Wednesday, 11 December 2013

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Northern Ireland—Sammy Douglas, Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr Sammy Douglas MBE, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Commerce Commission—Minister’s Statements and Proposed Review

1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Finance: With regard to the Commerce Commission, what was he implying when he told NewstalkZB that the Government does not want “another episode where there’s such a significant impact from a decision based on our regulation”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I was not implying anything more or less than what I was actually saying. Recent decisions within our regulatory structure have been a source of some uncertainty. The Government is interested in considering whether our regulation delivers the stability necessary to attract investment to our infrastructure businesses to ensure that customers get the best possible service with the latest possible technology. That is what we mean.

Hon Peter Dunne: What does the Minister say to those who suggest that his so-called health check or even his comments from this afternoon are merely code for seeking to nobble the Commerce Commission for not giving the Government the decision it was expecting on the Chorus case?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know that the member would never infer that, but to anyone else I would say that that is simply not the case. If one thinks of the Commerce Commission as the referee, it applies the rules as it finds them, and we need to do a health check on what the rules are that it is applying.

Hon Peter Dunne: What assurances can the Minister give the House that as a result of this review, or whatever he wants to call it, the powers of the Commerce Commission will not be weakened and its autonomy will be enhanced?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As far as I am aware, the Commerce Commission has fairly impressive autonomy now, so whether it can be more autonomous, I think, would be yet to be seen. But I do not imagine that the Government will be looking at the powers of the Commerce Commission at all. The commission will be free to continue as an independent statutory body, as it always should, just as the Government is free to look at the rules that the Commerce Commission applies.

Clare Curran: Does he accept that regulation is necessary in the provision of network-based services because the New Zealand public spends a significant proportion of their disposal incomes on energy and communications, and excessive charges take money out of the rest of the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think the member would be surprised to hear me say that, yes, we do believe regulation is necessary. Governments of all colours in New Zealand have spent the last 20 years trying to get the right balance of, on the one hand, investment that improves the quality of our infrastructure and therefore services to our families and households, and, on the other hand, ensuring that those who own that infrastructure do not make excessive profits. It is a shame that her party is looking to disrupt 20 years of investment in electricity regulation, which is now among the best in the world.

Clare Curran: Is it not the case that the Commerce Commission made its decision about copper prices based on the requirements set out in the 2011 legislation amendments to the Telecommunications Act, and if the significant fall in copper prices was not expected, why was his Government not informed of this possibility at the time?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is actually a very good question from the member. It is a bit of a puzzle that sharemarkets, which are normally quite good at evaluating probabilities around price tracks, for instance, clearly got it wrong in this case, and maybe everyone else did as well. That is really the main reason why we are interested in doing a health check.

Finance, Minister—Performance

2. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Which, if any, is his greatest failing in 2013 as Minister of Finance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This question does test one’s humility. Without doubt, though, my greatest failing as a Minister of Finance was, as it has been for each of the past 5 years, underestimating the damage done to this economy by the previous Labour Government, and overestimating the ability of Labour members to understand that and apologise for it.

Hon David Parker: Which of his achievements is he most proud of as Minister of Finance—is it the widening gap between the rich and the poor; the collapse of Solid Energy; shutting first-home buyers out of the market with failed housing policies, leading to loan-to-value ratios; 150,000 unemployed; or the three botched asset sales that came in $1 billion short and did not achieve widespread New Zealand ownership?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just to deal with a couple of those things, actually the asset sales programme has been a success. I know the Opposition members are envious of the $4 billion that the Government now has in the bank. Secondly, the gap between the rich and the poor is actually closing. I do regard that as an achievement, given the circumstances of the global financial crisis and the severe stresses on this economy. More New Zealanders have more jobs and higher incomes, and there is some real confidence in New Zealand’s future.

Hon David Parker: If he does not like that list, is he most proud of borrowing more than $400 million a month; the uncertainty around Chorus, ultra-fast broadband, and his Government’s threats to overrule the Commerce Commission; the $30 million corporate welfare subsidy paid to Rio Tinto without a jobs guarantee; Skycity; the sluggish Canterbury rebuild; or is it the 265,000 children living in poverty that he is most proud of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with any of that. When the member mentions debt, what we can say is that it is $4 billion less than Labour would have, because we have gone ahead and partially sold down some Government-owned companies. Actually, in respect of the debt, the Government is quite happy that it has followed a sensible programme. We have borrowed pretty extensively to rebuild Christchurch, to support New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens, and to support our households through a difficult time precisely because we have a plan to get back to surplus and repay that debt. That has been sensible, moderate economic management, which, I have to say, few developed countries have been able to copy.

Andrew Williams: Does he consider New Zealand’s net international investment debtor position of $151 billion as at 30 June 2013, which is equivalent to 71 percent of gross domestic product and $35,000 of debt per man, woman, and child in New Zealand, as further evidence of the failure of his Government’s economic policy; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, that net international investment position is the result of accumulated habits of New Zealanders over the last 30 years. In the circumstances of a pretty significant recession, I actually think it is a bit better than we expected. Given the prospects for our export industries and the growing resilience and confidence of New Zealand businesses and households, I would expect it is going to continue to improve gradually over the next 3 to 5 years.

Hon David Parker: How will his billion-dollar shortfall on asset sales impact upon the $84 billion of spending his Government has already promised from the $6 billion Future Investment Fund?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member seems to have his billions a bit mixed and matched between different parts of the Government Budget. There is a pretty simple fact. When we sold the shares in the Government companies, we handed out share certificates to tens of thousands of New Zealanders, who are the proud owners of shares in large New Zealand companies, and they gave us $4 billion. So the taxpayer has $4 billion where it used to have 49 percent of the companies, and we can now go and invest that in public assets. The Opposition has yet to rise to the challenge of promising to buy back the assets, although it says it is so firmly opposed to their sale.

Hon David Parker: Has he received any requests from the Minister of Science and Innovation to use the Future Investment Fund to fund research into whether the moon landings were faked, so as to satisfy his desired coalition partner?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—in so far as he has ministerial responsibility.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, we have not, but I have had requests to investigate some of the even wackier ideas that come not from small parties but the Labour Party. They are policies that would be very bad for New Zealand, and we will be investigating some of them and testing those next year.

Tim Macindoe: What further progress has the Government made in 2013 in improving the range of negative economic indicators it inherited 5 years ago?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, I would say the credit for progress goes to the households and businesses of New Zealand, which have dealt with difficult circumstances with remarkable resilience and fortitude, and they are achieving results. The economy is growing 2.5 to 3 percent—one of the fastest growth rates in the OECD. We are on track to surplus by 2014-15—one of a handful of countries that will achieve surplus by that time. Back in 2008 the current account deficit was over 8 percent of GDP and it currently sits at less than 4 percent of GDP. Five years ago inflation was running at 5 percent. It is now running at just over 1 percent. Five years ago mortgage interest rates averaged almost 11 percent. Floating rates are now less than 6 percent, although forecast to rise somewhat next year. The tradable sector, which went into recession in 2007, is now succeeding, and we are particularly gratified that the manufacturing sector is expanding and even more gratified that the regions are expanding, many of them at a faster rate than in Auckland.

Hon David Parker: Will he agree that arguably his greatest failure as Minister of Finance in 2013 was not to use the Future Investment Fund to purchase Gerry Brownlee a larger kilt to prevent overexposure to the market, or would that have required an extraordinary appropriation?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility—the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the traumatic event to which the member is referring occurred in 2012, which is outside the current Budget cycle.

Economy—Export Sector Performance and Government Financial Position

3. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in lifting New Zealand’s export performance and New Zealand’s progress toward paying its way in the world?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is conventional wisdom in New Zealand that when we run a high exchange rate, our exporters suffer. It certainly has been a headwind for them, but they have made commendable progress. The export sector has been supported by the Government’s wide-ranging programme to make it easier for the sector to invest and create jobs. We have been helped by the world markets. Our merchandise terms of trade rose 7.5 percent in the September quarter—the largest monthly rise in 40 years—with export prices rising faster than import prices. Our terms of trade are at their highest level since 1973. This is certainly helping exporters to deal with the headwind of a high exchange rate, backed up by sound Government policy.

Jami-Lee Ross: How is New Zealand’s progress in rebalancing the economy being reflected in the latest official data on the current account?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Statistics New Zealand recently issued national accounts data for the March 2013 year. It included significant upward revisions to estimates of, for instance, spending by overseas investors, and this has boosted service exports. As a result, the review lifts levels of household and national savings while reducing the annual current deficit from 4.5 percent to 3.9 percent. That is, we are doing better on the current account and on savings than we thought we were before—certainly significantly better than the 7 or 8 percent current account deficits in the 3 years to 2008. The upward revision lends some weight to the idea that New Zealand is making progress with its external position.

Jami-Lee Ross: What trends does the Minister expect in New Zealand’s trade with markets in the northern hemisphere over the next few weeks?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am reliably informed that New Zealand’s trade with northern hemisphere markets will result in a significant increase in merchandise exports in the next few weeks. Government officials expect consumer imports to spike on the evening of 24 December and continue well into the morning of 25 December. We do not propose to take corrective action to address this trade imbalance. These bountiful imports will be distributed to young New Zealanders by an unshaven benefactor who craves popularity and is invariably dressed in red. Although he shares Santa’s enthusiasm for handing out free stuff with no idea how to pay for it, on this occasion I am not referring to the Leader of the Opposition and his little green elves.

State Sector—Confidence

4. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: Does he have any plans to introduce greater protection for New Zealand’s state sector integrity systems, including the public service, in the wake of Monday’s Transparency International New Zealand report?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: A lot of work is already being done to further improve transparency and integrity and to combat bribery and corruption. New Zealand’s efforts in this area are regularly recognised, including by Transparency International, which rated New Zealand first equal in its latest perceptions of corruption rankings, which were published just last week. The Government welcomes Transparency International’s views on how we can continue to improve our public systems and deliver better public services. We will be considering the recommendations in that report carefully.

Hon Maryan Street: How does he plan to address the concerns expressed in the report about an erosion of the convention that public servants provide the Government of the day with free and frank advice, an apparent weakening of the quality of policy advice that public servants provide, and perceived non - merit-based appointments to public boards?

Hon TONY RYALL: Ministers do expect to receive free and frank advice from officials, as that member will know from her previous roles. In fact, the State Sector Act has recently been amended to include new stewardship requirements on chief executives, which specifically include the requirements to provide free and frank advice to Ministers and to maintain the capacity to offer free and frank advice to successive Governments. The amended Act also includes the responsibility of chief executives to be responsive to matters relating to the collective interests of the Government.

Hon Maryan Street: Is he aware of a culture of fear developing in the Public Service, resulting in officials being unable to give free and frank advice, especially in the Ministry of Health and the Department of Conservation; if so, does he intend to do anything about those relationships between Ministers and officials?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have to say, I do not agree with that at all. If there is a culture of fear in the Ministry of Health, I have got to say that it is not working, because if you have read any of the national newspapers in the last week, you will have found out that people are not at all backward in coming forward with their views.

Hon Maryan Street: Does he agree with the report that the intrusion of central government into local government decision-making has caused people concern; if so, how does he intend to address this?

Hon TONY RYALL: This Government has a mandate, particularly in respect of the Resource Management Act, to improve those processes in local government. Clearly, the legislation is a key part of that. Most people in New Zealand think that that is a jolly good thing.

Grant Robertson: How can he have confidence in the integrity of the State sector information and communications technology systems when the department responsible for the overall oversight of information and communications technology, the Department of Internal Affairs, has its own information and communications technology project that is now requiring a doubling of resources and a 5-year extension just to have any outcomes at all?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the acting Minister, I am not in a position to be able to comment on that. What I do know, though, is that this Government takes very seriously the need to have high performance in respect of these issues. As the member knows, we have had difficulty around one particular project in the education sector, and that is informing better performance elsewhere across the State sector.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Ratification Process, Potential Effect on Pharmac, and Investor-State Dispute Provisions

5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by the answer given on his behalf yesterday, regarding the process for ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, that “the member misunderstands the process that these things go through. She suggested that Cabinet will ratify the agreement; Cabinet will not. In fact, Parliament ratifies the agreement.”; if so, why?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Trade): The Minister for Economic Development, as Acting Minister of Trade yesterday, may have been a little imprecise in his phraseology on behalf of the said Minister of Trade. As a result, the Minister of Trade has asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment to act on his behalf and make the following clarification today: it was not, strictly speaking, correct to speak of Parliament ratifying the agreement per se. In fact, Parliament examines the treaty and then considers any subsequent legislation that may arise from the treaty, but it is the Government that finally ratifies the treaty once Parliament has given its consideration on the treaty and on treaty-related legislative matters.

Dr Russel Norman: So when he said yesterday that Parliament ratifies the treaty, not Cabinet, he was wrong, and, in fact, it was he who misunderstood the process, not Julie Anne Genter?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It was not the Minister of Trade per se who misunderstood the speaker; it was the Minister who was speaking on the Minister’s behalf in Parliament yesterday who misunderstood the situation. He, of course, has been told by the Minister not to speak for the Minister today and that the Minister would get another Minister to speak on his behalf.

Dr Russel Norman: So when Steven Joyce told the House yesterday that Parliament ratifies the treaty, not Cabinet, Steven Joyce was absolutely wrong?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is fair to say that Mr Joyce got it wrong yesterday. It is a very rare thing, but it is Christmas. The Minister of Trade has had a strong conversation with Minister Joyce, and Minister Joyce has undertaken to speak very nicely about the Minister of Trade in the House today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Trade confirm he has got something else wrong in that he has caved in to the United States over Pharmac, which will now see affordable medicines for New Zealanders put at risk at the hands of big US pharmaceutical companies, a sin he and his colleagues promised never to do?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. In fact, the Minister of Trade was actually quoted on, I think, Radio New Zealand National this morning, speaking from Singapore, saying the following: “It will not end parallel importing. It will not involve higher prices of pharmaceutical products. That was never really the issue. The issue is to try and preserve the underlying Pharmac model. There’s been outstanding policy success for New Zealand under successive Governments, and I am very confident that that will not be put at risk.” That is slightly at odds with Mr Peters—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, does he stand by his comment “I can give you a categorical assurance that New Zealanders will not be paying higher prices for their pharmaceuticals as a consequence of TPP.”; and if New Zealanders do end up paying higher prices for their medicines, contrary to what he has just said, will he do the decent thing and resign?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: On behalf of Mr Groser, I have again perhaps been disloyal to him, because, actually, Mr Peters is right. He of course went on to say exactly that: “I can give you a categorical assurance that New Zealanders will not be paying higher prices for their pharmaceuticals as a consequence of TPP.” I do not think he can be any clearer than that.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership prevent Pharmac from buying lower-priced goods or generic drugs, and will the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement make New Zealand vulnerable to being sued if it legislates in the public good in areas like the environment and health, if that cuts across multinational profits?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is getting into a whole range of things that are, of course, part of the discussions that will be ongoing, although I think it is very clear from the media coverage of what are purported to be leaks from the negotiations that New Zealand has been arguing its case very strongly and has been seen as doing that by critics from all parts of the spectrum. But I can only repeat, in regard to the Pharmac matters, what the Minister of Trade himself said on the radio this morning, and I think that that has already been read to the House.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister make a commitment in this House that New Zealand will not sign up to the investor-State dispute provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would enable multinational corporations to sue the New Zealand Government in international courts if this Parliament were to pass laws that those multinationals did not like?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I cannot address those matters specifically because, frankly, we do not yet know where the various chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will land. What this Government and this Parliament will get to see at the end of that, presuming that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is successfully concluded, is a whole range of things, and we will have to consider those in the round in terms of whether we want to take up, and participate in, that agreement. The reality is this: if we can achieve an agreement that is of high quality and suitable for New Zealanders, that would create great opportunities for growth and prosperity for, for example, the manufacturers that the member seems occasionally concerned about, and for other people across New Zealand. We can achieve that with a high-quality agreement.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he commit his Government to ensuring that Parliament has a binding deciding vote on whether New Zealand ratifies the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement if it is signed next year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We covered this in the answer to the first question. The process, which was set up by the previous Labour Government, is that Parliament examines the treaty and considers any subsequent legislation that may arise from a treaty, but it is the Government that finally ratifies the treaty once Parliament has given its consideration on the treaty and on any treaty-related legislative matters. That is the process that the previous Government set up, the process that was adopted for the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement, and it is the process that this Government would anticipate taking place should the Trans-Pacific Partnership be agreed to.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister concerned that the public of New Zealand may be confused as to whether it is Parliament or Cabinet that ratifies the Trans-Pacific Partnership, given that Mr Steven Joyce is confused as to whether it is Cabinet or Parliament that ratifies the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Mr Stephen Jacobi has been all over the radio confusing people as to whether it is Parliament or Cabinet that ratifies the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think we have uncovered a conspiracy of Stevens misbehaving and reinforcing negative perceptions! It is very clear, and, in fact, the Minister of Trade and the Minister speaking on his behalf have today made the situation very clear. I could go through it again for the member if he so wishes. Parliament examines the treaty and then Parliament considers any subsequent legislation that may arise from the treaty, but it is the Government that finally ratifies the treaty once Parliament has given its consideration on the treaty and on treaty-related legislative matters. I do not think I could be much clearer than that.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the New Zealand Government made any commitments in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations to support the establishment of investor-State disputes mechanisms in any final Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is once again trying to get the Government to finalise the agreement today in the House, which, of course, cannot be done, because there has to be an agreement that is discussed between 12 separate countries. Again, if an agreement is completed, it will come before Parliament, and Parliament will have the opportunity to examine it.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the position of the New Zealand Government. The Minister may say it is not in the public interest to answer that question, but I would like an answer as to what the position of the Government is.

