Wednesday, 9 December 2015

WEDNESDAY, 9 December 2015

WEDNESDAY, 9 December 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Senator Bridget McKenzie, Senate

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Bridget McKenzie, Senator for Victoria, in the Australian Senate, who is present in the gallery.

Points of Order

Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal and Apology

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During question time on 10 November, in response to a supplementary question on question No. 1, I made a comment about the Opposition that caused offence. Subsequently, the matter has been raised several other times in the House. I have reflected on my comments, and, on this, the last sitting day of the year and so close to Christmas, I would like to withdraw and apologise for that response.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent weeks, statements have been made by members on this side of the House about you, which reflected upon you. I wish to draw to the attention of this House that correspondence has gone to the chair of the Privileges Committee today, accepting that those comments were unparliamentary and expressing regret for them—all of which demonstrate that this House is capable of acting, if not in the spirit of Christmas, then in the spirit of the Bloody Red Baron.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member sincerely.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Statements

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I will lead a Government that will govern for all New Zealanders”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, with your indulgence and the indulgence of members, I will not be giving an adjournment debate speech this afternoon, so can I just take a moment to wish you, Mr Speaker, a very merry Christmas and wish all the members of the House a merry Christmas and safety for them and their families. In answer to the question from the member, the answer is yes.

Metiria Turei: What then is his response to Chelsea from Auckland who asks: “Prime Minister, will you put a stop to mining fossil fuels and make a world-leading push towards sustainable energy?”

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the question from Chelsea, the answer is no. We will not be stopping the mining of fossil fuels in New Zealand, but I am proud to be one of the leaders who got together in Paris to support the fossil fuel subsidy reform, which will see, hopefully, a situation where countries will no longer actually be subsidising the consumption of those fuels, which sees half a trillion US dollars spent in that area with only 8 percent of that expenditure going to the bottom quintile. New Zealand produces some fossil fuels and, frankly, if they were not bought from New Zealand they would be bought from other countries around the world.

Metiria Turei: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Donna from Christchurch who asks: “Prime Minister, will you support the legitimate expectation of Cantabrians to return to full democracy during the 2016 local body elections?”

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I would say is that the Government is working towards restoration of a fully elected council. I do not think that will be happening in 2016, from the top of my mind; I think it is half-appointed and half-elected. The reason for that, of course, is that Environment Canterbury was suspended by the Government, and, I think, rightfully so, because it was the worst-performing council in New Zealand: 84th out of 84th. It had failed over many, many years—in fact, decades—to get an operable water plan. I think most people would actually say that the commission of work led by Dame Margaret Bazley has done an outstanding job. But we do look forward to democracy being reformed; we just hope that people of the quality of Dame Margaret Bazley will be elected to the new council.

Metiria Turei: What is his response to Max from Porirua who asks: “Prime Minister, will you refuse to deal with Saudi Arabia and its abhorrent human rights record, stand up to Australia’s disgusting treatment of asylum seekers and those detained on Christmas Island, and will you commit to human rights by permanently increasing the refugee quota?”

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are many parts to that question so let me deal with just the last part of it. Next year there will be a formal review undertaken by the Government—as occurs every so often—about the refugee quota, and I would not want to jump in front of that review.

Metiria Turei: What is his response to Zoe from Wellington who asks: “Prime Minister, will you make a solid push towards pay equity for all genders, combat the high rates of domestic violence, and once again prove to the world, as we did in 1893, that in New Zealand women are valued as much as their male counterparts?”

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I would say to the member that she is probably aware that the Government is currently in negotiations with the unions looking to try to find a way through the pay equity issues that were raised as a result of the Terranova case. Again, I would not want to prejudge the outcomes of those, but the Government is working constructively with the unions to try to find a way of addressing the concerns of the situation, prior to it actually having to be referred back to the courts.

Metiria Turei: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Charlotte from Auckland who asks: “Prime Minister, for 2016 I want to save the last 45 Māui’s dolphins before it is too late, so will you please rethink your position on this matter and extend the Māui’s dolphins’ habitat?”

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, what I would say is that the Government has already extended the habitat as we can get the best scientific advice on Māui’s dolphins, but there has been no scientific advice to support further extension. If there was, the Government would act.

Metiria Turei: And what is his response to Olive from Waikanae who asks: “Prime Minister, will you have a nice Christmas and reflect on a warrant of fitness for rental houses, a living wage, no child going hungry, a much greener New Zealand, and tougher penalties for polluting the environment and for people ill-treating and abusing children and animals?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, I think I will have a lovely Christmas. Of course, I will miss the member, in particular, but I am sure we can correspond with one another via texts or something and make sure we are enjoying the celebrations we deserve.

David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Aroha from Kawerau who asks why the Prime Minister cannot confront the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation and allow us to have a discussion about raising the age?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I say to Aroha that given she is 64½ and about to turn 65 in early 2016, I am not going to whip the rug out from underneath her—as I would not do to any other New Zealander so near to retirement age.

David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Fred from Te Kūiti who complains that the tax on capital is one of the highest in the OECD for New Zealand firms seeking capital from overseas, and asks whether that rate can be dropped progressively to the same rate as the Māori authority rate of 17.5 percent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I say to Fred that, no, that is very unlikely, and he should go and see his neighbour Jim Bolger who is always much better at answering those more difficult questions.

Better Public Services—Progress

2. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made on its priority of delivering better public services in 2015?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has delivered on that promise to deliver stable Government finances and to support the most vulnerable. The Budget this year delivered a $790 million package to help children living in some of New Zealand’s poorest families, to assist them in breaking the cycle of hardship, as well as protecting the incentive to move from welfare to work. The Government increased benefits for families with children by $25 a week after tax, the first increase over and above inflation since 1972.

Alastair Scott: What steps is the Government taking to improve transparency as part of its commitment to delivering better public services for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Earlier today Treasury released an in-depth analysis of at-risk 15 to 24-year-olds using data collected from a range of Government agencies. It highlighted particular high-risk groups and their characteristics, some of whom the Government has already taken action on, such as young solo parents, half of whom it is likely will by age 35 have spent more than 5 years on a benefit. The Government will be translating these insights into further action.

Alastair Scott: What progress can he report on delivering the Government’s economic and fiscal goals in 2015?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: When the Government had a deficit of around $18 billion, it set a target of getting back to surplus by 2014-15, and as the annual accounts showed, we just achieved that. The significance of the surplus target was the pressure to create spending discipline and focus on value for money for Government spending that was already being spent, as well as great care with limited additional funding. Persistent low inflation and lower dairy prices will mean a challenge to maintain surpluses in the future.

Alastair Scott: Looking ahead, what reasons does he see for confidence in the economic outlook in 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Continued broad public support for the Government is certainly one of the features, but New Zealand businesses are now benefiting from the lower interest rates and lower exchange rate that have arisen from adjustments in the economy, and that is now flowing through again to recent lifts in consumer and business confidence.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House for David Bennett to be able to pop—I mean, ask a question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member surely knows that it is out of order to seek leave for someone else. [Interruption] Order! Festivities can start when the House finally rises.

Darroch Ball: If the Minister has total confidence in his Better Public Services target results, will he support New Zealand First’s member’s bill that enables the Office of the Auditor-General to independently review those results; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do have confidence in those results. We set targets back in 2012 to deal with some of the toughest issues in New Zealand that the Government has to deal with, and we are making significant progress on them. I am happy for the member to argue the toss about whether the crime rate has actually dropped, whether the number of 16-year-olds achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 has actually risen considerably, whether reoffending rates have actually dropped, or whether rheumatic fever cases are actually dropping. The Auditor-General, I am sure, can add to the discussion, but we do not think it is necessary to legislate.

Economy—Support for Vulnerable New Zealanders

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What actions, if any, is his Government planning for New Zealanders about to celebrate Christmas who are among the growing number of unemployed, or living in unhealthy rental housing, or trying to buy their own home, or waiting for vital surgery, or needing a life-saving medicine?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, my office has been advised that this answer may be longer than normal.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): For people who cannot find work and have no other means of support, the Government intends to give them a fortnightly payment until they can get back on their feet again. In fact, the Government plans to increase the payment next year in real terms for the first time since 1972. For people on low incomes in rental housing, the Government intends to subsidise their accommodation costs or to provide them with social housing, which means they pay only a quarter of their income in rent. For people trying to buy their first home, the Government provides HomeStart grants of up to $20,000, as well as Welcome Home Loans. For people waiting for vital surgery, the Government has increased the volume of publicly funded elective surgery this year by 5,000, bringing the total increase to 50,000 since 2008. For people needing medicines, I would tell them that the Government has increased funding for Pharmac by $150 million a year and that in almost all cases people do not pay more than $5 for a fully subsidised medicine. For the area the member mentions, Government support totals billions of dollars each year.

Andrew Little: In light of that comprehensive answer, after serving up gruel this year to those 15,000 extra unemployed New Zealanders, is he hoping to find a fix for the economy under the Christmas tree, because, clearly, Bill English and Steven Joyce have failed to perform?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We have an economy that is not only growing but is growing more jobs. We have, according to the Minister of Finance, the third-highest employment rate in the OECD. The number of people working has gone up by 160,000 over the last 3 years. The number of people out of work has gone down by 19,000. We have got one of the highest participation rates in the world. But, I suppose, in a way, the way to measure all this is: are people leaving New Zealand to go to Australia, or are they coming from Australia to live in New Zealand? And the answer is the latter, in droves.

Andrew Little: What is he doing to stop Nick “The Grinch” Smith from stealing the Kiwi dream of homeownership from more and more Auckland families as Auckland house prices rise five times faster than incomes?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Nick Smith has done an outstanding job over the last while, and the fact that members opposite do not want to acknowledge it makes them the Grinch of Christmas, not Nick Smith, because this is a man who shepherded through special housing areas, cheaper building costs, reform of the Resource Management Act, and the highest residential construction activity and consenting that we have seen in 11 years. This is a man who has seen KiwiSaver now provide up to $20,000 as a deposit for a couple. This is someone who is helping—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now quite long enough. The next one.

Andrew Little: Will he stop playing Scrooge and reverse the $1.7 billion of real per person cuts he has made to health, including a $117 million cut in real purchasing power to Pharmac’s budget; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let us get things right. The only cut that has come this year has been in David Cunliffe’s ranking in the Labour Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —and I am sure we all seek to be under-secretary to the leader on superannuation. But, on the basis that we do not, health under this Government has gone up enormously not only in terms of the funding, but, maybe most important, in efficiency. This is a Government that has seen more surgical operations being undertaken, more efficiency in the system, and better health services for New Zealanders.

Andrew Little: Now that 60 percent of Kiwis have voted with their dustbin on his flag referendum, and in the spirit of the season, will he stop wasting money on his pet project and use it to help needy children instead?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is right that we are drawing to a close of the first referendum, which, from what I can see, is tracking along the same path as postal referendums normally do. But I am going to go, and when I wake up on the morning of 1 January of 2016, I am going to have two New Year’s resolutions. The first one I will keep secret because it is bound to be something like lose weight or whatever—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —and we do not like to disclose this—but No. 2 will be do not believe a single thing the Labour Party campaigns on, because that is your policy, Mr Little: to change the flag by referendum.

Andrew Little: Putting aside Labour’s 1972 manifesto promises for now, will he give a Christmas present to the hundreds of thousands of Kiwi families living in cold, damp, unhealthy—[Interruption]—rentals by putting aside partisan politics, Dr Smith, and backing my bill to outlaw slum housing; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to give the Leader of the Opposition a history lesson, but for a start-off, in 1975, unlike today, Labour was good. It won the election under Norm Kirk. [Interruption] In ’32. In 1972. [Interruption] In 2014—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point in continuing the answer, because I do not think anybody can hear it. [Interruption] Order! Kris Faafoi, that is your last warning for this question time.

Andrew Little: Now that the Serco turkeys are cooked, is he worried that Judith Collins is eyeing up his back with a carving knife?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is only one turkey in this House, and I am looking at him.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Levy Reductions

4. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for ACC: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding ACC levies?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): Yesterday I announced that the Government is giving New Zealanders an early Christmas present: $450 million of ACC levy reductions. These levy reductions will be for businesses, workers, and motor vehicle owners. There will be a reduction of 11 percent for businesses, 4 percent for earners, and a whopping reduction of 33 percent in motor vehicle levies. These reductions are possible only because this Government has brought ACC into the black after the last Labour Government left a $5.5 billion deficit. This National-led Government is reducing levies and putting more money in Kiwis’ pockets.

Andrew Bayly: What does this announcement mean in terms of motor vehicle levies?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Motor vehicle levies will be slashed by an average of one-third. I am also very pleased to confirm that the average annual ACC licence fee for every single petrol car in the four bands will be under $90. Under this Government, in 4 years we have seen the average motor vehicle levy drop from $330 on average to $130 on average. That is about a $200-a-year saving. This is another example of this Government reducing costs for Kiwis.

Andrew Bayly: What does this announcement mean for our great New Zealand businesses?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: We are reducing the ACC bill for Kiwi businesses by $171 million. On average, four out of five businesses in New Zealand will get an ACC levy cut. Some businesses will have dramatic cuts, and about 140 employers in the accredited employment scheme will now pay very small ACC levies. This is the first year in our history, due to the legislation passed in this House, that ACC levies will be much fairer, as they will be based on the true costs of injuries. The cuts will see some businesses get a third off their levies. Alongside the big cuts for some businesses, we have now agreed to a long-term funding policy, at the heart of which is fiscal responsibility, stability, and certainty for New Zealand businesses.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Do these cuts to ACC levies amount to an admission from the Government that its excessive increases introduced by Nick Smith were totally unnecessary and placed a huge burden on ACC levy payers; and is the Minister concerned that with the return of Judith Collins to Cabinet, she will be pushing her line of using ACC levies to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first part of the question can be answered.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No, because the Labour Government left us with a $5.5 billion hole, and all of the advice shows that two-thirds of that was it expanding entitlements, not collecting enough levies, and complete mismanagement.

Pharmac—Cancer Treatments

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that Mrs King is a lot like Santa: smiles and big promises, but others pick up the bill, and adults stopped believing a long, long time ago.

Hon Annette King: Minister, it is Christmas. Peace, I say to you—peace.

Mr SPEAKER: I suggest we just get to the supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Well, in light of that answer, does he agree with Treasury, which said that Vote Health has received “relatively smaller increases” as a percentage of the vote in recent years, decreasing to an average increase of 3.7 percent under this Government, compared with 8.7 percent under Labour, and is only given a contribution towards its cost pressures?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is a bit like expecting me to believe that Santa is coming down the chimney, but the fact is that we have actually increased Vote Health consistently over our time in Government. It has gone from $11.8 billion to $15.9 billion. We are seeing better services for New Zealanders, and it is a better health system than 7 years ago.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the presentation by Treasury—which this graph, taken from it, is in—which was given to the Minister of Health on 27 February 2015 on social sector spending.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular graph. Is there any objection? No, there is not. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: Did Pharmac get less than half the funding increase it requested in this year’s Budget; if so, why?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, all agencies want all sorts of things, but the fact is that Pharmac’s money has gone up $150 million under this Government, well ahead of the rate of inflation over the same period.

Hon Annette King: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question. It may not have been answered.

Hon Annette King: No, no. It is OK, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Official Information Act release from Pharmac showing exactly what I said—

Mr SPEAKER: All right. Leave—[Interruption]—Order! The document has been described. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act release. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement about the Pharmac model and decision not to fund Keytruda when the Prime Minister said: “I accept … hypocrisy … in that we rode over the top of that when we funded Herceptin.”; if so, does he think advanced melanoma patients should accept this hypocrisy, when he will not ride over the top for them?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I always agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon Annette King: What polling is currently being undertaken on the decision not to fund Keytruda, and might the Government’s position change as a result of that polling?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is very interesting. It is quite clear that the Labour Party would fiddle with the Pharmac model. It says it is going to fund Keytruda. Our position is that we are leaving it at arm’s length, and that is how Pharmac should be making the decision. The problem is, Labour changes its position every couple of days on the Pharmac model and cannot be relied on.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question said—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. I was inclined to rule it out, because there was no ministerial responsibility for it. I allowed the question to stay—

Hon Annette King: The ministry could be polling.

Mr SPEAKER: The ministry could be polling. That is probably true. On that basis, I will accept the question again. The ministry could be.

Hon Annette King: What polling is currently being undertaken on the decision not to fund Keytruda, and might the Government’s position change as a result?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: None.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement about Herceptin: “It was clearly the best drug in its class, whereas Keytruda there’s a number of options.”; if so, what funded, effective drug options are available for advanced melanoma?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I do stand by that statement. There are a number of options available. It is a complex series of commercial negotiations, and, actually, the member would be well advised to leave it to Pharmac. All we know is, Labour would mess with the Pharmac model—very unfortunate.

Barbara Stewart: If the Prime Minister has said “I don’t think it is impossible to get Pharmac to fund Keytruda.”, when will that funding decision be made, and how many New Zealanders will be suffering in the interim?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Mrs Stewart, you will be the first to know.

Barbara Stewart: If the Government can pass Red Peak’s inclusion in the flag referendum under urgency, why can this Government not go into urgency now in order to amend Pharmac’s functions and objectives so that cancer sufferers can have some real hope over Christmas?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because the Pharmac model is excellent and we are not going to tamper with it. It sounds like New Zealand First will.

Barbara Stewart: I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to amend the objectives, functions, and advisory committees of Pharmac. The specific objective is to enhance the treatment of patients diagnosed with rare and life-limiting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been well and truly described. Leave is sought for that particular course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Tertiary Education—Prime Minister’s Scholarships

6. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government encouraging young people to study offshore and develop international linkages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Yesterday I announced that the 2015 Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia have been awarded to 152 students from across New Zealand. These scholarships are a special opportunity for young Kiwis to study, conduct research, or take up internships in countries that are hugely important to this country, both today and in the future. Now in its third year, the fifth round of scholarships takes the total number of recipients to 617 to date. The funding of $9 million over 5 years was provided in Budget 2013.

Ian McKelvie: Why is it important to develop links with Asia?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is very important. Asia is a significant part of New Zealand’s future, as it is today, and it is crucial that we continue to develop relationships at all levels across the region. Recipients of the 2015 awards will do this in a number of ways. There will be 20 students from Lincoln University undertaking summer school in Indonesia, learning about Indonesian culture and business; 15 students from Unitec, who are undertaking a student exchange to Chongqing University of Science and Technology and Wuhan University this month; and a range of individual recipients, including a University of Waikato student who will take up an internship with the Interpol Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore to continue work into cybercrime. These young people are embracing our 21st century, globalised world.

Ian McKelvie: Were any applications for scholarships turned down?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, unfortunately. There are always a few who miss out each time. In fact, there were four applications that were not successful this year. Firstly, there was a young man from Wellington, named Grant, who applied for a scholarship over the Christmas break to study Finance 101 and “What is work?”. There was young Philip from west Auckland—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am the Grinch! I am the Grinch! It will not help the order of this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No doubt the Minister was quoting from an official document. I seek leave for him to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister was quoting from—[Interruption] It is very—[Interruption] Order! It is very easily resolved. I ask the Minister whether he was quoting from an official document. If he was, it will be tabled. Was it an official document?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It was not an official document.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not think for a minute that it would be.

