Wednesday, 10 December 2014

WEDNESDAY, 10 December 2014

WEDNESDAY, 10 December 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Palestine—Recognition as Sovereign State

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to move members’ motion No. 46, in my name, on the recognition of Palestine, without debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Inequality, Economic and Social—Economic Policies and OECD Report

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the OECD that “when income inequality rises, economic growth falls”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No, it is not that simple, because there are a number of factors that contribute to economic growth.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister saying that the OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurria, got it wrong when he said yesterday that “addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I think that that helps. That is one of the reasons why the Government is proud of its record, as defined by the OECD in a table that it put out last night. It showed that between 2007 and 2011 income inequality has actually narrowed under this Government. The great tragedy is that it also put out a report last night that showed that between 1985 and 2005, when a Labour Government was in office for a reasonable period of time, income inequality got worse. Shame on Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Prime Minister continue to defend a failed right-wing ideology—trickle-down economics, which the OECD has now rejected—when this economic ideology has fuelled the biggest rise in inequality amongst OECD countries and has knocked 10 percentage points off New

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not right. All I can say is that under a National-led Government, income inequality has actually narrowed, as defined by the OECD, between 2007 and 2011. Interestingly enough, if the member is quoting the OECD as the oracle of all good information when it comes to growth and issues of inequality, maybe he would like to follow this comment from the OECD. It said in 2010 in its report: “A growth-orientated tax reform would improve the design of tax regimes by broadening the base and lowering the tax rates of New Zealand.”

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to tax rates, does the Prime Minister believe that when he cut taxes for the top 10 percent of income earners in the middle of the global financial crisis, in 2010, it reduced inequality?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As Treasury noted at the time and as has proven to be correct, actually, the changes to the tax system that were made by the National-led Government in 2010 were distributionally neutral. Actually, as time has gone on, it has been proven that higher-income taxpayers have paid more as a result of those tax changes. That is because the Government changed the rules around depreciation of rental properties, the bulk of which are owned by better-off New Zealanders, and it is because even though there was an increase in GST, a large amount of nominal GST is, of course, paid by higher-income taxpayers. They were very good tax changes, and that is why New Zealanders voted for them in an overwhelming way and why they rejected the Green Party policies, and delivered what was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr Russel Norman: Will he now revisit his policy of keeping benefits low as “an incentive to work” in light of the OECD finding that the resulting inequality is bad for people and bad for the economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Inequality is narrowing under a National-led Government. I am proud of that record, as confirmed by the OECD last night in its report. Secondly, the Government is not keeping benefits low. In fact, this is a Government that has legislated to ensure that there are increases in benefits in line with the CPI. The most important thing we can do for beneficiaries—where possible for the bulk of them; clearly not all of them—is to find them work. That is why a strong economy that delivers job opportunities and lifts people out of the welfare trap into work is one of the most beneficial things we can do for low-income families in New Zealand.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept the finding of the OECD that the increase in inequality in New Zealand, one of the largest increases in the developed world, resulted in a 10 percent reduction in the size of the New Zealand economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I do not accept all elements of the report, but I do say this. It was a report that took place on statistical data between 1985 and 2005. In the period between 1999 and 2005, if my memory serves me correctly, the then Labour Government did that with support in various forms from the Green Party. So I say to Russel Norman that, yes, he should apologise to New Zealanders—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister agree that what the report really found was that growth is driven by the quality of investment in human capital across all income levels; if so, could he share any initiatives that this Government is taking to improve the quality of investment in human capital across lower-income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I would, and I would say that the OECD actually made a very interesting point when it said that redistribution policies that are poorly targeted and do not focus on the most effective tools can lead to a waste of resources and general inefficiencies. One of the ways I know to do that when it comes to human capital—

Hon Member: What about charter schools?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —is to make sure they get access to a world-class education. That was the point I was actually going to come to. I myself, with the member, visited Vanguard Military School and saw the great young New Zealanders who are coming out into employment. I must say how proud I was to be part of a Government that is championing those partnership schools that are making a difference to those young New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: Why can the Prime Minister not see this OECD report as an opportunity to move away from failed trickle-down economics towards a form of economic policy that is both good for people and good for the economy, and has a win-win solution for poor children and for the broader economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member wants to talk about failed policies, he should read the Green Party manifesto, as it was so utterly rejected by New Zealanders. I remember that member parading before the cameras a couple of days before the election, telling New Zealanders that the Green Party would be polling a massive number—basically, throwing the Labour Party overboard because the Greens did not want to be part of it, and in the end, they polled 10-odd percent. It was a terrible result. Bad policies are the Green Party’s policies. This Government is delivering for New Zealanders.

Inequality, Economic and Social—Economic Policies and OECD Report

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with yesterday’s OECD report that “focusing exclusively on growth and assuming that its benefits will automatically trickle down to the different segments of the population may undermine growth in the long run”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): With regard to New Zealand, under this Government that is a hypothetical question. That is because the Government is providing billions and billions of dollars of targeted income and welfare support to the most vulnerable New Zealanders every year. So it is simply incorrect to characterise our economic approach as trickle-down. I would also point out to the member that the data covered the period from 1985 to 2005. I became Prime Minister in 2008. I know he wants to blame me for everything, and he will for the next 3 years, but it is a little bit difficult to blame me for something when I was not even Prime Minister.

Andrew Little: In view of the figures in the report relying on data to 2011, and in light of his previous answer, what specifically does he think was wrong with the OECD’s analysis when it found that economic growth is undermined by inequality?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are many, many things in the report, but what the report last night showed is that there was a growing income inequality in a period that started with a Labour Government and ended with a Labour Government. That is called a failure of Labour’s policies. Since we have had a National-led Government, income inequality is narrowing, and that is because this Government is providing enormous support to those most in need. One great example of that is that under this Government the support that is given to households earning under $60,000 a year—that is, just under half of all households are expected to pay no net income tax at all. The members opposite do not like it, but I will tell you what we do not like—the failure, between that 1985 to 2005 period, of a Labour-led Government.

Andrew Little: Does he accept Statistics New Zealand’s finding that incomes for the top fifth in the year to June 2014—after the date for the OECD report—grew by 14.7 percent, while incomes for the bottom fifth grew by just 2.9 percent, thereby increasing inequality in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The last bit is the assumption of the member and it is simply incorrect.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am sorry, but it is simply incorrect. The first point may be correct, but if my memory serves me correctly, and the member is talking about the data series I have seen in the past, that is because it includes returns on investments and other things, and as the member will—

Hon Member: When was it you got your memory back again?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is right—that is right. The member will know that between 2008 and some period, I think, in 2011 or 2012, there was a decrease each year because those returns were negative.

Andrew Little: Does he accept the finding of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that loan-to-value ratio restrictions have led to home purchases by speculators leaping as high as 45 percent, while the number of first-home buyers has fallen, all of which is making inequality in New Zealand worse?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not accept that as being correct. I will remind the member that it was his party that actually supported loan-to-value ratios in the early days, but that is another issue. Here is the point: loan-to-value ratios were part of the tool box deployed by the Reserve Bank governor. Without that, interest rates would have gone up by at least half a basis point for all New Zealanders, and that would have had a very significant impact on lower-income New Zealanders. Actually, what we know is that economic growth is being delivered at high levels by this Government, and that follows the economic disaster that we inherited from the previous Labour Government.

Andrew Little: Does taking away the rights of low-paid workers to better pay, secure work, and even tea breaks make them economically stronger or weaker compared with their employers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not doing that. What we are doing is providing flexibility in the labour markets. Interestingly enough, last week Mr Little was trying to tell New Zealanders that somehow small businesses are now working New Zealanders, and that they would have his support. They would have his support so much that they would not be allowed a 90-day probationary period, they would not be allowed flexibility in their labour markets, and they would have to pay a much higher starting-out wage or a much higher minimum wage. I know why the member is supporting his policies; it is because his caucus did not vote for him, but the unions did.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer will not help the order of the House.

Andrew Little: Given the OECD’s finding that increased inequality has made the economy 15.5 percent worse off since 1990, how does he plan to reduce inequality in order to grow the economy faster?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Income inequality is narrowing under a National-led Government, as supported by the OECD. The members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say one OECD report is right and another one is wrong. The only point I would make is simply that the member needs to go away and get his facts right. Under the report, where income inequality was widening was under a Labour-led Government. I know it is a disgrace, but that is why they were hammered at the polls—it is because they were a disgrace. [Interruption]

Andrew Little: Save your applause for a decent performance. Why is he so unambitious that he does not want to boost future economic growth for all New Zealanders? Is it because he is still trapped in a 1980s time warp?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am very ambitious for New Zealand and for the growth rate of New Zealand. We are delivering on that growth rate for New Zealand, which is why it was nearly 4 percent this year. I am so ambitious that if I put my leadership up for a vote, I would expect more than four people to vote for me. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet.

Economic Programme—Progress

3. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made in delivering on its economic objectives for 2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has made good progress in its economic objectives for 2014. However, there is much more to be done in a world facing significant challenges from low growth rates, particularly in Europe and Japan, too much debt, and lower commodity prices. New Zealand is relatively well placed. Our economy grew by 3.9 percent in the year ended June 2014, one of the highest growth rates in the developed world. Updated GDP figures will be released next week, and they are expected to confirm that this solid growth will continue. This is delivering benefits to hard-working Kiwis. Average wages have increased by around $3,000 in the past 2 years to nearly $55,700, and the average, ordinary-time weekly wage is forecast to grow to $62,300 by 2018 from $55,700 today.

Tim Macindoe: How are the benefits of the Government’s economic programme being reflected in the labour market, and how do average wage increases compare with the cost of living changes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the past year alone 72,000 jobs were created across New Zealand, and Treasury forecasts more than 150,000 further jobs over the next 4 years. Back in Budget 2011 Treasury predicted 171,000 new jobs up to June 2015. So far, we are 12,000 new jobs ahead of that prediction made in 2011. These new jobs are bringing down unemployment, which has fallen to 5.4 percent and should continue to fall to under 5 percent. Cost of living increases for New Zealand families have been low. Average hourly earnings increased by 2.3 percent in the last year compared with inflation of 1 percent.

Tim Macindoe: How is the Government’s economic programme helping to keep interest rates lower for longer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has some influence on interest rates and we are using that influence where we can. In the first place, we are limiting our operating allowance—that is, our additional discretionary spending in our Budgets—to an average of $1.5 billion over the next 3 years rather than having a spend-up because the economy is better. Secondly, we are focusing strongly on increasing the supply of housing to housing markets across New Zealand so that we can help to moderate the housing cycle and, therefore, moderate the inflation cycle. We seem to be doing a lot better as a country than in 2008 when floating mortgage rates reached 11 percent—a bit less than twice what they are today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What effect will continuing Russian sanctions, which have displaced 3 billion litres of European milk, have upon Treasury projections for a return to surplus in 2015, 2016, and 2017?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think, as the member knows, they will probably have a negative impact. We need to keep it in perspective though. Although the dairy industry is a large, successful industry—it represents about 7 percent of our GDP—and is under pressure, the other 93 percent is in pretty good shape and that will offset some of those negative effects.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand dairy exporters taking advantage of the gap left by other nations’ trade sanctions on Russia is a “terrible look”; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, because the Prime Minister has remarkable insight and intuition at all times.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I take a moment to have a laugh?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member can take a moment to ask a supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will he be so lofty and principled if, in 2 years’ time, we have a banking crisis precipitated by low returns coming to the New Zealand dairy industry as they are right now and getting worse; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You know, a lot of the things that you worry about in this world just do not happen quite as badly as you think they will. I think that the dairy industry is a pretty resilient industry. The New Zealand economy is a pretty resilient economy. Yes, there may be some tougher times ahead, but although that might bother the member, we are confident New Zealand can find its way through even a period of lower dairy prices.

Economy—Impact of Milk Price Forecast

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: What impact will Fonterra’s revised forecast payout have on the Government’s 2014/15 surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I will give him the same answer that I gave to the leader of New Zealand First, who, not unsurprisingly, was quicker out of the blocks on this issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The impact is likely to be negative, but we need to keep it in perspective. The dairy industry represents about 7 percent of the economy; the other 93 percent is in reasonably good shape. But there is no doubt that the drop in commodity prices has the effect that the tax base is not growing as fast as was expected.

Grant Robertson: What advice has he had on the impact on farmers and rural communities of the $4.70 payout, given that Dairy New Zealand has estimated that a quarter of farmers could struggle to meet interest payments and expenses on a payout below $5?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen that advice, along with other advice that I think is pretty predictable, and that is that the significantly lower cash flow will have an impact on the servicing industries in rural and provincial areas. The question really is how long is that going to last and whether they are in shape to handle that, and in our view they are relatively resilient, but some of them are in for a bit of a tough time.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, does he agree with John Kuyf, managing director of the rural service business Rakaia Engineering Ltd, or REL Group, who said that the effect of a reduced payout will be “quite severe” and that “Even if you live in Auckland, if you naively don’t believe it will affect you, it will. We won’t come out of this overnight.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that the sentiment of those words is roughly right, but, again, we have got to keep it in perspective—93 percent of the economy is in reasonable shape, and the growth projections are pretty solidly around 3 percent for the next 2 or 3 years. The dairy industry, which has had an absolutely record year, announced yesterday a payout that is just a little bit below the average for the last 10 years. So it is not a horrifically low payout, but it certainly is down from the last couple of years, and it will be a bit of a struggle for the industry, but I think it is up to it.

Rt Hon John Key: Given that the dairy payout is reducing, what impact would it have on dairy farmers if they faced a higher minimum wage, if they faced a capital gains tax on their farm, if they faced an emissions trading scheme that was far more expensive, if they faced more charges, if they faced a water tax, if they faced—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We get the gist of the question. The Minister can now answer it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One measure of it—at least my impression of how dairy farmers voted in the election—is that even at an $8.40 payout, the dairy industry could not afford a Labour Government, so imagine how bad it would be at $5.

Grant Robertson: Is he seriously suggesting that a $6 billion hole in the economy and a flow-on reduction in revenue to the Government’s books will be filled by other sectors of the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I have said consistently is that the negative impact of the lower dairy prices will be offset to some extent by the relative strength of the rest of the economy. That is not naive optimism; that is just looking at the fact that the dairy industry is 7 percent of the economy and the other 93 percent is in reasonable shape. I do not know why the member is so set on the idea that the drop in one commodity price—

Hon Member: It’s a crisis.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —is a crisis. Those members are determined to have a crisis, which means it must start turning round soon.

Grant Robertson: Does he take any responsibility for the billion-dollar deficit in today’s Government accounts—$260 million more than expected—and will he finally admit that there will not be a meaningful surplus in his Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, of course we take some responsibility for the public accounts—I think my signature may even be on them—and of course that means we also take responsibility for the fact that after 6 years of pretty tight Budgets, the public perception of public services is more positive than it ever was under the Labour Government. We are delivering more value to more people, with more to come, and we also take responsibility for that success.