Mr SPEAKER: You got an answer. The member may not be happy with it, but the Minister was saying that because negotiations have not concluded, the Government cannot make that commitment.

Tertiary Education—International Education and Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia

6. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What is the Government doing to strengthen New Zealand’s economic and education links with Asia?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Today I announced that 89 outstanding New Zealand students have been selected to study at top education institutions in Asia next year as part of the inaugural round of the Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia. The scholarships cover study periods from 6 weeks to 2 years for undergraduate or postgraduate study in a range of ASEAN countries and China. The students will study in areas linked to New Zealand’s economic or trade agenda, including business studies, law, food technology, design, and languages. Funding of $9 million over 5 years for the scholarships was provided in this year’s Budget as part of the Government’s internationally focused growth package.

Dr Cam Calder: What is the purpose of the Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very good question. New Zealand’s international linkages are going to become increasingly vital, right through the 21st century, particularly in Asia. We need more smart young Kiwis who have spent time living in Asia, building people-to-people links, and getting to know the many different countries, cultures, and economies. New Zealand students will also undoubtedly act as ambassadors for our country abroad, helping to promote the quality of our education system and New Zealand more generally. The applications for the next round of the Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia will open in January of next year.

Dr Cam Calder: What steps is the Government taking to increase the number of students studying in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Prime Minister’s scholarships are about getting more young Kiwis into institutions in Asia, but, of course, we also want more young people from around the world to come to study here as well. Recently the Minister of Immigration and I announced a suite of changes to help continue growing the size of New Zealand’s international education sector. The changes will make it easier for some international students to work during their studies, and allow streamlined visa processing in partnership with selected high-quality providers. Furthermore, the lowest-quality providers will be prevented from enrolling international students. Together these changes will help ensure that New Zealand remains internationally competitive, provides a good-quality experience for students in New Zealand, and creates more jobs for New Zealanders in the international education industry.

Hon Shane Jones: Why does he spend more time dining and tweeting in Asia than visiting the regions of New Zealand, where he is regarded as championing gas and leaving a foul odour?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Dear oh dear! Actually, I travel around New Zealand very, very regularly, and the only time that they ever saw Shane Jones was when he was one of the three amigos in “Labour’s Got Talent”, and they haven’t seen him before or since.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. We are required to hear it in silence. What is the point of order?

Hon Shane Jones: I just want to test what part of that answer reflected—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! When you consider the question that was asked, it was adequately addressed.

Minimum Wage—2014 Review

7. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What factors will he take into account when considering whether the minimum wage should be increased in 2014?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): The Government’s objective is to keep increasing the minimum wage over time to protect the real income of low-paid workers while minimising job losses. In line with that I will consider inflation, wage growth, restraint on employment, and other relevant factors. I have yet to receive recommendations from officials, and no decisions have been made.

Darien Fenton: How will he take into account that 40 percent of the parents of the 265,000 children living in poverty are in paid work yet not earning enough to feed their families?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I take into account the fact that we have raised the minimum wage every single year that we have been in Government. We have the highest minimum wage in the Western World relative to the average. But, of course, we continue through great pieces of legislation like the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to do everything that we can to raise wages overall, which, of course, does have an impact on poverty.

Darien Fenton: Will his consideration include the fact that the minimum wage has declined by 5c an hour in real terms since his party has been in Government?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I dispute that, given, as I say, we have raised it every single year. We have the highest minimum wage relative to average wages in the Western World. I think, of course, I do not want to pre-empt where we go with the minimum wage early next year, but I will take into account a wide range of factors.

Andrew Little: Will the Minister factor in the likely drop in wages for low and middle income workers as a result of his Employment Relations Amendment Bill, reported back today, with its emphasis on reducing collective bargaining rights and loss of protections for vulnerable workers?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The premise of that question is entirely wrong because that bill will not have that effect.

Carol Beaumont: In light of the news today that the median wages in South Auckland have fallen by up to 17 percent and that income inequality is growing, what measures will he take to ensure that working people get to share in the productivity gains and wealth they have created over many years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The questioner is simply wrong in literally everything she said in her question. The fact of the matter is, as I have said, we have lifted the minimum wage every single year. We have the highest minimum wage in this country relative to average wages in the Western World, and in absolute terms it is higher than everywhere else except, I think, four other countries.

Disputes Tribunals—Reform

8. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcement has she made for proposed changes to Disputes Tribunals?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I announced changes to the operations of disputes tribunals as another part of modernising and improving access to justice. The monetary threshold for bringing disputes to a disputes tribunal will be lifted to $30,000 from the current level of $15,000, or $20,000 if parties agree. In addition, the qualifications or training requirements for referees are to be improved. The operation of disputes tribunals will be made more open and transparent by requiring hearings to be held in public. Decisions will be in writing and published online unless there is good reason not to do so. I expect to introduce a bill to the House next year to implement these changes.

Scott Simpson: How will these changes contribute to the Government’s Better Public Services targets?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Ministry of Justice is committed to modernising our courts and tribunals to make it easier for the public to have their disputes resolved quickly, efficiently, and transparently. Disputes tribunals provide a simple and inexpensive way to resolve disputes. Increasing the threshold for disputes tribunals will mean that up to an additional 800 disputes will be dealt with each year in addition to the 16,000 to 20,000 cases the tribunals already handle. Improvements to the qualifications or training of referees will improve the quality and efficiency of decisions. Requiring the decisions to be in writing and published online brings the tribunals in line with proposed changes to all courts, as provided for in the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which was recently referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Publishing recent decisions online ensures that decisions are accessible to the public.

Education, Minister—Performance

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of the decisions she has made this year as Minister of Education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, in all the circumstances they were made, and the decision I stand by most is the decision to invest $9.7 billion in education in New Zealand, the most ever invested in education in this country.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her decision to try to close Salisbury School given that Justice Dobson concluded that it was common sense that the risk of sexual abuse for girls with impaired intellect was likely to increase, and that “No great leap in logic is required to recognise the validity of concerns …”, and that her arguments amounted to “an abrogation of the responsibilities involved in making a decision”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I do stand by the decision I made in the circumstances at the time. We were concerned with how we would ensure we provided the full range of services to those young people who have special education needs along a continuum, from those who had minor needs to those who had most intensive needs. It was never our intention to do away with a residential option. At the time we felt that two met that need. In the event, the judge disagreed with us, but I stand by the decision I made at the time.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her decision to force the merger of Phillipstown School and Woolston School given that that decision was also overturned by the courts and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars that should be being spent on education instead being consumed in legal fees because of her botched up process?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do stand by the decision I made in the circumstances at the time. As the judgment has made clear to those who have actually read it, the judge felt that the Ministry of Education had carried out the consultation in good faith and that there was one element only that needed continued consultation, and that was to do with the costs. We have subsequently continued the consultation with Phillipstown School, and I met with the board last week.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her decision to make the Secretary for Education fall on her sword, at a cost to the taxpayer of $425,000, given that it was a ministerial decision to increase class sizes in last year’s Budget, a ministerial decision to propose closures and mergers for schools in Christchurch, a ministerial decision to close Salisbury School, and a ministerial decision to sign off on the implementation of Novopay, and yet no Minister has been held to account for all of those debacles?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: That was not my decision, so it should be directed to the Minister whose decision it was. But can I point out that under this Government, despite the huge and tragic challenges of the Canterbury earthquakes, we have closed less than a quarter of the total that that party closed—over 280—in the time that it was in Government.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her decision to stick with the failed national standards, given that her own ministry has advised her that national standards have incorrectly measured the achievements of around four out of every 10 students, that fewer than half of the parents surveyed believe that national standards provide a valuable record of their students’ learning, and that, overwhelmingly, teachers and principals are saying that national standards have increased bureaucracy for little educational gain?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do indeed stand by our Government’s decision to implement national standards because, unlike the Opposition, we want to know how well each and every one of our children is doing in every classroom in every school in this country. What we do know is that over 2,100 of those schools returned their national standards report. The member continues to focus on one—yes—useful piece of research that informs us how we may proceed, but, indeed, in the particular survey that the member keeps referring to, about 50 percent of those surveyed actually replied. That would be 180 schools out of 2,568. Of the 180 schools that replied, less than 40 percent related to parents. Of the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement, which had a sample of over 2,500 schools, parents overwhelmingly said—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Tracey Martin: Kia ora. Does the Minister stand by her ministry’s recent decision that looks to restructure staff funding for Pasifika students requiring English language learning support so that some schools will now have to seek funding from charitable organisations in order to maintain these successful programmes, and how does this align with her Government’s achievement aspirations for this group of priority learners?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do stand by the decisions we are making in the Ministry of Education because we have seen year on year, since members on this side of the House came into Government, a rise in the achievement of Pasifika students. In early childhood education we have the highest level of participation ever. At secondary level we have the highest level of National Certificate of Educational Achievement achievement ever—

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. Does she stand by the decision—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. [Interruption] The member will resume her seat. The Minister started her answer by saying that she stands by the decision.

Interislander Ferries—Confidence in KiwiRail Board

10. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he have confidence in the Board of KiwiRail Holdings Limited?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes, because it is worth appreciating that although the previous Government purchased KiwiRail for $690 million just before the 2008 election, KiwiRail runs at a loss, with a net loss after tax in the last financial year of $175 million. The board therefore faces a very big challenge and ongoing tough decisions to make KiwiRail viable, but it has the support of this Government, which has invested $844 million over the past 4 years to assist in the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan.

Brendan Horan: Does he approve of the way KiwiRail runs the interisland ferries, with abysmal maintenance, propellers falling off in a way that John Clarke would be proud of, and the negative impact on our international reputation; if not, will he sack the board?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have no intention of removing the board. The Government does have confidence in the board of KiwiRail. It has got a huge job. This is a business that has not made a profit while it has been under Government ownership. We have put $844 million in. The previous Government bought it for $690 million. So it is a really big job, and we are committed to supporting the board as it gets the business turned round.

Brendan Horan: In light of the ongoing and increasing economic impact of the Aratere falling apart—the severe disruption to businesses, families, tourists, and our international reputation—whom, if anyone, will he hold accountable?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member will know, in respect of the well-reported incident relating to Aratere’s propeller, the cause of the shaft that drove the propeller to snap is, at this point, unknown. It would be inappropriate to speculate on the cause of that before the investigations are resolved.

District Health Boards—Health Quality and Safety Markers

11. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What reports has she received on improvements to the quality and safety of the New Zealand health system?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): Today I received the first quarterly report of district health board performance against the four quality and safety markers. I am pleased with the progress made compared with the baseline data that was released in June this year. For example, 11 out of the 20 district health boards are now assessing 90 percent of older patients for the risk of having a fall while in hospital. That is up from only five district health boards in June. Fourteen district health boards are now achieving at or above 70 percent compliance with hand hygiene practices, and the average nationally is 71 percent. More district health boards than ever are using the World Health Organization’s Surgical Safety Checklist.

Katrina Shanks: How were these deadly serious quality and safety markers selected?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The quality and safety markers track progress in reducing harm caused to patients in the areas of falls and health care - associated infections in surgery. Errors in these areas are major causes of serious adverse events in our hospitals, and there are proven interventions and practices that reduce patient harm. Clearly, that is something the Opposition is not interested in. An example of it is the use of the World Health Organization’s Surgical Safety Checklist—a common-sense approach to ensuring that the correct surgical procedure is carried out on the correct patient.

Katrina Shanks: How do the quality and safety markers help New Zealand patients, both those who are mobile and those who are not as mobile?

Hon JO GOODHEW: In terms of helping New Zealand patients, the use of new safety procedures has seen bloodstream infections caused by the insertion of central line catheters virtually eliminated from hospital intensive care units. Fewer infections mean less time in hospital and less pain and suffering for patients. Each infection actually causes a cost to the health system of $20,000. This is indeed better as well as meaning a sooner and more convenient discharge.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the fact that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order?

Grant Robertson: The point of order is that in light of the fact that it is Katrina Shanks’ last day and probably her last question, on behalf of the Opposition I would like to thank her for her contribution to Parliament and wish her well in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank Grant Robertson for raising that point of order, and I extend my best wishes to Katrina Shanks, as well.

Ministers—Confidence

12. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, because they are a group of competent, hard-working, and energetic Ministers, who are delivering a stronger economy, a safer community, better public education, cleaner water, more support for the most vulnerable, and a massive rebuild in Christchurch.

Kevin Hague: Is he confident that his Ministers are delivering the results that matter for New Zealanders, given that one in four children is living in poverty, unemployment is as high today as when the recession ended 4 years ago, more kids than ever are going to hospital with preventable diseases, New Zealand is plummeting down the education rankings, over 60 percent of rivers are unsafe to swim in, greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, the ultra-fast broadband roll-out is in crisis, and the asset sales have been a costly disaster?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I appreciate that the Greens have a different view of progress than the National Party. That is, their view of progress is that anything that looks like another job for another person is pollution and should be stopped. They are very consistent about that. We, however, do believe we have made progress. There are 53,000 more jobs in the New Zealand economy than last year, and the Greens, I think, probably opposed every decision that was related to those new jobs. I just want to say to those New Zealanders benefiting from those 53,000 jobs that we are right behind you, and the Greens are trying to stop you. Those people will decide how to vote next year.

Kevin Hague: Well, then, who does he rate as his best-performing Minister? Would it be the Minister of Finance, who managed to turn $6 billion worth of public assets into $4 billion of cash, losing money for everyone along the way except for brokers, lawyers, and admen; the Minister of Education, who has overseen a record drop in our kids’ international achievement ranking; would it be the Minister for Economic Development, whose Skycity deal was described by the Auditor-General as “poorly planned and executed”; or could it be the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, who seems to spend most of his time losing court cases to Cantabrians who just want a fair—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Bring the question to a close, please.

Kevin Hague: Well, I will just—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Kevin Hague: Or, alternatively, is it the Minister for Social Development, who cares so much about child poverty that she cannot bear to know how many children are suffering?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said before, we might have a different view of Ministers’ progress. Certainly, all those Ministers have made fantastic progress in their portfolios. If the Prime Minister was here, though, and if he was asked to say who was the most competent, he would probably say it was the Minister of Finance, but the Minister for Social Development says she is better.

Kevin Hague: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his own ability to choose able Ministers, given that this year he has had to sack Ministers from two of his support parties; and is it not true that to lose one support party Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, but to lose both looks very much like carelessness?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think most New Zealanders are familiar with the idea that the Prime Minister is not uncomfortable with discussing his pretty special capacities to carry out most political tasks, including selecting his Ministers, and that is why he remains today the most popular Prime Minister—consistently—whom New Zealand has ever had. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is coming late in the piece for this year, but I wonder whether you could consider the propriety of people clapping like that every time some Minister vaguely tries to answer a question. [Interruption] No, no—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You will not see it in other respectable Western Parliaments. It is a habit that is creeping in from one side of the House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has asked me to consider that matter, and I will.

Questions to Members

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Release of Information

1. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Member responsible for Member’s notice of motion 4: Why did he lodge the notice of motion directing Trade Minister Hon Tim Groser to table any final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement before it is approved by the Cabinet?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Member responsible for Member’s notice of motion 4): Under New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements the executive has the power to ratify international treaties, without those treaties being approved by Parliament. Hence I believed it was important that Parliament state for the record, by this notice of motion, that it believes that the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement must be made public before Cabinet ratifies—or otherwise—the treaty.