Prime Minister—Statements

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he stand by this statement: “If you just look at abattoirs around the Middle East, we know there’s a huge amount of opportunity and work there because their abattoirs are very old, and they slaughter a lot of animals for domestic, business and the Haj.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he believe that $2.6 million of taxpayers’ money is better given to a Saudi multimillionaire to build an abattoir in Saudi Arabia, rather than funding, for example, melanoma patient Tessa Taylor and at least 11 other New Zealanders with the treatment Keytruda?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is an investment in potential economic growth, and it is a strong economy that leaves the Government with more resources, ultimately, to fund drugs like Keytruda.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he believe that millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is better given to a Saudi Arabian multimillionaire to build an abattoir in Saudi Arabia, rather than contributing to a new, needed abattoir on the Chatham Islands, for example, which would employ 18 people there and vastly improve the Chatham Islands economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know the details about the abattoir on the Chatham Islands, but I do know that the Minister for Primary Industries has just returned from the Chathams this afternoon. To describe the reception that a National Minister got as a rock concert, literally, in the Chatham Islands—he was showered with gifts of crayfish, titles that they had, overwhelming joy about the wharf that we are building, and that was just a sample. He came back with not only a massive crayfish for me but a message: “Please come back, Prime Minister, we want you in the Chatham Islands, we desperately”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order first of all from—[Interruption] Order! I have a point of order first of all from the Hon Annette King.

Hon Annette King: I wonder whether the Prime Minister could extend that answer and talk about the crayfish and the reception I got on the Chatham Islands yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: We are keen to finish before 10 o’clock tonight.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because it is not available, I want to table two documents. One is the meat processing project report—it is not available on the internet—with regard to the Chatham Islands, and the other one is a photograph of the Chatham Islanders in respect of the last ministerial visit, where they are still laughing.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave, certainly, for the first document. In fact, I will put the leave for both documents. Leave is sought to table them. Is there any objection? There is none. They will be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What representations has the Prime Minister received from his colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson about projects like a new meatworks for the Chatham Islands and the lengthening of the runway there—something he boasts about to Chatham Islanders ad nauseam?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that Mr Finlayson has been to the Chatham Islands on many occasions. He also has received great support from the people of the Chatham Islands. I do not know exactly the party vote results in the Rongotai electorate of the Chatham Islands, but I just heard the squabbling amongst the extended family members, and the way I heard the discussion was that Chris Finlayson beat Annette King. But we do not like to mention that here, so close to Christmas.

Economic Programme—Employment

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in Budget 2015 that unemployment is expected to fall below 5 percent in 2016, and that economic growth on average will be 2.8 percent over the next 4 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, those statements were based on Treasury’s independent forecasts at the time and those of the Reserve Bank and a wide range of private sector economists. Of course, being forecasts, these are updated over time, as the member will know since he spent July and August forecasting crisis in the New Zealand economy, and it seems to be bouncing back. I hope he revises his forecasts.

Grant Robertson: Will unemployment drop below 5 percent in 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury’s independent view on that will be laid out next week. The Reserve Bank’s will be laid out tomorrow.

Rt Hon John Key: The question is will the Labour Party drop under 5 percent in 2016.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Quite possibly—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Minister to finish the question without the interjection.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: But it seems unlikely.

Grant Robertson: What kind of Christmas present is it for New Zealanders that we now have 15,000 more people unemployed than at this time last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For those who do not have a job and who are looking for one, of course it is not that good. But for the record high number of New Zealanders who are working, they are going to have a good Christmas.

Rt Hon John Key: Has the Minister of Finance seen the front page of the Bay of Plenty Times today: “8,100 new jobs created. Latest figures show that thousands of jobs have been created in the Bay of Plenty”; if so, does he have any comments he would like to make about it?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen this, and I was not surprised, actually, because things have been going so well in that part of the country, despite it historically having a high level of unemployment. However, the Labour Party has been studying the meaning of work, while these people have been out creating jobs.

Jacqui Dean: Does he stand by his statement made in Budget 2011 that 170,000 extra jobs were expected to be created by 2015?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, that statement was made, consistent with Treasury’s forecasts at the time. Sometimes Treasury’s forecasts turn out to be inaccurate. That is the nature of economic forecasting. But, in fact, that target was exceeded, and over that time, from 2011 to 2015, 176,000 new jobs were created—one of the factors that has led to it having among the highest proportion ever of New Zealanders available for work and working.

Grant Robertson: How can he claim success for his job creation policies when New Zealand has now slipped from ninth to 15th in the OECD for unemployment since last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the reasons that I have just said. We of course accept that the unemployment rate is higher than we would like it to be, and it has been a bit persistently high. Two reasons for that are that we now have the highest proportion, almost ever, of New Zealanders available for work—that is, a very high participation rate—and record immigration flows, so huge numbers of people are turning up to the labour market. It has been producing new jobs at a rapid rate until the last couple of quarters, when it has slowed down. There seems to be some evidence it is picking up again.

Sarah Dowie: What is the outlook for jobs and wages growth for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is pretty positive. Although unemployment has risen a bit, there has been consistent new job creation. What has gone with that are fairly consistent increases in incomes across New Zealand households in the range of 2 to 3 percent and well ahead of inflation, which is around half a percent.

Grant Robertson: How does he think it has been a successful year for the economy when exports as a percentage of GDP have slipped to their lowest levels since 1997, and he is going in the opposite direction of the target this Government has set for itself?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not necessarily agree with the member’s numbers. As we discussed at the select committee this morning, a number of adjustments have occurred in the economy. One is that the exchange rate has dropped a long way in the last 12 months, which signals a positive outlook for our exports over the next few years. Interest rates are at 50-year lows, and a significant portion of resource has been directed where it should be, and that is to increasing the supply of housing and infrastructure, because when people are showing up we cannot say to them: “There are no houses for you. The money has been spent on manufacturing exports.” We have to supply the housing.

Grant Robertson: Does he really think it has been a successful year for the economy when there are still 305,000 children living in poverty, because if the economy is meant to do anything at all, is it not supposed to give all New Zealanders a decent shot at life?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do think it has been a successful year for the economy. Secondly, in respect of children, the hundreds of thousands of children in our lowest income households on 1 April will get the benefits of a growing economy, and that is the increase of $25 a week in their benefit levels. The Government’s welfare reforms mean that today there are over 40,000 fewer children living in a benefit household than just 2 or 3 years ago.

Child Poverty—Child Hardship Package

9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How does the Child Hardship Package help families on a benefit?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Last week the child hardship package passed its final reading in Parliament. The package will substantially raise the core benefit rate for the first time in 43 years, lifting the income of over 100,000 families with children. It will also increase work obligations for sole parents on a benefit and increase the childcare assistance rate, helping families into paid work and out of poverty. These measures will help ease the depths of hardship experienced by families and children in New Zealand’s lowest income households.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will work obligations for parents on a benefit change under the child hardship package?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Evidence shows that the best route out of poverty is work, which is why this Government is focused on helping those on a benefit into employment. The child hardship package will require sole parents and the partners of beneficiaries to be available for part-time work once their youngest child turns 3. Additionally, all beneficiaries with part-time work obligations will now be expected to find work for 20 hours a week. As we know that two-thirds of children who live in severe hardship have a parent on a benefit, it is important that we focus on supporting those parents into work.

Darroch Ball: If the Government has a “focus on 15 to 19-year-olds” as previously stated by Bill English, how can she explain that cohort’s unemployment rate, as reported in the latest labour force survey, having increased over the last 12 months by over 5,000 youth, to be at over 21 percent?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have those figures in front of me to make sure that that member is accurately quoting them, but what I can say is that this Government has done more than any other over the last decade, focused on young people. There are now fewer young people classified as “neets” than we have ever seen before. We are absolutely confident that the number of young people who are gaining National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 is at the highest it has ever been.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table two documents. The first document has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library and is titled Youth Unemployment Rate and Number, comparing 2010 and 2015—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the second document?

Darroch Ball: The second document has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library, entitled Youth NEET Rate Number, showing that the September 2015 number of 11 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The documents have been appropriately described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality

10. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: What specific action will he take to clean up waterways such as Lake Tūtira, whose algal blooms are so toxic that children have been banned from boating and kayaking there?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I can confirm that as part of the Te Mana o Te Wai Fund, the Government is committing over $400,000 to improve the water quality at Lake Tūtira. The problems at this lake go back over 20 years, and this is the first Government commitment to any funding to address the water quality problems. This is one of nine projects that will be delivered as part of the $4.5 million commitment that I announced earlier this year, in partnership with the Māori Party.

Catherine Delahunty: Which of the rivers and lakes on this map, which have algal bloom so toxic that they are unsafe for swimming, does he think should continue to be off limits to kids in order to grow the economy through intensive dairying?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Put that map down and listen to the answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out that this Government has committed $450 million to fresh water clean-ups, which is more than sevenfold the amount that was committed by the previous Labour-Green Government. So I find it extraordinary that the Green Party has not acknowledged the significant steps that this Government has taken to address freshwater quality.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he think it is the birthright of all Kiwi children to swim in our country’s rivers, or of only some Kiwi children?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is very committed to improving fresh water quality. That is why we introduced the first national policy statement on fresh water in 2011. That is why we introduced minimum quality standards nationwide in 2014. That is why we are the first Government to nationally regulate for water metering. That is why we have invested in the Land and Water Forum. And that is why next year we will be taking further steps to improve freshwater quality.

Catherine Delahunty: Which of New Zealand’s lakes and rivers is he hoping to go swimming in this summer?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith, if there is ministerial responsibility.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I do every summer, I will be taking my family to swim in wonderful water bodies like the Lee River in my own community. We will be going to beaches, as many of my National colleagues will be. What I will not be doing is what the Green Party does every summer, and that is discouraging New Zealanders from getting out and enjoying this beautiful country.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table this map showing the summer algal blooms that are already—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information will be available to members if they so need it or so want it.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality

11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for the Environment: What improvements in water quality has the Government achieved from its Fresh Start for Fresh Water budget allocations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): We are making good progress in improving fresh water quality in a number of significant lakes. Last week I celebrated with the West Coast community—including Maureen Pugh, our list MP in waiting—the achievement of water-quality targets at the West Coast’s largest lake, Lake Brunner, 5 years ahead of schedule. Sixty-two kilometres of fencing has been completed, 21,000 plants have been established alongside the tributaries of that lake, from the $200,000 that the Government committed to the clean-up. It is a remarkable achievement that those fresh water improvements in that large lake have been achieved, like I say, 5 years ahead of when we were expecting to be able to reduce the risks that have been raised.

Stuart Smith: What progress has been achieved from the programme in respect of Lake Taupō and the Rotorua lakes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Lake Taupō is New Zealand’s largest freshwater lake, and over the last 3 decades there have been increased concerns over nutrient levels. A world-leading cap and trade scheme on nitrogen has been put in place with $36 million of Government money. The goal was to reduce the nitrogen load by 20 percent, or 110 tonnes, by 2018. I am pleased to inform the House—[Interruption]

A disturbance took place in the gallery.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister now wishes to continue. [Interruption]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no hope for some people, eh?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Nick Smith, if he wants to complete his answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am pleased to report that those water-quality improvements in Lake Taupō have been achieved 3 years ahead of schedule. I am also pleased to report that Lake Rotoiti is also a lake that has had significant concerns over water quality and it is now in its best condition in 25 years, as a consequence of the Government’s improvement programme.

Stuart Smith: I dare say the Minister does not have any responsibility for the water in this glass—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we have the supplementary question.

Stuart Smith: What are the next steps in the Government’s programme for improving fresh water quality?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is more to do. The first step is to support regional councils in implementing the new limits framework. That is why Minister Guy and I are investing in the further development of OVERSEER and developing new regulations around good practice management. The second challenge is around the proposed regulations on fencing stock out of streams, rivers, and lakes. The Land and Water Forum has proposed detailed rules in this regard. We will be consulting on those next year, with the intention to implement them by 1 July 2017. The third proposal is further investment in fresh water clean-up initiatives, and I will be seeking additional funding in Budget 2016 to make sure that we maintain this positive momentum.

Tertiary Institutions—Investigations into Funding

12. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he agree with the New Zealand Herald report that the “student funding scandal” is “the result of a funding crunch intersecting with a reporting and monitoring system that operates largely on trust”; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): No, I do not agree with what is a reasonably breathless hyperbolic characterisation in the New Zealand Herald—as I generally do not agree with breathless hyperbole. The reality is there is no funding crunch. There have been some issues at a small number of institutions across the 734 funded by the Tertiary Education Commission that have not been following the funding rules. It is worth noting that the recovery from those reviews into issues dating back to 2009 is a very small percentage of this sector’s funding over that period.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library report dated 17 June 2015 that shows the cut in New Zealand’s total investment in tertiary education under National has gone from $3.2 billion in 2009 to $3 billion in 2015-16.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a marginal call, but I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a Deloitte review of the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority dated 21 April 2015.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that whistleblowing at New Zealand’s largest tertiary provider, Intueri Group, has uncovered rorting so serious that its share price dropped from $1.30 to just 35c last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I can confirm, though, that Intueri is not New Zealand’s largest tertiary provider.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Qualifications Authority report on Quantum Education Group, a wholly owned Intueri subsidiary, which—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon David Cunliffe: What are the names of the two other tertiary providers currently being investigated for potential fraud by the Tertiary Education Commission along with Intueri?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is wrong. The Tertiary Education Commission does not investigate fraud. That is a matter for the Serious Fraud Office, and I think that is a little bit of a problem with some of his accusations. As I pointed out to him initially, there are 734 funded organisations. At any one time there is a number—normally a small number—that are being investigated for various reasons. The funding recovered from the reviews to date is something like $25 million, which is about 0.18 percent of the total $14 billion funding the sector has received over the period in review back to 2009.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the Minister has not even addressed the question, which began with the words—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question was very definitely addressed.

Hon David Cunliffe: —“What are the names”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member addressed the question by disputing some of the facts the member had used.

Hon David Cunliffe: Have students at the two other providers currently being investigated by the Tertiary Education Commission been notified of those investigations or have they yet to receive their special Christmas message from the Minister?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Once again I think we are seeing the breathless hyperbole that was shown at the front of the question that the member endorsed from the New Zealand Herald. The reality is that when an investigation takes place, as one often does in the tertiary sector, it would be prejudicial to tell anybody, including the students, of any issues in regard to funding or any of those matters. I am confident that the tertiary authorities are taking the appropriate steps in these matters.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has so far failed to detect fraud and mismanagement in a number of providers and instead has expressed high confidence in the worst offenders, does he still retain confidence in it as his watchdog, or is his experiment in privatising tertiary education about as successful as his work with Novopay and the governance on Serco?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: You see, there you go—that is the breathless hyperbole. I knew it was going to turn up towards the end of the question. The member is confused, with the greatest respect. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not the funding body for tertiary education. It measures educational achievement, and that is one of the basic mistakes the member makes in regard to his questions. In suggesting that there has been any attempt to privatise the tertiary education system, I should get the member to look back at the previous Labour Government, which, I think, had as much private tertiary education as there is today, and once again demonstrates the house of cards that is the member’s logic.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the following reports, where the New Zealand Qualifications Authority expressed full confidence in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just list the reports please.

Hon David Cunliffe: —providers that were rorting the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just list the reports.

Hon David Cunliffe: Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, dated 22 February 2012; Western Institute of Technology, dated 22 August 2012; Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre, dated 26 January 2011; Manaakitanga Aotearoa Trust, dated 21 August 2013, in which high confidence was expressed by the monitoring agency.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is unnecessary. Are they publicly available?

Hon David Cunliffe: They are available but not distributed.

Mr SPEAKER: They are available.

Questions to Members

Mr SPEAKER: We were to now move to questions to members, but as the member in charge of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill is not in the House, those questions are held over until the next sitting day.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that that member was here today in the select committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! He is not in the House. I have looked for the member; he is not in the House.

Urgent Debates

Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I have received a letter from Kelvin Davis seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision not to renew Serco New Zealand’s contract to manage Mt Eden Corrections Facility. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I acknowledge that the decision not to renew the contract is made by the chief executive of the Department of Corrections. However, he is not answerable to this House. The Minister of Corrections is. It is absolutely critical that the public has confidence in our corrections system.

The decision not to renew Serco’s contract is a significant development. Given that it has been announced on the final sitting day of the year, there will be no reasonably foreseeable opportunity to debate the issue. I accept that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House, and I therefore call on Kelvin Davis to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We obviously appreciate the time that you took to put that ruling together and your decision. There is no question about that, but I would ask that you convey your decision to the State Services Commissioner in order that he might make some representations about the limitations of the State Sector Act when it comes to Ministers being able to direct the chief executives of departments who make decisions that Ministers cannot effect but then, of course, now by your decision, are held accountable for in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that there is no doubt that Iain Rennie will be aware of my decision already.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague Kelvin Davis. I wanted to do this before this debate gets under way. In light of the fact that there will now be an urgent debate, I seek leave for the House to continue sitting beyond 6 o’clock if the adjournment debate has not yet been completed by the time—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection from any member? There is none. That will be the course that may well be followed.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The decision not to renew Serco’s contract is an utter humiliation for the Government, which is forcing through its privatisation of prisons agenda. This should have come as no surprise whatsoever to the Government, in that it was warned many, many years ago. In fact, I remember walking down the main street of Kaikohe in about 2008 or 2009 with the corrections officers from Ngāwhā prison, who were protesting against this very thing—the privatisation of prisons. They said to me at the time: “This is what’s going to happen. Any private company that gets hold of a prison contract is going to cut corners, because the purpose of a private operator running a prison is to make money.” And I firmly believe that if a country or if a Government removes the liberty of somebody, it should be the Government’s responsibility to rehabilitate those people and, therefore, the Government and the Department of Corrections should be running prisons. But this is what those men and women said to me. They said: “There are going to be staff cuts, because that is the first way that a private company makes any money—by cutting the numbers of staff.” And when they cut the number of staff in a prison, that means there are fewer staff to look over the prisoners, and that is exactly what happened in Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That is the very reason that we have seen all the problems in Mt Eden prison from the very outset.

Let me tell you a story: a prison guard from Serco in Mt Eden prison rang me anonymously when all this broke. This was after the fight clubs and everything came out. He rang me and he said: “Kelvin, thank you very much for raising awareness with what you’re doing. I am a Serco prison guard.” He would not give me his name, and his number did not show up on my phone. He said: “The reason all of these things are happening is because of the lack of staff numbers.” I said: “How do you get all this contraband? How do the prisoners get all this contraband into the prisons?”. He said: “Quite simply, the guards bring it in.” I said: “Well, how can that be? Because people, when they visit the prison, need to walk through the X-ray machine to check for contraband.” He said: “Well, that’s fine. Visitors, members of the public, family members: when they come into the prison, sure. We have staff there to watch them, to make sure that we’re checking that they don’t bring contraband in, such as cellphones and cigarettes and tobacco and all sorts, such as weapons.” He said: “But because there are so few people, we do not have the numbers to watch the staff members coming in.” So that is how—that is how—all the contraband gets into the prisons, because of the low staff numbers.

So I said to this guy: “What’s in it for a staff member to bring in contraband into a prison? What’s he or she going to get out of it?”. I said: “Why would they want to bring in a packet of cigarettes?”. He said: “Kelvin, because a packet of cigarettes—a 20 pack of cigarettes—is worth $1,000 on the inside.”—$1,000. And if he or she is going to bring in one packet of cigarettes on their person into a prison and risk their job for $1,000, they may as well risk it for $10,000 and bring in 10 packets of cigarettes. That is the currency within the prison system, and it was all enabled because of the staff cuts. The staff cuts are the biggest problem in Serco.

I was not quite sure about this $1,000 figure for a packet of cigarettes, and I happened to speak to a former prisoner who had got out the very day before I spoke to him. I asked him: “Look, I’ve heard an outrageous figure. The value of a packet of cigarettes—as far as you know, what is the value of tobacco in prison?”. He said: “Well, for a 50 gram packet of tobacco, that’s worth $800.”—$800 for 50 grams of tobacco. I said: “How much is a cellphone worth?”. He said: “That is worth $1,200.” I said: “Well, how do these guards actually get reimbursed?”. Well, it is quite simple. The inmates have the cellphones, they just ring their gang associates outside, and they say “Guard A, he’s brought in 10 packets of cigarettes. Just drop a paper bag full of money off to his front door or under a park bench. We’ll arrange it.” That is how it happens. People say: “Well, look, these prisoners with cellphones—that’s outrageous.” But remember, some people were arrested because they were organising a meth ring from inside Serco. That is how bad things got there—a meth ring was being organised from within Serco.