Islamic State Conflict—Potential Defence Force Deployment

5. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by all his statements regarding a potential deployment of combat troops to Iraq?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): Yes, in so far as they have been accurately reported and not conveniently misinterpreted.

Ron Mark: If no decision has been made to deploy troops, why would combat troops from the One Battalion First Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment have been told by their superiors to expect to deploy at the end of February or at the beginning of March?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There has been no decision to deploy to Iraq. There has been no instruction to the military around any deployment to Iraq. I am not responsible for what various army commanders might say to their troops.

Ron Mark: If, as he says, no decision to deploy troops has been made, when does he expect that that decision will be made?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, a question that asks “When does someone expect to make a decision about something they haven’t made a decision about?” is not a question at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, it is your decision as to whether the question is adequate, not the decision of the Minister of Defence. He should be asked to answer the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking to the point of order, how can I answer a question about making a decision about a decision that has not been made? It is ridiculous.

Mr SPEAKER: The question I allowed; the question was then addressed by the Minister. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Ron Mark: If no decisions have been made, Minister, why then is the army moving all communications regarding the Iraqi deployment to secure networks and deleting orders previously sent? Is it just covering the tracks for the Minister?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I know that the army has its own communications systems that it uses—in fact, it is asking the Government at the moment to spend a lot more money giving it new systems so that it can be even better networked. As for the actual keystroke operations day to day, I cannot answer about that. All I know is there is no Government decision, and there has been no Government instruction to prepare for deployment to Iraq.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Taking your advice previously, I specifically kept this question short and I specifically asked around what is currently happening in the army, moving communications to secure networks and instructing officers to delete—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to in the future try to get his questions even shorter; I think that would help. But in this case if the member goes back and studies the question he has asked about the movement of information to securer networks etc., that question was addressed by the Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the full extent of planning and preparation being undertaken now with soldiers in New Zealand for potential deployment to Iraq?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no training being undertaken for potential deployment to Iraq, but the member will know from his own time as Minister of Defence that the New Zealand military always trains for the contingency. They may be asked to do anything.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Minister’s answer to the House just now is correct, why did his spokesperson say on 2 December that the Defence Force has begun “some training and preparation on a contingency basis” and go on to say “This is required to ensure that there is a suitable time to build an effective level of capability should the Government decide to deploy.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I have said before, the military has about 100 personnel based in the Middle East at any time.

Hon Member: Just tell us.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I just answered you by saying that the military do train for—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is not about wider deployment in the Middle East; it is about Iraq. That is what the Minister’s spokesperson was talking about.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the Minister to finish. It was about contingency arrangements that are under way, as I understood the question. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee to complete the answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If the question is about a deployment to Iraq, there is no decision to deploy to Iraq; therefore, the question cannot stand.

Ron Mark: An easy one. Does the Minister think it is fairer on the troops, their families, and their extended families to confirm they are deploying to Iraq before Christmas, or is he going to hang out and wait until after Christmas?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has made it very clear that it is not sending combat troops to Iraq. It has further said that there will be a small group of personnel looking at the possibility only of capacity-building in, potentially, Iraq. But there is no decision. We have received no reports. And even though Mr Mark might think he knows everything because he has got a few mates from his days when he was a storeman in the army, he is just not right.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise. Is this a point of order?

Ron Mark: Yes, just a point of order. I just would like—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Ron Mark: My point of order is that I have been inaccurately described.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat.

Christchurch Recovery—Progress

6. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress has the Government made in 2014 towards its vision for the rebuild of Christchurch?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): We have made excellent progress during 2014. Demolitions in the city are now all but complete. Two hundred commercial buildings are either under construction or have already opened. The key Government-funded projects under construction include the hospital, the justice precinct, the bus interchange, and the Avon River precinct, and these are at an estimated cost of over $1 billion. Repair work has made good progress, with the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team programme 57 percent complete, and the Earthquake Commission has completed nearly 70,000 home repairs. A positive working relationship with the Government, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and the Christchurch City Council has continued to strengthen, and this relationship will be vital for the extraordinary growth we will see in 2015.

Matt Doocey: What economic results can be attributed to the Government’s programme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government’s rebuild programme has provided certainty and a clear vision. This is driving investment in Christchurch and is undoubtedly a factor in the very strong economic statistics coming from the city. Over 2014 we have seen unemployment fall to historic lows, with 34,400 new jobs created in Canterbury. In the year to September of 2014, the economic growth in Canterbury was upwards of 4.7 percent, well ahead of the national average, and more than five and a half thousand new businesses have registered in Canterbury this year. This is a testament, I think, to the confidence of the business community in the recovery, and it is in stark contrast to some of the predictions made at the time of the earthquakes, suggesting that business would flee Christchurch and our economy would collapse.

Matt Doocey: What further progress does he expect to see in 2015?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Next year the bus interchange will be completed, reconnecting the city and its people through public transport. Key parts of the Avon River precinct will also be finished, creating a very attractive public space at the heart of the city. The innovation precinct will be established, with an information and communications technology graduate school, Callaghan Innovation, and Vodafone as anchor tenants. The convention centre will be under construction, along with the hospital and the justice centre continuing, and key projects like that will continue to drive tourism and economic growth in the city. And the New Zealand opening of the Cricket World Cup being broadcast to the world will show the world what a dynamic city Christchurch is.

State Housing—Sale of Housing Stock

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: When did he last discuss the sale of state housing stock with Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): I have had many discussions about this issue, probably most recently, I suspect, this morning, maybe, but always in the context of doing a better job for tenants who are often stuck for long periods in housing dependency, and doing a better job of looking after taxpayers’ assets, of which State housing constitutes $18 billion worth. With that much asset value, plus the subsidies, we can do a better job for people in serious housing need than has traditionally been the case.

Phil Twyford: Why did his Cabinet agree this week to move ahead with the sale of State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait and see about that. But he is going to have trouble arguing that decisions made 60 years ago about where houses should be and what size they should be are decisions that we must stick with in 2015. Decisions made in the 1950s should not determine how the needs of today’s tenants are met. I know that is Labour’s position. Everything was perfect in the 1950s. But on “Planet Earth” things have changed a bit.

Phil Twyford: In light of that confirmation of the decision to sell off State houses, how long does he expect Housing New Zealand to remain the main provider of social housing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think they will remain the main provider of social housing for a long time. But they will certainly have to alter the houses that they have because the needs of tenants do not align with the decisions made by Peter Fraser or Sid Holland. I think they had great foresight—

Hon Paula Bennett: Or Annette King.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —or Annette King—but actually they could not predict the needs of tenants today.

Hon Annette King: A very good decision maker.

Rt Hon John Key: You’ve outlasted the other two.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And you have outlasted the other two. We are willing to change the nature of our housing to meet the needs of our tenants.

Phil Twyford: In light of his answer that Housing New Zealand would be the dominant provider for a long time, how does he reconcile that answer with the housing Minister’s letter to Housing New Zealand’s board, saying: “In the future we envision Housing New Zealand will be one of a range of social housing providers”, and they would be the main provider of social housing only in the short to medium term?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure which letter the member is referring to, but Housing New Zealand is one of the housing providers now. There are 23 registered community housing providers, and the number is growing by the week. To the extent that they can better meet the needs of people with serious housing need, then we will do business with them. It is Labour’s policy that even if they can do better, they are the wrong people, so tenants have to stay in garages and overcrowded houses. We do not think that is good enough.

Phil Twyford: I seek the leave of the House to table two letters from the Minister of Housing to the board of Housing New Zealand, setting out the expectations—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table those two particular letters. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! I am putting the leave for the member. They do not need to be described further. Leave is sought to table those two particular letters from the Minister to Housing New Zealand. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Phil Twyford: Why was he not straight with the public before the election about his plans for a State house sell-off, given that his housing Minister had already told Housing New Zealand to begin work on the sell-off, saying: “We expect that as a result Housing New Zealand will likely own a significantly smaller number of houses in 10 years’ time.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, this has been talked about for, I think, 3 years. In fact, I can recall the whole of Parliament debating the relevant legislation that set up the Ministry of Social Development as a purchaser, as well as publishing a series of reports going right back to 2010. If the member did not know about it, that is not our fault. Our policy was clear before the election, and the Government is moving to do a better job of meeting the needs of people who have serious housing need. In our view, that is pretty urgent.

Phil Twyford: Why is he selling off State houses on the open market, where they can be bought by property developers and speculators, given that these homes have provided so many New Zealanders, including the Prime Minister, with a decent start in life?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the reasons is that there are New Zealanders being born today who want a decent start. They want a better start than being forced into a State house the wrong size, in the wrong place, and in poor condition. That is why—because we can get a better deal for those New Zealanders who need a good start in life today.

Cancer Services—New Zealand Cancer Plan 2015-18 and Other Initiatives

8. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: What improvements to cancer care are expected as a result of the New Zealand Cancer Plan 2015-18?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yesterday at Wellington hospital I launched the new comprehensive New Zealand cancer plan for 2015 to 2018. The new plan pulls together the wide range of investments and services that will deliver treatment to 90 percent of cancer patients within 62 days of the first serious suspicion of cancer. This streamlining of the previously segmented cancer service into one integrated treatment pathway means that patients can have greater confidence in earlier treatment and better treatment from the earliest point.

Barbara Kuriger: What investments have been made to assist the delivery of faster and more streamlined cancer services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Since 2008 the Government has made significant investments to improve cancer services, including $62 million for the faster treatment programme, $10 million in digital mammography technology, and $4.3 million in prostate cancer awareness. We have purchased 10 new linear accelerators. There has been $15 million put into hospice care, and, of course, we provided public funding for 12-month Herceptin courses. These investments have ensured that we are in a position to deliver an international gold standard in cancer care for New Zealanders.

Threatened Species—Impact of Oil and Gas Exploration

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Did she raise any concerns with the Minister of Energy and Resources about the potential impacts on the Māui’s dolphin, a critically endangered species, of granting an oil and gas exploration permit in their habitat, including in a marine mammal sanctuary?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): No, I did not.

Eugenie Sage: Is the reason the Minister did not raise any concerns that she knows that her Government does not care about protecting the world’s rarest dolphin, the Māui’s dolphin, despite there being fewer Māui’s dolphins left on the planet than there are MPs in this House?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Down here, we cannot hear the question because of the barracking over there from a number of nervous backbenchers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I acknowledge that the level of noise was louder. I heard the question. The question will now be answered. The reason why there was an interjection was actually because of the tone of the question that was raised by the member. I am not ruling it out of order, but that certainly gives plenty of licence to the Minister.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This National-led Government is committed to ensuring the long-term survival and safety of every single Māui’s dolphin, and there is proof of that. In 2012 the Department of Conservation established a collaborative forum of experts that reviewed the potential risks to Māui’s dolphins and what more could be done to ensure their survival. That forum found that the threat to the Māui’s dolphins from oil and gas development is negligible. Fishing-related activities, specifically set nets, were identified as the biggest threat—some 95 percent—to Māui’s dolphins, and in response we roughly doubled the area of the set net ban, which is now an area of 6,200 square kilometres.

Eugenie Sage: How is the Minister fulfilling her obligations under the Conservation Act to protect our threatened species and their habitats when the Minister of Energy and Resource has granted oil exploration permits affecting 302 conservation areas and over 700 square kilometres of conservation land?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I am entirely confident that we have the right level of communication and processes between the various ministries that effect the long-term care and protection of all of our species that are under threat. When it comes to a Cabinet process, when we look at the Department of Conservation, we were, as a department, consulted by the advisers to the Minister of Energy and Resources during the initial phase of yesterday’s block offer proposals—that was earlier this year—and again when the bids were received. I am very confident that that process is working well and that the Cabinet process, which involves me as the Minister and a ministerial sign-off across Cabinet, was completed on Monday of this week. Let that member and that party be reassured that the conservation of our endangered species—flora and fauna—is absolutely a priority, and we have absolute confidence in the processes that are in place.

Eugenie Sage: How can the Minister be so confident that the department cares more about the protection of our threatened species when it is allowing oil exploration in the habitat of threatened species like the great spotted kiwi and the Māui’s dolphin—those areas are now open for oil exploration?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I would draw the attention of that member to one aspect of this. Let us take the Māui’s dolphin, for example. We formed the Māui Dolphin Research Advisory Group, which is meeting and currently developing research solutions to ensure the long-term survival of the dolphin. We have convened the group under the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Primary Industries, and that consists of representatives from universities, iwi, central government, and regional councils, as well as mining, fishing, and conservation organisations. Our marine mammals are being kept safe, and that is because we have put in place a code of conduct for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic survey operations. That became mandatory in the law last year, and it is yet another example of where this Government has moved in—where the former Labour Government, propped up by Greens, had absolutely no provisions for protection at all and drilled a number of wells. We have—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is certainly long enough.

Businesses—Financial Support from Government

10. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he concerned at the scale of corporate welfare in New Zealand under this Government; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I am always concerned about the scale and effectiveness of Government expenditure that I am involved in as a Minister, and in ensuring it is well spent. However, I do reject the rather pejorative term that was used in the member’s question.

David Seymour: Given that the Government has, among other things, invested in research and development, rugby games, railways, and yacht races, can he define anything that is outside the role of Government, or does he agree with former Prime Minister Helen Clark that the role of Government is whatever the Government defines it to be?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, there are a lot of things in life that the Government would prefer not to be involved in, but, nevertheless, the Government does have to balance economic and social considerations and so on. One of the examples that the member raises is the issue of research and development. I should think that that is a very important issue for New Zealand. Other members in this House spend quite a lot of time talking about the need to diversify the New Zealand economy. I happen to agree, and, as a result, this Government invests hugely alongside firms in building research and development innovation to ensure that businesses do diversify and that we get strong new industries like information and communications technology and high-tech manufacturing, which are actually growing very strongly in New Zealand now.

David Seymour: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member has two supplementary questions today and he has used those two supplementary questions.

Serious Fraud Office—Commentary

11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he know whether or not the allegations in Matt Nippert’s 31 August 2014 article in the Sunday Star-Times that Cameron Slater and Carrick Graham were paid to undermine the Serious Fraud Office are correct?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Although I have absolutely no ministerial responsibility for the allegations, the answer is no.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question was addressed to the Minister as the Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office so I do not understand why he can deny responsibility for answering.

Mr SPEAKER: When I saw this question on the sheet, I have got to say, I thought it was a very marginal question. I accept that the Minister is responsible for the Serious Fraud Office and that it is his responsibility. But the question actually asks something entirely different, which I do not believe is strictly the Minister’s responsibility. I will allow the member to continue with his supplementary questions, but he must address them in a way for which the Minister is responsible.

Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order, if the Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office is not responsible for the undermining of the Serious Fraud Office or for issues that might do so, could you tell me whom I would ask questions to?