Gareth Hughes: Does he think it is important that all members of the House and all New Zealanders have the opportunity to read the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before it is approved by Cabinet; if so, why?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Yes; the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, if ratified, will place significant constraints on the ability of the Government of New Zealand to regulate in areas such as health, education, and environmental protection. That is why I believe it is important that this Parliament and all New Zealanders are given the opportunity to examine the text before Cabinet ratifies it, or otherwise.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Release of Information

2. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Member responsible for Member’s notice of motion 4: Why did he think it was necessary to lodge the notice of motion at this time directing Trade Minister Hon Tim Groser to table any final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement before it is approved by the Cabinet?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Member responsible for Member’s notice of motion 4): This motion is particularly relevant at this time because trade Ministers in the Trans-Pacific Partnership nations have indicated that they plan to have another round of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in January next year, when Parliament is not sitting, and the danger is that in the absence of Parliament Cabinet will ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement regardless, using the urgent process set out in the Standing Orders.

Gareth Hughes: Why is it important for the motion to be before the House today?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: It is important that the motion is before the House today because this is the last sitting day of the year. Before the House can meet again, there will be another round of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The executive has the constitutional power to ratify the agreement before Parliament even meets again. So it is important that Parliament makes it clear that it wants to see the text before Cabinet ratifies it or otherwise. That is why this motion is very important today.

Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill—Purpose

3. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill?

TRACEY MARTIN (Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill): Kia ora. The intention of the bill is to correct an anomaly inside the legislation that creates an inequity between orphans and unsupported children being cared for by their kin and unsupported children being cared for by foster parents, with regard to the clothing allowance and access to it.

Richard Prosser: Why is the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill needed and needed now?

TRACEY MARTIN: Because these children, as orphans and unsupported children, need no less support from their country when they are cared for by kin than orphans and unsupported children need when they are cared for by foster parents. These children and families are struggling due to circumstances beyond their control, and the current legislation is unfair and discriminatory.

Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill—Purpose

4. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill?

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (Member in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill): I thank the member for that excellent question. The bill brings a unique focus to the way in which New Zealand deals with criminals, and criminals who continue to ignore the right of our children to a safer and more secure environment. The Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill seeks to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing.

Denis O’Rourke: Why is the bill needed?

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Once again, an intelligent question. There is speculation out there by some people that there is no need for this bill because existing legislation can deal with this. The truth is that current legislation has not been able to acknowledge the severity of criminal activity that occurs in the presence of a minor. Although punishments have been handed out to those who have been convicted, it is often for the crime committed, not for the damage caused to the children involved.

SuperGold Health Check Bill—Purpose

5. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the SuperGold Health Check Bill: What is the intention of the SuperGold Health Check Bill?

BARBARA STEWART (Member in charge of the SuperGold Health Check Bill): The intention of the SuperGold Health Check Bill is to provide SuperGold Card holders with an entitlement of three free doctors visits per year in an attempt to prevent unnecessary hospitalisation, which is a huge cost to our health service.

Andrew Williams: Why is the SuperGold Health Check Bill needed and needed now?

BARBARA STEWART: Prevention is always easier than cure. Encouraging seniors with a minor ailment to go to the doctor will ensure that it does not deteriorate. Based on Ministry of Health statistics, the cost-benefit analysis estimates that preventing only 1 percent of seniors from hospitalisation will ensure the programme is fiscally neutral, which means it will pay for itself.

Bills

Parliamentary Privilege Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Parliamentary Privilege Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Privileges Committee to consider the bill. This bill implements the recommendations of the Privileges Committee in its report on the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. The Privileges Committee concluded that this decision in fact narrowed the scope of parliamentary privilege. The bill returns the law to Parliament’s understanding of the privilege of freedom of speech by clarifying critical concepts and definitions. It also modernises existing legislation to make it more accessible. Parliamentary privilege is a frequently misunderstood concept, and this was highlighted by the Privileges Committee in its report when it said: “Unfortunately privilege … is frequently confused with the idea of ‘privilege’ as a personal benefit for an individual.” As the committee said, it was not concerned with privilege in the sense of a special benefit for a particular person; its task was to consider matters of parliamentary privilege—that is, the protections applying to the House itself and to the participants in the parliamentary process.

There are two key components of parliamentary privilege. They are Parliament’s freedom of speech and Parliament’s right to control its own affairs—a centuries-old principle known as exclusive cognisance. One aspect of parliamentary privilege is to provide immunity from legal proceedings for actions done and things said during parliamentary proceedings. What is not so well understood is that this immunity is to enable Parliament to do its job properly. Parliamentary privilege protects members of Parliament, committees, officers of the House, others who support Parliament, select committee witnesses, and those who report on parliamentary proceedings. These protections are designed not to benefit individuals, but to enable all of us to do our work as elected representatives. Privilege ensures that parliamentarians can meet, legislate, debate matters of public importance, and scrutinise the Government without fear or favour. These are things that Parliament must do in order to represent the people of New Zealand. In that way, parliamentary privilege works in the public interest for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Shortly after the Privileges Committee report was received, I received a report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege from the House of Lords and House of Commons. The introduction to that report referred to the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and made the same point in relation to the UK Parliament. That introduction said: “Parliament makes the law and raises taxes. It is also the place where ministers are called to account by representatives of the whole nation for their decisions and their expenditure of public money. Grievances, great and small, can be aired, regardless of the power or wealth of those criticised. In order to carry out these public duties without fear or favour, Parliament and its members and officers need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs, free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely, uninhibited by possible defamation claims.” So the same thing is said in the UK Parliament as is said in this Parliament.

Privilege is a very ancient concept. This bill makes reference to the Bill of Rights 1688, which confirmed the supremacy of Parliament. As government evolved in New Zealand, privilege has remained a key element of the agreed relationship between Parliament, the executive branch, and the courts. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 in particular provides for freedom of speech in Parliament. This underlines the independence of the three branches of government, which is a basic feature of all modern democracies. It is important to emphasise that the bill before us today does not replace, alter, or detract in any way from article 9. What it does do is clarify and update various aspects of privilege to keep up with changing parliamentary practices and with modern media. It also brings together and modernises the current statutory reference to privilege found in several places: the Legislature Act 1908, the Legislature Amendment Act 1992, and the Defamation Act 1992. Although the bill establishes one piece of legislation to cover privilege, it does not codify it. Important aspects will still be understood by reference to, for example, the Standing Orders and the customs and the practices of the House.

Turning to the specific provisions of the bill, it clarifies the scope of parliamentary privilege by defining the phrase “proceedings in Parliament”. It also provides guidance on how to interpret the key terms of “impeached or questioned” as used in the Bill of Rights. The bill will also address the specific issue raised in the Leigh case. It clarifies that advice from officials or advisers given to support parliamentary business is part of parliamentary proceedings and, therefore, protected by absolute privilege. The Bill of Rights states that parliamentary proceedings must not be impeached or questioned. The bill clarifies that this means that parliamentary proceedings may not be used in a court to question the motivations or draw inferences in respect of Parliament or parliamentary participants. These provisions are designed to ensure Parliament will continue to receive the free and the frank advice it needs.

The bill addresses other uncertainties by clarifying the protections afforded to broadcasts and reports of parliamentary proceedings. Democracy requires the public to know what is happening in Parliament. That is why live broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings are already protected from defamation proceedings by absolute privilege. However, the current statutory definitions did not anticipate new broadcasting technology such as web streaming. Electronic recording such as podcasts can have a much longer-lasting life than traditional media. The bill therefore confirms that delayed broadcasts or rebroadcasts of Parliament are also protected by absolute privilege as if they were live broadcasts, so long as they are made by order of, or under the authority of, the House.

Reports or summaries of parliamentary proceedings are somewhat different to broadcasts. A report may be edited or packaged in a way that is misleading or inaccurate. Therefore, it is not covered by absolute privilege. A form of qualified privilege currently applies in respect of defamation proceedings for fair and accurate reports of Parliament. However, if it is shown that the reporting was predominantly motivated by ill will or for improper advantage, privilege will not apply. Qualified privilege provides a useful way of maintaining the protection of privilege to protect fair reporting on Parliament while allowing someone who has been defamed an opportunity for redress. The bill extends this form of privilege beyond the Defamation Act to all types of civil or criminal liability proceedings.

The final important clarification concerns the concept of effective repetition. In the case of Buchanan v Jennings, the Privy Council found that a member speaking outside Parliament had endorsed or effectively repeated a statement made in the House. This approach allowed the court to consider the original statement, which would otherwise have been protected by absolute privilege, to determine the meaning of the statement made outside the House. This led to a concern that the courts could directly judge the quality of parliamentary proceedings, which could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and debates in the House. So the effect of the bill is to make explicit that a statement made during parliamentary proceedings is protected by absolute privilege and may not be used to determine criminal or civil liability in respect of a statement made outside Parliament. The bill will also affirm the House’s power to fine for contempt—it sets a maximum fine of $1,000—and there are a number of other clarifications.

So although some of matters covered in this bill may seem esoteric, they are actually important parts of the foundation of good government in New Zealand. The bill affirms that Parliament’s freedom of speech continues to be protected. This ensures that Parliament can carry out its functions in debating legislation, scrutinising the executive, and representing electors, with access to all information. I encourage members of the public and other interested parties to make their views on the bill known to the select committee.

Perhaps, in closing, I can say this: we have dealt with a number of parliamentary matters, if you like, in the course of the year, and I think that the time is coming at some stage for a consolidation of all legislation concerning Parliament, like Canada is doing. I think that that would be very helpful to enable everyone to understand just how this place operates in a variety of ways. Certainly, the Constitution Act as it is currently drafted is unsatisfactory. It is poorly drafted and incoherent, and perhaps an opportunity could be given to tidy that up, as well. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): Can I thank the Attorney-General for his comments. I endorse every one of them. I have confidence in his knowledge of this area of law, having sat with him on the Privileges Committee that considered the effects of the decision in the case of Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and also through listening to his quick reference to the earlier Privileges Committee inquiry into the effect of the Buchanan v Jennings decision.

I am not going to speak for a long time because I think that the Attorney-General has covered the issues well and I have not got anything to add. But I would put on record that there is enormous public interest in members of Parliament being absolutely free to talk about everything, and to be unedited in their views about things that affect our country. Parliamentary privilege is meant to be absolute for parliamentary proceedings, because the public interest in politicians being free to speak their minds and, within the confines of parliamentary proceedings, to accuse people who may be corrupt or incompetent of corruption or incompetence is more important than the private interests of the people who may feel that they are being defamed.

It is that fundamental principle that underlies parliamentary privilege. There is public interest in transparency and scrutiny. In the end this keeps democracy clean and enables dubious things that might be happening in society to be debated within this place in a way that bad things are more likely to be fixed. If we limit the ability of Parliament to go about its business with the fullest of information and in the most frank way possible, then we do a disservice to democracy because we make it less likely that transparency and democracy will survive in the longer term.

It is for that reason that the Privileges Committee thought that the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh was wrong. The effect of the decision was to write down and narrow what it is that is done within parliamentary proceedings that is absolutely privileged. The court found, introducing this doctrine of necessity, that all that was needed by the system and by Mr Gow, who was alleged to have defamed Ms Leigh, was qualified privilege rather than absolute privilege.

The Privileges Committee had some submissions from some pretty notable people with experience in these matters and academic expertise. Professor Joseph and Justice Hammond, to name but two, thought that the court decision, with due respect to the court, was wrong and that Parliament should overturn it.

I always made the point in the earlier debates around these matters that I did not concede that the court had the jurisdiction to narrow parliamentary privilege. I agree that this bill is the way to resolve it, but I never conceded the jurisdictional point and I still do not. The reason I do not is that I think there are some matters of contest between the courts and Parliament where there will always be a grey area in the middle, and underneath it all there will be this sort of push by the courts sometimes and a push back from Parliament as we sort out where the line properly lies in these areas of grey in the middle.

The only way to avoid those areas of grey is to try to codify and define them. Personally, I do not think that that is a good idea, because codification and the risk that we would give over to the court’s future interpretation of that code in itself poses dangers that are best avoided. I prefer to carry on as Westminster parliaments have since the Bill of Rights was passed back in 1688—was it 1688?

Hon John Banks: 89.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It was 1689, thank you. Thank you, John Banks. I prefer to leave it for us to manage these issues as they arise. I like the prospect that in some future time when Parliament is less responsible, there might be a push back from the courts if Parliament goes too far in the exercise of its jurisdictions. Similarly, if the courts go too far, I like the greyness of these lines to allow a push back in the other direction. Through those mechanisms we actually get to a pretty sensible outcome in New Zealand. Indeed, we have got a very long, unbroken democracy as a consequence of the way we run our constitutional arrangements.

Nevertheless, I agree that having reached this point in respect of parliamentary privilege, the practical way, rather than to deny the jurisdiction of the court to make its decisions, is to actually remedy it by way of statute, because no one doubts the supremacy of Parliament’s ability to write a statute in this area and set out the position as we think it ought to be. That is what the Parliamentary Privilege Bill attempts to do. I have got no doubt submissions will be made to the select committee by people interested in these matters, and I look forward to hearing those submissions.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I must say I have enjoyed working on the Privileges Committee with the previous speaker, David Parker, and others. The Parliamentary Privilege Bill is to be read alongside article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, or 1689 in the new calendar, and common law privilege. It affirms aspects of the law and conventions regarding parliamentary privilege, including those in the Standing Orders of the House and from various legal conventions and precedents. This country is well behind other Commonwealth countries in getting those matters up to scratch and contemporary. But the bill does not codify or replace the various legal conventions and precedents.

The Parliamentary Privilege Bill—so that people listening this afternoon understand it—defines “proceedings in Parliament” to include, amongst other matters, where the officials provide material for Ministers to respond to an oral question, which is the reason why this matter is being addressed at this time. It has actually been a Trojan horse for just that. It provides statutory guidance on how to interpret “impeached or questioned”; clarifies the protections afforded to certain broadcasts and reports of proceedings in Parliament; makes explicit that a statement made during parliamentary proceedings may not be used to determine criminal or civil liability in respect of a statement made outside of Parliament; affirms and modernises existing laws, including affirming the House’s power to fine for contempt; and resolves a number of minor technical issues. The bill repeals the Legislature Act 1908 and the Legislature Amendment Act 1992 and amends the Defamation Act 1992.

It is work that is well overdue for this Parliament, in terms of other parliaments around the Commonwealth in particular. As the previous speaker said, in 1688, or 1689 in the new calendar, the House of Commons passed the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was a statutory reinstatement of some of the most important basic rights and liberties of English citizens and it forms part of our laws. Most would recognise those fundamental and civil political rights. For example, taxes can be raised only by Parliament and not by royal prerogative, the right to bail and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and justice is done by impartial judges in courts—it is not a personal matter for the Crown. The Bill of Rights also touched on succession laws for the monarchy. Many of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689 are reproduced and fleshed out in our laws right across all the statutes and in the laws of the other Commonwealth nations that we refer to.

The Bill of Rights speaks to us from the past and it is critical to our future, to the role of this Parliament, and to the rights of every single member of this Parliament because, as I have said before, every single member of this Parliament is an equal. No one is more important or has more rights than anyone else, from every single corner of this House.

Some of the provisions concerned Parliament and its privileges. The general law around the rights of this House is known as the law of privilege. It is part of a rich inheritance of the common law that is every New Zealander’s birthright. The Bill of Rights 1689 is the fount of the law of privilege—it is the fount of the law of privilege. It is what we stand for and what we stand against, when doing the business of a democratically elected Government and as individually elected members of Parliament who are equal under the law, for our actions in this House and the laws that are passed by majority in Parliament.

It is said that the election of members of Parliament is to be free from interference from the Crown, and it is often not well understood that there is a difference between members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown, members of Parliament and Ministers of a Government, and members of Parliament and members of Parliament as part of a Government. The Bill of Rights 1689, as I said, is the fount of the law of privilege.

More important for today’s purpose, it is said that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not be impeached or questioned by any court or place out of this Parliament. That is why we are having this discussion this afternoon. That is why we have this bill. That is why we have got this legislation going through the select committee process around these corridors.

The Parliamentary Privilege Bill deals mainly with freedom of speech in debate in Parliament and its impeachment elsewhere. The Privileges Committee must consider whether the law of privilege is clarified to extend to covering an official’s advice to the Minister for the purposes of answering oral questions in this House. Although MPs often complain about the quality of Ministers’ answers in this House, that is an important part of holding the executive branch of government to account. These issues arose in a case where the comments of an official to a Minister in the context of preparing the Minister’s answer to a parliamentary question was held to be defamatory by the courts in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. It is Parliament’s view that this is a process of Parliament and is, therefore, covered by privilege. It is the view of the courts that it is not. That is why we have this discussion today. That is why we have the first reading of this bill, and that is the matter that is going to be addressed at the select committee over the next few months.