But we should not be surprised, because we knew about the reputation of Serco from the United Kingdom. I think it was some £60 million to £70 million it had to pay back to the United Kingdom Government in December 2012, I think it was, because it had been charging the UK Government for work that it had not actually done. It was charging the UK Government for the monitoring of prisoners, many of whom had already been returned back to prison, and the rest, or many of the others, were, in fact, dead. So Serco was charging to monitor dead prisoners. That is the level of corruption that that company is guilty of—some £60 million to £70 million. That is the company that this Government has allowed into New Zealand to run Mt Eden and now Wiri prisons. But, also, we know about Serco’s reputation in terms of the running of detention centres in Australia. We all know that story about the abuses and about the mistreatment. I have seen it for myself and I have spoken face to face with people inside those detention centres. That is the same company that has mismanaged the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and now is mismanaging Wiri Prison.

So we should not have been at all surprised that we got to where we are at, but one thing that annoys me is that if it is so bad at Wiri Prison, why is it that the Government is actually waiting some 14 months before it actually finally lets the axe fall on this company’s head? If it is that bad, why should those prisoners still have to put up with Serco? Why does the axe not fall on its head right now, right today? Well, it is interesting that this is all coming up today on the last day of Parliament—very, very interesting. Because the Minister of Corrections over there is going to say: “Look, it’s not my problem anymore.” And the incoming Minister is going to say: “Well, not on my watch.” But, actually, it was on her watch, I have to say, because Judith Collins was the Minister back in the day in 2009 who actually let the contract out for Serco to run Mt Eden prison. She is the one, so she has to be brought in to sort the mess out that she started, that she created. It is her problem. I feel sorry for Minister Lotu-Iiga. He was given a sentence of hard labour—he was given a sentence of hard labour. He was given the ministerial equivalent of breaking rocks with his forehead, but he could not do anything—anything whatsoever—to fix the train wreck that was always going to happen, that was Serco.

Back on 24 June, I think it was, I said to the Minister: “Look, I have heard these stories”—this was at the Law and Order Committee—“I have heard these stories about mistreatment, about the people being thrown off balconies. I have heard all that.” His reply to me was: “You are hearing baseless misrepresentations.” Baseless representations—within 1 month we had the fight clubs coming out on video. It seems like nobody will believe anything a prisoner says until there is photographic evidence. It is almost like someone who is being thrown off a balcony has to take a selfie of themselves before they hit the ground, before they will be believed. We actually have to be grateful to Serco for its lack of staffing, because its lack of staffing meant that prisoners could get those cellphones in there, and those cellphones are, ultimately, what brought Serco down. It actually shot itself in the foot. The thing is, those walls that stop prisoners from escaping from prison actually stop scrutiny from going in, and the only scrutiny we could get—the only way the prisoners’ stories could be believed—was by having that photographic and video evidence, and we got it. And thank goodness for that. I was talking to that prisoner whom I spoke about before. He said to me that he was the bread monitor, taking loaves of bread around to units in Mt Eden Corrections Facility. He said that the bread is brought in, he takes it along on a trolley, and one day one loaf happened to fall off the trolley. When it fell off it split open, and what fell out was a cellphone. I said: “Crikey. What did you do with the cellphone?”. He goes: “Mate, I just put it back in that loaf of bread, put the loaf together, put on it on the trolley, and carried on and took it.” He said it was not worth his life to report the fact that people were getting the cellphones smuggled in through those loaves of bread.

I will just talk about some of the deception around the whole Serco situation. Alex Littleton in February of this year was thrown off a balcony. We kicked up a bit of a stink about it and what happened was that the Department of Corrections came out with a press release saying that it was going to take the unusual step of speaking about this particular incident. It said that Alex Littleton fell down some steps after he was being chased by one prisoner. I have to ask: how does somebody fall down over a balcony, especially a balcony that has been designed so that people do not fall over it? His story is completely different: he was not being chased by one person and he did not fall; he was being attacked by four people in his cell. When he saw one of these people pull out a shank—a shank is a homemade weapon; it could be a sharpened toothbrush; it could be a piece of metal that they have got from somewhere—he said he feared for his life. So he took off out of his cell, and as he took off he was assaulted and he went flying over the balcony. He hit the ground some two or three metres below and he broke both his legs.

Alex Littleton crawled to the guardhouse. That is a house with a glass window that the guard hides himself in, basically. The guys who assaulted him ran down and started to kick him and beat him. It took some time before that guard eventually came out, because that guard would have been fearful for his life as well. When there is only one guard on duty, and he is looking over 40 to 50 prisoners. He is scared of getting out there and stopping a fight because he could be the person with the shank left inside of him at the end of the day. What annoys me and amazes me is the difference in the stories. The prisoner says four guys attacked him, they had a shank, they threw him over the balcony. Department of Corrections and Serco are saying: “No. No. He was chased by one guy, and he fell down some steps.” I ask: where is the closed-circuit television footage? Here is an incident where closed-circuit television footage could actually clear up whose story was right, but there is no closed-circuit television footage, despite there being hundreds of closed-circuit televisions in a prison. Who is hiding what? It is outrageous to say that there is no closed-circuit television footage.

I just want to finish with another story. This is from a father who visited his son. He said he had had to sit with his son that day looking at a guy at the next table with his arm in one of those metal frames with the pins into the bones above and below the elbow joint. “The psycho guy”—that he had spoken to his lawyer about the earlier Tuesday—“literally twisted his elbow joint until all the tendons popped because he would not do as he was told and fight another inmate in an in-house game called ‘contender’.”, which we now know as fight clubs. He said: “This same guy has thrown two other inmates off an upper floor landing to the concrete below.” This email was dated 12 September 2014—long before I became the spokesperson for corrections, long before I said to the Minister in select committee in June of this year that people were being thrown off balconies. The dropping and the throwing of people off balconies has been happening for quite some time, and nobody has done anything about it whatsoever. We should not be surprised, because we know that this is the track record of Serco. We know that it had a similar poor reputation in the United Kingdom, we know that it has got a poor reputation in Australia, we know now that it is hopeless here in New Zealand. Just because there are 10 kilometres separating Mt Eden from Wiri Prison, it does not mean to say that the problems at Mt Eden are not just going to transfer themselves over to Wiri Prison. I am already hearing stories about things that are going wrong at Wiri Prison. This privatisation of prisons agenda has been an utter, absolute shambles, a fiasco, and an embarrassment to the Government.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to this debate. Today the Department of Corrections made a decision. It made a decision to not renew the contract with Serco to manage Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and I fully support that decision as the Minister of Corrections. Before members opposite jump on their high horses and make ridiculous claims about sacking people and burning up contracts, they should understand the nature of contract law, first and foremost, and understand that they should respect due process and the nature of contracts, which we are bound to follow as a responsible Government. By way of background, just to elaborate on what went on today, the parties signed a 10-year agreement in 2011—not 2009, as the member Kelvin Davis said during his speech; but facts, to him, are a little bit elusive at times—and there is a 6-year break point. That break point occurs at the end of March 2017, and a year in advance of that break point the contract may be renewed by both parties, or the break is exercised as a matter of default.

Today’s decision is the Department of Corrections exercising its right not to renew the contract. Corrections, in its wisdom, has considered that any future contract will require changes to ensure Mt Eden prison is managed safely and effectively. I think that is the first point that needs to be raised here—that it is about safety and security, not just of the staff but also of the prisoners who are contained within Mt Eden prison. The nature of the operations of Mt Eden prison is not fully reflected within the terms of the current contract 4½ years on. Corrections will be providing advice to Ministers early in the new year to determine the future of Mt Eden prison, and all these options need to be carefully assessed in order to provide for that safety and security going forward.

But let me be clear—let me be very clear—this decision does not prejudge the report of the Chief Inspector of Corrections into incidents at Mt Eden prison, some of which Kelvin Davis, the member who spoke previously, referred to. It does not preclude any of the outcomes or the consequences that may stem from that particular report. I want to remind members opposite to respect the sub judice rules that we are all bound by as citizens of this country. They dictate that when legal challenges are made, particularly around this report, as responsible parliamentarians we should refrain from commenting on these matters.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What? Someone brief him as to parliamentary rules. Someone brief him. Get him briefed.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: This decision also comes in the context of the Department of Corrections stepping in to manage the prison in late July. And Mr Mallard knows—Mr Mallard knows—that this was done for the safety and security of the prisoners and staff at Mt Eden prison. Members opposite, again, may be demanding that Serco cancel the contract both there and at Wiri Prison, but that is just irresponsible. That is absolutely irresponsible. It shows a lack of understanding of contract law, and it shows a real lack of understanding of due process—and I know Mr Clendon has called for these actions to happen as well. Those members might claim that the privatisation programme has failed, but that is absolutely untrue. That is absolutely untrue. This has always been about safety and security and not about ideological viewpoints. It is just that the hatred of members opposite for this type of private provision of services—actually, it disguises the huge contribution that they have provided to social services in this country. The absolutely huge contribution that—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Oh, sure—yeah, right!

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: They have. For example, early childhood education—who provides some of the top-quality early childhood education in this country? What sorts of providers are they? Well, often they are private providers. I hear members opposite actually wax lyrical about some of these providers, because they are friends of theirs and they are people in our community who provide these services. What about residential aged care? What about the provision of residential care facilities in our communities? Private providers, again, provide some of the best services. It is some of the best provision of services in our community. Disability services—these are services that I would argue are given to vulnerable New Zealanders, vulnerable people, and it is funny that we do not hear crocodile tears from members opposite over these types of services. It is clear—it is really clear—that it is the unions that are driving this ideology.

Hon Members: Oh, come on!

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is—it is absolutely clear. And the reason, you also know, is that when there are assaults on prison officers in public prisons, we do not hear a peep out of the Corrections Association of New Zealand, we do not hear a peep out of the Labour Party, and we do not hear a peep out of the Green Party. That is right. When there was a riot at Spring Hill Corrections Facility, did we hear any members opposite say that we should fire the Spring Hill Corrections Facility and close it down? Did we hear any of those statements being made in this House? We did not. We did not, because this is driven by the ideological viewpoints of those members opposite, who are backed by their union mates—absolutely backed by their union mates.

Members also criticised Wiri Prison, and that is not based on anything to do with performance. The facts are that Wiri Prison is working well, and they ignore the differences—they ignore the differences—between Wiri Prison and Mt Eden Corrections Facility. Wiri Prison is not a remand facility. It has a different profile of prisoners. It does not have the risks inherent in a remand facility. Wiri Prison is also purpose-built, and those members opposite who have been out to Wiri Prison will understand that its focus is on rehabilitation, it is on working, and it is on education. We cannot judge the performance of a prison based on someone’s observations, on what someone whispered in his ear 10 years ago when he was walking down the street in Kaikohe. Wiri Prison is, in fact, a state-of-the-art prison that is about providing rehabilitation opportunities, and there is nothing members opposite can actually advocate that brings that prison down. It should be based on its performance.

Then Kelvin Davis talked about the track record of Serco overseas. Well, I have got no responsibility for its record overseas, and if we were to judge the performance—

Hon Annette King: Of course you have. You should have looked at it.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, I do not have responsibility. Annette King does not understand that, but clearly I do not have performance responsibility for those firms, and if we were to judge solely on performance overseas, then many, many providers who are foreign-based would not be operating in this country. Members opposite know that is just an absurd assertion.

In terms of the contracting model, this is an example of when contracts actually do work. They do work. In contracts we are able to either adjust the contract or use the break point in order to improve the way that services are provided in this country. You cannot do that with public services—you cannot. You merely socialise the cost, and who pays for it in the end? Who pays for this? Well, it is taxpayers who ultimately pay for public services that are inefficient and ineffective.

Before I finish what is, obviously, my final speech as the Minister of Corrections, I want to offer the following points. We stand by the decisions that were made today. We stand by the decisions that were made when these allegations of fight clubs came to bear; 3 days after those fight clubs came to the fore I ordered a review, and that review is currently still pending, subject to legal action. Secondly, the Department of Corrections stepped in. After 8 days of seeing these allegations it stepped in and took over the management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and now, today, corrections has stated quite clearly that the contract will not be renewed—it will not be renewed.

I also want to pay tribute to the 8,000 staff, the men and women who every day, on the front line across this country, are doing the work of corrections to protect not just the members of Parliament in this Chamber but all New Zealanders—to protect all New Zealanders. The work that they do is often unsung, often not fully represented in this House, but I want to pay tribute to those people who go out there—some of them risk their lives every day—and do a very, very good job. They work in our prisons, they work in our community corrections facilities right around this country, they work on rehabilitating people in order that they be reintegrated back into society, and they also work, primarily, on the safety and security of New Zealanders. That is their primary function, and that is what these decisions have always been about.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the performance over the last 14 months of the Department of Corrections. We know that there are fewer victims because of the work that corrections staff do. We know that there is less reoffending. We know that there are more drug and alcohol programmes for rehabilitation than there ever have been in Government services. We also know that there are more opportunities for prisoners who come out of our prisons and need to be employed, because we know that jobs matter, that when they are working they are less likely to reoffend. But we also know that numeracy and literacy are issues, and that is why we have rolled out numerous numeracy and literacy programmes across this country: in order to help rehabilitate those people who are within our prisons but also out there in our communities.

In summary, this decision is about the safety and security of Mt Eden Corrections Facility. I will never apologise for putting that up front as a priority. The chief executive has decided not to renew that contract. I fully support that, and I fully support this department. It has been an honour being the Minister of Corrections. Merry Christmas.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I would have to begin by saying that if ever a Government has sat in this House on the last sitting day of a year with egg liberally smeared on its face, this is the day and this is that Government. The announcement today that the contract with Serco would not be renewed at Mt Eden Corrections Facility is an admission of a failure. It is a failure that has been predicted and that was predictable. It has been glaringly obvious to everybody but the Minister of Corrections and the Government that Serco had failed at Mt Eden prison, and the fact that we have delayed, effectively, 6 months to make this announcement to begin to terminate this contract has exacerbated that problem—made it worse.

It is most unfortunate that the Minister and the Government took such a long time to concede that their privatisation model has failed. It has failed badly, and we should learn from that and acknowledge it. The failure was predictable, as I have said, and I would like to quote briefly from the Hansard: “The Green Party remains absolutely opposed to this legislation. It is not evidence-based. It is ideological, it is dangerous to the community, to staff, and to prisoners, and it will increase costs to the public purse.” That was my colleague Metiria Turei in November 2009 speaking to the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. That was legislation, ushered in by the once and future corrections Minister Collins, that enabled this fiasco to emerge—that enabled the private management of New Zealand’s prisons. It has failed badly. That failure should be acknowledged.

Unfortunately, what we saw earlier today was, I think, indefensible excuses made on Serco’s behalf for why it has failed so badly. We were told that remand prisons are different; they are hard prisons to manage. We were told that there was an unexpectedly high muster that nobody anticipated when the contract was signed in 2010. We were told that it is a very difficult place to manage, and, of course, Serco has been up against it, so now we need to put the Department of Corrections in to clean up the mess. That language is remarkably at odds with the language we heard when the contract was announced and that we have continued to hear about Serco, about its wonderful expertise and long experience in prison management, about how it is an innovative, world-class prison manager. About the only innovation we have seen at Mt Eden prison is a rather unfortunate innovation: effectively, Serco has raised its hands and handed control of that prison over to the inmates. In terms of behaviour, in terms of management, it has simply relinquished its responsibilities. It has done its level best to disguise what has been going on there.

Corrections, unfortunately, has also failed, badly, in that its monitoring of what was going on in that prison and the monitoring built into the contract conditions has also failed, badly. The fact that young people, teenagers, were being locked down 23 out of 24 hours a day was not picked up by those monitors—there was something seriously amiss if the levels of violence, of contraband, and of drug use in the prison were not spotted by corrections. It has to bear some blame for this. The fact that Serco was able to carry on failing in its duty to operate a safe, humane, secure prison is evidence that there was a generic and overall failure in that place.

There was an opportunity, at least as long ago as July, to accelerate the termination of this contract. We had what can only be described as an attempted tutorial in contract law from the Minister a few moments ago. Had he read that contract a little more closely, he would have noticed that there were clear grounds for termination. We stood in this House in July and asked him why he had not issued a final warning to Serco. Another performance notice after that time would have enabled him to immediately terminate that contract. Instead we hear, again, this litany of excuses about why this appalling situation could emerge, why it has been able to be dragged out for the last 6 months, and why it is going to continue for another 14 months.

We heard the Minister make some comments about the cost to the public purse. I have endeavoured through my office, through written questions and the like, to find out what has been the cost to the public purse of the step-in procedure. How much more is it costing New Zealanders to have corrections in there trying to clean up the mess while Serco continues to be paid out the amount determined in its contract? That additional cost has been borne in terms of people. How are those people being replaced in the Public Service? Is it because we are paying more overtime to the other hard-working prison officers? Those answers have not been forthcoming, but we know that any costs that might have been reduced, or any efficiencies, allegedly, that Serco has produced over the previous several years have long since been chewed up by the cost of cleaning up this mess, and apparently we are to wait another 14 months before we see the back of it.

Our colleague Kelvin Davis is to be congratulated, I believe, on his unrelenting attention to this issue, on having revealed some of the worst abuses suffered by inmates and staff alike in that prison. He made the point about staffing. The private prison model will always fail to produce safe, humane, and secure prisons for one very simple reason: there is only one means by which a private operator can extract profit from a prison, and that is to reduce the number of staff working in it and to reduce their wages and conditions. Mr Lotu-Iiga might rail at length about the inequities of unions and the like; the reality is that we need well-paid and ample numbers of staff in our prisons who have high morale, in order that they can continue to do, and to do well, the very hard daily grinding work of being on the ground, in the units, engaging with inmates, getting a sense when there is tension building up, and seeking to diffuse that tension before it boils over into violence. This is what well-trained, well-resourced, and experienced prison officers can do when their morale is high and when they have good commitment to their task.

None of those characteristics are present in a private prison typically. You will look at the average age profile, the experience profile, the payments made to them, and inevitably you will see a reduction in quality of service that links directly to increased outbreaks of violence, increased outbreaks of contraband, and all of those negative things that we have seen at Mt Eden.

I thought it most unfortunate that the Minister saw fit to denigrate and to speak ill of the unions. Between the Corrections Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Public Service Association, I think the majority of those 8,000 employees he talked about in our prisons are actually for the most part union members, and there is a very good reason why those sides should be unionised. It is to ensure that they are well-resourced, that they are well-enough paid. I thought that it was very unfortunate that the Minister saw fit to denigrate those very hard-working men and women in our prisons, who do actually put themselves at risk by intervening and by seeking to reduce outbreaks of violence. Ultimately, they are on the front line, and when things go wrong, as they inevitably must because we are dealing with difficult people—I think it is most unfortunate that the Minister saw fit to speak ill of those employees and the organisations that represent them.

I will not repeat again the litany of errors we have seen from Serco. I think we can only speculate. I had imagined that it would provide for the first several years of its contract a gold-plated service, because that is the experience we have seen overseas. Private operators get into the public sector, they over-deliver for a number of years, get themselves thoroughly embedded and entrenched, then they start winding back, and then they start generating their profits. They do take a long view of that.