Mr SPEAKER: The question asked is about whether the allegations are true. I do not see how the Minister could possibly be responsible for responding to that. [Interruption] Order! We are now getting to the stage where the member is prolonging this discussion and effectively disputing a ruling I have given. I am inviting the member to continue his supplementary questions provided they clearly have ministerial responsibility.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister believe it is proper and in the public interest for persons under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office to pay others to actively undermine and smear the Serious Fraud Office and its director?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I have absolutely no responsibility for the actions of people who are not under the purview of the Serious Fraud Office. My responsibility is to ensure that the Serious Fraud Office has the resources and tools to discharge its responsibilities independently and effectively, and I am satisfied it did so then and does now.

Hon David Parker: What steps has the Minister taken to ascertain whether these serious allegations about people being paid to undermine the Serious Fraud Office are true?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: None. What I have done is sought an assurance that the Serious Fraud Office has discharged its responsibilities fairly and independently, and I have received that assurance.

Hon David Parker: Would attempts to intimidate a witness, as referred to in paragraph 185 of the Chisholm report, undermine the operation of the Serious Fraud Office and be illegal; if so, what is he doing about that?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It would if it were true, but my understanding is that the inquiry found that there was absolutely no evidence that any attempts to undermine witnesses had any impact on the Serious Fraud Office’s decisions subsequently taken.

Hon David Parker: Given the allegations in the Sunday Star-Times, why is he putting the interests of people like Slater, Graham, and Hotchin ahead of his responsibility as Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office to the 16,000 New Zealanders who between them lost half a billion dollars, some of them losing all of their life savings?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I do not have any interest in the activities of Messrs Slater and Carrick, and Odgers. I am certainly not interested in emails that might have been circulating around in mid-2011. Since then the All Blacks have won a world cup, Osama bin Laden has been taken out, Prince George has been born, National has won two elections, and Labour has had four leaders. I think it is time to move on.

Border Control, SmartGate System—Passengers Processed and Eligibility

12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Customs: What updates can she provide about the SmartGate passenger processing system?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Following a successful trial, I am pleased to announce that today, in time for Christmas, we are welcoming Canadian passengers by extending the SmartGate automated border system to Canadian e-passport holders over the age of 12. Each week approximately 75,000 people use SmartGate, and we have just reached the milestone of the 10 millionth passenger, ahead of budget and time. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have a little less barrage from one particular member on my left.

Dr Shane Reti: What has the Government done to improve passenger processing?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: SmartGate has been extended to US and UK e-passport holders and passengers aged 12 years and older, allowing more families to use it. SmartGate allows passengers to be processed faster, allowing customs to focus on high-risk travellers. Let me take the opportunity to welcome passengers passing through New Zealand’s borders during this busy holiday period. Welcome to New Zealand, I hope you enjoy your stay, and have a very merry Christmas. Thank you.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for Maurice Williamson to be allowed to ask Gerry Brownlee—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. It is not a valid point of order. [Interruption] Order! Christmas will start shortly, not just yet. Have you got a point of order or a supplementary question now?

Hon Steven Joyce: It is a supplementary question. Can the Minister confirm that when Santa Claus arrives this Christmas, he will be allowed to come in via SmartGate and bring in his presents for—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Much as I am sure that everybody is interested in that, there is no ministerial responsibility.

Urgent Debates Declined

Dairy Industry—Milk Price Forecast

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Richard Prosser seeking—[Interruption] Order! I am very, very reluctant to ask members to leave early—to debate under Standing Order 389 the 60c downward revision by Fonterra in the milk price forecast from $5.30 per kilogram of milk solids to $4.70. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. There is no ministerial responsibility for Fonterra’s—[Interruption] Order! I will continue this ruling. If there is an interjection from any person, that person will be leaving the Chamber. There is no ministerial responsibility for Fonterra’s reduction in its forecast farm-gate milk price for the 2014-15 season. Although Ministers may have acknowledged a potential impact, there has been no ministerial decision that reveals a new development of sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held today. An urgent debate is a means of debating something that has occurred for which the Government is responsible. It is a not a means of debating actions that the Government may or may not take in the future. The application is therefore declined.

Bills

Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. What a great way to finish the year. I would like to thank those who took the time to make submissions and the members of the Commerce Committee, for their work in considering this bill.

This bill amends the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 in order to provide a sustainable funding source for New Zealand’s International Energy Agency oil stockholding treaty obligations. A secure supply of energy is critical, and this Government has prioritised a range of measures to improve oil security through the Business Growth Agenda. An important part of those measures is sustainable and user-pays funding of our oil stockholding obligation with the International Energy Agency.

Grant Robertson: Used to be the future.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: So did you, sunshine. The stockholding obligation helps mitigate the market power of large oil-producing nations, and is an important contribution to global oil security. The International Energy Agency system helps protect New Zealand and its trading partners from economic harm that could result from a sudden increase in oil prices. New Zealand’s oil demand has grown steadily since the mid-1980s, and, as with most OECD countries, this has been driven primarily by demand for transportation fuels, petrol, diesel, and jet fuel.

Although the Government continues to undertake a range of initiatives to improve the operating environment for the oil and gas sector, and to encourage further exploration and production of oil in New Zealand, as well as promoting energy efficiency measures to help make our fuel use more efficient, we can also make our imported sources of oil more secure. The petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy currently covers the cost of monitoring fuel quality and costs related to the International Energy Agency, such as acquisition of energy data. This bill will create the scope of the levy to fully fund the Crown’s oil stockholding obligation with the International Energy Agency. In doing so, it will provide a sustainable funding source and an enduring financial commitment to global oil security that will ultimately benefit New Zealanders with a more secure supply of transport fuels.

The Commerce Committee received four submissions on the bill. There were some useful suggestions for improvement, and the committee recommended that the bill be passed with two amendments. The committee recommended limiting the scope of the levy by clarifying that it is for the Crown to meet the reasonable costs and expenses of compliance with New Zealand’s obligations under article 2 of the International Energy Agency to maintain the emergency reserve commitments set out in that article. The revised purpose makes it crystal clear that the levy will be used for maintaining New Zealand’s contribution to global oil security. I commend this bill to the House.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Labour is supporting this bill, for the reasons that the Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges, just outlined—or for a number of them. But I must admit that Mr Bridges must be quite a tired gentleman. That was a speech that was read with no passion whatsoever. Take a long holiday, mate, and come back all refreshed. Maybe you could put a bit of energy into it.

We understand the reason for this bill. We are talking about an obligation of about $10 million by 2016-17, and a shortfall of around about $20 million over the next 3 years. We have got to meet our obligations under these treaties, and it is important that we do that as a good global citizen; so we will.

There are a couple of concerns that I do have about this particular bill. One is that, according to the bill—in new section 24, which is inserted by clause 5—the levy will be collected by the New Zealand Customs Service, and it will be paid by the oil companies. It is at a very small rate. It is at about 0.045 cents per litre, so it probably will not be noticed at all. But we are still talking about $20 million out of taxpayers’ pockets over the next 3 years. When I say “out of taxpayers’ pockets”, the levy on this actually has to be paid by the oil companies, but the concern I have is that what will actually happen—the rate, as mentioned, is 0.045 cents per litre—is that the oil companies will say: “We have this new levy, we have to pay for it”, and, therefore, they will pass it on to the consumer through the petrol pump, and they will whack another cent per litre on. I see this as potentially just another way for the oil companies to make extreme monopoly-rent profits out of a piece of bad news that will come along. I hope it does not happen, but I can just see how it could.

This is at a time when petrol companies are making record profits. They seem to have us over a barrel—pardon the pun.

Hon Member: Oh, that is weak. That is weak.

STUART NASH: Thank you; someone is listening. Fantastic!

Hon Member: Roll out the barrel.

STUART NASH: Terrible—I know. However, the oil companies are very, very quick to put up the price when something like this comes along, but very slow to drop the price. We have seen a little bit of a fall in the price recently—there is no doubt about that—but not at the rate that international prices are dropping around the world.

The one interesting thing about this is that I was looking through the regulatory impact statement, and it is something that MPs use—as the Assistant Speaker himself knows very, very well—to get a little bit of a background about the bill, what it is about, and the process it has gone through. It is a very important document. I was looking at the risks, because it tends to be the first thing I look at when I am assessing a new bill, and I was surprised to see that there were a couple of sections that were deleted under the Official Information Act. I am just a little surprised, because we need to know what this is about, and certainly when it comes to the risks, why you would take a chunk of those risks out so MPs cannot assess them.

I am pleased Clare Curran will be talking on this, because she was on the Commerce Committee, and maybe she can just allude to a couple—[Interruption]—yes, she will allude to just a couple of the risks—

Clare Curran: Yes, I shall.

STUART NASH: That is good to hear, and she shall. We are supporting this legislation, but the final point I would like to make—I have made it before, but I would like to make it again—is that I just hope that what we do not see as a result of this bill going through is a disproportionate increase in petrol prices at the pump, for good hard-working Kiwis, who are really struggling to make ends meet at this time of growing inequality. On that note, I do wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a safe and enjoyable New Year. We commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): I rise to support the second reading of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill. This bill was looked at by the previous Commerce Committee. I would like to commend the work of the previous select committee chair, Jonathan Young, and also the members of the committee before the 51st Parliament. They returned the bill with the following amendments, amending clause 4(1)(ba) to state that the purpose of the levy is for the Crown to meet the reasonable costs and expenses of compliance with New Zealand’s obligations under Article 2 of the International Energy Agreement, among other things. As the member of the Opposition who previously spoke said, meeting our international obligation is a good thing, and the purpose of this bill is to enhance New Zealand’s ability to cope with international oil supply disruptions.

When I think about the disruptions that we have had, recently there was an electricity failure in Auckland. I should not actually mention that, but as a mother and a person who never really keeps any candles in the house, you look at something like this and having a supply when there is a disruption is actually a good thing. The purpose of this bill is to allow the cost of meeting New Zealand’s oil stockholding treaty obligations. As a signatory of the obligation, we are supposed to keep enough supply for 90 days, Mr Robertson—

Grant Robertson: 90 days of candles?

MELISSA LEE: —90 days of net imports—and having that kind of supply is actually a good thing. When people think about having a failure in the supply of the petrol, knowing full well that we have 90 days of supply is a good thing. The bill provides for a petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy to be extended so it can be used to meet the costs associated with the Crown’s compliance with the oil stockholding treaty obligation, as I said earlier. New Zealand contributes to global oil security by holding oil stocks as agreed under the Agreement on an International Energy Program. This stockholding obligation helps mitigate the market power of large oil-producing nations and is an important contribution to global oil security. It protects New Zealand and its trading partners from the economic harm that could result from a sudden increase in oil prices, and having 90 days of stock will actually help with that situation. This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I have to say that it is a tumultuous way to end the activities of the House to be able to stand up here on the last day of Parliament for this year and speak on the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill.

Grant Robertson: It’s life changing.

DAVID SHEARER: It is life changing. Thank you, Mr Robertson. As other speakers have said, this is an obligation that we have with the International Energy Agency. It enables us to stock fuel in case there should be an emergency. We have signed that agreement, and therefore this is the way that we will see it put into action. There is a small cost as a result of that, and this is something that Stuart Nash talked about. There is about 0.045 a litre that will be passed on to people who use fuel—mainly motorists. That will enable us to fulfil our requirements with the treaty. That is not a lot of money, but I think it was a fair point that Stuart Nash made that we should monitor this so it is not used as an excuse to bump up fuel prices any further. It is a lot cheaper than the 9 cents a litre people will remember from last year that Bill English put on to fuel prices just before Christmas, as a Christmas present, in order to get his Budget across the line and into surplus. It was the only reason it got into surplus and he was able to trumpet that at the election this year. If it had not been for that, he would have been in deficit. So we all put our hands in our pockets and paid more money for our petrol in order to save him that embarrassment. Now it looks almost impossible for him to be able to reach a surplus this year with the falling dairy prices.

All I can say is that this is a second reading. I am very pleased we are rushing it through today and that we can manage to have a say on this important bill. This will be my final statement in the House this year, but before I finish can I wish you, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, a happy Christmas. To my parliamentary colleagues, I wish you a merry Christmas, a happy New Year, and a restful holiday. To all those people around the precinct who help us every day in various forms, I wish them a very happy Christmas and a restful holiday as well.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a momentous occasion to stand to speak on this Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Of course, it has already been canvassed and covered that this is primarily to ensure our compliance with our oil stockholding treaty obligations. Despite what members on the other side have said, a really important and very positive part of this amendment is that it is realigning the existing funding mechanisms so that oil consumers, rather than general taxpayers, are apportioned the costs of meeting these obligations. The Green Party, I am sure, will warmly welcome this because it means that all of those people who are using public transport, and particularly electric public transport, will, of course, be paying less, whereas those of us who do choose to travel in petrol-powered or diesel-powered vehicles will be paying a little bit more and not a whole lot more. It is also good to see that as New Zealand is too small to mitigate the international oil supply disruptions on its own, we have a collective arrangement under the International Energy Agency to help meet our risk. So, instead of doing as you would in the 1950s, when, of course, you built every State home you would need, for every person who would need it, in the place that you think they would need it—just like “Pleasantville Phil” suggested we should—and we would stockpile 90 days of oil barrels on our own shores, we instead have bought tickets—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am a little unsure, but if the member was making a reference to a member of the House, he will withdraw.

BRETT HUDSON: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Assistant Speaker. So, instead of taking an approach of risk mitigation that we might take back in the 1950s, we have bought contract tickets on the international market, which mitigate our risk and which allow us to buy oil at a prevailing market price in the event of a declared emergency. This means that New Zealand does not have to stockpile many, many thousands of barrels of oil on our shores. This is a pragmatic and sound approach to making sure that we meet our obligations and can ensure some oil energy supply to New Zealanders in the case of emergency. I commend the bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is great to take a last call on the last day of this Parliament this year. I would like to acknowledge members and wish them a merry Christmas and a happy and safe summer break. I rise to support this bill that we have in front of the House. I would like to acknowledge the Commerce Committee, the chair, and the submitters. I think it is fair to say we had a small number but high quality of submissions in the select committee. This bill is a very simple mechanism. You have to wonder why it is the most pressing item of business on the Government’s agenda on the last day of Parliament, but it is a still a bill that the Green Party will be supporting no matter how small it is. Basically, what the Government is doing in this legislation is taking the cost for New Zealand’s offshore oil reserves, which are currently held on a ticket system—most of it is currently in Japan; it comes out of general Crown expenditure—and through the fuel excise levy and the road-user charges place a per litre price on oil and oil products so those costs of having those oil stocks are seen transparently.