Ultimately, the scope of law of privilege—save any statute—is a matter for the courts to determine. As the law of privilege stands currently today, official advice to Ministers in the context of preparing for parliamentary oral questions is not covered. It is covered in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions, and it should be in this House.

The House must wrestle with two competing interests: first, whether such an extension or clarification is necessary for the proper functioning of this Parliament. My view on that is yes. Here we must focus on the effect of free and frank advice to Ministers operating as members of Parliament in this House, and their responsibility for their words and for their actions in this Parliament. Second, it is also necessary so that citizens be denied a remedy for potentially defamatory statements made by officials in the context of advising Ministers on answers to parliamentary questions.

The bill also deals with the rules around restatement and adoption of statements in the law. Classically, a member of Parliament cannot themselves repeat a potentially defamatory statement made inside the House, but others can do so in good faith. This strikes me as somewhat artificial and unduly complex. In most jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, this has been dealt with. The bill also includes a number of other technical fixes around the power to fine for contempt. I await with interest the submissions on these issues, which will be considered carefully by the Privileges Committee. It is probably timely to shift more of the law of privilege into a statutory restatement.

These are lofty matters, but they are important to the functioning of a parliamentary democracy and to the rights and responsibilities of every single member of Parliament to work in this House in the best interests of every single New Zealander outside this Parliament and in the best interests of a truly functioning parliamentary democracy. For those who come into contact with the law of privilege, I hope that this will allow them to better locate the relative law and understand it. In other words, it is our responsibility, as part of this reform, to reach out to the public, to those whom we serve, so that they clearly understand our responsibilities to them in working for them on their behalf in this parliamentary democracy, this debating chamber, this fount of all legislative change, and, hopefully, change for good.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It is pretty rare that I get up and say that I agree totally with Chris Finlayson, the Attorney-General, but in this particular case I think he summarised these issues very well. I thank my colleague David Parker for further outlining them, and I say that even the comments of John Banks—other than, I think, a slight misunderstanding of how Governments were formed in the 17th century—also made a lot of sense and added some value. I think most members of Parliament will understand that I am very familiar with the case that has led to the change that we are now discussing. I agree with my colleague David Parker and the Attorney-General—I think that the Attorney-General and David Parker were on common ground—that the courts have got it wrong. I think David Parker was saying that they should not have been there in the first place, and I do agree with that.

It is fundamental to having proper ministerial accountability that Ministers can be properly briefed by officials on particular issues. Sometimes, you know, there are questions about the adequacy of the answers that Ministers give, and sometimes there are questions about the adequacy of the briefings that they receive, but to suggest that briefings cannot be full and frank because the officials might face a defamation action is something that I think is particularly unfair, and it does not help us here.

Mr Speaker, what you do at the beginning of every Parliament is wander off to Government House and express your wishes for the House to be granted a number of things, but the most important of those is the freedom of speech. It is the ability to say what is important. Sometimes members of Parliament will say what is important to them. They will give their views. Sometimes they will be wrong. Sometimes, in other circumstances, they will commit defamation. But it is my view that that right—the right to criticise without fear—is something that is very valuable, very important, and, I think, probably not used often enough in our modern Parliament.

I think that the way we have gone—certainly, in the time that John Banks has been in Parliament, and even in the time that I have been here—is that we tend to have more debates about big, party political issues, rather than about the things that are important to individual constituencies and to local members. Maybe that is one of the flow-ons from MMP, but I do every now and again get cases that I contemplate bringing up in the House of people who I think are ripping off my constituents.

The most recent case was that of a man in Wainuiōmata who sells washing machines that just break down. He says that they are refurbished, but they are not. They are stored outside. For a period of time Work and Income New Zealand was referring people to him with grants that those people had to repay, often for long periods after their washing machines had broken down. We have sorted out the problem at the Work and Income end, and the man will go out of business relatively soon. His main source of custom has gone because the beneficiaries in Wainuiōmata now get good-quality, new washing machines, which are not much more expensive. They have guarantees that are enforceable, as opposed to those from the man in Wainuiōmata, who basically chased people away when they came to ask for their guarantees to be enforced.

The point that I am making is that there are lots of cases that we get as local MPs where we should have the right to freely and openly criticise people without fear of facing a defamation action. Some of those cases will be massive, some of them will be relatively minor, and some, like in the Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh case, fit somewhere in between that. I have no doubt that in that case there was a high degree of political motivation in Ms Leigh’s action. I think she was attempting to get some sort of settlement from the Crown in a way that I thought was most inappropriate. Notwithstanding everything that was said previously, the quality of her work was suspect and questionable. She was replaced. My view is that that was an appropriate thing to do, and that to sue the Attorney-General and the person who gave the advice was not appropriate.

I think what we are doing now is coming to the right point in getting the law so that members do have free speech. It is your job, Mr Speaker, to ensure that it is used responsibly, but in the end we will face the electorate, and will face adverse consequences from the electorate if we get it wrong. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take just a brief call to affirm the Greens support for this legislation, the Parliamentary Privilege Bill. In common, I think, with other parties we see that it is a necessary and an important bill to go ahead. On the face of it is actually quite a technical bill. It clarifies some definitions. It seeks to interpret some legal terms to provide statutory guidance. It is a technical bill, but, equally, of course, it has some quite profound and significant constitutional implications in terms of the clarification and in terms of what it enables. I think it will attract some very high-powered submissions to the select committee. I think it is a good thing. I echo Mr Parker’s comments that the Privileges Committee in terms of the personnel is well suited to hear some of the arguments that no doubt it will generate. There is a fair bit of intellectual horsepower on that committee, not least of all, if I dare say, my own Green colleague Dr Kennedy Graham. There is a lot of experience there, and we will observe with interest just how this committee and its deliberations roll out.

It is in a sense unusual in that this legislation responds directly to a single Supreme Court decision. It seeks to restore what was understood within Parliament as being the status quo, the understanding that was, indeed, reinforced by none other than our parliamentary bible, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by David McGee. Of course, the Supreme Court judgment in its wisdom took odds with McGee and was not persuaded by his position.

But nevertheless the bill seeks to remove any doubt about exactly what are the boundaries of absolute privilege compared with the limited or qualified privilege that was referred to. It is referring to some fairly old legislation. The point has been made that article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 is archaic in its language perhaps, but we ought to remember, of course, that a lot of our current-day democracy, a lot of our constitutional arrangements still rest on that. Even the theatre, dare I say it, of each opening of Parliament, when the Speaker is reluctantly dragged to the Chair, reflects historically that it was an uncomfortable chair to sit in if a monarch chose to take umbrage at something that the Parliament had done when the boundaries between the monarchy and the Parliament were not quite so clearly defined. I do think it is important that we reflect that. We ought never to take our democracy for granted. I think that this bill is an expression of that—that we do not want to take democracy for granted.

It is interesting that the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh made reference to an instance in the UK where some British members of Parliament sought to use the protection of parliamentary privilege in a way that certainly was found to be unconstitutional and even unethical. The accusation was that these MPs had presented fraudulent expense claims. The court in the UK found, quite rightly, that parliamentary privilege certainly did not extend to that absurd position where it could be used to protect people from the accusation of illegal activities. I believe that it is still the case in the Russian Parliament—in fact, being an MP in Russia does give one an absolute exemption from any sort of legal accusation and from being taken to court—with the result, of course, that there are all sorts of rogues going in that Parliament simply so that they can conduct their illegal activities with complete protection from the law. Of course, that would be a very undesirable situation to be getting into.

I mention that because I do think that although parliamentary privilege does give us considerable leeway, the lesson from this case, and indeed from the Supreme Court decision, is that privilege is a power that we as MPs ought to use with the utmost responsibility and with the utmost discretion. We should respect the fact that it is an extraordinary privilege, in both meanings of the word, to be able to make accusations, even to make statements, that if made outside this place would be deemed to be defamatory. I think that the obligation on us is to exercise that privilege with the utmost integrity, not to use it lightly, and not to use that power in any way that could bring the notion of privilege into disrepute, because it is something that is embedded in our democracy. We toy with it at our peril. I would hope that no member of this House would use privilege in that way.

I do not think that there is much more to be said. I will just reiterate that I do think that it is going to be an interesting committee process. There will be some fairly in-depth and well-informed submissions made to the committee, I have no doubt. I do think, however, that with goodwill that we will find a satisfactory outcome. Mr Parker again made reference to the fact that there is—we know and we respect—the separation of powers and authority between the judiciary and Parliament. There is always a little bit of a grey area there. I think there is often a tension between the relative roles of the judiciary and Parliament and that is not necessarily an unhealthy thing. I do think that to the extent that this legislation is intended to make clear where some of those boundaries lie, it is useful, it is timely, and we look forward to it going further through the House. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First welcomes and endorses the Parliamentary Privilege Bill without reservation. As we know, the bill seeks to implement the recommendations of the Privileges Committee concerning the defamation action in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. The committee—correctly, we think—concluded that the court’s decision in that defamation action represents a significant shift in the interpretation of the scope of privilege, which moves New Zealand away from the position in comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions. The committee’s recommendation in this legislation to restore privilege’s scope to Parliament’s previous understanding is the correct approach to take.

This is a very important issue, so that Parliament can carry out its duties without fear of defamation, and the value of that accrues not just to MPs and Ministers but to the people of New Zealand as a whole. Freedom of speech in Parliament is the essence of a robust parliamentary democracy and, of course, there is a correlative responsibility for MPs and Ministers to ensure that what they say in Parliament is accurate and reasonable. But it is not for the courts to test that. This is a matter for Parliament, and for Parliament alone. Without such immunity, which must extend to advisers and to broadcasters, it will be our democracy that suffers.

The bill clarifies the definition of the term “proceedings in Parliament” to include where an official provides material for a Minister to respond to an oral question. That is, of course, an extremely important matter because such material is really the Minister’s material and Parliament’s material. So it is very appropriate and necessary that the immunity should extend to that advice as well.

Something else the bill does, as I have already mentioned, is clarify the protections afforded to broadcasts and reports of proceedings in Parliament. The bill ensures appropriate protection from civil or criminal liability for broadcasting reports of parliamentary proceedings, and recognises, of course, that that is a very important medium in today’s society. The bill applies absolute privilege to the live broadcast of the proceedings in Parliament, including now select committee hearings, and to delayed broadcasts or the rebroadcasting of Parliament’s proceedings, including select committee hearings, that are made under the authority of the House of Representatives. The extension of parliamentary privilege in those ways is clearly necessary to enable such broadcasts to take place without any limitations.

The third thing that the bill does is ensure that no person will incur criminal or civil liability for making an oral or written statement that affirms, adopts, or endorses words spoken in proceedings in Parliament where that statement would, but for the proceedings of Parliament, give rise to criminal or civil liability. This is known, as we know, as the effective repetition rule. The bill clarifies the effect of a person adopting or endorsing a statement made in the House in later comments made outside the House, and it clarifies the extent to which something said by a person during proceedings in Parliament may be used to ascertain any content, effect, or meaning of the statement made outside the House. In other words, the rule allows affirmation, but not repetition, of a comment outside Parliament, and that seems to me to be a fair and appropriate balance.

Overall, New Zealand First is very happy with the bill as it is and welcomes and endorses it, as I have said. Without it the proceedings in Parliament would be severely constrained. It is clearly needed. The conclusion of the court in the Leigh case was obviously wrong and must be reversed, so New Zealand First will support the bill and vote for it.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I am going to take a very quick call on the Parliamentary Privilege Bill. Other speakers have gone through what the bill does and the importance of that. I have to say that it must be Christmas-time because goodwill has broken out across the House. For Trevor Mallard to be agreeing with the Attorney-General, and even with National’s welfare reforms as they relate to whiteware, it is Christmas. It is Christmas. In fact, I thought all our Christmases were coming at once.

I have to say that I agreed with Mr Mallard’s comments about the decision from the Supreme Court. In fact, I think the advice that came to the Privileges Committee was that that decision would have a chilling effect on the advice that Ministers could get in preparation for answering questions in the House. The very heart of our parliamentary system revolves round the ability of the House to hold Ministers to account, and in order for that to happen in a sensible and orderly manner, Ministers need to be able to count on the fact that they can get full and frank and free advice from their officials. So the important thing with this bill is that it is actually restoring what was in place prior to the Supreme Court’s decision.

I have to say it was an extraordinary privilege to serve on that committee and listen to some of the very learned discussions between the people who make a habit of studying parliamentary law. It was done in a cross-party parliamentary forum. I think the bill presented here today is supported entirely, and I wish it on its way. Merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Privileges Committee.

Adjournment

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 January 2014, and that the sitting days in 2014 be as follows:

January 28, 29, and 30;

February 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20;

March 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20;

April 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17;

May 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29;

June 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26;

July 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, and 31;

August 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 28;

September 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 25;

October 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23;

November 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20;

December 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11.

Mr Speaker, can I pass on to you and the other members of the Speaker’s team our best wishes for the Christmas season. Of course, it is a time when traditionally we do thank those people who support us in our work in politics and in Parliament, and it is only when you go to write down the list that you realise just how much help we have from so many people. So can we thank the Office of the Clerk staff; the Hansard staff; our security staff and messengers, who had their mettle tested occasionally this year; the parliamentary librarians; the buildings services staff; all of our ministerial support and Parliamentary Service staff, who ensure that MPs are fully supported personally; and our VIP drivers.

Can I particularly thank the gardeners around Parliament, who do a fantastic job of maintaining the pleasant surroundings of this venerable building; our cleaners; the out-of-office staff working in all of our electorate offices; our staff in the ministerial offices; other support staff; our research units; and the Copperfields staff. We benefit from the assiduous attention of all these people, who have a feel for the institution and what is required to make it operate smoothly. I think we all appreciate—certainly, I do—the gentle humour that they use when politicians break the rules, do not turn up, or cause some other inconvenience.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, can I thank the Government’s coalition partners. Each of them has had their testing times this year, but throughout those testing times we have maintained between us our relationships of respect. We have not always agreed, but there has always been an openness to discussion, a frankness of opinion, and an honesty in the assessments, and it is a tribute to our coalition partners that the Government is stable and credible and has maintained a working majority in this House. Not only that but it has actually been able to pass a very substantial amount of progressive legislation through this House with the support of those parties.

Can I also thank the members of the National Cabinet and caucus. If there is one thing that is the same as this time last year, it is that this caucus remains cohesive and is united, energetic, and forward-looking. That is a tribute both to the MPs and to the way that they have applied themselves to the task and to the privilege of governing that has been given to us by the New Zealand people. It is also a tribute to the leadership of our Prime Minister. In his absence can I thank him for his efforts—his fantastic efforts—first, in representing New Zealand overseas. Despite the fact that he has been a Prime Minister for only 5 years, he has become one of the senior leaders in the APEC region. He is well known, with a great network of friendships and acquaintances across a range of countries that affect New Zealand’s interests. But, more particularly, I thank him for his upbeat and aspirational leadership here in New Zealand. The fact that New Zealanders have come through a recession so positively, with more confidence than they have had in a long time in their ability not only to handle adversity but also to deal with the opportunities this country now has, is in no small part due to the leadership style of the Rt Hon John Key. He is so positive and aspirational about his country and also about every New Zealander whom he meets, and we know that because that is the experience that they tell us about when they meet the New Zealand Prime Minister.

The Government finishes the year in pretty good shape. We are overseeing a stronger economy, with more jobs and growing productivity, and that means higher incomes for New Zealanders. We are seeing a safer community, where there are lower crime rates. In the last 2 years the number of young people going into our court system has dropped by 25 percent. We are overseeing a quiet revolution in our environmental framework with the freshwater framework and the legislation of our wider economic zone, where oil and gas drilling is taking place. We have progressed strongly with the massive rebuild in Christchurch, which is one of the single biggest challenges that this country, and certainly this Government, has faced.

We are particularly pleased with progress in welfare and housing reform. This Government is taking more seriously than previous Governments the obligation we have to provide more support for those who need it most to be able to escape welfare dependency and become participants in the wider society. We are changing the passive, industrial model of welfare fostered by the previous Government to a flexible, personalised model that treats every single person on our welfare rolls with respect, responsibility, and aspiration. The benefits are showing every single day already when people front up to our welfare offices, because they are now being treated with the respect that they can participate, where previously the Government system had written them off.

The change is exemplified by Trevor Mallard’s story about the Wainui second-hand dealer. Every beneficiary in New Zealand who now needs a washing machine and qualifies for it gets a new one with a guarantee, at the same price, or for slightly more, as the second-hand one that Labour gave them. I cannot think of a story that sums up the difference better, except for the woman whom the Minister for Social Development saw crying in the Ministry of Social Development office, not because she was being put upon and hassled, as the Opposition alleged, but because she said that for the first time in her 7 years as a sickness beneficiary the Government had shown enough interest in her to ring her up and get her to come to the office to tell us what she was capable of, so that we could help her. That kind of story is being replicated every day across New Zealand. Alongside that we are getting rid of the ineffective, wasteful monopoly of Housing New Zealand Corporation, one of Labour’s favourite State institutions, which has failed New Zealanders for decades and has wasted billions of dollars.

