11. Charter Schools—Applications to Become a Designated Character SchoolDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of EducationCharter Schools—Applications to Become a Designated Character School11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: Can he guarantee that the existing partnership schools will continue so long as they have registered teachers teach the New Zealand curriculum and have the same level of funding as state schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government's position on charter schools is well set out in the Cabinet paper that I released last week. Under section 156 of the Education Act 1989 it is my duty as Minister of Education to consider any application from a charter school seeking to become a designated character school. I am required by law to consider applications on a case by case basis taking into account all of the criteria set out under the Act. It is important that I do not pre-empt the outcome of any potential application and that I make these decisions according to the requirements in the law.David Seymour: Supplementary.SPEAKER: No the member has no further supplementaries this week. That was made very clear yesterday.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I received communication from you stating that not only did I not have the supplementaries normally allocated to ACT but was ineligible to receive supplementaries given to me by other parties. Are you now saying—SPEAKER: No the member will resume his seat—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I just want to make it clear to David Seymour that his disorderly behaviour yesterday resulted in a punishment that he would not have further supplementaries this week and that is absolutely clear. The idea that another party can give him supplementaries in order to avoid that punishment is something that I'm not going to contemplate. Supplementaries are entirely at my discretion and he lost them.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: If the member's going to dispute my ruling he is running the risk of a significant problem going forward.David Seymour: Should other members—SPEAKER: No no—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Now if the member has a point of order that is a proper point of order and it is not disputing my ruling and my ruling is—and it's a very longstanding ruling—that any supplementary questions are at the Speaker's discretion. If he wants to dispute that he will run into problems going forward. And I just want to say to Dr Nick Smith that when I'm trying to hear one point of order to have someone else yelling in my ear on his feet in an inappropriate way is something that he should know better than to do.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'll preface this by saying that I'm in no way disputing your ruling but there is something that has become quite unclear. I understood that you might take questions away from a party in order to try and incentivise them to be more orderly but it seems that what you have done in this instance is remove the right of a member or a party to ask questions at all. Now that seems quite different from what we're used to.SPEAKER: Well I haven't removed the right at all; it's just for today although I'm tempted.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to take from your Speaker's ruling that you view that in this House that you have absolute discretion on whether there are supplementary questions that if each Tuesday you woke up and you said We aren't having supplementary questions in this Parliament any more." that would be completely within your prerogative? In my view if that is where you think your authority as Speaker sits you are mistaken.SPEAKER: Well I think the member should look at Standing Order 387(1). If that was the case I would have the right to do that. I would tend to suggest that if I did do that I wouldn't be Speaker for long.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think—not disputing the point that you make that it's been a long time accepted and part of the Standing Orders that the Speaker has full discretion over the granting of supplementary questions—that process though has evolved over time. I think it was Speaker Hunt who went from a situation where the Speaker would allow one or two questions to having supplementaries on them perhaps up to five and started the allocation process based on the fact that we're an MMP Parliament etc. However I think it's a new thing for the Speaker to start using the supplementary question opportunity in the sort of manner that we've seen today. I think that if you've got absolute discretion then there's no need to threaten to remove or otherwise; you simply exercise that discretion given the circumstances.I think it is a little unfortunate to have suggested earlier today—and we sat quietly through it—that if there was a pursuit of a point of order that you didn't particularly find favourable that would have a penalty of five put on it. There should be no impediment to members standing in this House and saying what they wish within the Standing Orders—that's what they're elected to do. I hesitate to use the word intimidation but standing over their decision-making process I think is quite wrong. Similarly with your decision about Mr Seymour it could have been just that you did not take supplementaries from him and he would soon work out why. I think it's unfortunate if it looks like this is a pernicious environment where the accepted behaviour is actually punished or is compromised by what the Speaker sees as appropriate for people.SPEAKER: Sure and to a large extent the member is right. What I am attempting to do is have a lower level of punishment than asking members to leave the Chamber which in my belief is what would've happened yesterday and again today with David Seymour's behaviour under some Speakers in the past. So we've got a lower-level punishment which is the reduction in the number of supplementaries. The number of supplementaries is a guideline and I use that. I think it's fair to say that roughly the same numbers have been lost or gained from either side. The feedback that I have had both from members in the House and from people outside has been that it has been easier to hear supplementary questions—in particular for people to understand what's going on—and so far I've been able to do it without requiring members to leave the House which in my personal experience was a pretty ineffectual approach.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the point you make is right—that if you simply at the time say "Right well look one more over here one off over here."—we seem to hear over here a lot more "one off over here" than we do any other but that will always be the case. [Interruption] Oh that should take one off.I think my point was that that's because you make a decision based on what happens not an indication to a member who's exercising a right to speak in this House of what might happen if they persist with that particular line. I think that's the danger area. But it's something new we're working through.SPEAKER: Sure and as the member knows well challenging my rulings as Louise Upston was contemplating doing can't be done on a point of order. It's got to be done through a motion and she clearly by not pursuing it accepted the fact that what she was doing was inappropriate. Now is there a further point of order? David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your ruling or answer on my earlier point of order as to whether the punishment was to remove specific question entitlements or to actually ban a member or party from asking questions for a period of time. You've now explained that it's only for one week and that sounds like a good thing. But I still don't quite understand if this is a totally new type of punishment where rather than simply removing particular questions you ban a member or even a whole party from asking questions at all.SPEAKER: Well I think the member is aware he gets two in a week generally. I wasn't sure yesterday as to how many he had left but I assumed that it was one or two and he lost them because of his ongoing bad behaviour. The member has to realise that when he doesn't act within the Standing Orders there will be consequences. And he suffers from the you know disadvantage of not getting enough votes to have other members here in order to have more supplementaries.David Seymour: Oh that's just nasty. Could I ask then for the leave of the House for the National Party to give me a supplementary question given you've just said that all I've really lost are those particular two I had?SPEAKER: No.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a new issue. You made a reference to my colleague the Hon Louise Upston. You claimed that because she didn't do something by raising a point of order—SPEAKER: I accept I shouldn't have said that. I apologise to Louise Upston. That was going too far.Jami-Lee Ross: Thank you very much.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you're considering this matter with respect to for example Mr Seymour we're a pretty compassionate Government and I know it must be desperate and lonely to be all by yourself and I'd hope you'd take a different view to him than the rest of the Parliament.SPEAKER: Mr Peters I have shown him more flexibility than I have to the vast majority of members and I will say that both he and Dr Smith because of their experience have also had more flexibility than most members.Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister accept that only charter schools are capable of meeting the needs of Māori students from disadvantaged backgrounds?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No I do not. There are around 190000 Māori students in New Zealand schools. Around 700-odd of them attend partnership schools. Unlike the members opposite we're not giving up on all of the rest of them.Jan Tinetti: Has he been fair and consistent with existing charter schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely have been. The Government's position was set out very clearly when we became the Government it was set out very clearly by the parties that make up the Government before the election and it has not changed."