Why is the Government doing it? First of all, it is important that New Zealand does have an oil reserve. I would argue that it would be better to have it onshore in New Zealand but there is an oil reserve, which is part of our International Energy Agency obligations to deal with oil shocks, which, as we have seen, have recurred throughout the decades. The Government has decided to do this move in part because of the rising costs of having those oil reserves. Government official advice looks to be about a $5 million per annum cost increasing to $10 million in the financial year 2016-17. But also the officials note in the small print that we are seeing domestic oil production declining in the medium term. Traditionally, some of the New Zealand oil reserves were counted as part of the oil stocks for International Energy Agency reasons. However, with the declining reserves of oil in New Zealand, in fact, we are having to increase the offshore stocks. I would like to reiterate the importance of having those stocks, but when the officials looked at the guidance, the cost of having it onshore, which is what I understand that Air New Zealand was arguing in favour of, it was only $24.3 million, so an affordable cost in the context of $8 billion of annual fuel import bills.

The real question that I think this Parliament should be asking is whether the tinkering we are seeing in the House tonight, on the last day of the Government’s 50th Parliament, while we are spending this money on storing—

Tim Macindoe: 51st.

GARETH HUGHES: —the 51st Parliament, Mr Macindoe, thank you very much.

Simon O’Connor: Time flies.

GARETH HUGHES: Time does fly. Why should we be spending this money on storing oil stocks offshore? Surely we could be spending this money domestically in New Zealand, reducing the very cause of the problem it is trying to address, which is our high dependence on oil and the clear economic impacts this can have. So we support the bill. We think costs should lie where they fall. We think there is a greater argument for transparency. It is going to add an economic signal, which is that when people do fill up at the pump, obviously someone has to pay for those fuel stocks being held in reserve for those recurring fuel crises we have seen again and again. It is pretty minor; it is only less than 0.5c per litre, but it is an economic signal all the same.

One big concern that we tried to address in the select committee, which, unfortunately, the Government members did not want to act on, was that biofuels, including domestically created biofuels, come under this. I agree with Z Energy, one of our largest petroleum retailers, that it is pretty absurd that biofuels, which are more sustainable, which decrease our dependence on oil, and which increase our resiliency, are going to be charged at exactly the same rate as oil. It sends the wrong economic signal to biofuel investors and biofuel consumers, and it does nothing to increase our resiliency in New Zealand. There is also an equity argument. I agree with Z Energy that it is unfair that other petroleum products such as liquid petroleum gas, jet fuel, and bitumen are not going to face this very small charge, yet biofuels are. So it seems that the Government does not quite understand the role of markets and how we could be using market and price signals to incentivise good behaviour, and in this case we are actually disincentivising sustainable biofuels, which are good for New Zealand, good for the economy, and good for consumers.

That wider elephant in the room—which is not being addressed by this tinkering bill on the last day of the Government’s Parliament this year—is that 6 years since the last oil shock, there is still no plan to reduce our dependence on oil. There is no plan to even start planning under National. When you look across the country there are councils like the Dunedin City Council, when you look across the economy there are businesses, and when you look across the world there are countries—and even militaries like the Pentagon, the world’s single largest petroleum user—that are actively planning and taking steps to reduce their dependency on oil. New Zealand is the only country in the world that seems to be hell-bent on simply creating more oil. The Government has got an oil production strategy, but no oil reduction or resiliency strategy, and this is the big strategic economic issue facing our country. When you look at the host of issues facing us, it is one of the big ones.

In New Zealand we spend about $8 billion—billion with a “b”—importing oil from offshore. That is about the equivalent of our entire tourism industry. So we have got tens of thousands of people doing great work in our tourism sector across the country, bringing foreigners down to enjoy our hospitality in New Zealand, but the fact is that our entire tourism industry is basically only paying for the oil import bill. That is madness. We should be increasing our economic resiliency and diversifying our economy, not just having one of our major economic sectors simply paying for the petrol bill. When you look at the impact on New Zealand’s economy, we are incredibly vulnerable to high and rising oil prices. We are one of the most dependent economies in the world. I know that when I looked at our vehicle fleet a few years ago, our average vehicle age in New Zealand is about 11.7 years, which is one of the oldest vehicle fleets in the world. We drive some of the shortest trips in terms of kilometres in the Western World and we drive with the fewest passengers. So we are incredibly oil-reliant.

My office did some analysis a few years back and we found that for every US$1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it shaved $40 million to $60 million off New Zealand’s GDP. We have seen oil being a major driver of recessions through the last six-odd decades, and when you look at the last great oil shock in 2008—which, in part, played a significant role in the global financial crisis—what Kiwis found was that they wanted to be able to keep doing things and undertaking economic activity. In the face of high oil prices, they had no options. So in Wellington, commuters flocked to the public transport system because they wanted to avoid paying higher oil prices, but they were out of luck because there was such a limited capacity. In fact, in Wellington we literally went to the museum to get rail units out of the museum and put them on the tracks to cater for the increase in commuters.

In my hometown of Gisborne, exporters wanted to put their products on the local rail line to get them to market, rather than face high and rising oil prices, but what they found was that the rail line had closed thanks to National’s inactivity, and now it has closed for good. Across the country people wanted to get to work or school on their bikes to get fit and to save money, but what they found was that there was no safe cycling infrastructure out there and they did not feel it was safe. So people felt trapped because the Government was not giving them options to escape high and rising oil prices, and this slight marginal increase in the price of a litre of oil to pay for our offshore oil stocks is not going to make a shred of difference.

This bill also does not take into account climate change. This is the greatest global environmental threat. The International Energy Agency—an agency that we subscribe to; that the Government actually contributes money towards—is advising us that we cannot afford to burn 70 percent of the oil reserves we have already discovered let alone go looking for more deep in our oceans, as we invited Chevron Oil to do yesterday. We cannot afford to burn 70 percent of the stuff we have already found if we want a safe and stable climate for our kids.

So instead of this tinkering, what the Green Party has been advocating is real solutions for Kiwis and better ideas for the New Zealand economy. We would like to see greater action on electric cars. For a country with close to 100 percent renewables, we could be helping to save consumers money. The equivalent to filling a tank of petrol in an electric vehicle is about 30 bucks—30 bucks versus, say, 150 bucks. We should be giving Kiwis better options for public transport, such as the central business district rail link for Auckland; better buses, cleaner buses, and cheaper buses for Wellington; and clean energy. Imagine what kind of country we would have. It would be a more resilient country, and a nicer country in terms of nicer places to live—healthier places to walk and cycle without the smoke, pollution, and particulates that are killing hundreds of us every year. We would see more jobs and more development. In short, the Greens’ smart solution to deal with one of the biggest issues of our age will lead to a richer New Zealand in all of the terms that encompasses. Merry Christmas to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and merry Christmas to all the members of Parliament and the public.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): It is quite similar to yesterday. There are lots of conversations on this side of the House about disagreeing with what the Government is trying to do, and yet it seems, at this stage anyway, that only one party will stand up to oppose how it intends to fix this small problem. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to attempt to add some small controversy to today’s proceedings.

The Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill amends the purpose and the amount of the petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy that is currently provided for under the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989, section 24. New Zealand First does agree with the obligation to meet international energy agreements. It does agree that having 90 days’ worth of oil stocks is absolutely essential. We as a country must meet our obligations to our international commitments, and these stocks must be held with our—as suggested—domestic oil supply. It is a $20 million commitment over the next 3 years. It is not large, but, as was well spoken to by previous members, there are reasons why this bill should not go ahead as it is written.

What is important to note as well is that it is not just physical stocks, and, actually, it is not stocks in New Zealand. What we are talking about is the rights to tickets, or stocks, held in other countries that will count towards our total stock obligation. We are buying these overseas commitments and we are actually leaving those reserves in those other countries. We have been told the costs of these tickets are going up. These increased costs are due to the decrease in domestic production of oil, an increase in the ticket contract price, and an increase in the volume we need to hold. We acknowledge that these are real issues. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment forecasts a further increase in prices of these tickets. Again, we acknowledge that it is a problem now. We must meet our obligations, and these commitments will get larger over time.

We do not dispute any of these facts. We know that we are highly dependent on these stocks, and to run out of fuel would be devastating for our local economy. To suggest that we should not comply with our international obligations would be, and is, inappropriate. But this is where our take on the actions necessary differs from that of the Government. We are told that the Vote Energy budget is now insufficient, but the Government’s solution is simply to add another tax, to New Zealand road users especially. The Automobile Association points out that New Zealanders are currently paying 67.129c per litre of petrol just on tax—67c on the price of petrol is currently being collected by the Government as fuel excise, and that is before motorists pay GST, which is on top. Just to clarify: New Zealand First has always opposed tax on a tax, which this situation now is a prime example of. As the Legislation Advisory Committee correctly points out, this new levy can be categorised as being a charge in the nature of a tax.

New Zealand First acknowledges that asking the fuel companies to build infrastructure large enough to meet our physical stock obligations, as was discussed in the Commerce Committee, would simply put prices up even more, and this is what we in New Zealand First are trying to avoid. We were told by the Minister of Energy and Resources that oil is our fourth-biggest export, and right now we are searching for more. Why could we not simply use existing levies to offset this increased cost to ensure we comply with our international obligations? Apparently, we are looking to increase our domestic capacity so our stocks will increase. New Zealand First applauds this, but would suggest to the Minister of Revenue that he look to ensure that we as a country benefit more than the large oil conglomerates do when they come and start taking oil out of our land. New Zealand First has campaigned strongly on regional development, for example, and looks to these recent announcements as an opportunity for the Government to share its largesse with the regions. Recent OECD reports showed very clearly that this Government needs to take another approach to building wealth in this country. The report gives clear suggestions that this might take the form of economic policy where all New Zealanders can share in this wealth and income-generating activity.

Although we believe that the Government will pass this legislation despite our protests, further burdening road users with another levy in perpetuity for a problem that can be resolved in the short term, we offer some suggestions for the Minister’s consideration. One of the discussions I have had with those affected by this bill revolved around using the GST component to purchase the required tickets or stock, or even using the levies we already have to address this problem. Let us not create another one. We have already been told in the House today by other members, who in principle seemed to oppose this, that the levy is tiny, and we should absorb it. The Legislation Advisory Committee has stated that the original purpose of this bill was too broad. It was originally supposed to address the emergency reserves commitment, but there was a lack of clarity around the purpose for which this bill can be applied and how the levy rate will be set. If the Government insists on passing this bill, then its intent must match its original purpose. If this Government insists on taxing the New Zealand public even more, then its purpose must be very specific.

The bill did not originally contain any specific criteria for setting the levy or for determining which fuels were subject to it. I would like to concur with the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes, that the selection—and the lack of reasoning for the selection—of the types of fuels seems to be nonsensical. We would, in fact, support the removal of the levy on biofuels, for example, to encourage that industry. There is now reference in the bill to a calculation that must be applied, but can I add further that the absence of a cap suggests that this levy will, in fact, be just another revenue device, with no mention of stopping the levy when our obligations are met. New Zealand First would argue that, despite the intent of the bill, the Government will use it simply as another way of burdening Kiwi motorists in perpetuity. We need to be very clear to the public about what the levy sum will be. This legislation needs to guide and inform so that the New Zealand public is not surprised or even misinformed. Further clarification is needed, as we cannot be sure even what fuels are being taxed. There is a clear lack of specificity—for example, we do know aviation fuel is exempt because it is subject to a different international convention. Oil in its raw form is apparently also exempt at this stage.

What the Government is proposing to do with regard to prescribing rates gives too much power yet again to a Minister in charge of a portfolio. It is seeking to remove parliamentary process in the setting of this levy. Once again, the Minister must consult only with those considered by him to be people affected. Once again, there will a loss of opportunity for wider consultation and submission. How about the Minister makes a list of who he thinks those important parties are? Let us be transparent and upfront. Whom will he be talking to? We agree that we are an international player and must meet our obligations. New Zealand must do its part to ensure worldwide stability and, of course, to ensure that any international or even domestic incidents that could interfere with the smooth and continuous supply of oil are mitigated.

The intent of this bill is important, but on behalf of the travelling public of New Zealand we oppose another increase on petrol levies. This tax will further aggravate the erroneous and inappropriate tax on a tax situation, which New Zealand First so proudly campaigned against in the last election. There are alternatives that have not been explored, which would not cost the people of New Zealand yet more of their hard-earned money. There are issues with the wording of this bill. It lacks details. It is another example of a Government Minister taking power away from a good democratic process. We oppose this bill. We do not need yet another tax.

Whilst I have this opportunity, may I end by wishing my parliamentary colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): What a delight to be able to speak on this bill. I have to say it is so nice to follow a member, Fletcher Tabuteau, who has been speaking about why Ministers should not take responsibility, and yet I have heard today in the House members on the other side constantly berating my colleagues because they were, in fact, allowing their ministries to take proper responsibility and not overriding them. But I just thought that was quite stunning.

This bill is all about putting the cost of our stockholding treaty obligations for oil on to the people who are using the oil. That actually seems to me to be a pretty sensible thing. Many people have no idea that our biggest export to Australia in terms of value, by the way, is oil. The second biggest is gold. So for those on the other side who do not know about these things, we have long been an exporting nation of these rich mineral lands.

Having said that, we also import our oil that we use in New Zealand because that is the standard of oil that our refinery is able to take. The sort of oil that we take out of Taranaki, for instance, that goes off overseas is a different quality of oil. Apparently it is very, very high-quality oil and it is too high for our oil refinery. So when we listen to people talk about how we should boycott oil, and we should stop doing this with oil, the fact is that it is a huge part of our economy now. What this bill very sensibly does is give the Minister the power to put the costs where they should be, where they should lie.

Chris Hipkins: What about Whale Oil?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: One of the things that some of us are old enough to remember is carless days. I know that Mr Hipkins—he is very vocal; he has been allowed out to play—does not remember that because he was not born then. But I am not jealous of the fact he was not born then. I know he was probably a twinkle in someone’s eye. But I remember that. I am sure that the Assistant Speaker remembers carless days. I am sure many people can remember those days. That is what happened when we became victims of the—

Chris Hipkins: Before the car?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Hipkins wonders whether or not there were cars then. There were then, yes. I think one of the things that we need to do is to always be aware that even though we are major exporter of oil in terms of our economy, we are also a big importer of oil. It is really impossible for us to ignore the fact that as a small nation we need to be able to have access to oil. We know what happened last time, in the 1970s, when we went through these problems. The fact is that this is a sensible bill that enables the costs to lie where they should.

Can I also, just in conclusion—because it is such a fabulous bill that we want to get this through its second reading; such a fabulous bill—

Chris Hipkins: Once more with a straight face.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Such a fabulous bill, Mr Hipkins—he is actually a lovely young man and he will make someone a lovely son one day. I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas. And might I say, I confess that I am going to have a glass or two of something on New Year’s Eve, because, frankly, I have had enough of this year and I am looking forward to a fabulous 2015. I wish everyone well, please drive safely, and all come back again. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I was not sure who was going to take the next call. I certainly think that the previous speaker, the Hon Judith Collins, who was a very welcome addition to the Commerce Committee, is vying tonight for the award for “the twinkle in Parliament’s eye” or to be the “parliamentary Christmas fairy”.