Not much has changed in Labour in a year. The leader is still called David, and Grant Robertson is still undermining him. That is how it works. The big test for the Opposition was whether it would promise to buy back the assets. I am not sure which is worse—the fact that Labour is being too lazy to take a position consistent with being the most intellectually lazy Labour Party that New Zealand has ever had, that it has no new ideas, that it is anchored in 1994, or that it is harvesting the best ideas from the 1970s. Labour members could not even get up and say whether they would do anything. Mr Cunliffe said: “Yeah, nah. If it is appropriate and the money is there, we might do it.”

That was actually worse, I think, than the Greens’ effort. Try to understand what the Greens had promised. You would think that having gone to all the trouble of a referendum and gathering signatures, they would know what they would do with State assets. But they actually have no idea what they are going to do. I cannot find Russel Norman’s press release but it is something like: “We will let them not pay the 50c and substitute for the number of shares that might have been cheaper, and they give them to the Government, and the answer is 63 percent.” So now we know that after 3 years of debate on asset sales, the Greens’ answer—at least the Greens have got one—is consistent with their higher levels of energy, their better focus on the media, their stronger intellectual capacity, and, unfortunately, their greater capacity to wreck the economy. Talking to the Greens about the economy is like talking to Jack the Ripper about community safety. But at least they have got a position. Labour does not, and by next Christmas the Greens will not, either.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): This adjournment debate marks the end of the second year of the 50th Parliament of New Zealand. I want to put on record that I think we should reflect occasionally on the fact that a record of 50 Parliaments unbroken by revolution or war is very unusual in the world. Europe has not done it, and neither has South America, Africa, or Asia. They cannot match this proud record. It does not happen by itself. So I would like to begin by thanking, on behalf of all of my colleagues in the Labour Party, all of the people in and around Parliament who make this place work. You all contribute to our parliamentary democracy and to the important work that we do to represent the people who put us in this place.

Thank you, Mr Speaker and your assistants, for your efforts to ensure the place runs fairly—freedom of speech in the Opposition, fulfilling its role to hold the Government to account while enabling the business of government to be done. Thank you to all your staff—the Clerk of the House, select committee staff, library researchers, messengers, the cleaners who work for us in the middle of the night, the travel office, Copperfields staff, IT support, security staff, the Visits and Ceremonial Office, Hansard staff, and others in the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service. Thank you all.

Can I thank the fourth estate, which plays a fundamental role in reporting news and exposing failure. It is obvious to all of us who work here that the press gallery is under increasing pressure with social media, compressed filing deadlines, and fewer numbers. You do it with good humour and you provide an essential ingredient to our functioning democracy. We have to record that your efforts were undermined this year by the inappropriate release of email and security records to the Henry inquiry, which was looking into the leaking of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) report. But I hope you have been assured by the Privileges Committee report that we in Parliament are determined to protect your rights.

To our Labour staffers in Wellington and in our constituency offices throughout the country, a special thanks for a good year of hard work. Rest assured there will be plenty more work next year. I would like to thank the families of MPs on all sides of the House, who tolerate long absences and stresses caused by parliamentary life. It is not easy for our families. I take the opportunity to mark the sad passing of our colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, and to fondly remember the memories he has left with us.

To my caucus colleagues, and David Cunliffe in particular, I express my sincere thanks and admiration for how you all go about your work, tirelessly representing the interests of those who elect us and who rely upon us. I know this will continue for us long after the House rises, but I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a well-deserved break.

I turn to the year. The New Zealand Labour Party ends the year reinvigorated. We have a new leadership team in place, after a modern, outward-looking process that made democracy and the Labour Party stronger. We had a stonking victory in Christchurch East. National threw all its money at it but was comprehensively thrashed. Why? Because National stopped listening. After 3 years of delay following the earthquakes, the people of Christchurch said “Enough!”, and they sent a message to National—2:1 in favour of Labour. Our membership is up 80 percent this year. Our caucus and our party are united, and the polling is up. For some months now the polls have Labour and our likely allies neck and neck with National. National tries to pretend otherwise, but, as with other things, it is out of touch and in the past.

Hon Steven Joyce: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is MMP, Mr Joyce, not first past the post. It will be the will of the people that decides the outcome of the next election. Whatever election outcome they determine will be legitimate, contrary to the claims of National. National members have spent so much of this year trying to assert that MMP Governments that do not include them are somehow illegitimate or wrong. It is just nonsense. None of the MMP Governments—until, perhaps, this one—has actually stopped early in the term because of a failure of its coalition.

It gives me no pleasure to say that these current coalition arrangements are the most unsavoury of any MMP Parliament. The Government is propped up by Peter Dunne, and Peter Dunne was forced to resign after leaking a secure document about breaches of the law by the GCSB. Even worse is John Banks being on trial for electoral fraud. His is another vote that props up this Government. He follows on from a long history in ACT that is disreputable. David Garrett, the man who stole the identity of a dead baby so he could get a passport, railed against name suppression and short sentences—but he got both. Donna Awatere Huata was jailed for fraud. Rodney Hide was busted for perks, after being the perk-buster. Then we had Don Brash taking over the ACT Party from outside the ACT Party, and then John Banks shoehorned into Parliament by the Prime Minister, John Key, after the tea party. Those two parties are disreputable.

The Māori Party is not disreputable. It is not disreputable, but it is a shadow of its former self. It is searching around for a celebrity candidate because it is at 1 percent in the polls.

In terms of National’s own performance, the central economic plank for it this year was a shambles. Its asset sales programme tanked. The energy companies are all trading at less than they were listed for, and the Government took a billion dollars less in receipts than it predicted. The Government ended up selling them to 2 percent of New Zealand’s population and it caused a citizens initiated referendum because so many New Zealanders are annoyed that National is not listening to them. More than 300,000 people voted for the referendum, more than a million people have voted in the referendum, and National still says it will ignore them.

Let us look at National’s other failures. It has not been listening in respect of the GCSB. In the end we had the Prime Minister come in and say: “Look, the Opposition parties are right. No longer will the arm of the State need a warrant in order to snoop upon New Zealanders, but you can rely upon me—Mr Key. Trust me. I know what I’m doing. I’m not going to let them do it without a warrant, even though the law that the National Government passed allows them to do exactly that.” The Government is not listening and is out of touch.

Solid Energy was completely mismanaged by Bill English and Tony Ryall, who turned an Export Award - winning company into something that is worthless, a basket case that has lost hundreds of millions of dollars by their reckless oversight of that company. They told it to invest more in coal, to borrow more money, and to pay high dividends, and it all ended in tears. This failing National Government is out for the big end of town. Everyone has seen it this year. There was corporate welfare for Rio Tinto—$30 million, without even a jobs guarantee. There was a special deal for Skycity, which was criticised by the Auditor-General as being inappropriate because only Skycity had the inside running.

What happens to ordinary New Zealanders in the meantime? Well, let us look at housing, one of the areas of abject failure of policy by the Government because of its tax and housing settings. This year the average Auckland house price has gone up by $85,000—$85,000. That is $677 a week as housing costs escalate beyond the reach of most New Zealanders in Auckland. I say “most New Zealanders” because most young New Zealanders cannot afford to buy a house. Homeownership rates in Auckland have dropped to under 60 percent. We now have house prices ballooning to 19 years of median income. No wonder people are fed up with the Government on housing.

Inequality is higher than it has ever been under this Government. Just today the New Zealand Herald reported that in South Auckland incomes are down by 16 percent in real terms, and by 17 percent in real terms in the neighbouring suburbs, while those in the richer suburbs prosper. It is not right. In this country, New Zealanders are rightly asking themselves whether they want to live in a country of increasing inequality.

Hon Bill English: It’s not increasing.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is increasing. It is increasing, Mr English. Your head is in the clouds because you are just looking after the interests of Chorus or Rio Tinto, and not looking after the interests of everyday New Zealanders.

Some congratulations should go to Fonterra and to some of our exporters. They are doing well. A Labour Government created Fonterra and then breathed life into it through the free-trade agreement with China, negotiated by the Hon Phil Goff. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, other people seem to have had a bit more latitude than you are giving me. I will end by saying merry Christmas, and I hope everyone has a good break. We are really looking forward to election year and we are going to deliver for ordinary New Zealanders.

HOLLY WALKER (Green): E mihi ana ki ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge members of Parliament. Greetings to you all.]

My baby girl, Esther Lucy, who is in the gallery this afternoon, will be 11 weeks old this Christmas. There is something very special about preparing for our first Christmas as a family. As we decorated our tree on the weekend, as I baked my Christmas cake, as we plan our summer holiday, I have been thinking about the fact that she will never remember a time when we did not do these things. Of course, this year it will all wash gloriously over her head, but I have been thinking about the things that she will do for years to come that we are going to do for the first time this month: open presents from my old stocking on Christmas morning, enjoy a barbecue in her nana’s back yard, and finish the day with a swim in the sea. Singing, sunshine, and family—that is what I wish for my daughter and for all our children: the quintessential New Zealand summer and Christmases full of love, good food, and family.

Two years ago in this debate my co-leader Russel Norman invited us to reflect on the meaning of the Christmas story. “I am not a Christian,”, he said, “... But like all parents, particularly those newly acquainted with the role, the story of change arriving in the form of a baby has a resonance in my life.” Well, now that change has arrived in the form of a baby in my life, I know exactly what he meant. Children invite us to experience everything afresh. The world is new for them every day, and they show us what it is to be truly open-minded. In their ferocious capacity to learn and grow, we see that things truly could change and be better. That is what the Christmas story is all about. But when I think about the Christmases and the summer holidays that Esther will grow up enjoying, my hope is tempered by concern that the country and the world that she has been born in to may not be changing for the better.

In the few short weeks since Esther was born, while she and I have been getting to know each other and adapting to new sleep patterns, a number of concerning things have been happening in the big wide world outside our baby bubble: the sale of more State assets, the commencement of deep-sea drilling in New Zealand waters, the exposure of a casually dismissive attitude towards rape and sexual abuse, the news—although some would call it old news—that a quarter of our children are growing up in poverty, and the utter destruction wrought as Typhoon Haiyan ripped through the Philippines. I do not want my daughter to grow up in a world of short-term economic thinking, environmental destruction, sexism, inequality, and catastrophic climate change. I do not think any parent does.

I would much rather that Esther grows up in a New Zealand that lives up to its clean, green, egalitarian image. I want her to go to school with kids of all races, religions, and abilities and not be conscious of any discrimination or disparity between her and her classmates. I do not want her to come home asking why some kids do not have lunch or shoes. I want her to feel a sense of community, to feel safe riding her bike to kindy or school, to know her next-door neighbours. I want to be able to trust that someone would look after her if I could not make it home during an earthquake or a civil defence emergency. I want the contributions of her great grandparents’ generation, who built the infrastructure of this country, to be honoured by keeping that infrastructure in public ownership, to honour the 1.2 million people who by this morning had voted and returned their ballots in the asset sales referendum.

I want her to grow up swimming at Pētone beach and in the Hutt River, like I did, as well as at beaches and rivers that we will take her to when on holiday around the country. Yet according to the Ministry for the Environment, two-thirds of our monitored river sites are currently unsafe for swimming. I want her to explore our wild and remote places; to marvel at towering mountains and deep, icy cold lakes; to breathe in that unmistakable scent of the New Zealand native bush—not from the window of a monorail but on foot or by mountain bike or kayak, and preferably not with a view of an open-pit coal mine.

I want her to feel safe and secure as a girl and a young woman, to celebrate her body and her gender without fear of persecution or abuse. I want her to have strong, beautiful, amazing role models like Lorde and Eleanor Catton, like Valerie Adams and Lydia Ko, and like Metiria Turei. I want her to be able to marry anyone she likes. Well, at least we can tick that one off. But most of all I want to leave her a planet that will still exist and sustain life for her children and her children’s children. When I think about the global inaction and inertia in addressing catastrophic climate change, when I think about more floods and bush fires and typhoons, and the death, destruction, and dislocation they will bring, there are moments when I despair. I have moments when I wonder whether it was irresponsible to bring her into this world at all. But then I look at her chubby little face and into her big, blue, trusting eyes and I feel a renewed sense of purpose.

The world I want her to grow up in is not so very far-fetched. It is just a stone’s throw from what we have right now—[Interruption] And Esther leaves the gallery. With the right vision, the right leadership, and practical steps to get there, we will get there. This year the Greens have continued to focus on loving and protecting our environment; promoting a smart, green economy; and highlighting compassionate social policies that ensure that everyone can have a good life and a fair future. We have proposed real solutions to the housing crisis, to rising power prices, to improving water quality, and to climate change. We have fought tooth and nail to oppose the sale of our State assets and to show this Government that it has no mandate to sell them.

I am proud to be a part of a party that is working hard to create the kind of future I want for my daughter. When she is old enough to understand, I will be proud to tell her that that is what I come to work every day to do. The fact that I can come to work while still mothering my daughter is a sign that we have come a long way.

I want to start my end-of-year thanks with a thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to a new category of compassionate leave to allow me to be away from Parliament without affecting my party. Changes like these will hopefully encourage more parents of young children to consider a career in politics.

There are many others who make my work and the work of all of us Green MPs possible and productive: our fabulous staff, our dedicated interns, and the vast network of Green Party members, volunteers, and staff around the country who put us here. There are those who make this place tick: the Chamber and gallery staff, who kept me supplied with endless glasses of water during my pregnancy; the messengers; the security team; the Office of the Clerk; Hansard; the library; and, of course, the cleaners, who deserve a living wage—and our families, who now get us back for a few weeks. Thank you for supporting us and letting us do this mahi.

When I return next year, it will be a real challenge, as you have seen, for my little family to help me combine breastfeeding, mothering, and politics. But we are determined to do it. We will be doing it for Esther, to create the kind of New Zealand we want her to grow up in, so that she can have a wonderful first Christmas and many, many more to come. Nō reira, ngā mihi nui, aroha, ki a koutou, and to all members of this House I wish you a very merry Christmas.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The thanks of New Zealand First go to the many people who make this Parliament function effectively, and it does so because of their commitment, their integrity, and their professionalism. There are a lot of people to acknowledge: the Speaker’s office, the Clerk’s Office, the Hansard reporters, all the library staff, and the telephonists. We appreciate the cheerful messengers and security staff for their hard work in keeping us all safe and keeping some under control, and, of course, we thank the Bellamy’s staff. And, of course, there are the cleaners. They deserve special thanks, and they deserve a pay rise. If we have overlooked anyone, then I offer our apologies.

I want to also thank for their support and dedication the New Zealand First staff, who have helped make a real difference in this Parliament and in public. They all know, of course, that their hard work leads to the road of fortune in 2014.

However, it is much harder to be kind to the people over there who are, again, doing a runner early after spending a year wrecking the place. They do not want to face a nanosecond more of scrutiny. It is true that it has been a great year for their cronies, but it has not been a great year for those people who are ordinary in this country, many of whom have had their teeth kicked in, over and over again. Never before in the history of human endeavour has so little been done for so many for the benefit of so few.

Let us list some of these non-achievers. Let us list some of those non-achievers over there—their non-achievements.

Hon Steven Joyce: Get some fresh material, Winnie.

Jacqui Dean: Oh, grumpy old man.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I am very happy about this message, because out there are hundreds of thousands of people who are waiting on the next word. They know that it represents hope and a future and a vision, not the tawdry class politics beloved of that member from the South Island, whenever she is there. Here are these non-achievements. The dream of owning, as a young person, your own home—just about gone. High-performing State assets, like power stations—just about gone. [Interruption] Yes, I might have been here for a long time, but I do not look as old as you. Public broadcasting—just about gone. Job opportunities for the young—just about gone. Teachers’ regular pay, which “Mr Fix-it” was going to fix up—just about gone. KiwiRail—just about gone.

Hon Steven Joyce: Rubbish.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it is rubbish. I will get down to your speciality later. Aluminium manufacturing industry—much of it just about gone. Some of our best dairy farmland—just about gone.

Hon Steven Joyce: Rubbish again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: These are rubbishy policies, I know, but I never expected Mr Joyce to be endorsing them. Much of the foreshore and seabed under claim now—just about gone.

The member for Epsom—just about gone, but going to court first. The leaker from Ōhariu—the serial leaker—just about gone.