In this instance, as I say, I can only speculate, but I think it is fair to speculate that given the parlous financial state of the UK-based parent company Serco, the message has gone out to New Zealand and, indeed, to Australia: “We need the cash. Get the cash out of that investment as soon as you possibly can.” I believe this is a direct result of that imperative to generate as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time. Understaffing, failure to get replacement staff when Serco staff have gone ill or have taken leave—we have very credible reports that this has been commonplace. Serco already operates on a much lower staff-to-inmate ratio than the public service. When people take leave, when they are ill—and often it is stress-related—those people have not been replaced. Serco has not succeeded in running a safe, secure, humane prison, nor can it. The sooner this Government accepts that, and turns its back on this flawed, ideologically driven privatisation model, the sooner we can return to sanity and to safety. Thank you.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): We have come round full circle. The Minister who is now interested in cleaning this mess is the one who created this mess in the first place. When Serco was invited to take over Mt Eden prison I was personally affected—my career was affected—because I was a custodial officer in the old Mt Eden Prison, the only real jail in the country in those days. We took a lot of pride in our work and we took a lot of pride in making a difference in people’s lives, and we actually did that on the floor. We did not watch people on cameras and sit in a glass bowl seeing prisoners fighting and doing nothing about it. We actually went inside those yards whenever there was trouble, because we were sure that our backs were being watched.

The other reason was that we had something called staff to prisoner ratios there. The staff to prisoner ratio in the Department of Corrections - run jails are three officers to a maximum-security prisoner. We have only one maximum-security prison in the country now, which is Pāremoremo. Three officers to one prisoner—that is the ratio for maximum-security prisoners. It is one officer to 15 prisoners when it comes to the high-security prisoners, and one officer to 30 prisoners when it comes to the minimum-security prisoners, because they have been observed over a long period of time and their classification has been processed in a way that their risk of assault, their risk of escape, and their risk of reoffending are minimal.

When Serco walked in, I walked out. I was encouraged to apply for a job with Serco, and I asked a few questions. The questions were: is the staff to prisoner ratio going to be the same as the Department of Corrections’? The answer was: “Actually, we are going to go for a dynamic rostering system.” What does that mean? That means you will not get the same staff to prisoner ratio, your life will be put at risk, your life will be endangered, and there will be risks to your personal safety because a certain company called Serco wants to make profits out of public money. So that was one question that was unanswered.

The other question was: are my working conditions going to be the same? I was told that Serco is an international company, a very reputable company. I came to know about the reputation, or the lack of it, later on. I was told: “Yes, Serco is a very reputable company.” Well, that reputation is shredded this morning, I believe. I refused the job with Serco, and I chose to stay with the Department of Corrections, because at least I knew that my safety was not being compromised there, and so did some others.

The other question I asked was: is there a lack of good prison managers in the country, so that you are importing foreigners to run our prisons? Is there a lack of experienced, efficient, dedicated, committed prison officers in the country, so that you are going all over the world to recruit mercenary prison officers? The answer that I got was that Serco is, again, a really reputable employer. I would like to make a special mention of one of the most experienced prison managers in the country, namely Matua Kelly Pūohotaua. He was the most experienced prison manager in the North Island when Serco took over Mt Eden prison. He took a wise decision, just like myself. He chose to stay with the Department of Corrections and not join Serco, in spite of all the lollies being shown there.

The other name that comes to my mind is the then superintendent of Mt Eden prison. The name is Deborah Bradley. She took a lot of pride in her job. She took a lot of pride in the work that she did. When she walked into a prison yard the prisoners respected her, because she was a thorough professional. She was very fair, but very firm. She has a track record of rehabilitating a large number of prisoners—hardened criminals. I had the privilege of working with such bright people, such dedicated people, such proud New Zealanders.

So I walked out of the Serco deal, and I chose to stay with corrections. I knew from the beginning that this day was coming. It is just sad that it has taken the Government 5½ years to get here. This should not have happened in the first place. Serco should never have come into our prisons. Serco should never have got that contract. One thing is for sure—I am not getting a job with Serco, because of the way that we have been taking shots at it, me and my colleagues Kelvin Davis and David Clendon.

Hon Member: And you don’t want a job with them.

MAHESH BINDRA: Yes, and I do not want a job with it, either.

Coming back to Serco, it has a bad track record overseas. It has a worse track record over here, in Mt Eden prison. When the safety of prisoners is compromised, when the safety of staff is compromised, when there is no focus on the rehabilitation of prisoners—there is focus only on profits—there is no way that that company is going to succeed in our prisons. There is no way that our prisons are going to benefit from the so-called reputation and the so-called experience of such companies. We actually think that stopping here is not good enough. The promise of not renewing Serco’s contract in Mt Eden prison is not good enough. We want Serco to go from this country altogether. We want the Wiri Prison contract to also be gone next, because whatever has happened in Mt Eden prison, nobody can guarantee that it is not going to happen in Wiri Prison, because the staff ratio is the same as it was in Mt Eden prison.

Just the other day I had a phone call from an officer working in Wiri Prison, and he described an incident where a group of low-security prisoners were walking from the medical centre to their own unit, unescorted. Why? Because of a shortage of staff. Why is there a shortage of staff? Because Serco wants to make a profit on staff. So a particular prisoner was targeted by a high-security prisoner from the other unit. He was beaten up badly, and he had to be taken back to the medical centre for further treatment. Later on that prisoner was shifted to the hospital because of the seriousness of the injuries. What Serco did, just to show the number of prisoners on medication is lower, was convince that prisoner to come back to the corrections facility so that the expense of the hospital could be minimised. So the safety of that prisoner was compromised, and that is a worry. I would not be surprised if there are similar incidents taking place in Wiri Prison as have taken place in Mt Eden prison. I think we should not take a chance, and we should get rid of Serco all together. Thank you.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I am very pleased to come and take a call in this afternoon’s urgent debate on the decision of the chief executive of the Department of Corrections to not renew the contract with Serco for the management of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility. I just want to start my contribution this afternoon by first of all taking the opportunity to commend my colleague the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. I think Sam has done an excellent job in his time in the portfolio over an incredibly difficult period, faced with some very real issues that most members in this House would find challenging. Sam has kept a level, calm approach to it, and has every single day put what is best for the prisoners and the system at the forefront of his decision making. I know that Sam has thoroughly enjoyed his time in the corrections portfolio. I know that he will go on to be a strong and effective Minister of Local Government.

I do think it is worth reflecting, though, on the fact that we are talking here about some of the most dangerous environments in New Zealand. We are talking about the most dangerous people, who are confined against their will in prisons, where, frankly, bad things have always happened and will always happen. Corrections staff, whether in private or public prisons, actually go in every day and face situations that I would be surprised if anyone in this House has had to face. They do incredibly well. But if we are going to judge the success of the prison service by whether there are zero incidents, then, frankly, we are living in la-la land. These are very dangerous people. In fact, I can tell you that the crime statistics tell us that over recent years what we have seen is a hardening, almost, of the people in the prisons as we have worked very hard to get low-level offenders out of the prison system and into community-based sentences. What you are left with in prison, frankly, are the most serious people serving longer sentences for serious crimes. They are dangerous and violent. These debates have to be had in that context. Actually, when reviews are done into the system, that point is made clear.

The work done in prisons is very, very good. It is of a very high standard. Where incidents do happen, of course they have to be looked at and considered and reported on. The Minister has done absolutely the right thing in seeking assurances about the various issues that have come up. But the fact remains that we cannot magic ourselves into thinking that these are preschools and tea parties. They are not. They are dangerous places, and incidents do occur.

I have to kind of just comment for a moment on that sort of slightly xenophobic rant from the New Zealand First member Mahesh Bindra, who was saying that it is all about the fact that they are foreigners. Frankly, that is a load of rot. We have never taken a view of saying only New Zealanders can do anything well. Our approach has always been asking what will provide the most efficient and effective service for prisoners in New Zealand and, therefore, for the wider public. It is about making sure that the public is safe and that when people are in prisons they have the best chance of returning to productive lives. Frankly, if New Zealand First is going to take an approach of saying that anyone who is a foreigner should just go home, that is something that it can take to the polls. I do not think that that is what New Zealanders would want.

Let me talk about the contract that has been the subject of this debate. This contract was signed in 2011 with a well-renowned international firm that is a specialist in this area and that is also working with us at the Auckland South Corrections Facility and doing very well. At the time the contract was put together, Mt Eden prison was a very different place. It was a very different place. At the time, the facility had predominantly sentenced prisoners with a small number of remandees in the facility. What has happened over time is that the operational reality of that prison has changed considerably, to the point where it is now almost entirely remand prisoners. For anyone who is not involved in the sector, why does that matter? It is because with remand prisoners you have people in prison who are there for very short periods of time, they are not adapted to the prison system, they are at their most angry and often their most violent, and often they are going through withdrawal symptoms. There is not the time to put them through treatment programmes and recidivism reduction programmes. Anyone who knows the sector will tell you that remand prisoners are the most difficult to manage for those reasons.

Of course we have to deal with remand prisoners, and Mt Eden has become our primary remand facility, certainly in the North Island. But what that has meant is that the contract that was written in 2011 for what was fundamentally a sentenced prison facility, now that we look at it in 2015 and what is likely to be needed in Mt Eden over the next 4 years, we know that, actually, we would want the contract framed differently. Actually, at the time the contract was written the department had the foresight to know that although the contract provided for up to 10 years, in actual fact we might need to change how the system worked, so this break point was provided for exactly this reason—so we could sit here in 2015 and ask “Actually, is Mt Eden prison still operating the way it was in 2011?”. If not, there is an opportunity to stop that contract, come out, rethink how it works, and take it back out for another solution. That is exactly what the chief executive today has determined. I think it is absolutely the right decision. I think it is a decision, frankly, that would have been highly likely to have happened regardless of the issues we have seen around fight clubs and the like in some of the allegations, because the nature of this prison has changed. The whole reason for having a term like this in contracts is so you can say “Now that the prison is a different beast, let’s write the contract for those terms.” That is exactly what is happening.

I just want to make one closing comment, because a lot of the debate has been on some sort of vilification of any sort of private involvement in prisons. Actually, I absolutely support the concept of public-private partnerships in our prisons. I think it is a very good concept. The interesting thing is that assaults, fights, criminal behaviour happen in every prison in our system—in every prison in our system. There was a serious assault at Rimutaka Prison just the other day. What is the difference with a private prison? With a private prison we can hold them to account, terminate the contract, and give them financial penalties. There is better accountability in a privately run prison than in any other prison in the system. Actually, that is a good thing. It means that now, when there is a serious issue, there is someone to hold to account. If they are not delivering, they can be moved on. That is working through its way, with the chief inspector’s report. Those decisions are for the chief inspector to comment on.

But this issue of accountability is one that applies right across the prison estate, and for the first time, because of this Government, because of this private provider system, we have the ability to hold them to account, which today the chief executive is doing, which is the right thing. It shows us that the system does provide for greater accountability, does provide for opportunities to change if things are not working, and allows us to renegotiate the terms when the system of the prison changes. I can understand that these are issues of serious interest to the public, as they must be. But these are dangerous places. They are dangerous right across the system. Mt Eden Corrections Facility is no different from any other prison in that regard. But with the foresight of the contract drafters in 2011, they have done exactly what we needed them to do, which is provide us with an opportunity at this point to assess whether it was still what we needed going forward for this prison. It is not, so the contract has been ended. I think it is absolutely the right decision.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): That speech from Amy Adams illustrates why, even with the sacking of Serco, and even with the sacking of Serco with 14 months’ notice, New Zealanders have no reason to feel assured that this Government is actually going to do anything to prevent the disaster that happened at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility happening again. That speech was just another defence of the ideology that led to the letting of a private contract for the management of incarcerated prisoners yet again. That is why New Zealanders should continue to be worried.

They should be worried anyway, because the Minister who is about to take over next Monday, Judith Collins, is the author of this shambles. Here is what she said at the time when she happily and merrily—and, no doubt, coquettishly—signed the agreement that led to Serco picking up the contract.

Fletcher Tabuteau: I can’t picture it. I just can’t see it.

ANDREW LITTLE: She was certainly coquettish yesterday on television. We will see how coquettish she is once she takes up the job. She said, when defending the contract going to Serco: “Serco has a strong track record in managing prisons. I’m confident that the company will bring the high standards of professionalism, safety, rehabilitation, and security expected by the Government to Mt Eden …” That was from the Minister who let the contract. And then after that she was let off the hook of course, because of her superior performance. She went on to do the job that the last speaker now does, the Minister of Justice, and she mucked that up too. She then found herself on the backbenches for the last 12 months. Now she is going to go back into the very post that led to the letting of the contract to Serco.

It is interesting to hear her comments from just the last couple of days. She said of the situation at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility and the contract with Serco that she is going to go into that relationship with an open mind. She is going to ask some questions. According to Judith Collins, the putative Minister of Corrections, there are two sides to every story. Apparently the video images we have seen of fight clubs, the stories we have heard of prisoners being thrown over balconies, the affidavits we have read of contraband being smuggled in—these apparently are just one side of the story. She is going to go and find out what the other side is. It will be interesting to see whether indeed she now does that and sees what the other side of that story is.

Well, we know what the other side of the story is. The other side of that story is ideologically driven, blinkered Ministers. It was a pity to see the Minister of Justice just now defending that. Perhaps that is just the normal course of events. But she is a good Minister of Justice who has started doing some good things. Why she would find the need, as indeed Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga had difficulty doing, to defend an ideological position about privatising prisons—it frankly beggars belief.

Judith Collins started it, but she now no longer has the responsibility to finish the disaster that is Serco and the Mt Eden Corrections Facility. But we must all now be alert to the possibility that she remains unshaken in her ideology and she just thinks that it can all happen all over again. That would be a great pity for the New Zealand taxpayers who, in addition to having contracted a lemon to run the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, now find they are paying for it for another 14 months. When I was an employment lawyer I used to deal with workers who had underperformed—sometimes disastrously, in fact. The idea that they might get 14 months’ notice when they got dismissed for poor performance—I mean, that would be manna from heaven. If it is good enough for workers to be subject to summary dismissal, it must be good enough for poor-performing, underperforming, disastrously performing private contractors to face the same fate.

There is an important principle here. It is a basic constitutional principle. One aspect of the rule of law in a democratic tradition is that Parliament, as a democratic institution, can make laws that can deprive citizens of their liberty, and do it for good reason. When citizens offend against their own to such a level of moral opprobrium, it is right that they be deprived of their liberty and withdrawn from society, hopefully with the idea that their conduct is corrected and that they have the support or the help or the intervention they need to get them back on the straight and narrow. That is what we ask of a corrections facility. It is about taking citizens who offend against the rest of us and putting them in a facility that means they can return to society as healthier and better citizens. That is why we have a prison system. It is a question of the democratic State making that decision—that we can and we will take people from society and withdraw from them the privileges that go with living in a free and democratic society so that they learn a different path, learn a better way. That is why we do it. We should never ever contract that out.

Hon Anne Tolley: Labour never funded that.

ANDREW LITTLE: I am not surprised that Miss Tolley speaks up. She has overseen it. She is driven by the same poor ideology, the same failure of thinking, the same intellectual bankruptcy that leads them to turn a blind eye to the realities of privatisation and say that when it comes to citizenship responsibility and depriving citizens of citizenship we should just blindly hand it out to the private sector.

The private sector is not motivated by returning citizens who have been deprived of their liberty back to society as better citizens. It is primarily motivated by one thing—it has to be motivated by it because it says so in the Companies Act—and that is profit. It has got to maximise profit. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with people who are sentenced or remanded in prison they do not fit a commercial model. The commercial model is about dealing with similar products; dealing with a process that has great similarities so you can manage it and you can make it efficient so you can make a profit from it.

Dealing with people from the vast array of backgrounds and health difficulties that they have in a correctional facility is not the same as managing a commercial service with a level of homogeneity. It is not the same as managing a production process and making a product on a mass basis that has a level of sameness. That is not what you are doing when you are managing a correctional facility. You are dealing with people who maybe come from extraordinarily deprived backgrounds—sometimes actually from a privileged background but they are just silly people and they are doing it again and again. You are dealing with people with health issues, with addictions, with all sorts of manner of behavioural problems that need to be managed as if they are individuals. And all along the way you are making sure that they are still safe, that they are secure, that the rest of the community is secure, and, most important, that the right steps are being taken to put them in a fit state either to return to court to plead to their charges or for their conduct to be corrected. That is what we have it for.

The idea—the ideological purity of the National Party—that we just hand that over to the private sector to do has now been shown up for what that is because Serco has been brought to book and shown up for what it is. It cannot manage a correctional facility. It cannot manage the range of difficult, hard-to-manage, and hard-to-deal-with personalities in a correctional facility.

Hon Anne Tolley: Go and have a look at some.

ANDREW LITTLE: They say: “Look at Wiri. Look at Wiri.” Serco has not been doing it for that long. It has not been doing it for that long. We look at Serco’s track record in the UK, and it has been a disaster. I am sorry, Miss Tolley. You may have your blinkers on, but the rest of us do not. We have seen it for what it is. This Government, if it is truly going to be responsive and responsible to the taxpayers of New Zealand, if it truly wants to be in touch with New Zealanders, will say: “We’ve done the experiment. It doesn’t work. We’re not going to do it anymore. We will not be privatising our prisons anymore.” Nothing less will do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi—5 minutes.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this snap debate. There is no doubt that the events at Mt Eden Corrections Facility were totally unacceptable to this Government. When these allegations were made, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections initiated the step-in clauses available to him under the provision of the contract of Serco. The chief executive does not have to provide a reason to break a contract, as per the provision of the agreement.

We need to understand what prison is. Prison is a facility in which inmates are forcibly confined and denied a variety of freedoms under the authority of the State, as a form of punishment. To run such a facility is a complex task and we need to understand that when the convicts are dealt with it is a challenge for the prison officers to deal with that.

The safety of the staff and the prisoners is paramount for this Government. The Government is acting to ensure the best outcome for Mt Eden Corrections Facility and the wider prison system. This decision not only reviews Serco’s contract, it will also allow the Government to move forward on deciding the best future for Mt Eden Corrections Facility. The decision does not prejudge the chief inspector’s report into the events at Mt Eden Corrections Facility—its outcome of any consequence that might come from it.

We need to understand that when these allegations were made, immediately an inquiry was set up and we are waiting for that inquiry’s result. As the chief executive mentioned in his statement, because Serco has gone for a judicial review of its report it is not possible to talk about that. Currently the Department of Corrections is managing Mt Eden Corrections Facility, after invoking the step-in clause in the contract in July this year. This followed the serious allegations surrounding the safety of the staff and the prisoners, and the emergence of video showing the fight club and the use of contraband.

These allegations were very serious. That is why the chief executive immediately took over the management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility. We have to understand these things in the context of how these facilities are managed. I think it is the right decision that the Minister is supporting the decision of the chief executive and we hope in the new year, on his recommendation, that the Government will consider how to manage the private prisons, and we look forward to that. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): How fitting it is to end the year in this Parliament on one of the National Party’s great ideological crusades that has turned sour, because that is what this is. The National Party was warned. It was warned in the 1990s when it went down the private prison pathway and the Labour Government had to come in and wind that back. It goes down that pathway again in this Government, solely for ideological reasons. Let us be absolutely crystal clear: the taking away of someone’s liberty is a responsibility of the State. It should be held by the State as a responsibility to manage that in accordance with the kinds of norms and rules that the public of New Zealand would expect, and when a private operator is brought into this it brings with it the profit motive—that is the point of the operation of a company like Serco. It will cut corners. We knew that from day one. The Government was warned that staffing levels would be cut, and they were.