Hon Judith Collins: No fairies on this side.

CLARE CURRAN: On that note, I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas—and you, Mr Assistant Speaker—and do hope that we all have a good break. I think we all need it. It has been a long year. Thank you to the messengers and all of the people who work at Parliament and make Parliament work for us in the background. Thank you so much for your good humour and your steadfast support of us all.

I do not want to relitigate what has been said in this scintillating debate on this extremely important piece of legislation, which is the last piece of legislation going through in 2014, other than to say that, as one of only two members who were actually on the select committee who have spoken in the debate tonight, it was not a hugely controversial bill. There were four submissions. I think it was reasonably straightforward in terms of the small changes that were made during the select committee process and recommended back to the House.

I would like to make a couple of comments, though, because what preceded that select committee process, with the submissions, was actually another process. It was a discussion document that was put out by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in which there were a number of other submissions given—15, I think. There was much more in-depth discussion that resulted from that.

Through that, I think the general point that was made, and which is why we have got this bill before the House, is that the actual cost of the contract requirement, requiring this amendment to come before us, is actually increasing to a point, if the House can see it on this graph, where it is going right up. The current appropriation of $3 million to cover that cost is just simply not enough. We are currently at around this point on the graph and it is going up to around $10 million to $12 million. So we have got to be able to find a way, if we are going to meet our international treaty obligations, to actually do that.

Whether there should be a storage facility built so that we could actually keep that fuel onshore was thought about, which I think a couple of my colleagues in the Greens and New Zealand First were arguing for. That was determined to be too expensive, and that is why we are looking at this expanded levy arrangement, which does result in a cost to taxpayers. I think we all need to acknowledge that. But the regulatory impact statement, actually, puts that cost as being at 0.113c per litre. I do not know about the other costs that have been mentioned tonight. I think in the Committee stage, when we do get to the Committee stage, it would be good to have the Minister clarify those. That equates to around 4.5c per 40 litres for a tank of fuel—4.5c.

I guess we have got to put that into context, and I think the New Zealand First representative who spoke, who was not on the select committee—it would be worth thinking about that and thinking about what the impact of that actually is on the consumer. I think we do need to get some assurance from the Minister, in the Committee stage, that there will be close monitoring of that cost and that there are not going to be further costs passed on to consumers, because I think that is pretty important.

I also think that there has been a huge opportunity missed through this bill, as usual, by this Government, which is more obsessed with presiding over the dirtiest, filthiest, grubbiest, vilest operations we have ever seen in New Zealand politics. Instead, it could have actually come up with a strategy for sustainability and looking at where we are going in terms of fuel use, and moving beyond oil in terms of sustainable fuel and looking at biofuels and what we can be doing in that space.

Where is the economic development strategy that sits behind this bill? There simply is none. As usual, it is a piecemeal, small piece of legislation that does not fit into a wider strategy. Labour supports the bill because it is sensible, it fits our obligations for an international treaty, and it is not a huge impost on consumers. But it is small-minded, it does not fit into a bigger picture, there is no economic development, and no ongoing strategy around sustainable fuel and around how New Zealand could actually be using this as an opportunity for economic development. I think that is a great pity. It is a missed opportunity. I look forward to the Committee stage and questioning the Minister on some of those issues. I just reiterate: best wishes to everyone for Christmas. Make sure you have a good break and have a safe break, and we will come back fighting in 2015.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): This bill was considered by the Commerce Committee and minor amendments were recommended. This bill is part of New Zealand’s commitment to its treaty obligation as a signatory to the international energy programme. As a signatory to this agreement New Zealand is required to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of net imports. Stockholding costs have previously been funded through general taxation. The bill allows for the costs to instead be met through the existing petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy. It is very important for us to hold the stock. This bill enhances New Zealand’s ability to cope with international oil supply disruptions.

The previous speaker Clare Curran just mentioned that this bill is short-sighted, but I do not agree with her. The Government has got a Business Growth Agenda and we have been performing very well in the past 6 years.

Before I conclude, I would like to wish all members a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. To you in particular, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, I am still waiting for the day when some member will test your patience and you will throw that member out of this Chamber. I look forward to that day, and I would love to be the first one to be kicked out by you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): In standing for what seems like the final call, I am not taking up the challenge of my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to test your patience, Mr Speaker, and be tossed out. In fact, I am here in some ways to deliver the good oil on this bill. I am hoping to not leak anything here or slip up. I have noted, though, that—[Interruption] I am sorry, I apologise to the nation. [Interruption] So I should, my colleague from Coromandel notes. Look—

Chris Hipkins: Tell us about South Park.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Actually South Park is a fantastic—thank you for allowing me that little segue there—programme.

This is a relatively simple bill, as many colleagues in the House have spoken about. We have an international agreement, like many nations in the world, to make sure there are 90 days of fuel stocks or oil stocks available. Up until this bill, basically all New Zealanders, via the general tax bill—

Andrew Little: Just enough to get you through your trial period of employment.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I have to stop here. I have not had the chance, Mr Little, to actually congratulate you on your role.

Andrew Little: Waiting for your text message.

SIMON O’CONNOR: You have not given me your number yet. We will have to see whether there is any divine intervention. We will have to have that discussion.

Chris Hipkins: He doesn’t change it all the time like John Key.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That is right. Divine intervention is what we are on to. Anyway, we keep going off on these segues at the moment.

The bill is really, importantly, about moving the tax burden or the obligations away from the general taxpayer to those using vehicles. This is a piece of legislation that enables that to happen. But I think this Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill, here in its second reading, is in the yuletide spirit. I have noted over this week and in weeks past there has been dissension in the ranks. We have had Opposition parties opposing what we do, which we have come to expect from Labour. We have the likes of the Greens—of course, they oppose everything we do. New Zealand First members normally speak in support of things and then switch their minds.

But we thought it was probably important, I assume—I cannot speak for the Leader of the House. But the Government thought: “What bill can we put here that will bring unanimity to this House, in this final piece of legislation that moves forward?”. It has been really good to hear from those speaking, from all the various parties in the previous calls, that this bill will have widespread support.

Dr David Clark: Find some levity to finish—some levity.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Again, it is quite festive, as is the jacket of the member opposite.

Grant Robertson: I see—now you’re in his good books.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That is right. It is ecumenical, you see. We are reaching out.

Anyway, back to the bill at hand. Here is what is the final bill, drawing people together. So, as this final call comes to a close, I want to echo what many members of the House have been doing, which is to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. It has been quite a busy and formidable year for all of us, regardless of the politics. [Interruption] It has been prosperous—I think I have got that in about four times so far.

Tim Macindoe: You’re prospecting for oil.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, prospecting—yes, I did not realise the etymology of that. I think, actually, for all of us it has been an immensely intense year, and a big part of that is ultimately in relation to it having been an election year. I think there is something in it too that here we are, in this final speaking slot on a simple bill, taking up a good few minutes on it—burning the oil, if you wish.

Grant Robertson: You’ve lost them, Simon. You’ve lost them.

Dr Megan Woods: Sit down.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know; I know. It is shocking. I feel my majority in Tāmaki shrinking, and I am getting very, very worried.

Joanne Hayes: Don’t worry.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I do not worry. It is in this spirit of thanks. Also, if I am going red, it is not related to anything else other than the season.

Tim Macindoe: You can stop gushing.

SIMON O’CONNOR: All right. With thanks to the House for what has been a very good and successful year, a busy year with the election, can I add my thanks to all those who make Parliament tick over and work as well as it does. There may be 120 of us here as MPs, but there are hundreds and hundreds of people who make this place work—from the cleaners to the messengers, to the security staff, to the library, and to the Parliamentary Service. In closing on this 5 or so minutes’ dictated oration, may I wish the House and you, Mr Speaker, a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 11

New Zealand First 11.

Bill read a second time.

Adjournment

Adjournment

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House do now adjourn. Mr Speaker, it has been a long political year, and we admire the equanimity with which you have helped to conduct the business of this House—considered, reasonable, sometimes not quite correct in your views about what is happening, but perhaps less so than previous Speakers. Thank you for your considered judgment, Mr Speaker.

Can I, along with others, acknowledge on behalf of the Government the staff here in Parliament—the cleaners, the security and catering staff, the library staff, the Hansard staff, the Cabinet Office, our research units, and particularly our office staff. Not only do they carry out their functions, but, in my experience, these are people who do it with some real cheerfulness and, quite often, kindness to politicians who maybe do not always deserve it. But nevertheless they do that, and I want to thank them for those little extra human touches that they bring to the operation of the House and Parliament.

I want to acknowledge all those MPs who have joined the House following the recent general election. They will have time over the holidays to ponder just what an impact it has had on their life, but they will find it an interesting and energising time—getting back here next year.

I want to acknowledge, in his absence, our Prime Minister. He is a political leader who has made history this year, with the strongest third-term victory of any Government in the last 100 years. With his upbeat and aspirational approach, and his fundamental belief in the capacity of New Zealand and New Zealanders to do better, that positive leadership through tough times has been rewarded in a way that politicians appreciate more than anyone else, and that is with a mandate to continue governing—not exactly in the same way, but with the same attitude, of course, when dealing with the circumstances as we now find them, which are significantly different from what they were in 2008. I also acknowledge the relentless energy, effort, and cheerfulness that he brings to leading a team as well as the country.

Can I acknowledge that team—my colleagues in Cabinet and in the National Party caucus. This is a team that remains cohesive, focused, and energetic. Let me put to rest any assumption the Opposition may be making about a third-term Government running out of energy. If anything, the problem is a bit too much energy, in my experience. This is a remarkable tribute to the people whom the National Party puts in here but also, more important, to a governing party that reflects the new energy and confidence of New Zealanders. That is what it is about. It is not as if this party is off on its own. The election campaign, the election result, was built on a New Zealand population that has become more resilient, with a stronger belief in their capacity to handle both good times and bad times, and this caucus here reflects that.

Can I also acknowledge our coalition partners. We have had this coalition arrangement together now, which is coming into a third term—the Māori Party, ACT, and United Future. It is an open and transparent relationship that has contributed to and, in fact, underpinned the stability of government in New Zealand. We welcome particularly the newer members of that coalition who have joined us through the Māori Party and ACT.

I also want to wish the Opposition parties a happy Christmas. The reason for that is that they have had a very unhappy year. So I hope they have a happy Christmas and, in particular, a happy Christmas to the new leader of the Labour Party. In fact, when I was thinking about wishing him a happy Christmas, I thought: “I have done the adjournment debate before, and I think I have wished the Leader of the Opposition a happy Christmas before—I had better go back and just check.” So here it is. Phil Goff got three Christmases. David Shearer—

Carmel Sepuloni: How many did you get?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All my Christmases have come in the National-led Government. Phil Goff got three Christmases. David Shearer got two Christmases. David Cunliffe got one Christmas—we hope Andrew Little makes it to Christmas.

Here is what they say about Andrew Little. This is just a bit of commentary: “He’s done well. He looks like he could be the goods. … you’d have to concede that … [his shadow cabinet changes] …. made a lot of sense.” And here is another one: “Little might be the man in the right place at the right time. … He just needs to be competent, assured and authentic— … so far—he’s passed the test.” Well, that is pretty positive. I thought: I wonder whether that has happened before. So I went back to commentary on David Shearer: “His opponents are at risk of underestimating him. Behind the affable exterior and ready smile are a steel-trap mind coupled with a steely resolve.” So he was good. On David Cunliffe: “Cunliffe delivered the ‘wow’ factor. As he sat down from his first big speech, conference delegates gave him a standing ovation.” So it has all been said before.

You know, it will not matter how well the new Leader of the Opposition does if the Labour Party does not change—that is, change its policies that it has been giving us since 1996. There are a couple of things they will be discussing over the barbecues in the Labour Party. One is: who shot Grant Robertson? That will be the top topic. Whose was the one vote that changed, which meant that Andrew Little got four caucus votes when actually he was meant to get three? That is what happened. He got four caucus votes when he was meant to get three. Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern will want to know that. One of the challenges for the Labour Party is unity. As a Labour friend of mine told me, Andrew Little was the last man standing in a circular firing squad. Someone missed him, and so he is the leader.

The Labour Party is going to have to catch up with aspirational New Zealand. This is a party that still believes that parents should not know how their children do at school. It still believes that. It still believes that no asset should be sold anywhere for any reason under any circumstances. Even the Christchurch City Council has gone centre-right on recycling capital.

The National Government goes into Christmas on the back of a pretty good year, but, more important, with a very solid-looking outlook for the economy. Three percent growth per year over the next 3 years—that is roughly where we are headed—means more jobs, higher incomes, and more opportunities for New Zealanders to get ahead, not because we are a rock star economy but because we are a rock-solid economy that is underpinned by New Zealanders who understand what it takes for this economy to succeed.

We will also be back and will continue improving our public services—value for money for all those people who work hard all week and give us their PAYE. It is our job to make sure that there is more educational achievement, that prisoners who come out of prison do not go back, and that more children are protected from violence. I want to congratulate the New Zealand Public Service. Several hundred thousands of them have worked very hard for 6 years to produce more for the same or less. Public confidence in public services today has never been higher—never been higher. Public servants have done an outstanding job of serving the public and the Government of the day. They can only do that because we have a strong economy with a well-led Government, an outstanding Prime Minister, and a New Zealand that wants it that way.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Well, we have heard it all now, in the great spirit of Christmas: “recycling capital” from a deputy leader who has been recycling his political capital for the last several years.

I want to begin by thanking all the people around this very important institution for working so hard to not only keep us occupied but keep this House running. I want to thank Mary Harris, the Clerk of the House, and all the Office of the Clerk staff, including the Table Office, the Bills Office, Hansard, interpretation and translation, Select Committee Services, parliamentary relations, policy, legal education, organisational performance—which I did not know existed until now—and information services. They are all those who make sure that our job is easier to do every day.

I want to thank Alan Mumford, the buildings team, and all the contractors who support buildings. They have been a frequent occupier of the third floor of the parliamentary building—it is true—moving offices around. I want to thank the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, and the security staff who work so hard to keep us safe even when the security risk rises and we have fewer doors to come in and even fewer to leave by. I want to thank Heather Daly and the tireless messengers who have been the focus of attention from at least the Paul Henry Show this year and, of course, ourselves.

I want to thank the research experts, the Parliamentary Library, the Datacom team who keep us connected and sometimes our computers working, the New Zealand Post staff at the post shop, and the Epicure staff who keep us fed. I have to say ever since Andrew Williams no longer frequents this place, my Epicure bill has halved. I think they had a policy that if it was named Andrew, they sent it to Andrew Little, but it has got easier. I want to thank the Spotless cleaning team, who, I might say, do genuinely deserve a pay rise for Christmas. I want to thank the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service, David Stevenson, and his team, and in particular Anne Smith, Jane McKenzie, Shelley Kirk, and the relationship team.

