsions exclusions and suspensions—in other words the process of entries of students and exits of students from the schools? What of this bill?First of all it is not necessary. Partnership schools already reveal more information and more performance data than any other type of school in the system. If you want quarterly reports of whether a school's finances are in shape or whether it is meeting its academic targets or if you want to be able to see how many exclusions and suspensions and expulsions a school has had in a period of time every quarter or if you want annual reports with audited financial statements then you do not need the OIA. All you need to do is go to the partnership schools system of the Ministry of Education website where we have been proactively releasing all of that information every single quarter going on for 3 years now. But still the Labour Party members have not twigged. If there was more information that was part of the rigorous performance enforcement contract that these partnership schools have then the Ministry of Education would have it. And here is news for the Opposition: the Ministry of Education is subject to the Official Information Act.There is simply no need for this bill because partnership schools already reveal more information than any other type of school. Was it not telling that the only example Nanaia Mahuta could come up with that she thought might reveal information found under the Official Information Act was to do with expulsions and exclusions and possibly enrolments? She said that potentially partnership schools would try to filter through their students in order to get better results and that her bill would fix this by applying the Ombudsmen Act to the expulsions and the exclusions and suspensions of students at partnership schools. Well not only does Nanaia Mahuta not understand how partnership schools work; she does not understand how her own bill works because under this bill—Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): A point of order—but I will warn the member that she has to be very careful that she has a point of order and is not just going to debate something.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table the Ombudsman's submission to the Education and Science Committee in which he himself states that the issue of expulsions and suspensions—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right—the member will resume her seat. The member does not interrupt a member's speech in order to attempt to table something. The second point is that it is either currently publicly available as a submission or it is not publicly available and if it is not publicly available the member should not be trying to table it.DAVID SEYMOUR: If that is the true interpretation of the document the member was quoting then why on earth does her bill say in clause 7 "delete 'when performing a standing-down suspension exclusion or expulsion function.' " from the Ombudsmen Act? Why would she want to do that if not for the fact that that particular clause applies the Ombudsmen Act to partnership schools when they are performing those functions?It is almost impossible to have a debate with these people. Not only do they misunderstand the policy but they misunderstand their own bill. Beyond that you just have to ask yourself—well maybe it would not hurt. Maybe we should apply the Official Information Act to partnership schools just to be sure—just to be sure that they are totally transparent. Maybe there is some information that could be garnered through an Official Information Act request that we have not already made transparent through all of the disclosure that we do proactively—maybe. Well the reason that they are not in the bill is that the attitude of the Labour Party and its puppet masters in the teachers' unions throughout the whole time this policy has—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows that that term he just used is unparliamentary. He will withdraw it.DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Assistant Speaker I withdraw it. The fact of the matter is that the negativity towards this policy however it has been motivated has been so relentless that we know that the only effect of putting these schools under the Official Information Act is that every school—small organisations set up to help kids by innovative educators—would be bombarded with vexatious Official Information Act requests which even ministerial offices with the force of a department behind them find challenging to process at the best of times and which State schools almost never receive. That is why it is not in the current Act. That is why this bill should not pass.But I just hope that one day we will live in a New Zealand where eight small schools run by innovative educators can actually be held accountable for their failures cherished for their successes and met with an open mind instead of the relentless badgering and negativity that we are seeing from the Labour Party tonight with the third bill in this parliamentary term designed to sabotage them by political stunt. I proudly oppose this bill and I look forward to voting it down with my parliamentary colleagues later tonight. Thank you."