I want to pay tribute to Kelvin Davis, who has led this campaign fantastically well and highlighted what has happened in Mt Eden. As Kelvin Davis pointed out, the moment those staffing levels went down the pressure goes on the staff, the trouble rises, and we have seen the appalling situation of violence within Mt Eden and the contraband that has come into Mt Eden. So the Government was warned about this and it proceeded anyway.

But look at the contract that was signed by Judith Collins, who stood there and said that Serco has a strong track record in managing prisons. She said: “I am confident that the company will bring the high standards of professionalism, safety, rehabilitation, and security expected by the Government to Mt Eden.” Well, they came with their track record from the UK and, in fact, what happened in Mt Eden was what had happened in the UK. There was poor performance and the taxpayers of New Zealand and the people of New Zealand were ripped off. On this side of the House what we say is: what kind of contract is it that the Government has signed? The Government has signed up to a contract that means that the taxpayer will be paying for another 14 months of Serco doing nothing—14 months’ more payment to Serco for their poor performance.

What economic geniuses on the other side of the House sign up to contracts when time after time the Government gets done in by commercial operators? Be it Skycity, be it Tīwai Point, be it Chorus, or be it Warner Bros, time after time this Government gets done over in commercial negotiations. So here is the Government saying that it has a private provider who is hopeless and is not doing the job, but it is going to pay them for another 14 months. It is useless. It is useless at negotiating commercial contracts, and Government members come into this House and lecture every other party. Well, that is the party that has lost millions and millions of dollars for New Zealanders because of its blind ideological approach to public services. It has put ideology before public safety. It has put ideology before the rehabilitation of prisoners. That is what this Government has done.

What makes it worse is that, although Serco might have lost a contract at Mt Eden, it has still got the contract for Wiri Prison. It still has a 25-year contract there. It is like taking a box of matches off a pyromaniac and saying: “But you can keep the big can of petrol for 25 years and pour that around the place.” That is what the Government has done by extending the contract at Wiri. Now Judith Collins is back in charge—the very person. “Countess Homogenised” arrives on her white horse and says: “I’m back. I created this shambles, and I’m back.” Well, here is my challenge to Judith Collins. Today John Key has said that Serco could re-tender for the contract in 2017.

Dr David Clark: What?

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is what he said this afternoon. My challenge to the National Party is: for once, listen, look at the evidence, and realise what you have done and step away from this ideological approach. Reassure New Zealanders that the correctional system is safe, that it is protecting New Zealanders and actually doing what it is meant to do to rehabilitate prisoners. If they bring Serco back, mark my words, this will happen again. This ideological nonsense has to stop.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Department of Corrections has decided not to renew the contract for Serco to manage Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That decision was made and staff were informed of that decision this morning. I want to acknowledge those staff, whether they are Department of Corrections staff or Serco staff. I want to acknowledge the hard work that they have done over many years in Mt Eden prison, including under the time of the Serco contract.

I want to acknowledge the work of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga as well, as the Minister of Corrections, who has done a very good job over a couple of years—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sounds like a eulogy.

JACQUI DEAN: The member rudely calls across the House that it sounds like a eulogy. Actually, it is me acknowledging that the Minister of Corrections oversees a portfolio that has inherent difficulties within it, and those difficulties are the fact that the incarceration of those people is something that is not welcomed by them, and a number of them will do anything within their limited powers to make life difficult for those warders and corrections staff who look over them. They are extremely unhappy, angry, disturbed, and violent people, and that is something that the Opposition would do well to remember as they are flinging overheated insults around the House about the Minister and about the Department of Corrections itself.

We are dealing with a population who simply do not wish to be incarcerated and will take every opportunity to display their anger. So the very fact that the Minister has welcomed the move by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to invoke the step-in power with this contract should be welcomed by this House. It should be welcomed because it proves the point that this contract with Serco provides an additional level of accountability within our prison system. That is something that should be welcomed around this House because there is, and will continue to be, a full investigation into the events that have happened in Mt Eden prison.

One of the Opposition members noted that Serco is primarily motivated by profit. I would dispute that. Of course they are motived partly by profit—this is a public-private partnership and they have entered into a contract—but primarily it is the point I will dispute. I have been to the new Wiri Prison, unfortunately before that facility was opened, but the very set-up of that modern prison, with its focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into the New Zealand population, is done by Serco. It is not motivated purely by profit. It is motivated by, and aligned very closely with, what the Minister of Corrections is also trying to achieve for those New Zealanders who are incarcerated in New Zealand prisons. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. As the House will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is a legislative vehicle that makes it possible for minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to be made to a number of Acts at once. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament.

The bill amends 28 Acts administered by 13 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors, omissions, or incorrect references. Some amendments are non-controversial and support refinements to machinery provisions. Although all political parties in the Parliament support the amendments proposed in the bill, I look forward to hearing the committee’s examination and views on these matters, as well as the views of the public. I look forward to the passage of the bill through all its stages, and working constructively with parties as the bill is put together in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to give a very brief contribution in the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill, which the Labour Party will be supporting. I want to assure any members of the public who are watching this debate that the 28 different Acts being amended will be given the scrutiny they deserve at the Government Administration Committee. This is an efficient way for the Parliament to deal with quite an array of technical, minor, and, almost, in some cases, what would seem to be relatively trivial matters without choking up a huge amount of the House’s time. Therefore, I do not see any need to choke up a huge amount of the House’s time contributing much more to the debate that we are having at the moment, other than—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Other than? Oh—other than.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —some people want to go home—simply to say that we will ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of it.

Perhaps I could also point out to Government members sitting opposite that many of the members’ bills that seem to have appeared in the ballot of late could well be advanced much more efficiently and promptly were they part of a Statutes Amendment Bill, such is the lack of controversy surrounding many of those pieces of proposed legislation.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill

Second Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time. As foreshadowed in the discussions at the Business Committee, the bill’s second reading will be followed immediately by its third reading, without debate. This is because the Regulations Review Committee has recommended technical and drafting amendments that can be adopted by the House at the end of the bill’s second reading. The bill does not, therefore, require consideration in the Committee of the whole House.

The bill is in two parts. Part 1 is the annual bill, confirming and validating orders or regulations. It covers 24 items, under 13 different Acts. It must be enacted by 31 December 2015, to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for ensuring Part 1 can be amended to include two additional items.

The National Animal Identification and Tracing (Levies) Amendment Regulations 2015 also require confirmation. They were made after the bill was introduced. The Veterans’ Support (Rates of War Pensions Act 1954 Allowances) Order 2015 is also included, just in case its past operation is invalid if it is not confirmed and validated. The committee was satisfied that all of the Part 1 confirmations and validations are justified.

Part 2 would replace all existing confirmation provisions with standard provisions in the Legislation Act 2012. Part 2 introduces to the Act the new term “confirmable instruments”. The Regulations Review Committee supports Part 2 and this new initiative as simplifying and clarifying the law. One central set of provisions, we think, is critical. Currently, there are over 50 kinds of instruments that are covered by up to some seven different confirmations and provisions, over 30 Acts.

Clear bipartisan support exists. I am very happy to note that this is enabling this bill to proceed. In closing, can I again thank the Regulations Review Committee, the Attorney-General, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their successful collaboration on this bill, relating to ongoing work. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to make a very short contribution to this debate—

Grant Robertson: Keep saying that.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —well, my last contribution was very short—in supporting the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. I have spoken to the Labour members on the Regulations Reviews Committee, who are supportive of the bill progressing but do want to, I guess, make clear that our support for Part 2 of this bill progressing was on the condition that there is a review of the terminology in the Legislation Act 2012, which was something that the Attorney-General engaged very constructively with the Regulations Review Committee on. Can I congratulate the Government on the need, once again, to review a piece of legislation it has only just passed through the House—or, certainly, in its term of Government. But we on the Opposition side here, of course, are very happy to engage constructively—

Grant Robertson: Clear the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —and help with this. I am being told to sit down already. We will be supporting the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill, and a very merry Christmas to all the members.

Bill read a second time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): In accordance with a decision of the Business Committee, the bill has been divided and set down for third reading forthwith.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill and the Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Bills read a third time.

Adjournment

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 February 2016, and that the sitting days in 2016 be as follows:

February 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18;

March 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, and 31;

April 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14;

May 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, and 31;

June 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, and 30;

July 5, 6, and 7;

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

September 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 22;

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

November 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 29, and 30;

December 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15.

This is the debate that will conclude the activities of the House for 2015 and set down the times at which the House will sit during 2016. It is worth noting that Parliament this year has sat for some 88 days—a larger number than was the case in 2014, although that was interrupted by the election. Some 120 bills have passed through their third reading, and the number of occasions on which the House has had extended sittings has been five. The number of weeks that the House has sat has been 30 weeks. The number of question times was 87, the number of oral questions to members was 1,044, and the number of hours that the House has sat has been some 655 hours and 10 minutes, as at Tuesday, 8 December.

One thing that I would say at this point is I would like to express some congratulations to all members of the Business Committee for the way that that committee has developed, and has continued to develop, over the past year. It is a place where, I think, the most poignant points of politics are understood and where the opportunities for people to have their views expressed in the strongest possible terms are organised. The extended sittings that came this year were largely devoted to Treaty of Waitangi settlement bills. These are bills that the whole House agrees with, and it makes sense that the House itself agrees on the process for those bills’ passing, and it does enable those recipients of those settlements to be here for the historic third readings of those bills. All of that work is, I think, a tribute to the Business Committee and its ongoing operation.

Now I need to thank some people—the Speaker, of course, yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, the presiding officers, and all those who assist in the Clerk’s Office, including the new clerk, David Stevenson, for all the effort that they make to keep the wheels of Parliament moving. [Interruption] No, I am keeping it a very straight debate, Grant, otherwise I would start spending endless amounts of time—David Stevenson?

Grant Robertson: You got his name wrong—that’s the problem. It’s David Wilson.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, David Wilson. Sorry.

Grant Robertson: I was just trying to help.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, thank goodness you are here! I apologise to David Wilson. He knows whom I meant. The two gentlemen are roughly the same height, although their profiles are slightly different—much like you and me, Grant. The thanks I was wanting to extend is to all those who make Parliament a better place for us to work. In the case of Ministers, there is the transport system; the VIP drivers are very obliging. To all the security staff here at Parliament, who do their best—although today, of course, we get a demonstration of why they need to be here. To all the House attendants, etc., and to anybody who makes this place work—when you start naming people, it gets a little difficult. My own staff have, of course, a great deal to put up with, and they do it very, very well. I thank them very much for their work, both here in Parliament and in the electorate.

It would not be appropriate to end this debate for the year without saying something that is a little bit controversial, so in my final minute and a half, can I perhaps just ask the members who are going to speak from the other side of the House whether they might tell us how many barbecue invitations they have for this summer.

Grant Robertson: Urgh!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: “Urgh!”, Grant moans. You see, he is not on any of the lists now—he used to be, he used to be; he was the top favourite for a long time—and, frankly, the way he performed today, I can see why.

This is, obviously, a time when people go back to their electorates, where they spend time with friends and family. This is not a debate, in my view, that should be prolonged. There will be people who want to say something. The Business Committee has organised for 18 people to make a contribution this afternoon, at the conclusion of which, you yourself, Mr Speaker, will be able to express some views. To you, Mr Speaker, and to all the House attendants, a very merry Christmas and all the best for the coming year.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): It is a great pleasure to take this final call for the year. I want to begin, as the Leader of the House did, by thanking all of those who make the operating of this House—and very important it is to the life of New Zealand—who work and keep it going.

The first person I would like to acknowledge is, of course, the Clerk of the House—the chap known to us as David Wilson—and indeed all of the staff of the Clerk’s Office, who do a tremendous job not only in processing all the activity that goes on around here but for the advice that they give as well. I acknowledge those looking after the Table Office, the Bills Office, and Hansard, of course, who do invaluable work and pick up the odd difficult word as well and manage to get it absolutely correct.

The interpretation and translation services; the Select Committee Services group, which keeps that tremendous amount of paperwork flowing and going; the Parliamentary Relations and Policy Group, including the education group, who are always a pleasure to bump into, particularly when they have got tour groups with them at the time; and those looking after the organisational performance and information services—all those in parliamentary services, without whom this place would not function, and the security staff too, of course, who make this place safe and easy to get around.

I want to thank Jim Robb and his team—the buildings team—and all the contractors, about whom I will say a little more later, who support buildings. I want to thank the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, for lending Lindsay Tisch his jacket just a short while ago, and all the security staff too, who are in and out of the building. I also want to thank Heather Daly and the tireless messengers and the work that they do.

Can I thank the research experts, the Parliamentary Library and the Datacom team, without whom this place would not function—actually, sometimes it does not function—but anyway, they are always there, they keep us connected and, sometimes, our computers working. The New Zealand Post staff at the post shop—and this may well be the last Christmas for those staff, but they are tremendous. And for those who are transacting the three transactions a day, you will just have to go somewhere else.

To the Epicure staff, whose quality of food rises by the day and has been fantastic, the Spotless cleaning team, who are here at those very difficult hours, and, of course, who deserve to be paid a living wage. Can we thank the general manager of Parliamentary Service, David Stevenson, and his team, especially Jane McKenzie and the relationship team.

I want to thank and acknowledge my chief of staff, Matt McCarten, the whips’ office manager Emma Williams, and the dedicated and talented team of leader’s office staff, executive assistants, out-of-office parliamentary staff, and the issues assistants whom they take care of.

Can I just tell you this story, which is illustrative, I think, of the note on which I end this year, which is with a note of optimism. As I said before about buildings, there is another very important group that has been around Parliament buildings this year, which is the construction team from LT McGuinness, which is making, perhaps, the worst, leakiest building in the country waterproof yet again, giving us dry and healthy accommodation.

We know them all, they are gathered around—well, I see them outside my third-floor office. There they are, in their high-vis vests and what have you. What is most important is that they will leave a lasting legacy in this House for the work that they do. But it is thanks to the actions of one of those men from LT McGuinness that, as I say, gives that air of optimism to me.

I was at a meeting a couple of months ago, getting one of the briefings from the head of one of our security agencies—an initiative, actually, that they undertook this year in fulfilment of their statutory obligations. There we were, looking at matters of great national sensitivity and security, and all of a sudden the head of the SIS, who was briefing me, threw her hands over the papers on the table and said: “Wait! Is this place secure?”.

We looked out on the balcony and there was one of the LT McGuinness men with his high-vis jacket on—and, as you all know, they have all got numbers on them—and there was the number 007. We established very quickly that it was not Daniel Craig, much to her disappointment, I am sure, and we established that MI6 probably does not have a great deal of interest in the Leader of the Opposition’s office in New Zealand.

But here is the point, and here is the note of optimism: after all the debate about the Health and Safety Reform Bill this year and all of our challenging the Government that this was not going to create the culture of health and safety, here, at least, at the highest levels of the Public Service here in Wellington, we have a senior public servant who genuinely believes that, were James Bond to ever make it to New Zealand to do his nefarious things, he, at least, will be wearing his high-vis vest.

On that note, I want to thank all my parliamentary colleagues and wish them all a safe and relaxing summer break. And to you, Mr Speaker—and you frequently say to me I have the worst job in Parliament—there are days when I have looked at you this year and thought: “I am so glad to be the Leader of the Opposition.” And so, Mr Speaker, to you I wish you all the very best and a relaxing summer break and a well-deserved one, and I look forward to seeing all my friends in this House next year.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): To everyone in this House and around this place, the Green Party wishes you a very warm and very meri Kirihimete. Our special thanks and warm wishes today go out, particularly, to all of those who keep this place ticking so that we can do our jobs. Politicians are not the easiest people in the world to work with—

Grant Robertson: No!

METIRIA TUREI: —apparently—so to those of you who manage the Chamber, who cook for us, who make our coffee, clean our offices, deliver our papers, keep us safe, answer our research questions, keep the lights going, fix the heating, and keep our computers humming—all of you, thank you so much for everything that you do for us. We really, really appreciate it. Thanks, and a special Christmas wish also to our friends in the Opposition. To Andrew Little and his team, in particular, it has been great working with you all over this last year, and I am looking forward to more of it next year—

Clayton Mitchell: And us.

METIRIA TUREI: And you too, New Zealand First. We love you too. Ha, ha! It is true, it is true—do not listen to what the media says. But, thinking about the media, big thanks to the press gallery for a year of sharing your love, sometimes—sometimes—but in increasingly constrained circumstances; we know how hard it is to do your jobs.

And a very merry Christmas, too, to the Government. It has been a tough year for youse fullas, what with—

Hon Member: Oh, no, it’s been a great year.

METIRIA TUREI: —increasing unemployment—oh, it is true—45,000 more children in poverty, the housing crisis skyrocketing, and greenhouse gas emissions. But, credit where credit is due, you have played to your strengths, National, and it is time now to recognise those strengths. So I am very pleased to announce the Green Party’s inaugural “End of Year Awards”. I know, it is exciting. I have the nominations. So here we go.

Hon Member: What’s the prize?

METIRIA TUREI: We may well give you presents—yeah, let us give them presents. My lovely assistant is Gareth Hughes over here.

For the “Exxon Mobil Contribution to Oil Drilling Award”, the runner-up is Labour for refusing to rule it out—ahem—but the winner goes to Simon Bridges, for keeping the oil industry going, through his support of its hair products. Great dedication, Simon—slick as, bro. He can get some chocolates—give them to Gerry. The “He Wears His Underpants on the Outside Public Defender Award”, sponsored by Marvel Comics, goes to Michael Woodhouse for revealing to New Zealand the grave dangers of worm farms. Michael has got our backs—we are safe under his watch.

The “Land Transport Association Award for the Most Creative U-turn, It Turns Out”—so, the runner-up is Labour for simultaneous U-turns on capital gains tax and superannuation. But the winner is the Green Party—that is right, the Green Party—for ruling out, then ruling in, then ruling out the booze bill. I want my gift. Thank you, I am so proud. I want to thank my producers: mum and dad, you are awesome.

The award for the “Most Dedicated Backbencher Politician”—this was hard fought for, this one, I can tell you. The runner-up is Paul Foster-Bell for his passionate visual adoration during the Prime Minister’s speeches—puppy-dog—but the winner goes to Mike Hosking for his selfless support for his dear leader and the creative use of public broadcasting.

Ron Mark: Oh, we’re liking you.

METIRIA TUREI: Ha, ha! The “Lump of Coal Special Christmas Award”, sponsored by Charles Dickens, is jointly awarded to John Key and Peter Dunne for voting against feeding the kids in schools. Clearly, the answer to the question “Please, sir, can I have some more?” is: “No, you cannot have any more.” The “New Zealand Men’s Rights Association Award for the Protection of Traditional Values”—the runner-up is John Key for having the guts to say out loud that Cabinet is dominated by middle-aged white men because he appoints on the basis of merit. Ladies, smarten up!

But the winner goes to Louise Upston, the first women’s affairs Minister brave enough to define feminism as bad and beauty contests as good. Well done, Louise! But the “Chocolate Prize” is going to go to Poto Williams for her amazing support for the walkout over the rapists comments. Awesome—chocolate well-deserved. The “Hairstylists Association of New Zealand International Hair Ambassador of 2015 Award”—who do you think might win this? Runners-up are Peter Dunne and Simon Bridges for effort—good effort, guys—but the winner, by a landslide, is John Key for putting New Zealand and ponytails on the world stage for all the wrong reasons. Well done, you guys.

Not quite finally, the “Foot in Mouth Award”, sponsored by the Ministry for Primary Industries, for most regrettable statement—the winner is Judith Collins: “I’m confident that Serco will bring the high standards of professionalism, safety, rehabilitation and security expected by the Government to Mt Eden prison.” Well, was she not right? The Government did expect that. That is exactly what it got. But the gift of chocolate goes to Kelvin Davis, given today’s breaking news. That was a scalp worth fighting for.