Finally, I would like to thank my chief of staff, Matt McCarten, the whips’ office manager, Emma Williams, and the dedicated and talented team of leaders, staff, executive assistants, out-of-office parliamentary staff, and issues assistants whom they take care of. I might also thank the chief of staff of the Prime Minister’s office, Wayne Eagleson, who has provided me with so many opportunities in the last few weeks, but that might not be quite in the spirit of things. I believe it is also protocol for me to acknowledge all the former leaders of my caucus, but I have only 10 minutes and I do not want to detain the House for too much longer.

There is no question that this has not been the easiest year for the Opposition, at least in the Labour Party. We have had our ups and downs, but I want to say we have ended the year on an up, and that is very satisfying. I should, as a matter of formality—and genuineness, because we are genuine people in this House—congratulate the Government and, indeed, the Prime Minister on their election victory again. They did receive, at least 10 weeks ago, a huge vote of trust and confidence from the public. They have a responsibility to live up to that.

It is true that we also received a very clear message from the election result. The public felt we had lost touch with them. They want us to keep up with a changing world. I can say we have heard that message. We are reconnecting with New Zealanders. We are on our way. I want to say also that Labour is now on the front foot. We are on the front foot.

Hon Member: On your way.

ANDREW LITTLE: Yeah, we are on our way to make a difference in this country, because people are looking for something different. People are looking for something different. They want MPs and politicians who talk straight and who talk to the issues as they are—the issues that New Zealanders care about.

We have shown New Zealanders that we can do that, and they are concerned about a Government that, 10 weeks into the job, is now showing that dreadful “third-term-itis” that some Governments show, of a bit more arrogance and a bit more contempt for the public. It is starting to creep out. Poor old Paula Bennett has to come down to question time just to find out what the housing policy is, because we all know that it is Bill English who controls it and runs it. She is screwing up her face, but she knows the truth. She does not know what is going on in housing. She does not know how many houses there are. She does not know how many houses are being sold. The Cabinet decisions are now starting to come out because people are concerned about a Government that itself has lost touch and that is out of touch.

Once upon a time New Zealanders looked to the Prime Minister and said: ‘Yeah, John—he’s a straight shooter. We understand him. We get him.” But now, 10 weeks into the third Government, they no longer do. They used to describe him many years ago as a bit slippery. Then he kind of got pretty good—pretty cute. And now they see him as slippery again because he has ended the year covered in whale oil, and that is not going to end any time soon—that is not going to end any time soon.

I want to say, in the spirit of the occasion—there are a couple of announcements that I want to make. I have been leaked a copy of the New Zealand Film Commission’s recent list of movies that it has funded. In fact, it is about to release the list. These movies might make useful stocking fillers for many people—looking at those who are interested in politics. The commission has released to me the list of movies, which are adaptations of favourite New Zealand movies but with a political context applied. Those movie-makers know where their funding has come from.

I will just go through a random selection of movies from the list. For example, there is the newly titled “The Whale Oil Rider”. It is a touching story of two New Zealanders in search of bromance, a spiritual bond, a clean environment for blue whales, and a decent mobile package with free text messaging—filmed on location in the heart of Wellington and suburban North Shore. Then we have “Goodbye Pork Barrel”. It is a road movie in which a Minister of Transport turned Minister of Defence undergoes a road to Damascus conversion and realises that grandiose public works projects designed to win votes actually take money away from other areas, like defence spending.

Then there is “The End of the Golden Weather”. No, it is not the press gallery Christmas party. It is the story of an economy where commodity prices fall, income tax receipts fall, the Government deficit grows, and the marginal character in the whole story is left to mindlessly run up and down Parnell Rise wishing he was important. Finally, we have “Heavenly Features”. It is the story of a Leader of the Opposition who, armed only with his rugged good looks and a new pair of glasses, takes on a Government that is tired, out of touch, out of ideas, and out of time—and wins.

Hon Member: Who’s in that?

ANDREW LITTLE: The mystery guest star in that one is—we will soon find out.

Hon Annette King: What about “The Return of the King”?

ANDREW LITTLE: Oh! There is a special extra one, a Lord of the Rings movie called “The Return of the King”. And she is sitting next to me. We are on our way back. This has been, as I say, a very difficult year.

We are on the cusp, of course, of a very important year—2015. If I could just take a moment, because 2015 is a year in which we will celebrate and observe two very, very critical moments of history for this country. One is, of course, the centenary of Anzac and the disaster at Gallipoli. We, of course, will take time as a nation and, indeed, as a Parliament to observe that. That was the old campaign of the Dardanelles led by, of course, Winston Churchill—that Winston. It was such a huge cost to this country. One-tenth of our population of young men was lost over there. This will be a very important time for us.

There is another very serious and, I think, solemn observance that we have to make next year and that is the 800th anniversary of a very important document that sits at the heart of our constitution, the Magna Carta. I do not know what plans the Government has got to celebrate the Magna Carta, but I am looking forward to those celebrations. As anybody interested in the law and the constitution knows, it is a document that is about establishing the rights and freedoms of citizens in relation to the Government. We should always be concerned about that, as, indeed, this House was yesterday—

Hon Hekia Parata: Thought you were gonna talk about the 175th anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi.

ANDREW LITTLE: No point in heckling now, Minister. It was your Government that passed a piece of legislation that was very frightening to many citizens of this country. We should never forget the importance of those principles in that very important document. I want to know, Minister of Finance, how much you have allocated for that particular celebration, because it is going to be very important to us.

The other piece of news that I want to release too, because we have had a very interesting time in the last several weeks—we have had releases of text messages between the Prime Minister and Cameron Slater. But what we have discovered through our very arduous research is that there are some text messages that were not released at the time. We have now found them—we have now found them. For example, here is one from the night of 14 June, at 11.55 p.m. It is from John Key to Cameron Slater and says: “Just putting out Moonbeam. Night, night, Camcam.” And then we have one from Cameron Slater to John Key on 31 August: “John, can I get some advice again? Girl problems. Judith’s not talking to me any more.” Then here is one from just a couple of weeks ago: “John, I haven’t heard from you in 2 hours. You OK?”.

So we end this year, from this side of the House, very pleased, very happy. We have a direction. We know what the issues are for New Zealanders. They are concerned about what this Government is doing and, more important, what it is not doing. We have been reminded just in the last 24 hours about the issues of inequality in this country and we stand ready to take on that fight and to take on that battle.

Mr Speaker, I want to conclude with a very important message. The spirit of the occasion leaves me to say to all members, and indeed to yourself, in the words of the great crooner: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” And, in terms of making fun of your own surname: “Have yourselves a Merry Little Christmas.” Thank you.

JAMES SHAW (Green): It is a great honour for me to speak on behalf of the Green Party in this adjournment debate—[Interruption] Calm down, fellas—calm down. I thank my colleagues for the privilege. I became an MP only 12 weeks ago, a period of time that seems both very fleeting and also very long. I would like to talk about some of the things I have learnt about Parliament and politics during those weeks. The first thing that I have learnt is that although many of the things that we have provenance over are deeply mundane, such as Parts 1 through to 4 of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill, some are indeed matters of great national and international import, such as the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, which was passed in this House yesterday after several minutes of careful consideration and thoughtful debate.

That bill is designed to stop New Zealanders from going to fight for the Islamic State, which is fighting the Iraqi Government, which we support. We will shortly be sending the military over to help Iraq fight the Islamic State, which definitely will not have any New Zealanders fighting with them because we said so—yesterday. We also support Saudi Arabia, which also supports the Islamic State, which is fighting the Government of Iraq, which we also support. The Middle East is a very supportive environment right now. Our military will feel well supported when they get over there. I will tell this House whom we do not support, and that is President al-Assad in Syria. We do support some of the freedom fighters who are fighting against President al-Assad, who are primarily led by the Islamic State, but we do not support the Islamic State. We also do not support Iran, which also does not support the Islamic State, and which does support the Government of Iraq, which we do support. This mess was largely created by a coalition of the willing, which we were unwilling to support. It invaded Iraq for two reasons: to look for weapons of mass destruction that did not exist and to drive out terrorists who were not there until the coalition went in to drive them out. Into this hornet’s nest, the Beehive proposes to send a contingent of the New Zealand Defence Force, perhaps under the Anzac banner, which may be appropriate because, as far as military adventures go, this one looks like a real winner. It may be just as well that we are passing legislation that is designed to keep us safe from ourselves.

I have also learnt that journalists do actually ask questions like: “Have you ever smoked cannabis?”. My answer to that was: “No. Absolutely not. Never.” Of course, I was answering generally rather than specifically, but it is true; I have never inhaled in my capacity as a list MP. My office may have taken drugs in the past—I do not know; I am not accountable for it—but, at the end of the day, what I can say is that I am extremely relaxed.

The people here have been very friendly. To the people at Parliamentary Service, who put on an excellent induction programme and who set up our offices, our IT, our finances, our travel, and our accommodation; the staff at the restaurants who feed us when we are in a hurry; the ushers who look after us in the House; and the cleaners who tidy up after us at the end of a long day—on behalf of all of us who entered Parliament for the first time this September, and on behalf of my Green colleagues, thank you.

The National Party MPs have been especially warm. Almost every time they mention me in the media they talk about me as a leadership contender for the Green Party. It is very gracious of them to do that without any trace of malice or ulterior motive, especially since Metiria and Russel have led the Green Party and doubled the size since 2008 and I can barely make it into this House with a tie on. I would particularly like to thank the Hon Chris Finlayson for his praise, and I return the favour by asking the National Party to consider that member as its next leader, after the current one steps down early next year. The Hon Chris Finlayson has great integrity, a respect for parliamentary process, precision, a sharp mind, and a clear memory—characteristics that we are looking for in a Prime Minister. Minister Finlayson has other qualities too that many people do not see: a great tolerance for chit-chat, humility, empathy, and a connection with real New Zealanders. He can speak to and for the Kiwi battlers of Huntly. As the Attorney-General himself might say: “Fecisti patriam diversis de gentibus unam.”

The House is about to rise for the summer adjournment, which revolves around the tradition of Christmas. I imagine that after this speech, I for one will be begging for forgiveness, and it is on that theme I would like to conclude. I said in my maiden speech only 7 weeks ago that we must transcend and transform our petty politics and our partisanship. I said that to get unstuck we will all need to let go of some things and to be more committed to finding the answers than to being right or to others being wrong. The intervening weeks have not disillusioned me of that belief; they have reinforced it. To a new observer it may seem that we are stuck in a never-ending downward spiral of attack and defend that serves only to revolt the public at large and to turn them off participating in the political process or even bothering to vote. One of the four principles of the Green Party charter is that of non-violence. This is not simply an absence of physical violence; it is the method of social change given to us by Mahatma Gandhi, who preached ahimsa, the lack of desire to harm or to kill, and by Martin Luther King, who drew from the Christian tradition. It is through these principles and practices that we can transcend and transform the stuck situation we seem to find ourselves in. Let us take the summer adjournment to consider ways we might work together to fix this, to bring integrity and functionality to our political process, and to restore New Zealanders’ faith in who we are and the work we do here.

As this most sordid of political years draws to a close and the House rises for the Christmas break, I offer this. In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus is reported in the Gospel of Luke to have said “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First wishes to thank all of the hard-working people in Parliament who make this place tick, for what they contribute to our nation and to our democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker—and thanks also to your assistants—for your efforts to ensure that this place runs fairly, or, to be more accurate and to quote Mr Joyce, “pretty fairly”. Thank you also to your staff, particularly the Clerk and her office, the select committee staff, our fantastic library researchers, the messengers, the cleaners—who, by the way, still need a fair raise—the travel office, the Copperfields staff, the IT gurus, parliamentary security, and the Hansard staff. To all of you, a happy Christmas.

Thanks also to my dear friends in the press gallery. We know that you play a very fundamental role in our parliamentary democracy. Sadly, it has become increasingly clear to us that the under-resourcing of those in the gallery by their respective organisations is having a negative impact on their ability to report the news. As this new-found obsession with speed shows, haste makes waste, and thoughtful consideration is better than a breaking news banner—but we know where the blame lies.

To our New Zealand First staffers in Wellington and out around the country, and to all of our supporters, thank you for a great year. With a fraction of the money these other parties had—a bare fraction of what they had—we increased our vote by almost 62,000. Had the election been in November, when it should have been, it would have been “all over, Rover”. There is an ominous warning for some of you over there in that last statement.

We have had a great year. The question now becomes: why are we rising now? Why, when there are zero hours for some people on contracts, the 90-day exploratory period, and the lack of smoko, would this Parliament and every other party but New Zealand First want to go and have an early holiday? They should be here to handle the crisis that this country faces. Why? Overnight the OECD irrefutably pointed to the disparities between the wealthy and the poor in this country.

You know, the only thing we have in surplus right now in this country is political dishonesty. Mr English has been holding out for a surplus. For years he has been saying it is imminent. All he has ever delivered, of course, is deficit after deficit after deficit. What we want, Mr English and the National Party, in 2015—which is going to be a seriously tough year; all the omens are there—is the unadulterated, plain truth about the state of the economy; not the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again deficit we have had for the past 6 years. As for the growth rate, every forecast has it severely down, and it is worsening with the latest forecast from Fonterra.

What attention to the deficit does is draw the public’s attention away from some of the really scary numbers. As I said, we have $150 billion of national debt, and our debt as a Government is up over six times, to $65 billion. It reminds me of those lines from Dusty Springfield’s song, where she said: “a-thinkin’ and a-hopin’ and a-dreamin’ and a-prayin’ ”, I think it went—

Hon Member: Thinking and wishing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, “a-thinkin’ and a-hopin’ and a-wishin’ and a-prayin’ ”—on and on; no plan at all. Out in business New Zealand, there are a whole lot of people who think that this Government has no plan, because if we knew what it was, we would not have the Government trying to defend it so many times. Tracking up the figures around the deficit surplus in successive Budgets and fiscal updates has become an art form for this Government.

Before the election, all that mattered to Mr English was to claim a surplus in 2014-15. There is no surplus. As soon as this House rises, he is going to go on trying to soften people and blame everybody else but National’s own claim to be good financial managers. They are not; they are appalling. If we were in Government borrowing at six times what our borrowing rate was in 2008, they would be over there screaming blue murder. But, of course, there has always been for National members, of recent times, one rule for them and a different rule for everybody else. Look at their personal and staff expenditures. They screamed about the number of civil servants we had, and now we have got more. Keith Holyoake used to have five people in his office; Mr Key has got 55. Holyoake had five; Key has 55. And then bodyguards everywhere as well, like some sort of South American drug lord—bodyguards everywhere. Maybe it makes him feel great and important.