The “member for Warner Bros”—the man who is all aspirational and who promised us a brighter future; the agent for Warner Bros, Skycity, and Rio Tinto—just about gone. And we know that that is in line with his memory, which went a long, long time ago. There he is, the head of the SIS and head of the Government Communications Security Bureau—25 people know everything about what is going on, but the man who is responsible did not know anything. He is going to lose being the Prime Minister on that one denial alone.

If I was a backbencher over there, I would not be so cocky. In fact, I bet it is all knees knocking in their offices right now. I know that those members are deliberately wanting to be somewhere else, but I know that they are watching, because I know what the feeling is like when you are about to go because your leadership has stuffed up.

Jacqui Dean: How many seats does that party hold?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And that member over there—look, when that member came in she barely had a wrinkle. She barely had a wrinkle. Two years of this and she looks all worried. She is sweating.

Our friends in the Māori Party—sadly, alas, just about gone. Why? Because they went and supped with the Devil. They went and supped with the Devil.

In fact, this is the most “just about gone” Government in history. Somebody should have told it that it does not own New Zealand.

Hon Bill English: What about the ones you were part of?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ah, Mr English, one promise I can make to the audience around this country is that if you vote for New Zealand First, you will decide the next election. You cannot make that promise. Oh no, you cannot. That is one thing—

Hon Steven Joyce: Play that record again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I am going to be saying it over and over again. We are going to go right around New Zealand, passing on this great message. We are going to keep hope alive.

This country is not the “National Party and Limpets Ltd”. It is not the “National Party and Limpets Ltd”; it actually belongs to the people. Leaders are supposed to be guardians. This lot guard only their mates’ pockets and foreign companies. Ordinary Kiwis are never considered.

We are losing jobs at an alarming rate. What do these political pygmies do? They bring in thousands of overseas students on so-called export education, which means that that economy is meant to be helping our economy, but then this Government gives them a job in New Zealand. So who is paying for the export education? Well, we are. Steven Joyce is a prize fool. He calls it export education, except our economy is paying for the exports. How does that work?

Hon Steven Joyce: Xenophobia.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, “xenophobia”. You cannot even spell the word. “Xenophobia”—I bet that he cannot spell the word, and I will give him a chance now. Come on. Not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound. He cannot even spell the language.

Here we go. He is proud about bringing in tens of thousands of foreign students to study here, and then gives them working visas. How dumb is that? And what about giving full New Zealand pensions to people who have been here for only 10 years? They have paid no tax and made no contribution.

The ghost of Ebenezer Scrooge stalks the corridors of the callous. This Government has brought ordinary Kiwis no Christmas cheer, and its speeches have no change of heart. In today’s New Zealand Herald is an analysis, on page A8, about how bad things are in this country. Look, we have Rodney, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Puketāpapa—that is a Māori word, in case a few of you do not know—Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa. These places are down by a staggering 12 to 70 percent after these people have been in power for 5 years. That is appalling.

David Bennett: Oh, nobody cares about those things.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no, the man with four dairy farms in the Waikato, Mr Bennett, is not feeling the pinch—oh no. Oh no, he is not feeling the pinch, but the last thing he wants is those people of west Auckland and South Auckland, and all around provincial New Zealand, to find out how badly off they are. This is terrible. How come he is not prepared to take a cut of 16 percent? Oh no, not him.

What I want to say is that there is nothing mystical about poverty. It is a result of low income not matching the cost of living. Not only has the Government done nothing to address inequality but many of its policies have made the situation much worse.

What is New Zealand First’s record? Well, in 2005 we demanded, and got, in our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party the biggest minimum wage rise this country has ever seen. We took it from $9 to $12, just like that. That is our record. [Bell rung] We do not just make the statements; we back them up.

Jacqui Dean: It’s nearly over.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know that member’s career is nearly over. That member’s career is nearly over, and do you know what the sad thing is? She could have been effective. She could have been effective if she had not sold out her conscience.

Peter Lyons wrote a very good article in the New Zealand Herald recently. He teaches at St Peter’s College in Auckland. He was talking about these people’s economic policies. He said: “What has evolved is a system of economic apartheid that would have shocked many of previous generations.”, and he is right. They have changed the character, shape, and quality of our country, and for the worse. And, as if that is not bad enough as we are talking about Nelson Mandela’s life, which is a celebration of his achievements against separatism and racialist laws, National is taking us down the same path now—straight down the same path. Separatism for our constitution and for our foreshore, and all sorts of new laws and social delivery, all based on medieval tribalism.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it is rubbish, but let me tell that member over there that there are a lot of Māori in whose name these demands are being made and claims are being answered, and they are getting nothing. And, even worse, they cannot even live in a home.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right—Shane took it all.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, that member can get red and embarrassed, but I want to say this: New Zealand First is a party of traditional values. This party is the party of traditional values.

Having said all that, we will be back next year, lean, mean, fit, and ready to go. That is a serious warning for those lads over there. But, being a party of traditional values, we want to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all of our parliamentary colleagues—and particularly those people who have to work for some of them—the very happiest of Christmases and, hopefully, a very good new year. We have got one final message: hang on a bit longer because help is on its way.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā tātou e te W’are. In Christmases past, my grandmother would always insist that we set aside a place at the table to remember those who had passed on during the year. So as we stand in this, our last debate of the year, I take time to remember those who have touched our lives beyond compare, whose legacies linger on in our hearts as we strive to live up to their ideals. Ka tangi tonu te ngākau ki te hunga kua mene atu ki te pō. Ko te toka nui, kua ngaro atu, e moe, e oki. E tangi tonu ana taku ngākau mōu e Parekura. Ko tāua tērā e para te huarahi i roto i tēnei Whare, i roto i te whakaaro kotahi, arā, he oranga nō ngāi tātou, ngā whānau, ngā hapū, ngā hāpori. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou

[The heart continues to mourn for those who have departed to the night. The great rock has vanished, sleep, rest. My heart grieves for you still, Parekura. It was you and I who cleared the way in this House with one thought in mind, it was for the well-being of us, for families, subtribes, and communities. Greetings to us, the living.]

The adjournment debate is traditionally a time for the political tally to be totted up, for assessment against policy targets, number of releases issued, bills passed, questions asked, and everything that other political parties claim is wrong. So how does the Māori Party review progress in 2013? For Te Ururoa Flavell, our newly anointed co-leader, the highlight would be competing in Iron Māori, racing to the end with his baby daughter as support, his wife and other daughter firmly at his side. For “Papa Pita” this is the year his first mokopuna tuarua came into the world, and life will never be the same again. The Turia w’ānau counts this Christmas as one in which we are truly blessed. We are thankful for the strength and resilience of our children and our mokopuna, our brush with ill health causing our entire w’ānau to re-evaluate all that is important in our lives. We know that it is all about w’ānau.

And so I turn to you, Mr Speaker, to your deputies, and, indeed, to every member of Parliament in this House, and I acknowledge the hefty sacrifice that this job places on all your families. For some politicians, progress is measured against the headlines of today. For the Māori Party, we calculate success by the impact on the next generation. We are thrilled with the stories of w’ānau transformation that are coming through in which w’ānau are strengthening relationships, gaining skills and confidence, and feeling inspired to look towards the future where before they could not see beyond the challenges that they faced. Over the last quarter, for instance, more than 5,500 w’ānau were engaged with Whānau Ora, representing approximately 28,000 w’ānau members. Included in this number are 2,763 w’ānau who engaged with navigators helping w’ānau to build their capacity to meet their needs.

In the disability sector we are seeing a similar spirit of revolution occur through the Enabling Good Lives approach, in which disabled persons work with their families and support agencies to determine what services they need to help them to achieve their goals. I have been so proud of the difference that has been made by Enabling Good Lives and through the Think Differently project, in which our attitudes and behaviours around disability are the focus. The recent controversy around building accessibility has reminded the Government of the basic rule that disabled persons live by: nothing about us without us. My key priority in this area next year will be embedding the Enabling Good Lives approach across every sector of Government.

As a political party we have been resolute in our goal of eliminating social hazards from the lives of our w’ānau. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has been determined to support our w’ānau to be free of the damage caused by problem gambling. Although his member’s bill was broadly condemned, there are few other politicians in this House who have tried every avenue to achieve zero tolerance towards gambling harm, and I mihi to him for his efforts. We cannot let this year go by without drawing attention to the harmful precedent created by the deal that the Government drew up with Skycity, against the very best interests of families.

We also know that the most significant issue that is affecting all of our social and health issues amongst our families has to be about the abuse of alcohol. I have been heartened by the clear progress we have achieved in tobacco reform. The 2013 census results show the number of smokers has dropped by nearly a quarter since the 2006 census. The smoke-free sector must be congratulated on its absolute commitment to educating our communities about the negative effects tobacco has on our health. It is also evident that the impact of Government legislation, including increases in excise tax, is massive in helping us to achieve the goal to be smoke-free by 2025. Of course, we cannot be complacent, and I look forward to the cooperation of the House to progress the plain packaging legislation next year as well. I hope to see changes in the sale of duty-free tobacco and the incidence of smoking in cars with children in them. As a party we remain bitterly disappointed at the limp record achieved in alcohol reform. I want to take this opportunity to support those local heroes around our communities who have taken it upon themselves to tread where the Government has failed, in speaking up to protect their communities from the impact of liberal liquor licensing.

By far the most significant barrier for our families to advance has been in the insidious effects of poverty, the lack of progress in establishing a living income, and, for too many families, the ongoing struggle to gain meaningful employment. The Māori Party channelled our collective efforts into addressing poverty through the Budget process. We are proud of the amazing changes that have been seen through $100 million of investment in home insulation, the increased targeting of funding to address rheumatic fever, and the $43 million accorded to Māori and Pasifika trade training. We would, however, acknowledge that those are but a step in the right direction and there is so much more action required on all fronts.

We are particularly alarmed, as the Child Poverty Monitor revealed early this week, that the rate of child poverty severity where households are both income-poor and experiencing material hardship is twice as high for Māori and Pasifika children aged 0 to 17 years than for the whole New Zealand population. We are alarmed by research such as that by Dr Fiona Ell, which says that there are bigger differences in mathematics performance between rich and poor children in New Zealand than in many other countries. So it is harder to do well if you are poor in New Zealand than in other places. Why is that? No politician can ignore those ongoing injustices, the inequitable outcomes experienced by some populations, which make a mockery of our past ideal of a fair and democratic society.

There is much to be done. We look forward to progress on the Māori Language Strategy. We welcome the permeation of a new mind-set described in the Māori economic development strategy He Kai Kei Aku Ringa—a mind-set that encourages departments to see progress as Māori led and Government supported. We have many other ideas in progress: a greater focus on the prevention of family violence, progress in seeing iwi and Māori housing providers benefit from stock transfer, a new direction for Māori wardens, and greater opportunities for Pasifika communities in health and social development.

Our appetite for w’ānau transformation across all sectors is able to be achieved because of the amazing commitment of dedicated staff in our ministerial offices and the leaders’ units and the departmental advisers. All fully deserve a summer vacation after a very challenging year. The staff of the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Library, and Hansard and our Māori interpreters have also been a key source of support, and we thank them all. I want to especially mention our cleaners, who go beyond the call of duty for very minimal return, our security staff, messengers, telephonists, gardeners, and others in branches of the Parliamentary Service who have suffered staffing cuts and yet never compromise on the highest quality of service to us all. There are many wonderful people across the precincts who make our lives easier, but I want to particularly single out Mary Harris for her expert wisdom, the Table Office for its support in the House, the staff of Copperfield’s and Bellamy’s, the IT team, the buildings and finance staff, the VIP drivers, the Cabinet Office team, and all the friends and colleagues we have made along the way.

I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who continue to demonstrate their willingness to establish an effective political relationship from which we can do our outmost to make a difference for w’ānau right across the land. Our lives have been completely dedicated towards supporting our w’ānau to be the best that they can be, and through you, Mr Speaker, we acknowledge every single member of this Parliament who in their own way are also committed to a similar journey. I wish you all a restful summer. Thank you for your cooperation and your challenges. We look forward to 2014, the year in which the Māori Party will celebrate our 10th year with the excitement of a vibrant new line-up to contest the general election, but, more important, to act in the best interests of generations to come.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): This is the time of year when most people’s minds start to turn towards the coming holiday period and people start to think positively about what next year might bring and some of the things that they might look forward to. It is in that spirit that I want to talk this afternoon. I think it was to some extent put into a little bit of negative perspective by an announcement in this morning’s newspaper that the Wellington City Council is not going to do Christmas this year. Apparently, we are not going to have the range of decorations and other Christmas accoutrements that we used to, because they are getting a bit worn and untidy, and the council does not really feel like replacing them. But I will leave that Grinch-like attitude aside.

I want to begin by immediately acknowledging all of the people who make this community tick: the members in this House, their staff, the library staff, the media, the cleaners, the messengers, the security people, the catering staff, the drivers who bring people to and fro, the Speaker’s office, the Clerk’s Office—everyone who has an association with this building, and all of the people who make Parliament the community that it is. This is a time to acknowledge their contributions and to wish them well for the year ahead.

I want to also pay a tribute to Holly Walker. I thought she gave a magnificent speech this afternoon. Although I might have disagreed with one or two of the specific points she made, I thought that the spirit in which she delivered it, which was really about optimism and hope for the future, is the sort of spirit all of us should be nurturing at this time of year. This is the time when we talk about wanting to be with our families, we talk about wanting to be with our friends and those who are close to us, and we talk about wanting to spend some time winding down, relaxing, and preparing for the challenges ahead. I think that the challenge is to actually walk the talk, to make sure that we do that, and to make sure that we recognise that for most New Zealanders the next couple of months are largely a politics-free zone. They will have their discussions over the barbecues and at the beach, but they do not want to be intruded upon by politicians grandstanding over the summer period, because, frankly, they have had enough of that over the last 8 or 9 months or a little longer.

As we wind this parliamentary year to a close, it is important to reflect upon a number of things that have been achieved and a number of challenges that have been put out there and faced up to, and also the work that needs to be done in the future. New Zealand at the moment is in a rather extraordinary position. We have come out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We now see some very optimistic forecasts for prolonged economic growth, beginning this year and moving into next year and beyond. The challenge, as always, will be how we as a society work to harness that growth in the best interests of ensuring, first, its continuity and, second, that opportunity flows from that for the people of our country.

It is worth recalling—and this is a tribute, I think, to the work of this Government, in particular, but also its predecessor at the tail end of its reign—that New Zealand never ever stooped to the pits that other countries did in terms of indebtedness, in terms of high levels of unemployment, and in terms of levels of social dislocation. I think many New Zealanders do not appreciate that and still feel that things were difficult and stressful for them here, and they were in many parts. I know it is a limp excuse to say “But they were not as bad as they were in other countries.”, but that is also the truth.

That is because successive New Zealand Governments, although they have their political differences and despite the rhetoric that occasionally gets bandied around in this House, have a sense of pragmatism and do operate in what they perceive to be the best interests of their citizens. By and large—and it is probably the best you can hope for with human beings—they get it right more often than not. That is a good basis for sensible, pragmatic Government for the future. It is one on which I think New Zealanders want to see themselves positioned. There will be changes of Government from time to time, but, actually, those changes themselves are fairly constrained. New Zealanders have no love of the extremes, and when the extremes start to emerge in politics—be they the left or the right—they are rightly, quickly, properly pilloried and destroyed. I think next year the next cycle will be no different from what has happened over the last 80 or 90 years in New Zealand.

At the end of the day, when New Zealanders come to cast their votes and make their choices for the future, they will bear in mind some of the sentiments about aspirations for their family and for their children that Holly Walker spoke of. They will not be as interested in some of the sledging, the grudging, and the sort of silly banter that goes on in this place and that pretends to be sophisticated argument. For most New Zealanders, their challenge in life is about getting on for themselves, getting a decent start for their kids, getting some opportunity, and getting the chance simply to enjoy themselves when this time of year comes.

My profound hope for New Zealanders over the summer period is that we are able to have a good break; that we are able to enjoy some good company, some good fellowship, and just some good laughs with the people who are special to us; and that when next year recommences and gets under way we come back reinvigorated for the challenge that lies ahead, we come back more confident about our country’s long-term future and direction, and we come back determined to play our part. My very best wishes to all members of this House—even the members who are interjecting at the moment—to their families and friends, and to all of the people of my electorate of Ōhariu and New Zealand. May 2014 bring you all the things you wish for.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I think a young child needs just two things: unconditional love in a home of love and care, and a world-class education. There are far too many of our young children today who do not get unconditional love and do not get the opportunity for a world-class education. We can have these high-level debates about economic growth, unemployment, revenue, expenditure control, fiscal drag, tax rates, and everything else, but unless we deal with the 20 percent long tail of failure in education, then this country is never going to reach its potential. And yet for so many of those young people who come from deprived backgrounds and hardship, that goes hand in hand with poor education attainment, lack of self-esteem, and, ultimately, no job—out of work and out of hope.