The final award for tonight is the “Plunket Karitane Award” for healthy development and meeting all growth milestones, and that goes to my very own co-leader, James Shaw, for, well, just being a good all-round boy.

Thank you very much to all of you who nominated and who made suggestions for our awards. I am sure we are all very pleased with the winners. Thank you very much for all your work, Mr Speaker, for the work of all the staff who are here, and to all the Green Party staff and volunteers for all of your energy over this last year. We give thanks for all of the efforts that everyone makes to make this a great democracy, and I hope that you have a very safe and very happy Christmas break. Kia ora koutou katoa.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Before passing on our season’s greetings, we should say that this has been a most momentous year for the Government, and it should be given credit. But on examination of the lists of success stories we ran into a roadblock: “ponytail-gate”; the nail failed twice; the surplus after 7 years’ creative accounting, and back to deficit the next quarter; the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement sold the public a lemon, and not much about trade; the Iroquois sold to the Yanks, and not our own people; the flag, with all the levitation of a lead balloon; the housing bubble in Auckland—but only consents, no new houses, of course; the Nick Smith public relations tour, which ran into a deed of ownership that was not the Government’s in the first place; Skycity outsmarting the PM—another shonky deal; Mr Key wearing various hats, sometimes when he puts the cat out; and Phillip John Smith taking a holiday in Brazil.

Then you have got the Malaysian diplomat, but no apology; detainees on Christmas Island being sold out because the PM wants to be an Aussie PM groupie; the Prime Minister telling everybody what he does in the shower; the Serco fight clubs; the “Crusher” Collins comeback—after Oravida that is unbelievable; the biosecurity cutbacks and then the levies on all travellers to try to make up for the cut; logs and milk, two products in a declining market; the worm farms’ health and safety risks; Silver Fern Farms’ corrupt deal; the Saudi farm corrupt bribe; the capping of the SuperGold card travel programme; the Solid Energy collapse—it used to be a State-owned enterprise star; and then the so-called $25 increase in benefits while it took the axe to welfare and all the other budgets as well. Then, of course, you have Redcliffs School, where you ignored the parents in Christchurch.

But the real thing is that the Government hit its big star performance in Northland in March, with a team of strategists, ministerial cars, spin doctors, Crosby/Textor, Cabinet Ministers, and the Prime Minister going there three or four times. He is on every hoarding, 500 of them, and then there is the master planner-strategist, “Mr Fix-It”, Steven Joyce. That poor candidate up there, Mark Osborne, did not have a hope in Hades. Do you remember that the Government said we had a dog’s chance? Well, up went Mr Joyce. He gave it his best shot, and the Government came up way short. You see, what happened up there was the people up north had been lacking an MP standing up for them for years, and they decided to get one.

Hon Member: And they are still lacking one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, really? Well, why do you not front up? I saw that member up at the show in Waimate North, and no one knew who he was. He had a badge on, and no one was shaking his hand. I felt so sorry—I really did.

I just want to say this: on the international stage Tim Groser has been an embarrassment. He has been an embarrassment. It is clear from informed sources that he gets his information from watching the weather girls on TV on the 6 o’clock news every night. The Prime Minister has found it very hard going. You see, Prime Minister, you cannot run a country through photos on Facebook. Drinking beer out of a bottle does not make you a Kiwi bloke. Haunting the All Blacks in the changing room is an embarrassment to them as well—especially if you do not know one end of the paddock from the other; especially if you have never played the game of rugby.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He has.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No tournament whatsoever, and Gerry has never played rugby either.

Hon Member: Of course he has.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No. You ask “Jimbo” who can play rugby around here. “Jimbo” can and we can, but the National Party cannot—very short on talent.

Here are the Prime Minister’s many hats: National Party leader, All Black baggage handler, international freedom fighter, golf cart caddy for the United States President—the list is endless. Prime Minister, our relationship with the United States is not going to be enhanced by you giving President Obama the No. 5 iron.

Hon Member: Or a three-way handshake.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Or a putter, or a three-way handshake when there are only two of you there.

The Prime Minister had the audacity to tell the Labour Party to get some guts and courage over Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Look—political leadership is about policies. It is not about sabre-rattling, especially when you are thousands of miles away from the danger. While our troops are overseas in situations of danger, under a flag, why sell that flag down the drain? It is inappropriate, it is insulting, and the reception being given to this arrogant rebranding exercise is that it is all over, Rover. Stop wasting any more millions. Quit while you are behind, because the turnout is so low, despite all the millions of dollars the Government has put into it, and if he goes on it will show that he is all about personal arrogance and self-interest.

You see, it has been—what did the Queen call it—an annus horribilis for the blue brigade. Whilst I am at it—[Bell rung]—1 minute to go? Well, I cannot leave this out. If you are taken to the Queen’s private residence and you take a photograph, you do not put it on Facebook. You see, what that tells me is that there is no class, and you can have all the money in the world but you cannot get class. That is tragic—tragic. The Government will go on next year trying to repopulate the country in a binge of consumerism, but the die is cast. In contrast, New Zealand First finishes in the best shape we have ever been in—make no bones about it. We have got offices in Invercargill, and all the way now to Kaitāia, Dargaville, Kerikeri—oh, yes, we are coming on strong, steaming really fast now—Whangarei, Warkworth, and Nelson. [Interruption] Look, the answer is, Gerry: your time is up. Your time is up.

The last thing, Mr Speaker, before I wish you, generally, a very happy Christmas—I really think you deserve one, actually—and all the parliamentary staff, is that, believe me, if you look at the last six elections and the polls on election day compared with the period before those elections, then you are looking at the top of an iceberg. Help is on its way. New Zealand First is going to be back real strong in 2016, ready for an election whenever they fly the white flag.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa e Te Whare. Pēnei ngā mahi i runga i te marae, ko te wāhi ki a au ko te tuku i tētahi poroporoaki ki ngā mate kua pā mai ki a tātau katoa i tēnei tau.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all of the House. Like the protocols on the marae, my part is to accord a farewell tribute to the deaths that affected us all this year.]

As I do on our marae throughout the country, and try to do in this House, I try to maintain our tikanga and firstly pay tribute to the many whom we have lost this year. I cannot cover all of them, but Peeni, ko te āhuatanga ki tō pāpā, ā, ka tangi ake [the situation relating to your father, and which I lament over]. I mention Ērima Hēnare, I mention Tama Huata—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Bert Mackie.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Bert Mackie from Te Puni Kōkiri, Mauriora Kīngi, and many others—Sir Apirana Mahuika. All those sorts of leaders of Te Ao Māori who have been lost to us this year, I pay tribute to them. I say: koutou i te pō, e moe, e moe, e moe, haere, whakangaro atu rā! Tātau te hunga ora e pae nei, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[Those of you in the Void, rest, sleep, slumber there, depart, and fade away! We the living, seated about here, my greetings and appreciation to you collectively and to us all.]

The Māori Party does not want to be negative. We will not be negative, and so I want to don another cap, and say to us—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: You get that one? All right. I want to don another cap, and say that it has been a good year for the Māori Party and for us in this House.

Marama Fox: Amen.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is right, my sister. It has been a good year. If we look at Budget 2015, there was the expansion of Whānau Ora, progress on Te Ture Whenua Māori Act is coming around the corner, the launch of the Māori housing network—it has been a very good year.

The National Party members can say thank you. They can say thank you because we have brought that intellectual grunt that Māori bring to the table, to sit alongside them. We brought that brown grunt—we brought that brown grunt that they need to contribute to the best interests of this country. The good thing is that we have actually enjoyed being together to bring about positive change for Māori people in this country. How did we do it? The base increased by $25 per week for all beneficiaries’ tamariki of this country. We held the line on the Resource Management Act. It is over the line, for starters—Mr Nick Smith should be thankful for that. We have been working with Māori communities and iwi on a range of issues throughout this country, finding solutions to try to deal with issues of poverty, family violence, and generally supporting whānau ora. That is where we want to be.

We are also pleased to say that the fruits of our work have come out. Things have actually blossomed in terms of free doctor visits for children—that is all Māori Party policy. Like other parties, people generally seem to pinch our ideas. They tend to pinch our ideas, so shame on you. Shame on you, New Zealand First, in particular, for pinching our ideas! But it is OK, because they all go to a common good place. They go to the best interests of children and the families of this country. So we will let them have a little bit of credit, but the credit is really due to the mighty Māori Party. Yay-ya!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about the kūmara never saying how sweet it is?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is only in your area. In our area, we speak it up, we talk it up, just like Ngati Porou does. We speak up about what we are good at, and the Māori Party is good at most things. We come here today, and, actually, we have come to apologise. Like a number of people today, we have come to apologise. I honestly say that the Māori Party today wants to offer an apology—an apology that we are so good. I am sorry. I am sorry about it. I will apologise, also, that other people want to be like the Māori Party. In fact, some of them want to be in the Māori Party. That is how good we are. I want to apologise that there have been no Cabinet reshuffles in our party. There have been no people moving up or moving down—no, we are just level-pegging there, at that high-pitched level that brings integrity to this House. I want to apologise to everybody, for being so good.

But I do want to say this, in closing, like other speakers: a year in Parliament is a long time, and we could not do all the work without the many people, who I am sure have been mentioned already—the messengers; the VIP drivers; the Clerk of the House; those associated with the office; the caterers; and the translators, even if they get it wrong now and again—it is OK. I want to mention to all those people who have given hours beyond the call of duty for the best interests of our country: thank you so much for what you do. Ka nui taku mihi o Te Pāti Māori ki a koutou katoa e hāpai nei i tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata me te kī atu ki a tātau katoa, ahakoa nō tēhea taha o Te Whare, kai tēnei, kai tērā rānei, meri Kirihimete.

[My appreciation and that of the Māori Party is immense to all of you who support this House of the Houses of Parliament, and I say to us all that whether you be on this or that side of the House, merry Christmas.]

Happy Māori Party New Year. When we come back next year, may we look forward to a positive engagement across the House, to bring about the best interests of children—tamariki—and whānau in this land. Meri Kirihimete, kia ora tātau katoa.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): What a year. I would like to thank the people of the Epsom electorate. The people of the communities of Epsom, Mount Eden, Parnell, and Remuera—it is an honour and a pleasure to represent you, and I never forget who put me here, so thank you very much.

I would like to thank the ACT Party. I would like to thank the board, the members, and the volunteers. The ACT Party is in the ascendancy. We are rebuilding our party, and I am very proud to be your representative in Parliament, too. I would like to thank my staff in the Epsom electorate. We serve many, many people who come to us at their wit’s end. Often we can solve their problems, and sometimes we cannot, but I am very grateful for the support that I get from my staff for the people there.

I would like to thank my staff here in Wellington, who have been absolutely fantastic. I have some of the best staff whom anybody could hope for, and that has allowed us to achieve some very good things in our policy portfolios and more generally in Parliament and in the House this year. Thank you very much to them. To the officials from Treasury, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and from the Ministry of Education, I am very grateful for the support that you have given, the advice that I have taken, and, I guess, for your other advice, too.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister. Minister Parata, my friend and colleague, whom I had a tremendous year working with—thank you very much. I would like to thank Minister Joyce and the staff in his office for the work that we have done together, and there is a lot more of that to come next week. But, actually, I would like to thank all of my parliamentary colleagues. The Labour Party members, I feel, in a way, are sort of like my brethren, in that all of us really need a lot more votes.

I would like to thank the Green Party members. They have taught me the importance of economic education—sort of back to front, but they have helped me to understand that very well. I would like to thank New Zealand First. I used to hate Winston Peters before I came to Parliament because I thought he meant what he said, but since I have got to know him and we have talked about the olden days, I actually reckon he is not a bad stick. Those people sitting behind him, they are not too bad, either. But I would especially like to thank Marama and Te Ururoa—what a fantastic couple, a dynamic duo. I have enjoyed our exchanges about tikanga with you, Marama, and I am looking forward to more of that next year.

I would like to thank my friends in the National Party. Sometimes I think you should, maybe, just get a little bit drier—get some guts, as they say. But generally I am very, very grateful for all of the support and accompaniment you have given, especially to the “class of ‘14”—until you uninvited me from your drinks, but that is OK.

I would like to thank the press gallery. I have come to the view that we are actually very well served by our fourth estate here in New Zealand, with the exception of one journo, who will know who she is. All I would say is that if you are going to run an agenda, do not tweet about it, and do not have your friends showing up in the comments section of blogs—showing just how close you are while pretending to be an objective journalist—because that lets all of us down.

I would like to thank the parliamentary staff. I would like to thank the Speaker’s office for helping me learn the ropes at various times, and, indeed, I would like to thank the Office of the Clerk, and particularly Margaret, who did fantastic work helping me to draft quite a complex member’s bill this year.

I would like to thank the security staff for keeping almost everybody, except for Greenpeace, at bay, Ministerial Services, Parliamentary Service, the travel office, IT support, and all of those people who help us to keep this place functioning.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Goldsmith?

DAVID SEYMOUR: I beg your pardon? Well, I actually think Paul Goldsmith is a very fine, hard-working member. The thing that the member for Northland could learn most from Paul Goldsmith is that he actually has a view that public policy should be the output and ultimate product of politics, rather than background noise to be ignored whenever the next opportunity to fulfil one’s lifelong attempts to be taken seriously comes along, which is what that member is really about—and do we not all know it?

I would like to conclude by wishing everybody a very merry Christmas. I am very proud to represent the ACT Party in this House. I am very grateful to all the people who have said kind things to me. I actually had thought a Cabinet reshuffle was something that you did to make room for the gin, which may be why I did not quite take that one at the right time, but that will come again, and maybe we will take it then.

I would like to thank all of the people of New Zealand. It is quite amazing. Unless you look on Twitter, we really do live in the most magnificent and fantastic country where you can be from any point in the spectrum, the very wide spectrum that is represented in this House, and, by and large, what you will find is that people are very forgiving, very polite, and very supportive. We have a tremendous future as a country, being able to work through our various challenges in a constructive way. With that, Mr Speaker, I wish you and everybody a merry Christmas. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Well, we all know it is nearly Christmas, so, Mr Speaker, I want to bring you glad tidings of great joy and say how happy I have been to be able to assist you with your rulings throughout the year.

Mr SPEAKER: I am extremely grateful.

Hon ANNETTE KING: And I do wish you a very merry and restful Christmas. It does not matter how old you are, you cannot help but get a little bit excited when Christmas comes round. I mean, you are excited to see the family—even that grumpy old relative who never brings even a bottle of wine or a bar of chocolate. You get excited—

Hon Chester Borrows: You were looking at me! That’s not fair.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, not you Chester—Chester, you are very generous. You get excited about the break, you know, being around the barbie with a cold beer or whatever your tipple is, and having the cricket droning in the background. You get excited to leave this place. As much as we all love each other—and that includes Gerry—oh, he is gone—I was going to make a special mention of Gerry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon ANNETTE KING: Of course I would like to make a special mention of my cousins here today. We, at some times, all love each other, although the public do not know that. We are excited to receive and to give gifts at Christmas, are we not—even the ones that you get back from your relatives that you gave them last year? The giving and receiving of gifts is one of the greatest pleasures you can have in life, and I have been wondering what New Zealanders think about the gifts that they have received from this Government over the last 7 years.

The National Party has generously given quite a number of gifts. In fact, Carmel Sepuloni worked out 12 gifts at Christmas that the National Party has given to us and as I was reading them out, she could probably even put them to music. Of course the first gift from this Government is the Prime Minister ignoring detainees. Well, he was far too busy with all those selfies that he has been taking and putting up on Twitter. The second gift from the National Party has been two toy sheep—two toy sheep and a $500 bill to fix them. High priority, it was, to have them at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment Christmas party, and I have to wonder—and maybe Mr Speaker could help us with this—what on earth were they doing to the sheep? The third gift from the National Party is three $6,000 sofas. Well, we all thought that Jenny Shipley’s $3,000 sofa—and there was only one of them—was over the top. I have to, once again, ask: why on earth do they need such upholstered sofas over there, in the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment?

The fourth gift of Christmas from the National Party is the $45 million to fix Novopay. And the question we ask is: is it fixed? Well, are there any outstanding debts that still need to be paid? Of course the fifth gift from the National Party is five flag options—five flag options it gave us for Christmas. The Prime Minister—I think his vanity project is just about to flutter away as the number of those in the referendum is nowhere near the number they had hoped for. The sixth gift of Christmas has to be unemployment at 6 percent and climbing. You see, the National Party is ambitious for New Zealand, but not if you want a job.

The seventh gift of Christmas is 7 long years of this National Government as its Ministers become more and more weary and worn-out and out of touch, and, I have to say, on a daily basis they look more like dried arrangements. Then we have the eighth gift of Christmas: $80 billion gross debt and 80 different excuses as to why we have got $80 billion of gross debt. Then the ninth gift of Christmas is nine bills through urgency. Oh, was that not fun? Was that not fun, especially for those who stayed and debated? I notice it was not a high priority for most of the Ministers to be here to debate the nine bills of Christmas.

Then here is my personal favourite—my personal favourite. The 10th gift of Christmas, of course, is 10 pretend bridges for Northland—10 pretend bridges for Northland—promised by the pretend Minister of Transport but backed up by the pretender for the top job, Steven Joyce. Then we have got the 11th gift—I am nearly there, Mr Speaker—the $11 million apartment in New York. Let us be honest: nothing is too good for the workers. Then the 12th gift of Christmas has to be the $12 million Saudi farm fiasco. Those are the 12 gifts.

I just want to wish everyone a merry Christmas, thank our staff—particularly our electorate staff out there in our electorate offices—and say I hope everybody has a restful Christmas and comes back ready to fight again in the new year.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your patience and your humour in the House. Thank you to the staff of this building and the ones around it, who just help us all so much and do so much. I think a big thank you is due to the New Zealand public and, certainly, their patience with MPs at times, I am sure. To my own electorate of Upper Harbour I want to say hi. I know two people who are actually watching this, so I have to give them a big mum and dad merry Christmas, because that is a little bit exciting. From me to my own staff and, certainly, officials—to my own staff, can I suggest they put down their wineglasses right now and give themselves a round of applause for all they have done this year.

It has been a big year for the Government—a busy Government driving positive change and, of course, focused on what matters to New Zealand. You cannot help but kind of compare that with Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—I mean, you just would. Opposition members think they have had a successful year—we just heard that—and have certainly been standing up and congratulating themselves, and we have even had a couple of media members who have been saying the same thing. I think they are going to tick this box as a goody for themselves. They had a conference where they did not annihilate each other, one where they did not publicly go out there and sort of bite each other’s heads off, and for them that, of course, is a success. They also did not say or do anything at that conference or actually lay out an agenda or what they stand for, but that does not matter, because actually the fact they did not publicly attack their leader is a measure of success.

When you are sort of working from such a low base, not sinking lower, I suppose, in some measures would be a success. It is a bit like when they found the Titanic at the bottom of the ocean. You would say there was amazement and they saw it as a success, but the reality is it was still sunk and it is actually still down there—a lot like Labour, I reckon. So the beltway brigade—of course, we have Andrew Little, Annette King, and Grant Robertson, and even Chris Hipkins can join that one—is more focused on itself in Wellington than New Zealanders themselves. But then you have got to ask yourself: when it does look outside of Wellington, what does it see? Well, that did not go so well either. What you got was Phil Twyford, the Donald Trump of New Zealand politics, who did try to focus on Auckland. Like Donald, he has got bad ties and thinning hair, and he too has decided to mock people based on their surname.