Then we have the Government’s boast of massive immigration being good for New Zealand, massive housing—

Hon Member: Oh, here we go.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, here we go again. For that junior, wet behind the ears, been here 5 minutes: here we go, all right—all the way to the next election. We have a net gain of 47,000 right now, mainly going to Auckland, and we have got Mr English and others talking about consents: “Oh, we’ve got 11,000 consents.” Have you ever tried to live in a consent? Are there any bathrooms in a consent? Are there any kitchens or bedrooms in a consent? No. It is a joke. We should be here, all the way to Christmas Eve, to give it our belated attention. Leastways, that is what New Zealand First says. We are happy to do the hours, the yards, because we know what poverty feels and tastes like, and that is why we understand the condition of so many New Zealanders now.

Look at today’s New Zealand Herald. All these people were surveyed by Massey University and Westpac, and the mass majority of them said that they had no hope as renters of ever owning their own home. I can recall in this great country when we were No. 1 in the world, and when we took people from dirt floors and tents and poverty to make us the highest homeownership country in the whole wide world. National’s proud boast at the time under Holyoake was that we were a property-owning democracy. These people here do not care—“I’m in the boat, Jack. Too bad for you. Pull up the ladder, we’re off.” Oh, yes—but I tell you, you nervous backbenchers, that I hope you enjoy it, because it is not going be very long-lived. I do not think you are going to make the 2017 election. I do not think you are going to make it. I think there are going to be massive protests when people realise the promises of growth were so fragile as to be a mirage. It is all in today’s paper. We call for a house and land register, and they say: “Oh, no—that’s not necessary.” Except that if you look at today’s paper again—

Phil Twyford: That’s racist and xenophobic.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, xenophobia, they call it. I can recall when New Zealand First was referring to the housing crisis, massive immigration, and what is going on Auckland, and every other party shouted: “Racism and xenophobia.” Now they want to pick all the low-hanging apples. Oh, yes they do. We might have a concern, because right now we have discovered that the Overseas Investment Office is working on a register of foreign ownership of New Zealand.

Did he know that—the backbencher over there, smiling? Did Mr Bishop know about it? No. He smiles at two flies going up the wall. Did his Prime Minister know? No, he did not know. It is all in this article. Mind you, this is a Prime Minister who said this—also in the New Zealand Herald of 20 November—“But when it came to assess the sale of the Crafer farms to Shanghai Pengxin, not a single other farm could be found with Chinese ownership.” What planet is this Prime Minister on? Look at the man up there yawning, from Rodney. He knows there is a whole lot up in his area—one woman owns four farms up there. And here is the Prime Minister bull-dusting around the country saying that it does not exist. Well, we are going to make sure that everybody in 2015 gets to find out who was telling the truth all along. Our message to those people going to Christmas, and it will be very grim for a lot of people, is that I know it is difficult, but hang on—New Zealand First is on a dramatic rise; it is the fastest-growing party in this country—help is on its way. Help is on its way.

The sad thing, of course, is this: we are off to war. This country, as soon as this House rises, will find out that we are off to war, having never—

Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it is rubbish. I will get around to that member especially a little later. But let me tell you this: we are off to war, and she will never apologise next year when it happens. The National Government never learnt anything from history—never learnt a thing from it. I was in Cabinet in 1991, and I was the only Cabinet Minister opposed to going to that war. Then we had the second engagement, and thank God the Labour Party would not go. But no, no—these new green, wet behind the ears people are off to the Middle East one more time, having never learnt a lesson from history. Even, going down the years, the words of Alexander the Great would have told them to stay away from it. That does not help them. I want to say to the people around this country that I hope they have a better 2015, but the warning is that it is going to be very, very difficult.

I want to close by saying—being the only party that believes in traditional values—have a happy Christmas, be safe on the roads, make sure you use your life jackets, especially those over there who cannot swim, and have a better New Year. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I am just struggling to get some composure after that comedic effort. At 11 a.m. on Monday, 20 October the 51st Parliament introduced a new convention—a karakia taunaki to gather us together under the mantle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a really special occasion—an occasion of kotahitanga in this House of Representatives, a place to place our faith and respect in Te Tiriti as a founding document of this country. I was proud that the Māori Party was able to contribute to the evolving sense of traditions in this place. I look forward to our ongoing discussions about our maturing nationhood—perhaps a new flag; discussions about perhaps a new national anthem, which might go a long way; discussions around relationships between the rangatiratanga flag and other symbols of national identity and shared priorities that reflect the relationship between tino rangatiratanga on one hand and kāwanatanga on the other.

It was a good start to the year and there have been other signs that create reason for optimism about our future as a nation. The Māori Party was so pleased to sign up to a relationship accord with the National Government, called Te Tatau ki te Paerangi—a doorway to our horizons. The relationship signalled the momentum of moving forward, the promise of ongoing investment in Whānau Ora, the ongoing mahi of the ministerial committee on poverty, our focus on Māori economic and regional development and encouraging greater participation in the electoral process, and an engagement strategy with whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations and businesses.

A famous writer, Wīremu Shakespeare, once said that action is eloquence. We heard last night one of our own—our whanaunga—the late Parekura Horomia, who, although he liked to play with words, was also very concerned about action. My esteemed colleague Te Ururoa Flavell and I are determined to be elegant in our eloquence, active in our advocacy, and passionate for our people. In the 2 months since that relationship accord was signed we have initiated two nationwide consultation exercises. The first is to return to the people to gauge their views on how best to take up this political opportunity. The second, led by Te Ururoa, is to listen, learn, and familiarise himself with the people and priorities of his ministerial portfolios. We take engagement seriously. We have thrown open our doors and we have invited our colleagues and friends in, so that we might find kotahitanga in this place that symbolises our new nationhood.

Tracey Martin: You haven’t invited me, Marama.

MARAMA FOX: Hey, I sat down and had a long conversation with you, Tracey. You can come to my office any time you like. That is why it is a matter of great pride for me at the start of this week to be able to promote the amazing leadership demonstrated by Andrew Judd in recommending that under the Treaty mana whenua have a claim to 50 percent of the seats on council tables. Oh my goodness! There were cries around the country of injustice and one rule for all—something that my friends over here do not like to talk about too much. So I was absolutely delighted to take up—

Tracey Martin: Who’s your young man sitting next to you?

MARAMA FOX: This is Rāwiri, he is my friend. This is our opportunity to look at leadership. It was a matter of such despair last week to see the retrograde step taken by the Wanganui City Council in overturning the Minister’s decision to spell Wanganui with an “h”. The iwi have told us that the correct interpretation of the name Whanganui is “the long wait”—whanga meaning “wait”, nui meaning “large” or “long”—but surely the long wait for justice to correct a typo should not take 166 years. We must be vigilant in continuing to work together on these matters to ensure synergy between local and central government, an open relationship between iwi and the Crown, and a dialogue within communities.

Nowhere is that dialogue and leadership needed more than in the area of violence, and I am proud that Te Ururoa, a White Ribbon ambassador, and I are totally determined that the elimination of harm is our top priority. We want to see all our whānau supported to be the best they can be, to live without fear, to be courageous in their ambition, and to live their own dream. Last week we stood on the steps of Parliament and unveiled the Māori men’s stopping violence handbook, using kaupapa Māori practice as a framework for ensuring Māori is value added in this country. That is where Whānau Ora is, and always will be, the opportunity for our greatest transformation to occur.

As we approach the season of goodwill we must ensure that our whānau are encouraged to take back control of their lives and live in a way that enables them to truly realise their potential. We want all our children to feel the gift of love, to know the world awaits them, and to be excited by that possibility. We want our parents, our aunts, our uncles, our kuia, and our koroua to always know how important their strength is to our pā harakeke. We want our whānau to stand up for their own, to enable our whānau hauā to determine their own lives, our whāngai to know their whakapapa and experience the joy of connection, and the diversity of whānau to be supported and know that their greatest opportunity is to create the sense of belonging that makes us all strong.

We are resolute in our drive to eliminate poverty and ensure that debt and deprivation do not define the limits of our world. We will continue to place a premium on housing. Homelessness must not be a part of our present or our future, and I pause at this time to think of all those who this year for Christmas will be experiencing that in a car, on somebody else’s couch, or not anywhere at all. We are absolutely committed to creating real jobs to enable the Māori economy to thrive, and to take due care and action in protecting our beautiful natural world from exploitation or abuse. We will do all that we can to sing our songs, let our language live, and enable all of our whānau, hapū, and iwi to know their tribal richness. We will ensure that all children understand the history of this nation—not just Māori children but all children—and to create an expectation that all public servants must be culturally intelligent. We will continue to place priority on whānau doing for themselves, tending their māra kai, taking responsibility for educational outcomes, and investing in health and well-being as their greatest asset of hope. In doing all of these tasks, we know that we have the greatest privilege and responsibility in answering the call from our constituency to bring the strong and independent voice of Māori into every debate.

Although this 51st Parliament has really only just begun, already we have been overwhelmed by the incredible dedication and commitment of the team within the parliamentary precincts: the Office of the Clerk, Mary Harris, the Deputy Clerk, the Table Office, the library team who help us to pull magic out of the hat through its extensive support, the efficiency of Hansard, the interpreters, of course—tēnā koe, Matua Wīremu—the fantastic security team who keep us safe with a smile, the hard-working and wonderful cleaning staff, the staff of Copperfields and Bellamy’s, the IT team who have helped me keep in touch with the world out there and remind my children what I look like, the building staff who look after our offices, the finance staff, the human resources team, the VIP drivers, the people with the white gloves, the messengers, the telephonists, the parliamentary and ministerial staff, the travel team, and of course our very own Māori Party team—our advisers, our electorate infrastructure, our president, vice-presidents, and national council. Here I make special mention of our very own Helen Leahy.

I look around all of our parliamentary colleagues, and for some of us we share whakapapa. Ron—

Ron Mark: Hey, cuz.

MARAMA FOX: —I meant to vote for you when you were put up for the Speaker, because I thought that might be only vote you will ever get. But that is OK—that is OK—you are still my cousin. We thank you, Mr Speaker, for your team. We acknowledge the Prime Minister, my new-found friend; Mr Brownlee, the Leader of the House; the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Little; fellow party leaders; and all the elected representatives. In the spirit of the season we wish you all goodwill. My colleague and I would like to finish with a little Yuletide waiata.

On the twelfth day of Christmas Māori Party gave to me,

Twelve tweeters tweeting,

Eleven sizzling fried bread,

Ten fattened pāua,

Nine Fox-y children,

Eight juicy kinas,

Seven seats awaiting,

Six pois a-twirling,

Five Whānau Ora navigators,

Four burning questions,

Three Iron Māori,

Two smart co-leaders,

And a Meri Kirihimete ki a koe.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I can assure you I cannot beat that waiata. What a year. There are a number of people whom I would like to thank who have been very helpful to me as a new member, not least of all yourself and your own office, Mr Speaker, the Office of the Clerk, the security, the messengers, and the hard-working cleaners. I agree with the Opposition members who say that they deserve a pay rise. The ACT Party proposes that we give it to all workers by cutting taxes.

I would like to thank Ministerial Services and the Parliamentary Service. I would particularly like to thank my fabulous staff both in Epsom and in Wellington. I set out with a very simple goal. People said you should never be afraid to hire people smarter than you. Some people might say it was the only option I had, but I have certainly managed to discover some very, very talented people, and I am very proud of the team I have got. I should also add to the list of parliamentary people the Parliamentary Library, which has been fantastically helpful to me.

I have to thank the Opposition for the very important constitutional role that it plays—in particular, my right honourable friend and fellow Northlander from Whananaki, Winston Peters, who has really inspired me and taught me a few things. I came to the House thinking that if you wanted to come and speak in this House, you needed a detailed knowledge of what you were talking about, but, as it turns out, that is optional, so thank you very much for the inspirational leadership you have given. I would like to thank the Green Party members, with the exception of one, who have also shown me that I was wrong about the need to have a detailed knowledge of economics before coming to Parliament. With a little bit of luck, some of them will go away and discover that yes, indeed, the interest rate is proportional to risk. If that seems like a confusion, please Google it as a holiday assignment. We would all be much, much better off.

I would like to thank the press gallery, with the possible exception of 3 News, who have mostly been quite kind to me. If anyone out there really thinks that my salary is the sum of all of my office budget, I am afraid on my behalf that is not true, but it does tell you what sort of reporting you can get from that outlet from time to time.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the National Party for their immense support, particularly as a new member—in particular, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but also the two Ministers whom I am looking forward to serving as soon as that letter is tabled. With Minister Parata I think we have some very important work to do with the policy for which I am responsible, partnerships schools and kura hourua. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the role that the Māori Party has played. It has been prepared to put aside ideology and focus on the practicality of a policy that will actually help kids, and for that I greatly commend the Māori Party. It is unfortunate that such a quality cannot be found universally across the House.

I also want to acknowledge Minister Joyce, for whom I will be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform. We have heard a lot about housing affordability this year, and so we should, because it is a fact that the cost of housing relative to incomes is out of control in New Zealand. But as someone who has actually spent considerable time studying this problem, you cannot control housing affordability by picking on particular groups of homebuyers. It is ultimately a matter of the supply elasticity of housing and, in particular, of land upon which you are allowed to build. That is the type of challenge that I believe I can add value to by helping Minister Joyce as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform.

I think I would reflect more generally that we actually had something of a referendum at this election. Beneath what in student politics we once called the “he-said, she-said”—the “s” of politics—there was a simple question. We had the first post-Rogernomics election in this country’s history. By that I mean it was the first time that the Leader of the Opposition had not lived through the 1980s in this House and had not experienced what happened when the Government got involved in serious intervention in the economy. So we saw an Opposition that wanted to go places with monetary policy, with the tax system, with the role of Government in the housing market, and with the electricity market that Helen Clark, Phil Goff, and their predecessors never would have gone. The people of New Zealand looked into that and they said a resounding no.

We also saw a referendum over what sort of society we would like to be and whether we would like to be a free and open society that welcomes people from all over the world. It was a real shame at this election to see Labour and the Green Party join those who know no better in xenophobic pandering against those who would like to come to our country. But, none the less, the people of New Zealand stepped up to this referendum and they said no.

Nowhere in New Zealand did the people more strongly make this statement of no to going backwards in terms of economic policy and social tolerance than in the electorate of Epsom. I have to say, as I have already mentioned in this House, that it had the lowest party vote for New Zealand First—a tribute to the sophistication of the Epsom electorate, and it also had one of the lowest votes for the Opposition parties in the party vote anywhere. And why is that? It is because the people of Epsom are aspirational people. The No. 1 industry in our electorate is education. People come to our electorate because they want to attend our fabulous schools. We are next to two universities and have another one’s campus within our electorate boundary. They are people who want to make a difference in their own lives and the lives of those whom they care about, and they know that the Government cannot fundamentally do that in the long term. It can give but only to the extent that it also takes.

So I was humbled not only by my fellow Epsom electors—the many thousands who elected me to this House—but also by the hundreds of people who actively came out and helped with my enormous ground campaign. If anybody thinks that that is an easy way to win an electorate, well, I would hate to see a tough campaign. We delivered 85,000 direct mail letters by hand with what I have to say was probably the most highly skilled and most dollars-per-hour mail delivery team that the world has ever seen. We were absolutely humbled by the number of people who were happy to help with that campaign and it was a very humbling thing to be involved in.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: $48 a vote.