If we want to empty out the prisons, if we want to empty out the dole queues, and if we want to empty out society’s people who have been left behind, then we have got to give every young kid an opportunity for a world-class education. In Northland there are two things happening that the parliamentary Opposition is opposed to. In Whangaruru there is a small partnership school being set up. In Whangarei there is a small partnership school being set up. Let me give you just one fact. In Whangarei 70 percent of all Māori boys fail National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1. Seventy percent fail NCEA level 1 across Northland, but the partnership school in Whangarei has over the last 4 years been nurturing kids from difficult families and nurturing kids from struggling whānau and giving them a world-class education. That has resulted in a 100 percent pass rate in NCEA level 1 in that school, which will be operational on day one, term one, next year. Māori boys are achieving a 100 percent success rate in NCEA level 1, through the opportunity of flexibility in education at a world-class school, and it is the same in Bland Bay.

My right honourable friend across the aisle, Winston Peters, knows Bland Bay better than anyone. He knows how deprived that area is. He knows the history of the whānau, and it goes back 800 years. They are good people, but what they do need is the tide to lift all of the boats by giving them a world-class education, which partnership schools will do, and that is what this Government, along with the ACT Party, has delivered this year.

I challenge anyone on the other side of the House, some day in the future, to migrate from here to Whangarei and Whangaruru and close down those educational excellence centres. And it will not happen. It will not happen because you cannot have kids failing at the rate of 70 percent and then come in here and say that you have got a world-class education, because you have not. Everyone here knows—even Dr Norman, the most illiterate of fiscal “malnutritions” in this House—that we will never get this country great and we will never make this country world class in education until we give the 20 percent of young people who fail the system an opportunity to get a world-class education, the dignity of work, and a future for themselves and their whānau.

We are starting it in two deprived areas where I once located and where the right honourable gentleman came from so many years ago. He knows. He is silent. He knows. We cannot sit back in this Parliament and allow so many kids to fail in an education system that we describe as world class, which is no such thing for those who fail NCEA level 1 and NCEA level 2.

I give praise and thanks to the National Party partners in the coalition agreement. I give praise and thanks to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and, in particular, the Minister of Education for toughing it out against these intellectual gangsters who do not want a bar of international excellence in education for the most deprived. We do. Winston knows. Winston is not as silly as he can look. Winston knows. He knows that the way to success for his brothers and sisters in those far-flung areas from where he comes is to give them a sense of purpose and dignity, through a world-class education.

That is why this time next year those muppets will be there and this coalition will be here. That is the only reason that I am here, to make sure that they are there. The biggest risk to this country’s economic future is for those muppets to migrate from that side of the House to this side of the House. Am I right?

Hon Members: Yes, you’re right.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Am I right?

Hon Members: Yes, you’re right.

Hon JOHN BANKS: How right am I?

Hon Members: Very right.

Hon JOHN BANKS: These people over here are the greatest risk to this country’s economic and social future that we have, and it is coming, around this time next year.

I have got to say that I have had a very good year. They can give it, but they cannot take it. I am not buckled. I am not bent. I am not wilted. I am not worried by these muppets over there. They do not like it. One day I will come back in here and I will make them eat crow. What will I make them do?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Eat crow.

Hon JOHN BANKS: What will I make them eat?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I don’t know.

Hon JOHN BANKS: What will they do? They will choke on the crow. Even my right honourable mate over there, the bloke who wrote my first political speech, knows it is true.

I will finish as I began. This Government finishes this year strongly. It is well and ably led by John Key. The most reliable business partner this Government has is Banksie. Who? Who is the most reliable business partner?

Hon Members: Banksie.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Banksie. That is right. And they do not like it. OK, I want to say something nice about these people so please be quiet. I want to say something nice about these people. The best thing I can wish for for these people is to have a very safe and happy Christmas with their families, in the knowledge that they will come back next year, and the coalition of losers will stay exactly where it is. Is that right?

Hon Members: That’s right.

Hon JOHN BANKS: The coalition of losers will stay exactly where it is because the people of New Zealand know that it promotes nothing, it stands for nothing, it will say anything, it will do what it wants to do, and it has got no hope of getting over here.

I want to thank my loyal staff in my parliamentary office. I want to thank my staff in Epsom. I want to thank all of the people around here who have been gracious and supportive, because if it were not for the people of Epsom in 2011, we could well be over there and these muppets could be over here. How bad would that be? How bad?

Hon Member: Very bad.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Very bad—terrible. So our role in life is to make sure that we have economic security, a stable Government, good management of public policy, a first-class front bench, a fine Prime Minister, and a very reliable coalition partner in the form of the ACT Party leader and member for Epsom. Do you agree?

Hon Members: Yes.

Hon JOHN BANKS: They agree. How good is that? Mr Speaker, I wish you and your family every success for Christmas. I wish everyone in this House lots of peace and tranquillity for the future. I am looking forward to next year immensely because that is the year they are all going to eat—

Hon Members: Crow.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Eat—

Hon Members: Crow.

Hon JOHN BANKS: That is right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave for the member who has just resumed his seat to have an extension of time. That is the most hilarious valedictory I have ever heard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It gives me great pleasure to rise in what has been a good year for John Banks. I would love to see a bad year for John Banks, and I am sure there will be one of those coming soon. Colin Craig’s real job now is to find out where John Banks parked the cabbage boat. That is Colin Craig’s job right now—to find out where John Banks parked the cabbage boat.

Mr Speaker, I want to start with acknowledging you for your role in keeping order in this House. I know it is not easy. The National Party gives you a terrible time, and we here on the Labour Party side of the House want to come to your aid as often as we can when you are bringing people to order. You have shown literally that being the Speaker is a marathon not a sprint, and I congratulate you on your efforts in that regard. I want to wish all members across the House a peaceful and restful Christmas. I want to make a special acknowledgment to all of the families of members of Parliament: husbands, wives, partners, children, and whānau. This job is one where we are away from our families a lot. It is a job where huge pressure goes on them, and this is an important time of year for all of us to acknowledge—Goodness! Santa’s little helper has entered the Chamber—the role that our families play.

Can I also acknowledge all the people in this complex who support us. In particular, I want to acknowledge today the security guards. Just recently in the House we saw an incident in which there was danger to people not only here in the Chamber but throughout the building. Our security guards do a tremendous job of looking after us all on a day-to-day basis and I want to acknowledge them. I want to acknowledge the messengers, the Clerk’s Office particularly, and the Clerk of the House, Mary Harris. I want to acknowledge the Copperfields and Bellamy’s staff. They probably see more of me than they should. I want to acknowledge Hansard, all of Parliamentary Service, and the Parliamentary Library. I want to acknowledge the cleaners in this building. Today in Wellington the Wellington City Council voted to pay its staff a living wage. It is the first council in New Zealand to do that. That is leadership. That is what we should be seeing, and the cleaners in this Parliament deserve that. It is dangerous to single out any individual when we are doing these acknowledgments, but I do want to do that today. Today is the last day for Grant Bamfield, the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. I want to make a special acknowledgment to him and the service he has given this House, and I wish him all the very, very best in the future.

I also want to acknowledge, as others have done, those who have passed on this year, and, in particular, I want to acknowledge our colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia. I want to make a special point of acknowledging the people of Hauiti Marae, who looked after us so incredibly well when we were there in April this year. The love and support they showed Parekura and his whānau was amazing. Parekura’s advice to all of us was to hold the line, and that is what we in the Labour Party will continue to do. He used to say that he was the last of the manual labourers in this House. Well, what I want to say to Parekura is that we remember that. We remember who it is that we are here to represent, as he reminded us so often. The one lesson I draw from the time we spent around his tangi and talking to people about him was the fact that he understood he was here in this Parliament as a representative of his people and of the people of his community. He ensured that every day he remembered where he came from and who had brought him here. I think of Parekura every day and I miss him greatly.

This has been an interesting year for the Labour Party, but it is a year that we end in tremendously good heart. One very, very good outcome of Parekura’s sad passing was the arrival of Meka Whaitiri to our caucus. Meka has already made a great contribution and will continue to do so. Soon she will be joined by Poto Williams, a person who—we learnt in the Christchurch East by-election—is a woman of great character. She did ruin a potential family reunion for you, Mr Speaker, in this House, but I think she will add a great deal to this Chamber, and we are looking forward very, very much to seeing her with us in the new year.

Can I further acknowledge my counterpart on the other side of the House, the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee. As I have got to grips with my job as the shadow Leader of the House, I often say to people outside of Parliament that there is only one person in Parliament who could cast a shadow big enough for me, and that is Gerry Brownlee. I have to say that Gerry Brownlee’s recent kilt-wearing episode has exposed more than we wanted to know. When the Labour Party asks for transparency from this Government, that is not what we mean. I have to say that Gerry Brownlee’s shift from roads of national significance to underwear of national significance is best left for history. As one colleague remarked: “It was bad enough hearing about his Peka Peka road; thank goodness he wasn’t talking about Transmission Gully.” The Labour Party—[Interruption] Here we go.

The Labour Party does indeed end this year in extremely good heart. We have emerged stronger and clearer in our purpose from our leadership contest, and what a contest it was. Three exceptional, attractive, and modest candidates toured the country, and we ended that process in a far, far stronger place. What colleagues of mine heard from me many times on that journey was the fact that as a Labour Party we have to remember what it is that we stand for at our core, and it is, in the words of Norman Kirk, a job, a home, a family, and a future. They are the core things that give the basis for New Zealanders to live their lives well and have opportunity. That is what the Labour Party will bring to New Zealand when we are elected into Government at the end of next year. There will be hope and opportunity for all New Zealanders, not just for John Key’s cronies and the lucky few whom the National Party looks after but for New Zealanders who want the dignity of work, who know that other citizens deserve compassion and hope, who want to protect the environment, and who want to be proud of their country on the world stage. That is the kind of Government that the Labour Party will bring after next year, under David Cunliffe’s leadership.

But what of National’s year? From Aaron Gilmore to Ian Fletcher, it has been a year to forget for John Key—and, fortunately, he has forgotten most of what happened this year. But let us just remind him of one or two things: the fact that he forgot he called Ian Fletcher up to give him the job, the fact that he forgot the name of the German in the mansion, and the fact that he cannot remember what he did in 1981. But at least he has not forgotten who he is, unlike the US and UK media. The “unnamed guest” is how we will remember John Key at the end of this year, and if only he had taken Aaron Gilmore with him he could have told everybody who he was.

But this year for John Key ends, I think, a little like his own version of A Christmas Carol. As everybody knows, A Christmas Carol has three important characters. Firstly, there is the Ghost of Christmas Past. It will not surprise colleagues to know that the Ghost of Christmas Past arrived on a cabbage boat. John Banks is indeed John Key’s recipient of something we have talked about in this House before—a politically transmitted disease. Anybody who touches John Key ends up with a PTD, and that is certainly what happened in the case of John Banks. I think the National Party might have worked out that it has had two mixed-ownership model failures this year. The first of those is in asset sales, and the second of those is the ACT Party. The hostile takeover from Don Brash did not work, inserting John Banks did not work, and the ACT Party is, indeed, now the Ghost of Christmas Past.

Then there is the Ghost of Christmas Present. There are a few people who could be up for this, but I think that has to be Peter Dunne, a man who has never seen an issue that he did not want to be on all sides of. Will the National Party do a dodgy deal with him in Ōhariu? I suspect that it probably will. The highlight for Mr Dunne this year is still to come: being the elf in the Johnsonville Christmas parade. That is the highlight of the year for the Ghost of Christmas Present, Peter Dunne. Then there is the Ghost of Christmas Future. In Charles Dickens’ book this is the person who brings visions of a dire future. Well, the Ghost of Christmas Future is, indeed, Colin Craig—putting the fun back into fundamentalists and the crazy into Craig. He is the next cab off the rank for the National Party. Expect a coalition agreement with chemtrails, moon landings, and a working party on that question of our time: which came first—the chicken or the egg?

I want to wish all colleagues a merry Christmas and all people around New Zealand a safe and restful holiday.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, I feel obliged to start this afternoon by congratulating you on your year. I think you have had a very, very good year, stamping your authority on the House. There are always those black moments in anyone’s career, and occasionally when one is persuaded by Parliament’s head prefect to take a particular course of action, then there can be an expectation that there might be some disappointment somewhere else. But it does not last, and I do congratulate you. I wish your family all the best for this coming Christmas season.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I also want to thank the Clerk of the House for her work this year and for the huge team of people she has working with her, servicing select committees, etc., and making the work of Parliament progress very smoothly. Also, I would like to thank all of those support staff who have been mentioned by speakers before. I will not rehearse the whole list, but they do make a difference to our lives, we do appreciate them, and we do wish them and their families every good wish over this coming Christmas season.

One of the highlights for the year, I think—apart from the political things that I will come to in a minute—in terms of Parliament itself has been the maturing of the Business Committee and its ability to have an influence on the way in which Parliament works. I think that we often get into conflicts over bills, and that is appropriate—that is a policy debate that we should always have and we should set time aside for it—but this year there have been 144 bills passed. Mr Speaker, I do not want to go through the statistics that I know that you are going to talk to the House about later, but when you think about that, not all of them are opposed by everybody in Opposition.

The pleasing thing, I think, is that we have got to a point where if there are bills that we all agree on and if there are courses of action that we all agree on, then we can have parliamentary processes that allow those things to occur. We have processes that allow those bills to progress, to get, as they should, the appropriate scrutiny of the House—most often, select committee scrutiny—but to progress none the less. This year saw us use nine occasions where extended hours were granted by the Business Committee, and a lot of business was transacted. In particular, I think that if it becomes a tradition in the House—and it always takes time for those things to bed in—that Treaty of Waitangi legislation is dealt with in this way, then I think that we are on a very, very good track. So I want to offer my thanks to all those who are on the Business Committee.

At the start of the year the Hon Trevor Mallard occupied the shadow Leader of the House role, and I got on very well with him. He is a very hard player. He knows what his team wants to fight, and he buys that time very successfully. More recently, Grant Robertson coming to the table has seen a continuation of the way in which we can have a discussion about what matters to which party and how time should be allocated.

I would hate the public to think that we are doing some sort of a cook-up deal here. We are most certainly not. There is no way in which the Business Committee actually goes about identifying where support lies for particular bills. It is a self-declaration. In that regard, I would also very much like to compliment Gareth Hughes for his very positive contribution to making Parliament run smoothly. And Barbara Stewart—we always appreciate your contributions. You have a very gentle way of making us all see common sense, and we very much appreciate that. I say to those who are Independent and come to that committee that their influence is also significant, as is the quiet influence of Te Ururoa Flavell, who always makes sure that his party’s position is well represented.

So all I am saying is that I think we have had a year where, moving from the new Standing Orders that were promulgated in the year prior, we have seen quite a maturing in that body, and I hope that it continues for many, many decades to come.

This year, though, saw another huge commitment from our Opposition to staying in Opposition. I think that what we saw with the “Labour Idol” approach was a demonstration to all of New Zealand that it did not matter which one of them you chose, none of them was up to it. And then, of course, we have seen a kind of conditional acceptance of David Cunliffe, and there is this hope that you see on the faces over on the other side of the House every day—the strained hope that he will not say something stupid, that he will not go off the deep end, that he will not raise his hands in victory before he has even got off the start line, and that he will not start making claims in desperation, as Opposition leaders do when they know they are in so much trouble.

The difficulty then, of course, is what is the platform? What is Labour going out to offer New Zealand in 2014? Absolutely nothing. We have got some of the lowest unemployment New Zealand has ever seen. We have got an economy growing at an enormous rate. We have got an education system that is redeveloping itself in a way that I think does give choice, particularly to parents, and, more than that, it gives information to parents. Those are the sorts of things that New Zealanders vote on. We are seeing increases in the number of people working on the front lines of law and order, and when it comes to health, this Government has a record that is completely enviable by any Government that has ever gone before it. In addition to that, we have had the very successful divestment of some State assets to provide a future investment fund, and this is where the rubber really hits the road. The first point is that New Zealanders still control all of those companies. The second point is that the Government holds, on behalf of New Zealanders, majority shares in all of those companies. So nothing happens with those companies without that shareholder being satisfied. What it also means is that the reckless days of a Labour Government, when tens of thousands of New Zealanders lost their money, when any cowboy in town could set themselves up as a finance company, offer dodgy prospectuses, and take billions of dollars off New Zealanders, are gone. They now have some solid blue chips that they can invest in. And just watch what happens to that price. It will rise, without a doubt, as New Zealanders recognise the value of a secure investment.