The year 2015 has had a few changes. The Greens found James Shaw. But I have got to say publicly we have lost him—publicly we have lost him in the last few months. I think he has gone to sort of merge with the grain or something, and we just have not seen him for ages—for ages. I never thought I would hear David Seymour talking about the coq, but we did. I am not sure whether that was quite a highlight for 2015 or a change, but it was something that does stand out, I have got to say. Winston Peters—although we did not have any real change there, we have still got the jokes from 1978. That famous line from “Hotel California”, where they say “We haven’t had that spirit here since 1969”—although we have not had that same joke here since 1968, he still seems to like to roll them out quite often.

Andy got angry, Jacinda pouted, and meanwhile, quite frankly, National has been concentrating on New Zealanders and what matters most to them. A highlight this year has to be rolling out free doctors visits for under-13-year-olds.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Absolutely—that was awesome.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Oh, and here he is now, the man who just did it, so there you go. A major highlight, I have got to say, has been reaching that target of surplus. I really want to congratulate Bill English on it, because it has really been something for this country to show that when we can we live within our means, and when New Zealanders need us we step up and spend more, like we did in Christchurch. Another highlight from my perspective has been that commitment to beneficiaries to see more money going in their pockets, which they need, and we certainly acknowledge that and recognise it.

A highlight for me has certainly been in recent days getting the portfolio of climate change issues. I do not mean to brag, but I must say that in the last 3 days the sun has been shining in Wellington, and that is a change to the climate. I do not want to take responsibility for it or sort of brag too much, but quite frankly we have seen that.

I think most of all what has been a highlight for me in 2015 is seeing a leader like John Key, who is still so committed to this country, so committed to leading a Government that actually focuses and does govern for all New Zealanders. He is a man who, quite frankly, shows an energy and a persistence and can be quite uncompromising in his expectations of what this great country can do for its people. It has been a great year. I look forward to 2016, and I thank everyone in the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Can I begin my contribution by wishing the previous speaker, Paula Bennett, a very merry Christmas. When she rose to speak, I was not expecting a heart-warming Christmas fable; I was not quite expecting the innkeeper routine either that we just got from the Minister, but let us move on from that.

Of course, 2015 has been the year of Star Wars. The building is leaking, and I have received a leaked memo from the National Party that it has, in fact, offered its services for the next Star Wars movie.

But of course there has been a lot of fighting on the National Party benches about who is going to be taking which particular starring role.

Of course, Judith Collins fancies herself as a bit of a Princess Leia, but we know that, in fact, the producers are more likely to offer her the role of Darth Vader. We have Peter Dunne and David Seymour there over on the cross benches—the R2-D2 and C-3PO of the Government. They are the little robots, running around, always messing up, and never quite sure where they are. That definitely describes Peter Dunne and David Seymour. It is difficult, when you look over there, to the backbenches, and you see Maurice Williamson, not to think of Chewbacca, sitting over there on the National Party backbenches.

Then, of course, we come to Obi-Wan Kenobi. Obi-Wan Kenobi—that, of course, has to be Tim Groser. That role has to go to Tim Groser. I have to say how disappointed we should be here, on this side of the House and, in fact, around the House, that the National Government is going to rob of us of his wisdom, his intellect, his insight, and his experience, and so soon after we lost John Hayes from the House. How on earth are we going to cope with that? I look over at my good friend Lindsay Tisch there. I could not quite work out whether he would be auditioning for Yoda or an Ewok, but I am sure that he will be in the mix there as well.

Of course, the National Party members think that 2016 is going to be the year that “the empire strikes back”. In fact, I can tell them that that is not going to be the case because there is a new Jedi in town, and his name is Andrew Little. So next year, 2016, it is more going to be a mix of the Return of the Jedi and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. That is what 2016 is going to be characterised by, if we continue in the Star Wars vein.

But, in the spirit of Christmas, and borrowing a few lines from my colleague Grant Robertson, I do want to hand out a few Christmas awards of my own. The “Santa Claus Award for the Most Frequent References to Christmas Outside of December” surely has to go to Kelvin Davis for the tireless work that he has been doing regarding Christmas Island. The “Sarah Dowie Award for the Loss of Perspective” surely has to go to Sarah Dowie herself who, while choking back the tears, told the House that the worst day of her life was when she applied for her passport. I think that that definitely deserves a notable mention. I can assure her that there are worse days coming. Election day 2017 will certainly be one of them, for her.

Then, of course, we come to the “Christian Bale Batman Award for Tireless Work to Protect the Town’s Water Supply”, and that, of course, has to go to Jacqui Dean, that National Party backbencher who has tirelessly campaigned to save the water supply from that deadly chemical dihydrogen monoxide. She will never, ever live that one down, and she definitely deserves that award.

The “Wile E Coyote Award for Persistence in the Face of Repeated Failure” surely must go to Judith Collins, who has now been given the task of cleaning up her own mess. Then, of course, I come to the “Little Miss Sunshine Award for Constant Cheerfulness and Positive Attitude in the House”. Chester Borrows, the Deputy Speaker, absolutely takes out the “Little Miss Sunshine Award” for 2015.

To conclude, can I end by thanking all of the staff, who everybody else has mentioned, so I will not run through them again. But I would also like to take the opportunity to thank a group who never really get thanked in this House, and they are the families of all of the members of Parliament. Across the House, the families of MPs really do carry an enormous load. They never really get thanked for it. They generally tend to get abused for it by the public.

So I want, on behalf of the entire House, to say thank you to all of the families—the children, the partners—for the enormous amount of support they provide to us as MPs and simply wish them a very, very merry Christmas, and then to extend that, of course, to all members of the House and to the country. A very merry Christmas to everybody.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, I want to begin by wishing you a very merry Christmas. I thank you for your presiding guidance this year. It has been a great pleasure to be ejected from the House twice by you—it made me feel like I had been transferred back to my schooldays. I know you have got a difficult job and you will be looking forward to Christmas. I want to acknowledge the service that you give to this House, so thank you very much.

The member over there, Chris Hipkins, was talking about the remake of Star Wars. I am sure he would prefer to be remaking Happy Days with himself cast in the role of Richie Cunningham. But happy days are a long way away for the Labour Party. I could see Grant Robertson there as Potsie. It would be a bit harder casting the Fonz. Those members would like to put Andrew Little there, but I just cannot see that happening.

Grant Robertson: Who’s the Fonz?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, you would like the Fonz to be Andrew Little. Oh, Grant Robertson wants to be the Fonz. Well, keep up the workouts, that is what I would say. Anyway, it is great that the year is finishing in such good humour.

I want to acknowledge my colleagues in the National Party, who have had a stellar year. Seven years in Government and the team has never been stronger. People have never been more enthusiastic about their work. It is a great team, right from the Prime Minister—who actually I think is the best Prime Minister this country has ever had. I think there is a grudging admiration for our Prime Minister over there on the Opposition benches. He is doing a great job. He is a great leader and a man with endless enthusiasm. I can tell you that he is a great person to work for and is the galvanising force behind the National Government.

I also want to thank the Labour Opposition, and specifically Andrew Little, not only for sending me a probably quite unwarranted Christmas card but also for making Annette King the health spokesperson. It has been great to get the opportunity four times a week to hold Annette King to account for her record during her time as Minister of Health. It has made it very difficult to get a patsy question in the House because Gerry tells me I am getting three or four from her each week already. I also want to thank the Labour research unit. We have had hours of mirth responding to its written questions and its flood of Official Information Act requests.

But look, it is a great place, this Parliament. It has been a great year. There has been a lot that has happened. Annette King talked about the gifts of Christmas. But I want to say there are a few that she forgot to add, like the 5,000 extra surgeries we have provided for New Zealanders this year, the 5,500 extra doctors and nurses who are working in the system, the $400 million that the health sector got in the Budget, and, most of all, the free GP visits and prescriptions for New Zealand children under 13. That was a great Christmas present to deliver, albeit a little bit early, back in July. The health sector is always a demanding sector and I especially want to thank all those who are working out there: the doctors, the nurses, all the ancillary staff, the cleaners in our hospitals, and all those who go to make this a health system that consistently delivers for New Zealanders.

I also want to acknowledge the people of Northcote, the electorate I have the privilege to represent. You know, none of us take our position in this House for granted, and it is a real privilege to be here to serve the people of New Zealand.

Finally, I want to say a big thankyou to all those in our parliamentary offices both in the electorates and here in Parliament, to those who make this place work, to the ministerial staff, to the security staff, to the Parliamentary Service, to the people who clean our offices, to the drivers—everyone who works towards making this a place where we can truly represent the diverse opinions and views right across the New Zealand Parliament.

As has been echoed already, I want to say that really we are privileged to be here, but actually it is our families who allow us to come here, and I pay tribute to all the families who support every parliamentarian. My 5-year-old son is very keen to go to Christmas Island now he has heard so much about it, but that is one place we are not going for the holidays. Certainly it has been an interesting year and 2016, I am sure, will be even more so. So thank you very much, see you all in 2016. Enjoy a very, very, merry and safe Christmas. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e Te Whare. I rise to wish everyone in this House a restful, loving, and merry Christmas. This job is a privilege and I am honoured to be doing it, but of course I am definitely looking forward to seeing my whānau and spending time in a house that does not start with a capital “H”.

True to the Christmas spirit though, today I do want to acknowledge those who will be doing it real hard over the coming few months and will not have the relaxing holiday that we in this House expect. Of course the original meaning of Christmas tells the story of a young woman and her husband trying to find safe lodgings so she could give birth. As we know, there was no room at the inn. I find it interesting that in this country we are now celebrating that biblical night amidst a severe housing crisis. In fact, in the 24 hours or so that Jesus’ whānau were house-hunting and giving birth to him, an Auckland home in April this year would have risen in value by over $1,000 in that same 24-hour period.

In October John Campbell broadcast a piece for Radio New Zealand National that echoes what I know about those doing it tough. It was entitled “Pay day is broke day”, and Campbell interviewed people from the Manukau region where I live. In his piece we heard from a range of people, some working two or more jobs, who have high aspirations for themselves and their families and are doing all they can to stay afloat. But our economy is far from rock star and for many pay day is broke day. So the hardships have huge impacts on our children and on us all. John Campbell caught people at the Manurewa train station, on their work commute, to capture some of those stories. That was my train station that John Campbell was standing at.

I also want to acknowledge those organisations urging us towards a fairer, more vibrant Aotearoa. The report of the Child Poverty Monitor—soon to be released—shows that in 1984, 15 percent of children were in poverty whereas today it is 29 percent. So it has doubled in a generation. Anybody who would like to join this campaign—grab one of these posters, take a selfie. All of you National Party members, I completely urge you to put up a selfie of this on all of those fabulous Facebook pages that you all have.

Also, Unicef has called on New Zealanders to stand with our children in the Make My Future Fair campaign. It reiterates that it is Government policy that has the single biggest impact on child poverty rates, not economic growth alone. Still, people will do the best they can with what little they have got this Christmas, and my heart goes out to Sarah Dowie. I hope you are going to be OK with your struggles over your passport application.

You know, people will provide for their families, love them and keep them safe. Our communities prove their resilience in the face of such hardship, and I am proud of the Green Party for continuing to be a voice for our struggling communities. We have got years of research and expertise; we do not need more research. We need action, and we need it now. That would be a lovely Christmas present. We need this House to choose the positive solutions, and I will be stubborn about giving every child a chance.

Just before I got into Parliament I was agonising with someone over my own rental housing challenges and he blurted back at me: “Well, soon you won’t have to worry about any of that because you’ll be an MP.” That response just speaks for itself. But in contrast I just recently spoke at the Safe Sleep Day hui held on Manurewa Marae. I acknowledge the incredible difference that wahakura, or woven safety sleep pods, have been making in a short time in keeping more babies alive. Weavers all around the country are putting love into our communities and families and making a powerful statement from the start that every newborn is a taonga. I mihi to them all.

OK, so my father is in the gallery. He is deeply immersed—he deeply immersed us in Shakespeare all of our lives and right now he is the middle of a 2-year tour with the Globe Theatre. So right now he is cursing all of us and the use of us fellas’ grammar in this House, I can assure you. He actually wanted to put my entire speech through an edit. But I acknowledge my father, who was not here for my maiden statement. As you, Mr Speaker, might recall—yes, I am winding it up—we had an eventful start to my parliamentary career, but Parliament TV has now become a staple in the lounge room of my family’s house, a top drama reality show, and I am thankful to be here to give them that opportunity to watch this sort of TV.

I close by saying that Metiria has called me the puppy-dog enthusiast new MP. Long may that last. Kia ora koutou katoa. Have a merry Christmas.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to speak in what will be my last contribution in this Parliament this year. As I came into Parliament this morning I noted with due consideration that Parliament is actually wrapped for Christmas as we speak. The building is encased in a blue and white wrapping that is very festive, I thought, and very appropriate given the time of year and also what a good year it has been for this Government.

Mr Speaker, I would like to commence by joining with others in thanking you and your other presiding officers for the work that you do on behalf of our Parliament and for keeping us all in line and in order most of the time. I also want to join with others in thanking all the people around this precinct who help make our job so doable and make us look like we know we are doing most of the time. There are the people we see and then there are the people we do not see, but we know that they all do a diligent, thorough, and professional job on our behalf and they all make a contribution to this wonderful amalgam, this wonderful little intimate, precious, fragile democracy that we have, which is so precious to all New Zealanders. I think it is important that everybody makes a contribution because it is a participatory democracy, and it is one that we can all, I think, be proud of.

This has been a great year for the Government. It has been a great year for the Prime Minister. It has been a great year for the National Party, and it has been a great year for New Zealand. We are a party that is not afraid of big, bold visionary ideas for New Zealand and we have a lot yet to come. We are ambitious and remain ambitious for New Zealand. One of the Prime Minister’s most endearing features, in my humble opinion, is his relentless optimism for New Zealand and New Zealanders. It shines through on every possible occasion. He is positive, he is good-humoured, and he is light of manner, but he is on top of the detail and he does, I think, a terrific job for all New Zealanders. His hope, energy, and effort for, and on behalf of, New Zealanders has shone out this year.

I have the great privilege to represent one of the most beautiful electorates in the country. It is the Coromandel electorate, and I am pleased to report to the House that this year has seen incredibly strong economic growth in my part of the world. We have faster growth than many other parts of the country. We have got tourism numbers that are going up. Three million tourists have visited New Zealand in the last 12 months. Many have made their way to my part of the world, and our region is benefiting from it. Unemployment is down, residential construction is up, and local contribution to GDP has increased, and more and more people are moving to the region, mostly from Auckland. It has actually been my part of the world that has been the net beneficiary of the so-called Auckland property crisis. People are selling their homes in Auckland and coming to the Coromandel, buying beautiful homes in Thames, Te Aroha, Ngātea, Paeroa, and around the peninsula, and they can invest in a beautiful region. They get great communities, great schools, great councils, and a great quality of parliamentary representation. What more could they want? We welcome them with open arms.

This is a Government that I am very proud to be a member of because we have got a strategy that is all about creating an environment in which businesses and people can flourish and an environment that allows the private sector to invest, to grow jobs, and to create business opportunities for all New Zealanders. This debate has seen many previous contributors nominate their person of the year or people of the year and given awards. I want to acknowledge as my politician of the year—notwithstanding the very good work done by the Prime Minister, the National Cabinet, and my colleagues on this side of the House—Tim Groser. I think that Tim Groser has absolutely done a wonderful job on behalf of all New Zealanders. It will be our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren yet born who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the Hon Tim Groser’s work on our behalf this year. The contribution that he has made cannot be overstated. I am only sorry that this House is going to miss the opportunity of hearing a valedictory speech from Tim Groser, because I think that the House will be the poorer for that missed opportunity. But I know that he will do great work on our behalf, and I want to congratulate him and wish him well as he embarks upon a career in Washington.

I just want to finish my contribution by making one last comment, and it is a quote from former President Ronald Reagan. He said back in 1981: “… Christmas is a state of mind. It is found throughout the year whenever faith overcomes doubt, hope conquers despair, and love triumphs over hate.” Merry Christmas to you all. Come and visit the Coromandel.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): As I rise in this House to take the call afforded me by the absence of one of our members from United Future, who, I know, always greets this House at the end of the year so eloquently, I do so thankful for the opportunity.

Mr Speaker, I am going to begin with you. As you preside over this Chamber, you have the unenviable task of trying to teach members of Parliament how to remember where to find their Speakers’ Rulings or their Standing Orders books, and in fact you do so with such patience, with such perseverance. I want to acknowledge that on this occasion and say that we are all trying to learn them a bit more. Some of us need to do a bit more homework—we certainly acknowledge that—but I do acknowledge your good humour in trying to convey to us the way we should be operating in this House.

I also want to acknowledge the Office of the Clerk and the work it does to guide you and assist you, particularly when the House is in Committee, when there is a lot of work that goes on from the Office of the Clerk.

I want to acknowledge the whips of each of the parties, and in particular our three whips in the National Party, who try to make sure that we are where we should be when we should be—most times with success, but not all times.

We have been here for 88 days. There have been 120 bills passed in this Parliament, and I do not think that generally the public of New Zealand know how often the vast majority of the members of this House vote for bills. There are some contentious bills where there is quite a lot of media around them and a lot of dissension, but a lot of the bills that travel through this House go largely without much opposition and we get on with the job.

We come to the season when, thankfully in a country like New Zealand, generosity shines through. It is a season when those who have more than they need are so often seen to be giving to those who need more. New Zealand is a very generous country. Just recently on the World Giving Index we were third behind the United States and then Ireland, and proudly so. I certainly see a lot of that in my community and voluntary sector portfolio.

As I move on to some more thanks, I want to thank the people who are keeping us up to the mark and helping in our ministerial offices, our electorate offices, and our offices here in Parliament. They are ably supported by our research and communications teams, and the IT teams that answer our calls in the weekends and during the week when things go wrong and we would dearly love to chuck some technology out the window, but that is apparently not the right answer. They answer our calls and walk us through the ways. I must confess, I have finally remembered that before I dial their number, I must turn it off at the wall and see whether that works. So, finally, that has got through to me.

I want to thank the people who so courteously greet us with a smile every time we see them around Parliament, be they the security, the buildings people, the messengers, or the people in Bellamy’s and Copperfields—those who cater to our needs, be they food or beverage, and those who look after us so securely. And, as we saw today, there are threats to our security. I must say, the cleaners of the Parliament are often lauded for the work they do, but, regretfully, I have got to say that members on the other side of the House seemed to think that the antics today were funny. It is the cleaners who will have to clean up after them for those antics and for this despicable mess at my feet.

Ron Mark: Well, you clean it up.

Hon JO GOODHEW: And I have actually cleaned it up. However, I am not responsible for this mess. The members opposite clearly lauded this mess.

However, to move on, in the spirit of Christmas giving, I give you some more pearls of wisdom, and this time they will be about the things that this Government has had in the way of a really good year. I have got to be quick—the Speaker tells me to wind it up. It has been a good year for the Government. The books are back in surplus at the date we said they would be, free doctors’ visits for under-13s as well as prescriptions, HomeStart helping so many people into their first home, record income from tourists and tourism, and we have signed the New Zealand - Korea free-trade agreement and concluded negotiations on Trans-Pacific Partnership. Even with the red bits at my feet, it has been a great year for the Government.

May it be a safe, restful, enjoyable, happy, fun Christmas for everyone in this House and everyone who supports you in the work you do, and also your family, who, no doubt, are so important to you all. Thank you and merry Christmas, everyone.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Firstly, I would like to pass on New Zealand First’s thanks and gratitude to all parliamentary staff, and I will not attempt to list all of the departments—although the ones that we tend to bump into most frequently tend to be the messengers, tend to be the security, tend to be those people in the Parliamentary Library, and such—but it is a full team in behind the scenes, we know, that make it possible for us to do the work that we do here in Parliament, hopefully for the betterment of the nation. I want to pass on my thanks, in particular, to all the select committee staff and my Christmas greetings to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Scott Simpson, you have done a very good job over this last year or so. I have thoroughly enjoyed working in there with you.