DAVID SEYMOUR: As I was saying, maths is not always a strong point across the House. We will leave that there.

My proposition to my constituents was that they would help strengthen the centre-right by voting for me and that I would be a very good local electorate MP. Every day I have constituents coming through my door. It is a great pleasure to help you. Please keep coming and I hope that I can help you much more over the following 3 years—because it may be a mystery to some members but that is actually the job of an electorate MP—[Interruption] It is a long time since Tauranga.

So, in conclusion, I am very proud to be here. I am very proud to stand beside National, beside the Māori Party, beside Peter Dunne, for a Government that has profited from this referendum where New Zealanders have said that they want to be a free and open society with a limited role for Government. That is what makes New Zealand great, that is what makes Epsom great, and I sincerely wish all members of all hues a very happy, festive, fabulous season over the weeks to come—because you are going to need it before next year. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): It is a great pleasure to take part in this, the adjournment debate, for the end of the 2014 year here at Parliament. I am very pleased to take part in this debate because when looking across the House, it is clear that the Government members need a holiday. They look absolutely exhausted. Looking across the House—oh! There is Hekia Parata. It is a humiliating day for Hekia Parata, of course, as she backs down on the Government’s flagship education policy. But when looking across the House, it is hard not to feel like I am stuck in front of a TV that is tuned only to the JONES! channel. There is rerun after rerun, old, lame, worn-out jokes, the same old faces, and the same old personalities. When watching Steven Joyce in the House, it is hard not to think of Mr Rumbold from Are You Being Served?, that cantankerous old know-all who really thinks that he is the one running the shop. Steven Joyce is clearly the Mr Rumbold of the National Party. When looking at Simon Bridges answering questions in the House, how could anybody avoid the clear comparison with what’s-his-name from Get Smart—

Grant Robertson: Maxwell Smart.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Maxwell Smart. The Maxwell Smart of the National Party has to be Simon Bridges. When listening to Gerry Brownlee answer on behalf of the Prime Minister with an answer that effectively goes along the lines of “I know nothing.”—Sergeant Shultz of the National Party; that is Gerry Brownlee. When looking at poor old Craig Foss, pushed out of Cabinet and pushed to the backbenches, he is like Norm off Cheers. Things never quite work out for poor old Craig Foss. Then, of course, we have got Chris Finlayson, the Frasier Crane of the National Party, with all of that watered intellect that nobody every takes seriously there. Bill English is the Frank Spencer. If you look at the Frank Spencer of the National Party, and if you look at the state of the Government’s accounts, which are still not in surplus, that is very clear: he is the accident-prone Bill English.

Of course, sometimes you get to change the channel and you end up on The Muppet Show. I know that John Key is a big fan of The Muppet Show, and looking up the back to where Judith Collins and Maurice Williamson sit, it is hard not to think of Waldorf and Statler from The Muppet Show, up the back there passing judgment on all of their colleagues the way that they do. Or Tim Groser—when listening to Tim Groser talking about climate change, it is hard not to think about Bunsen Honeydew, the mad scientist from The Muppet Show. Although I am not sure what that makes Nick Smith; does that make him Beaker? I am not entirely sure about what that does. I think Hekia Parata actually probably has the closest resemblance to The Swedish Chef. She sort of throws things around and mumbles things that nobody can quite understand. I think that is very much Hekia Parata. Jonathan Coleman is The Great Gonzo over there—the maestro of the health portfolio. Peter Dunne—you could liken him a bit to Fozzie Bear, really. He tries very hard to make people laugh, but does not quite succeed.

Then, of course, we have the member who just spoke, David Seymour. But I realise that on the JONES! channel, they have not yet brought back Doogie Howser, M.D., but when they do I am sure that we will see David Seymour there reflected on the JONES! channel. Of course, how can I forget the star of the show? No, I am not talking about Kermit the Frog. I am talking about the Prime Minister, John Key—the man with a memory like a steel trap that prematurely closed. Nothing ever gets in there. I read in a magazine article the other day that crosswords are very good for one’s memory, so I bought John Key a Christmas present—a book of crosswords. I am going to give that to him in the House this year, because his memory clearly needs a little bit of a workout.

By giving him a Christmas present, at least we know that someone’s present will arrive this year, because I have it on good authority that 70,000 New Zealand kids wrote to Santa Claus this year and sent their letters to New Zealand Post, and New Zealand Post worked out this week that they cannot send the replies because they do not meet the new mail deadlines of New Zealand Post. That pretty much sums up the year for the National Party as all of their chickens come home to roost at Christmas time. They cannot even run the postal system so that the kids who wrote to Santa get the reply from Santa that they have been hanging out for. The National Government has stolen Christmas from the 70,000 kids who wrote to Santa Claus this year. That has to be its finest achievement as Government members go off on their Christmas break—that has to be their finest achievement as they go off on their Christmas break.

By contrast the Labour Party goes into the summer adjournment with confidence and optimism—with confidence and optimism. It may have been a rough year for the Labour Party, but we end the year with a spring in our step and with a leader, Andrew Little, who says it like it is—he says it like it is. Once you get past that bubbly personality, the effervescent smile, and the soaring rhetoric, you will find a man of great substance. He is somebody who is going to lead the Labour Party to victory in 2017, and he will have all of us behind him—a fantastic team, brimming with talent, unlike the one-man band opposite, which has only one person there capable of doing anything.

Carmel Sepuloni: Who is that?

CHRIS HIPKINS: I have not quite figured out which one it is yet. Unlike the one-man band opposite, this is a good team—a solid team—working together.

I would like to finally take a moment to thank all of those in Parliament who make this possible: the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Service, the caterers, the cleaners, the security staff, and all of those who make Parliament tick on a day-to-day basis. I would like to thank them for their enormous contribution to Parliament, and I wish them and their families a safe, happy, and enjoyable Christmas. Most of all, I would like to thank the staff of the Labour Party—the people who work here in the office of the Leader of the Opposition and in the offices of all of our members of Parliament. I think one of the things that is often not acknowledged is how difficult election years can be for all of the staff working at Parliament. Whether they work on the Government side or the Opposition side, elections create huge uncertainty for the people who work for us, and that is very seldom acknowledged. So I want to say thank you to all of the staff, wherever they work in the parliamentary complex.

Finally, to all of my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House and on that side of the House and to you, Mr Speaker, can I wish you all the very best for the holiday season. I hope that everybody has a safe, enjoyable, and relaxing time, and we will see everybody back here again next year.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): It is traditional for whips to end the debate in the adjournment debate, so Tim Macindoe and I got one of the Christmas crackers and we each pulled an end. He got the Christmas hat and I ended up with the Christmas cracker, so here we are—you are stuck with me for a few minutes.

In the spirit of the adjournment debate and Christmas, can I say a big thankyou to the House. Can I say a big thankyou to everyone who serves the 121 members of Parliament here. Can I say thank you to you, Mr Speaker, for the knowledge and wisdom you bring to this role. I think you have made the most crucial decision this week that you will ever make as Speaker, which is whether to keep the prayer, and the Christians of this country are very happy with the decision you have made. Can I also thank the other presiding officers who work with you, even Mr Mallard. Mr Mallard likes to keep the Government whips on their toes. He has been quite successful at that, but it has been an enjoyable ride so far, so thank you. To the Chamber and gallery staff, the people who look after us in this House, thank you for always being there, being attentive, and doing what you can to support us. I thank the security guards who keep us safe and ensure that those who wish to cause grief in this place are kept away from us. I thank the caterers, the receptionists, and all the people who are here serving Parliament. The press gallery, I am reliably informed by a little bird known as Twitter, also known as Andrea Vance, Andrew Little forgot to thank—so I do not think he should be heading down to the press gallery party tonight, having not thanked the press gallery for the work that it does on behalf of New Zealanders here. But thank you especially to the staff who support members of Parliament. They go through ups and downs just like members of Parliament do, and they all deserve to be thanked for their efforts, as well.

This year, 2014, has been an interesting year. Another year over, another election completed, another failed Labour leader disposed of, another whingeing Aussie kept away from the cheque book, and New Zealand’s grumpiest pensioner forgetting to send the cavalry that he kept promising week after week in this House. It has been a big year for New Zealanders. I actually think New Zealanders are a bit over politics and are looking forward to the Christmas break, but—

Carmel Sepuloni: Nah, just the National Party.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: No, no, Carmel Sepuloni—no, no. We have just been delivered back to the Treasury benches, with New Zealand’s most popular third-term Prime Minister in about 100 years. New Zealanders are looking forward to more John Key - led Government for the next 3 years.

When we look at the Opposition we have to ask ourselves what type of year those members have had. It has been the year of the crisis for the Opposition, it has been the year of conspiracy for the Opposition, and it has been the year of the unions for the Opposition. It has been the year of the unions for the Labour Opposition because they got their man—Andrew Little—sitting there, and he is doing the work for them.

I just want to remind the Opposition about all the crises those members have talked about over the past 3 years. There was a report of a crisis in the manufacturing sector and, indeed, there was a 10-month long inquiry into this so-called manufacturing crisis. This is despite the manufacturing sector sales actually growing by 19.5 percent since 2009—some crisis going on there. There was a report of a housing crisis, despite 24,000 residential consents being issued in the year to October, which is up from 20,000 in the year to October 2008. Then there was a report of a crisis in exports, despite exports growing by 13.5 percent in real terms since 2009, and a report of a crisis in the regions, despite every region in the South Island having a lower unemployment rate than Auckland and annual GDP growth across the country of 3.5 percent.

You might ask yourself what the next crisis is going to be. Well, I hear that somewhere in a social democratic party somewhere in this country, a very matronly deputy leader will start to declare a crisis of confidence within the leadership of that party, and that matronly, nice deputy leader of that party will soon start to be declaring that it is time for a change—it is time for the King to become the queen of the Labour Party. The Labour Opposition has had a difficult year. We know that those members are tired. We know that they need a rest. As Bill English said, I hope Andrew Little makes it to the Christmas break because he deserves a break, as well. I actually quite enjoyed the speech from Andrew Little. The interesting thing about the speech is that it was really good because he did not talk about policy at all. It was really good because he did not talk about the failings and the weaknesses of the Opposition, and there are many.

Contrast this with the Government side of the House. We are pleased with how this side of the House has ended up after the end of 2014.

Kris Faafoi: You should’ve let Tim have the speech. Tim would’ve been better.

Tim Macindoe: I think so, too.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: We have got a party with strong leadership—a whip who interjects at the wrong time—we have got a growing economy, we have got promises that have been made and promises that have been kept, and we have caucus unity. If I can give one piece of advice to the Labour Opposition, it is the fact that caucus unity is what enables the National Party to serve New Zealanders in the way that we have done for the past 6 years and will do for the next 3 years. We have a fantastic team sitting here on the Government benches. Can I congratulate again the 14 new MPs who have joined us. From the bottom of the South Island—Invercargill—all the way up to Whangarei, the talent that has joined us in this party is immense, and I am looking forward to working with those members for the next 3 years. Can I also say thank you to the talented Ministers who serve in the executive in this country. I do not think we could have a set of 25 Ministers who are better than the 25 we have right now. They do an excellent job for New Zealanders, and New Zealanders know this. Can I, finally, say thank you to the hard-working and energetic backbenchers, who also serve New Zealanders through the National - led Government. They do an excellent job in their electorates up and down the country, day after day. They do a fabulous job.

Can I also say thank you to our coalition partners. It has been good to have the Māori Party on board, and David Seymour and Peter Dunne. They provide strong and stable Government to this country. I enjoyed the speech from Marama Fox, as well. I am sure that Marama and the National Government will probably come to more agreement about the way in which votes will be cast in the future. I would just like to remind her that, you know, when we have the Budget next year, she should be voting for it. It would be a good idea. But those members provide strong and stable Government to the country, and that is a good thing. Going forward we have 3 years of strong, stable Government that will be delivering for New Zealanders.

A couple of years ago I became a father, and Christmas time becomes a more special time for those of us with families. I have to say that when we look at the family policies that this Government is pushing forward and the policies that support young people into the future, and when we have got Hekia Parata, who can bring on board the unions of the country under her education policy, the future is looking bright. I wish Parliament a very merry Christmas. I hope everyone takes a good, long break. The Government is in good stead. The Government is looking forward to working even harder in 2015. It is going to be a good term. It is going to be a good year next year. Best wishes for the Christmas break.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I know I stand—literally—between you and your Christmas break, so I will contain my excitement and make a brief contribution.

As other members before me have done, I also want to thank all of those who work in this place and make it work for us. So the messengers, Brent Smith as the Serjeant-at-Arms, the telephonists, the cleaners, the receptionists, travel office staff, catering staff, library staff, VIP drivers, Hansard and select committee staff, and our own staff, both here in our offices in Wellington and in our electorate offices—these are the people who make it possible for us to do our job. These are the people who are absolutely fundamental to the functioning of democracy.

To Mary Harris, Clerk of the House, and her team, and particularly Andie Lindsay, a huge thankyou to you. Mary, this will be your last adjournment debate. Your leaving this House next year will create a huge challenge for us. I know at that time there will be ample opportunity for members to acknowledge the huge contribution that Mary has made to our Parliament.

To my own office staff—to Lisa, to Roland, and to Oliver—thank you for all that you do for me. Each day they manage to bring some sanity to a day where issues start through that day that we had not perceived might occur.

As we adjourn this particular 51st Parliament for the Christmas break, I also want to acknowledge the cooperation I have received from all members of this House. To date, not one member has been asked to leave the Chamber. That could be because behaviour has improved, it could be because my patience has improved, or it could be because one particular member who has the record in the time that I have been in this House of being thrown out the most has actually joined the presiding officers team. I am, of course, referring to the Hon Trevor Mallard. I want to welcome you to that team, Trevor. You have shown an exemplary knowledge of the Standing Orders and have been a real asset to that team, so thank you. I also want to acknowledge my Deputy Speaker, the Hon Chester Borrows. Welcome to the team. Again, you have settled into your new role and are a real asset to it. And, of course, to my travelling companion, Lindsay Tisch, thank you for continuing in this role.

To all members the role of a presiding officer is a challenge, but it is one that if it is operated correctly makes a huge difference to how the democracy of New Zealand works. For the record, subsequent to the opening of the 51st Parliament we have sat for 18 days, including 7¼ hours of urgency. There have been 15 Government bills passed, and 212 oral questions, with an additional 771 supplementary questions asked and answered—although I do acknowledge that some members may not feel that the answers given to their questions have been satisfactory and I have, on occasion, attempted to keep the peace and given the odd additional supplementary question.

So, finally, to all members, I wish you a very enjoyable Christmas break. Enjoy that special time that we have with our families, for when we return in the new year I am sure there is plenty to be done.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.13 p.m.