The real point here, though, is that there is a $4 billion gap—at least—between what we are able to do as a Government and what our opponents are trying to promise as a Government-in-waiting. The only way that that gap gets filled up is if the hands go into the pockets of the workers of this country and take more out. That is what Labour is going to have to campaign on in 2014. It is going to have to go to hard-working New Zealanders and say: “We can do everything the other side is doing better, but you’re going to have to pay much higher taxes, much higher charges, and bigger costs in your daily life because interest rates will rise and everything else that goes with that.”

We are hearing a lot from the Labour Party about the so-called housing crisis in New Zealand.

Hon Member: So-called?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I say it is a so-called housing crisis because it is a crisis only as long as it remains unsolved. This Government has moved in partnership with Auckland to create a huge opportunity for developers and a huge opportunity for builders, and we have done the same thing in Christchurch and we are seeing those consents coming through. We are seeing a change. Under Nick Smith’s leadership, Housing New Zealand is probably in the most innovative phase that it has ever been in under any stewardship prior to Dr Smith’s.

So the question is how Labour will fill up the $4 billion gap. The answer is only by tax. How is it going to get its building programme done? Just on that, may I say a short word to the building supply companies in New Zealand. Do not push your luck. I have had recent experience of taking some prices for a particular project and I found that the price range and differential can be up to 20 percent. At the high end of that market are the very people who are going out there saying they are seeing an escalation in building costs of 1 to 1.5 percent a month. No Government will sit idly and tolerate that.

I do want to conclude by wishing every member of the House a merry Christmas—even those who heckled me so viciously over the last year, and Grant Robertson, in particular, a man who I know feels the cold in my shadow a lot. I want to assure him that if he is inside that shadow and he steps too close, there is no way he is going to get warm.

Mr Speaker, congratulations to you on your year, and congratulations to Mary Harris on the way the House has operated. To everyone here, I wish you a very peaceful, restful, and, hopefully, merry Christmas.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is with a great sense of pride that I rise to speak for the first time, actually, in the adjournment debate in this House. I am proud to do that because I do it in my role as Labour’s chief whip. I am very, very proud to be the chief whip of such a fine bunch of men and women, who are deeply principled, hard-working, and absolutely ambitious for this country.

What a year we have had. We have had everything thrown at us, yet we have gone from strength to strength as a caucus, and we finish off this year in great heart. It has been a big year for us, and I think that one of the events that was very difficult for our caucus this year was to lose a wonderful colleague in the Hon Parekura Horomia. Parekura was a big man with a big heart and big mana, and he made a big contribution to our caucus. Therefore, he left a big hole. It was such a big hole that I think, in fact, as we are having our discussions, our debates, and our caucus meetings, you can still imagine what Parekura would say in the various debates and issues that we talk about—such was his contribution and his impact on our caucus.

After farewelling Parekura and reflecting on all that he meant, all that he had done, and the values that he held dear, we went on to fight and win the by-election in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I was very, very thrilled to see Meka Whaitiri join our caucus as a result of that. Of course, that was not any old by-election, as if there is such a thing as any old by-election. They are all really interesting in their own right. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is a Māori electorate. It is one of those monsters of electorates, where there are various pockets of people living sometimes in areas of isolation. It was actually quite disturbing to see some of the poverty in that electorate when we fought that by-election. Of course, going out and connecting with people in the by-election was a very exciting thing for us and a wonderful win for us. So that was the No. 1 by-election, after having lost a dear colleague.

Then we had to spend some time campaigning hard against asset sales, against the Government selling some of our most valuable assets. We knew that New Zealanders, in overwhelming numbers, firmly do not believe in their assets being sold, because, sadly, we have seen it all before. In the Labour Party we have learnt from those past errors, and we now join with the New Zealand public in saying “No more.”—no more selling our State assets. So we worked hard to gather signatures in what I believe was the largest referendum of its kind in New Zealand. And the Labour caucus was an important part of that. We have been involved in that.

Then we had a leadership contest. The Government members said it would be a disaster. They said we would rip ourselves apart. They said that Labour would regret having invited its membership to have a say over the leadership contest. Well, I can tell them right now that Labour does not regret it for 1 minute. What the Government members do not understand is that this was a triumph of democratic participation. It was an absolute triumph. The naysayers do not understand how important it is to empower people by involving them in decision-making processes. But Labour knew that actually involving people would be a triumph of democratic participation.

It is a triumph for David Cunliffe. He now has the strongest mandate of any New Zealand Labour leader as a result of that leadership contest. That is because Labour made a decision to actually go forward. It is a progressive party and I think New Zealanders have seen that this year. We have then gone on to fight and win comprehensively—I think we called it a stonking great win, and it was—in the Christchurch East by-election. I so look forward next year to seeing Poto Williams join us in this debating chamber.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You held a seat you’ve had for 90 years.

SUE MORONEY: We doubled the party vote for Labour in Christchurch East, and the National Party managed to halve the party vote that it got in Christchurch East during that by-election. So it has been a great win and the start of a great end to our year.

In amongst all of that we have been doing what good Opposition parties do. We have been coming here and representing the views of New Zealanders, we have been representing constituents, and we have been debating the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We have been debating the issues that matter and we have introduced a number of bills this year on issues that matter to New Zealanders. I want to recall, and congratulate my colleague Dr David Clark on winning support for, despite opposition from the Government, his Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, which gave all New Zealanders the ability to actually enjoy 11 full statutory holidays a year, no matter what day of the week they fell on. Also, in the spirit of the great Labour team that we are, can I congratulate Grant Robertson on his drafting of that bill before it was pulled from the ballot. These are the issues that actually matter to New Zealanders. They make people’s lives better and they come from Labour.

I also want to congratulate my colleague Louisa Wall on her win with the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill—the marriage equality bill, as it came to be known. Well done, Louisa. Again, that is Labour making progress on issues that make a real difference to New Zealanders.

We have also had debates on—oh, gosh, I am going to come to one of my own bills now—privacy. And do we not need that—the Government voted that bill down, unfortunately. This one did not see past the light of day of its first reading. But Labour brought that debate to this debating chamber, to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner could do her job with more tools. We have debated the Care of Children Law Reform Bill, brought forward by Jacinda Ardern. We have debated keeping the dairy industry—Fonterra—safely in New Zealand hands, with a very good bill brought forward by Damien O’Connor. We have debated, and brought to the debate in this Chamber, the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill from Moana Mackey to ensure that we uphold our environmental standards. And we have debated redundancy payments for workers. And is it not a sad indictment on this Government that despite its track record on thousands of New Zealanders losing their jobs and their incomes, it could not see its way fit to supporting Labour’s bill to ensure that workers had some redundancy pay if they lost their job through no fault of their own.

Next year we are going to look forward to even more, because bills introduced by Labour this year, which we will get to debate in the new year, include the Education (Food in Schools) Bill, and the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill—I think Iain Lees-Galloway, who is sitting beside me, will be very pleased about that bill—which is going to make this place operate in a fairer way. It is going to ensure that we do not have the coat-tailing that currently happens through the electoral process.

The Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, being brought forward by Phil Twyford, will ensure that we have healthy homes and that rental homes in New Zealand meet minimum standards of heating and insulation. The Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill—the Government has picked this up in the Land Transport Amendment Bill. It thinks that Labour has done such a good job on this that it wants to pick up our idea and has turned it into a Government bill, but we are watching. We have still got our bill sitting there on the Order Paper, should the Government not live up to our expectations on it. We are going to be debating—because Labour will bring it to the debating chamber—the Overseas Investment (Owning our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill and the Underground Coal Mining Safety Bill.

So Labour has had a lot on its plate this year, and we have taken it up with great gusto. We have ended the year in a stronger position than we started in, and the strength will continue to go forward.

Can I take my final minute to wish everyone in this complex a very merry Christmas. I want to start by thanking particularly our staff, the Labour staff, because we could not have done any of this without their support and their valuable and committed input to it. On behalf of the Labour Party I want to thank all of the staff who make this complex work—the messengers, the security guards, the library staff, the cleaners, the gardeners, the caterers—all of the many people who make this place tick in the way that it does. Finally, Mr Speaker, can I wish you and the staff of the Office of the Clerk a very merry Christmas. We are very much looking forward to 2014. Bring it on.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): This time of year is frequently referred to as the silly season. Consequently, my speech on behalf of the Greens will follow the fabulous example set by the honourable Grant Robertson last year during the adjournment debate. I wish to offer you a Christmas carol:

O come, all ye faithful, all ye politicians

O come ye, o come ye, let’s reflect on this year

Maurice Williamson had an epiphany

When we got marriage equality

But John Banks he got amnesia

But spying got much easier

The benefits just got measlier

For some there’s no Christmas cheer

Come, casino owners

Come, ye money-launderers

Come, ye thieves and P dealers

We’ve a gift from Santa Claus

An Auckland convention centre, bought with gambling concessions

Skycity reaps the profits

But it will surely cost us

With the social harm it fosters when we sell our gambling laws

Come, ye oil prospectors

Come, ye goldmine owners

Come, frack and drill us, we’ll clean up after you

And if you get protestors, we’ll chuck them in the Gulag

Our environment’s expendable

But royalties are spendable

Though an oil spill’s not mendable, but what’s a beach or two?

Sing choirs of workers, sing in opposition

Employment law changes will drive wages down

Youth rates for young folk, 90-day work trials

No bargaining collectively, despite gains in productivity, does nought for inequality; we need a living wage now

So come, all ye voters, we have a referendum

Come, all ye citizens of Aotearoa

They are selling off our assets to pay for all those tax cuts

O come, let us abhor that

O come, let us not vote for that

The Government can’t ignore that, because it’s election year next year.

The holiday season is traditionally a time for peace and goodwill towards all humankind. So as we head into the new year, we Greens are mindful that all citizens of Aotearoa deserve a good life and a fair future, and next year we pledge to continue to work to preserve our precious environment. We will continue to sing in opposition to social injustice and to economic vandalism, because we have a vision for a cleaner, fairer, greener New Zealand.

I want to add my thanks and acknowledgments to all those people whom others have named so well, who have supported us both inside the House and outside of it. Finally, I want to wish you, Mr Speaker, a very happy Christmas, and to everyone: all the best for the festive season.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I echo the thanks expressed already to the very many people who make this place, our Parliament, work. I do want to make particular mention of three teams who have enabled me to operate as an effective Independent MP. First is my team of Phil Lyth, Mike and Karylene O’Neill, and Peter Morse and my beautiful wife, Miranda. To our Clerk, Mary Harris, and her team of capable people associated with supporting the House—these people have been absolutely wonderful in providing answers and advice for me, and I thank you very much. Mention must be made of the Parliamentary Library, a team of tireless researchers led by Peter Quin. To function, again as an effective MP, my team and I make heavy use of their services, and the one job I have dared not ask the library is how many jobs my team and I have lodged with them this year. I would like to thank some of the very good people who have left Parliamentary Service in the past 12 months. Geoff, Errol, Sophia, Mike, Grant, Alex, and there are others. I must say that services have diminished somewhat in your absence and we miss you.

In this year I have talked with and dealt with parties and members across the House, and I thank Gareth Hughes and the Green caucus for their commitment to democracy in casting my proxy vote. I thank Labour MPs, particularly Sue Moroney and Grant Robertson, and their predecessors. We talk, and although we do not always agree, we always engage positively. I thank Te Ururoa Flavell and his two ministerial colleagues—also Hone Harawira has been very good to work with.

I thank the National members and Ministers who have provided time for meetings on a range of subjects. I also acknowledge Katrina Shanks, who is leaving this House, taking a new direction. Over the last 2 years I have valued her input on the Māori Affairs Committee and I wish her well for the future. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee. We have gone through a lot of work this year, and it has certainly been an emotional but a very rewarding journey. I also wish to acknowledge the mighty and unforgettable presence of Parekura Horomia.

I came to this House in 2011 determined to do two things. One was to be a hard-working and effective MP for the 3-year term of Parliament. The second was to do good things for New Zealand, and I have been proud to do that in 2013. Twelve months ago I found I was an Independent MP, and not because of anything I had done. But I came into Parliament under the slogan “For a fair go” and I thought: well, I can either be bitter or I can get down and give this work a fair go. And that is what I have done. I am not one to hold a grudge, and it is Christmas, so I wish those agents, those vile people, a merry Christmas. To members I say that I hope no other member, current or future, or their family has to endure the crucible that my family has been tested in, all because of vile, wicked, and false allegations, and I am glad that that chapter is now about to be closed.

As John Key has said, a most important skill in politics is being able to count. I have a vote, and on a number of occasions it has been crucial in the decisions of this House. The first occasion was ensuring the passage of the honourable David Clark’s bill to Mondayise Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, which passed on a vote of 61 to 60. Every vote was important, and mine was one. Recently, a member’s bill was defeated on a tied vote of 60 to 60, and my vote was the 61st important vote against it. Because of my vote, the new law on legal highs requires reporting every year on the work of the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee.

There is a lot of other work, but we are running out of time. I would just like to say that I have a Christmas wish for Tauranga, and it is that this Government does the right thing and takes Route K and its debt in its entirety, which is a $60 million noose around the ratepayers of Tauranga. I also have a Christmas wish for the people of New Zealand and that is that we get our ultra-fast broadband infrastructure in place as quickly as possible.

To all the members here, arohanui. I wish you love and time with your families over this Christmas and into the new year. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to start by acknowledging the understanding and the patience of all members as I have come to grips with the responsibility of being the Speaker. Most members have been courteous most of the time. To the others, I say that I will be watching you even more closely next year.

I want to join the other contributors to this debate and acknowledge and thank all the people who contribute to making this Parliament work, but specifically to our Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, thank you. To our security team—they were tested in a recent incident and, in my opinion, they responded in an exemplary fashion. To our Chamber staff, thank you for your loyal contribution to this House. I particularly want to acknowledge the services of Grant Bamfield, Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, and Alan Husheer, Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms, as those two gentlemen retire at the conclusion of tonight after a combined contribution of 22 years to this House. We wish them both well. I certainly want to record my appreciation of my fellow presiding officers: Eric Roy, Lindsay Tisch, and Ross Robertson. I think that together we have made a good team.

This debate could not conclude without me acknowledging and paying a particular tribute to our Clerk of the House, Mary Harris, and her outstanding executive assistant, Andie Lindsay, and to all members of the Clerk of the House team. I have always been aware, as a member of Parliament now for 19 years, of the contribution that this office makes to the smooth running of this House, but after 12 months as Speaker, I now realise how outstanding a team Mary Harris has assembled and the work that they do. Thank you, Mary Harris.

To my own office staff—Lisa Kinloch and Stephanie Edridge—thank you. We are a small team, but I acknowledge their loyalty through the transition of this year. And, finally, to Roland Todd, Speaker’s assistant. Roland, you are in danger of becoming an institution yourself. The unflappable way in which you guide not only me but the whips and all members of this House and the procedures associated with the House is hugely appreciated. Thank you, Roland.

As I reflect on my first year as Speaker, I want to comment on two particular and challenging decisions I had to make. Firstly, there was the decision to accept the resignation of Mr Geoff Thorn as the then manager of Parliamentary Service. It had to happen. The Henry inquiry presented many challenges, but above all it highlighted for me the unique privacy issues that confront members of Parliament every day. It also highlighted the importance of a free media to report the deliberations of both the executive and Parliament, and that involves the media being able to move around this complex and meet various members of Parliament. It further served to remind us all of the distinction between the executive and the House of Representatives. I want to record that in my opinion Geoff Thorn did a very good job in managing Parliamentary Service prior to his decision to resign. Parliamentary Service is a better organisation because of his tenure.

The second challenge I faced was the decision whether to maintain recognition of United Future as a party in this House following its deregistration by the Electoral Commission. Standing Orders were silent on an event such as this, and therefore it required me under Standing Order 2 to decide the fairest way forward. Although my decision to derecognise United Future initially and then to re-recognise the party subsequent to the Electoral Commission’s re-registration of the party, I know, was not a decision that pleased all political parties in this House, my job is to be fair to you all. I believe I accomplished that with that decision and, hopefully, a review of Standing Orders next year will mean that these rules are clearer in the future.

As we head to our Christmas break you can be assured that 2013 has been a busy year. We sat for around 600 hours and passed 144 bills. We have had 1,059 oral questions answered—to my satisfaction—and just under 17,000 written questions have been submitted. We have had six urgent debates compared with eight such debates last year. So to all members—enjoy your break, enjoy the quality time that you have with your children and your partners, and never underestimate as politicians how tough this place can be on those whom we love. Merry Christmas to you all.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m.