I want to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, to say that if you notice that, maybe, I have been a little less inflammatory over the last few days or so, it is probably because I have found less to be inflamed about. And I just trust that in the new year things may progress in that way, because I actually find that more enjoyable.

When I came back to Parliament after a 6-year sabbatical—I like to look upon it as that—I have to say, there is that movie, you know, Back to the Future, but I get this horrible sense that we have come forward to the past. Why do I say that? I say it because some things do not seem to have changed.

Hon Jo Goodhew: The beard.

RON MARK: That is right. I look at the topics that are being debated today, and excuse me if this resonates a little. In IT the Labour Government had INCIS and Land Information New Zealand. Oh, the National Government had Novopay and the police budget on their IT project blowout. Do you get something in the picture? If not, let us talk about this. Labour on defence: light armoured vehicles, Steyr Mannlicher rifles, and NH90s—disaster. National: trying to convince the country that we need to buy two C17s at a cost of $1 billion for a strategic airlift that we do not need. It sort of harks back to the Charles Upham, and you tend to get the sense that National, just like Labour, when it comes to defence, is all at sea and it is totally giving us all seasickness, quite frankly, just watching its actions. Corrections—day after day we see this play out on corrections.

I look back at the time that I was in Parliament previously. What did we have? Labour—“goon squad”. Well, the difference under National is it is not the corrections officers beating up the inmates; it is the inmates beating up each other in fight clubs. Home detention under Labour—what an absolute debacle that was. We, sadly, had a field day taking it to task on that. Incompetence in corrections under Labour, and what do we see today? Incompetence under National with Serco.

The flag—Labour runs up its policy on its pole to change the New Zealand flag. National grabs it with both hands, kisses it with glee, and runs it straight up its pole, and here we have a referendum that is going to be an absolute—

Darroch Ball: Disaster.

RON MARK: —disaster. A public relations disaster. And if I could give the National Government a Christmas present right now, it would be this suggestion on the back of what our leader, Winston Peters, has said: pull the pin. Pull the pin and get out while you can, Government, because you are on a hiding to nothing on that one.

The lead balloon comment of the year—not made in the House and not made publicly. It was given to me by a soldier in a special force unit that the Prime Minister and his officials visited in Australia. This is what not to say when you are looking at a group of special force soldiers who are wearing balaclavas and gloves. This is what not to say: “Do these boys think they are special? They could at least remove their masks.” That goes down like a cup of cold sick, let me assure you of that.

There is a lot more I could say, but I want to say this. My team, New Zealand First—congratulations to them. To the parliamentary staff in the New Zealand First team and the New Zealand First caucus who held the fort back here and allowed the leader to campaign full time—and what a moment that was in Northland. Northland is National’s Stalingrad. That is where it came to a grinding halt, and from here on it is all backward-pedalling for the National Government going forward. 2016—you know, do your homework, guys. Start building some friends around the place.

I want to finish on this note. To all of the people who will be out there working in emergency services—police, hospitals, the fire service, and emergency service NGOs like Victim Support and the Salvation Army—merry Christmas, and we wish you luck, to you and your families. To Defence Force people deployed all over the world, we wish you a very merry Christmas. We know you are separated from your loved ones; we are thinking of you at this moment. We may not agree with all the deployments, but we certainly support unequivocally all of our men and women in the New Zealand Defence Force, wherever they may be. Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and merry Christmas to all parties.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Can I first say a thankyou to you, Mr Speaker, and your office for all your support this year. I must say, being part of the new intake for the class of 2014, I think it has been a fantastic year. We have survived the year well, despite what Trans Tasman has said.

I think when I look back at question time today there were a few examples of where individual members brought the views and the questions of New Zealanders into the House. I wanted to continue this theme. I want to bring in the views of “Auntie Helen” from Mt Albert, who has given us a gift for Christmas that keeps on giving. Not being in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she said, was: “unthinkable for New Zealand as an export-oriented, small trading nation.” Of course New Zealand has to be in on the action with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and go for the best deal it can. I would just like to thank “Auntie Helen” from Mt Albert for those comments and for that gift at Christmas time.

Christmas is a time of giving. It is also a time of reflection and a time to pause and think about what has gone well, what has gone less well, and how we can improve. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members from all sides of the House who extended their well wishes when I had the arrival of my son, James Thomas, in the last few weeks. So on behalf of myself and my wife Viktoria, I would like to thank members from all sides of the House for those well wishes. And yes, James already has more hair than I do, and it would be fair to say that over the adjournment period it will be less dirty politics and probably more dirty nappies.

Can I also say a big thankyou for the honour and the privilege of representing the people of Waimakariri—the very hard-working people of Waimakariri—who have been through a tough time since the earthquakes. But we have had a fantastic year in 2015—a year of milestones, of new beginnings, of openings. We have opened the Rangiora Town Hall, the Oxford Town Hall, the Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre, the Ashley Bridge, and the Rangiora Hospital. There have been $300 million worth of roading projects in that region. What is really good is you can look at the retail developments on the high streets of Rangiora, Kaiapoi, and Oxford and see the vibrancy of those high streets coming back to life, and that is great for the people of Waimakariri.

I would also like to acknowledge and take this point of reflection at the end of 2015 to reflect and say thank you to all parties in this House for their continued support of Canterbury. It has been a tough few years for Canterbury. But if you take one thing like the Rangiora Hospital, which is part of a $900 million hospital rebuild—the largest rebuild we have ever seen in the history of New Zealand—that has been done because of the support of members from all the sides of this House. If we look at the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill that is going through at the moment, it is moving us from the response stage to recovery and into regeneration.

I would also like to pause and reflect. Recently we commemorated the 5-year anniversary of the first earthquakes. We call them the Christchurch earthquakes, but they were the Canterbury earthquakes, and a town in my electorate, Kaiapoi, was hardest hit in the 4 September earthquake. The town was decimated and residents lost over 1,000 houses. It is great to see that town getting back up on its feet. But as we start 2016 our thoughts will be focused on the 5-year anniversary of the devastating and fatal earthquakes of 22 February, and our thoughts will go with the family and friends of those who lost ones they loved at that time.

On saying that, there is a lot to be proud about in Canterbury as it gets back up on its feet and it rebuilds. It is great to see all the activity down in Canterbury, because what we are doing is building the best new small city in the world. A big shout out goes to the Canterbury rugby team, which won the ITM Cup rugby championship this year, cementing Canterbury as the best rugby region in the world. Of course, we should acknowledge the All Blacks for winning the Rugby World Cup. I do not know how we are going to be able to replace Dan Carter and Richie McCaw.

But my last thanks go to New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders. They are the ones who in 2015 have returned this country to surplus and given us the best GDP growth—which is the envy of all other OECD countries—and, of course, the highest workforce participation rate. On behalf of all the 2014 new intake, I thank everyone for all their support: our executive assistants, electoral agents, and all parliamentary staff. We are renewed, energised, and enthusiastic, and we are looking forward to getting back for another great year in 2016. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Can I just acknowledge the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, and congratulate him again on the birth of his child. We had a discussion about this in the select committee. The birth of his child came hot on the heels of the Rugby World Cup, and he was weighing up whether to call that child Richie or Dan. My suggestion he did not take up, but I think it was a good one: “Ma’a Doocey”. It would have been great.

Speaking of family, I do want to acknowledge all of the members of Parliament here and all of our families because we do spend a lot of time away from our families, and, regardless of which side of the House we are on, we know that that is the reality of being an MP.

I really want to acknowledge our MPs in the House who over the past year have lost a loved one. I do not know the details of that for everyone in the House, but I do want to acknowledge, on our side, Peeni Henare for the loss of his father, Meka Whaitiri for the loss of her father, and also David Shearer for the loss of his mother. I acknowledge that because it has been a very difficult year for many members of Parliament in this House.

This Christmas is one we are all going to be looking forward to, and we get to step out of here and we actually get to spend some time with our families for at least a few weeks, or a month, perhaps. Many of us will be standing around that barbecue with our family members, with our friends, and what we will need to do in advance of that is pull together a playlist. I thought it was only too appropriate to think up a playlist that best reflects the year that we have had.

So I am going to, hopefully, get from A to Z in this short 5-minute speech; if not, then I will leave the rest of the letters that I do not get to up to your imagination. But let us start with A, No. 1 on the playlist—A. Let us start with, at our family barbecues, “Advance Australia Fair”, because, actually, this year we have seen the National Government and the Prime Minister roll over for Australia, so I think we are going to be starting all of our barbecues in New Zealand with the song “Advance Australia Fair”.

The second song: “Bridge over Troubled Water”, and that song is dedicated to our transport Minister, Simon Bridges, for his pretend bridges in Northland. The third song is “Couldn’t Get it Right” by the Climax Blues Band, which is, again, dedicated to the National Government, and then the fourth song, “Didn’t We Almost Have it All”—that is what New Zealanders are thinking when they reflect on when they had a Labour Government for 9 years with what they have got now.

The fifth song is “Everything’s Not Lost” by Coldplay, and I am going to dedicate that to our good friend Sam Lotu-Iiga. The sixth song is “Freedom”, and that could also go to Sam Lotu-Iiga, because at least he is free from the corrections portfolio and having to clean up after Serco. The next song is “Guess Who’s Back”. Who is that dedicated to? Judith Collins. Eminem’s “Guess Who’s Back” is dedicated to Judith Collins.

The next song may not make sense to a lot of people, but it is “Hello” by Lionel Richie, because every time I see David Seymour I still get that image in my head of him jumping out from behind the hedge saying: “Hello, I’m David Seymour. Hello, hello, hello.”

The next song is “It’s Raining Men” because, let us face it, the reality is, we still have a shortage of women in this place. And the next one is “Jailhouse Rock”, which is in memory of Elvis Presley and also of Serco. The next one is “Killing Me Softly” because, quite frankly, some of the speeches in this House have killed us all softly this year.

Tim Macindoe: Particularly yours.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Ha, ha! And the next one is “Let It Go”—let it go, Tim Macindoe, let it go. We get to M and the song is “My Little Pony”, and, of course, we are dedicating that to our Prime Minister. Next we have “New York, New York”, so while we are all standing around our humble baches—or someone else’s humble baches because many of us do not own them—over the break, we will be thinking of that $11 million apartment in New York.

Then we have O—“Old MacDonald Had a Farm”. There are so many animals we could throw in on that farm: sheep, bobby calves—we could put a panda on that farm. It is a very diverse farm. The next one is P, and I hope this is not offensive to the Speaker, but the song is “Papa Don’t Preach” by Madonna, dedicated to the Speaker.

The next song, starting with Q, is “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)”. R is “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head” because every time we come to Wellington, that is the kind of weather that we get. I come here with beautifully straightened hair; I leave on a Thursday with hair pulled back like that, ruined by the rain.

The next song is “Seven Years” by Norah Jones—it should have been “Seven Long Years”. The next song is “[Take a] Walk on the Wild Side”. I could not think of anything for T; Kris Faafoi gave that to me. He said: “Give that song to Nathan Guy, because he needs to liven up a little bit.”

The next songs are “Under Pressure” by Queen, for all of us, and “Virtual Insanity”, because we have to be insane if we are going to be here. W is “Watching You” by Ardijah. “Watching You” is Judith Collins to John Key, because she knows he is watching her, too. “X Marks the Spot” by Coldplay—we will be back here on 9 February. Y—we have to dedicate this song to the flag referendum, and that song is “You’re So Vain”, dedicated to the vanity project. Finally, I will end with “Zombie” by the Cranberries, because that is how we are all feeling at this point in time.

So I just want to say merry Christmas to everyone. We will see you all back here in the new year. Stay out of trouble, because the media has a shortage of stories over the break, and you will inevitably end up in the media if you get in trouble. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (National): It is my privilege, actually, to speak in this adjournment debate. I want to add my thanks to all the staff of Parliament House and Bowen House, everybody out in our electorates who works tirelessly for us in our electorate offices, and our volunteers. I just wish that they have a very happy, safe, and healthy Christmas and New Year.

I want to acknowledge our coalition partners—the Māori Party. Who can forget Marama Fox and her way of dancing on Q+A, when they went around all the offices asking MPs what their favourite songs were? I was taken by the way that she can quite easily move around, and perhaps that is exactly the way that she does her politics. I want to say thanks to Peter Dunne from United Future, and to Mr Seymour from ACT, who at times reminds me very much of my younger son—but, anyway, we will just leave that one there.

I want to thank my fabulous National Party colleagues. You have been fabulous all year, every year. I want to thank our Prime Minister. He is the best Prime Minister this country has seen in aeons—in aeons, I say; not just years, but aeons. It is going to be very, very hard for any future Government to replace our John Key. He is fabulous, and he is going to be there for a long time, believe you me. I want to also thank our team for the 120 or so bills that we got through in 2015. That is amazing, amazing work. Eight of those were Māori bills, the Treaty bills. That is one less than the Labour Government put through in its 9 years of tenure—one less, I tell you. So kia ora to my colleagues in the National Party.

I want to take this time to reflect on the people of Christchurch East, the people for whom I am the National list MP. I want to thank you for accepting me into the electorate. I want to thank the people from New Brighton, especially the landowners and business groups. We have had an interesting time. It has been one of a lot of introductions and I have been proud to be able to give you a voice in this Parliament over the year.

I want to also now start working on our Opposition parties. I want to look at the Greens. There are only two of them up there now, but I just want to ask them to take back to their leaders that National actually pipped them every time at the post when it came to our environmental policies. Our marine reserves—who would have known that we would come in from behind and go ping, ping, ping—that is all of ours. I do want to wish you a merry Christmas, because it is going to be many, many Christmases that you are going to be sitting over there on the Opposition benches, never to come into Government with any Opposition party. So, anyway, that is OK. That is all right.

To New Zealand First, to Tracey and her team—because you are sitting there—it was the wrong thing to dump you out, so I am going to address you, Tracey. I want to say thank you to Tracey. I know that you know there are a lot of people in New Zealand First who support policies more akin to our policies over here in National. You know that; we know that. This is what I am saying to you. Anyway, merry Christmas to you too, Tracey.

Over here, to our Labour Party Opposition—again, I was absolutely shocked when the reshuffle came about and the senior Māori MP was demoted. Come on, Labour. The Māori electorates do things for you, but all I have to say to you, Labour, is watch out because the National Party is coming. We are coming into those Māori electorates. Be very careful—be very, very careful. When you look at the National Party we actually have more Māori MPs on our side than you have on your side. We have done so much more for the Māori constituents of this country.

In closing, because this is a short kōrero from me, again I want to wish everybody in the House a very merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year, and I look forward to seeing you all back next year, in 2016. Kia ora.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): As the final speaker in this debate, apart from your good self, Mr Speaker, I want to endorse the warm thanks that so many others have expressed to the many fine folk who work in this complex to keep the House functioning throughout the year. They include, of course, the cleaners, the security team, the Hansard staff, messengers, the Epicure team, our communications teams, advisers, the Office of the Clerk, the Chamber gallery team, our wonderful executive assistants—and could I particularly single out the remarkable Margaret Hyland, who has now coped with me for 7 long years—and anyone else I failed to mention. May I also acknowledge the Government whips office team, managed by Sue Reid, and thank my excellent colleagues Jami-Lee Ross and Joanne Hayes, who support me in our work so well. Could I wish Jami-Lee a very happy 30th birthday for tomorrow. I know, is it not sickening? Only 30.

I thank all the whips and musterers from throughout the House because, in fact, we do work very well together, and I think collectively the whips across the House manage to keep this place flowing in our business. I want to thank those who also work in our out-of-Parliament offices, including my superb team in the Hamilton West electorate office, the dynamic Brigit Brant, Valarie Langley, and Ann-Marie Case-Miller. All of our electorate agents around the country do a remarkable job and provide excellent service to the people of New Zealand.

May I also thank our spouses, partners, and children, who sacrifice so much for us to be here. How very fortunate we are, and how lovely it is to think that we will finally get to spend a bit of time with them over the next few weeks. They all deserve prizes, and, as it is school prize-giving season—and, as MPs, we get to do our fair share of them—I want to hand out a few of my own, particularly as we have had some awards handed out to the Government from the other side and it would be churlish of us not to reciprocate.

So—in no particular order—the “Sir Basil Arthur Memorial Prize for Parliament’s Loud Hailer” is awarded to Dunedin North MP, Dr David Clark, for the worst and most frequent assaults on the eardrums in 50 years. Dr Clark also shares the “Tony Ryall Sartorial Shocker Trophy” for his regular appearances in the House in that fluorescent crimson jacket. The co-recipient, in his absence, is former ACT leader Rodney Hide for the unforgettable canary yellow jacket. He receives this award as a warning to his parliamentary successor that should the garment ever be seen in this House again, it will result in the wearer being referred to the Privileges Committee by someone who has developed quite a bit of form in that in recent times.

The “It Was My Party and I’ll Cry and Sue if I Want to Award” goes, of course, to Colin Craig. The “Yippee! Award for Resurrection Studies” goes to the Hon Judith Collins. The “Taylor Swift Award” for reportedly spending weeks touring New Zealand without anyone actually noticing goes to Andrew Little. The “Johnnie Walker Trophy” for incoherence at question time goes again this year to the right incomprehensible Winston Peters. The “Le-Aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor Memorial Award” for the most unexpected utterance on national television goes to ACT leader David Seymour for: “The French love the [appendage].” The “Paul Goldsmith Prize for Best Recovery After Falling Off the Stage Award” goes to Steffan Browning for achieving the remarkable feat of remaining standing despite apparently falling asleep within 15 seconds of the commencement of most of his speeches. The “David Parker - Gerry Brownlee Brokeback Mountain Moment” goes to former Labour leaders Phil Goff and David Cunliffe for sharing a bench on the back row of the Opposition cross benches so eagerly since Mr Little’s recent reshuffle.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the “Masochism Award for Choosing to Spend Hours in Here Listening to Us All” goes to you and your merry men, Chester Borrows, Lindsay Tisch, and Trevor Mallard, and to the Clerks, the Serjeant-at-Arms, Roland Todd, Maureen Breen, and the Chamber gallery team. God bless you all, and may you eventually be cured of this horrendous affliction.

What a great year it has been for New Zealand with the surplus achieved; the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement over the line; the first substantial increase in benefits to thousands of New Zealanders in more than 40 years; those stunning knocks by Ross Taylor, recently saving the test at the Western Australia cricket ground that looked gone for all money, and Martin Guptill’s superb 237 not out, which catapulted the Black Caps into our first ever Cricket World Cup final; and the All Blacks’ emphatic retention of the Rugby World Cup, making us all so proud to be New Zealanders. When we go to the polls in 2017 we need to remember that we never won the Rugby World Cup under Helen Clark’s leadership, whereas under the stunning leadership of the Rt Hon John Key, we have never lost it.

It is a great privilege to serve in this House, and in the spirit of the season I wish all MPs and your families, and everyone who works here, a very merry Christmas, a wonderful summer, and all the best for the year ahead.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, this Chamber has sat for approximately 550 hours through 2015, and I know many of you have spent a considerable part of those 550 hours here. As I bring this debate to a conclusion, I certainly have no intention of taking it through to 551 hours. Can I just note, as some of you have noted, that it has been a robust House this year. It is a political debating chamber; I expect nothing less. There have been political tensions through the year, but I do want to acknowledge the comments—and I appreciated the comments—from the Leader of the Opposition that were given in a point of order at the start of question time.

Can I just make a couple of comments about things that have occurred outside the House. In that regard, I want to acknowledge the work of David Stevenson as the general manager of the Parliamentary Service. He is showing leadership, and I think that under his guidance there has been a change within the Parliamentary Service whereby we are seeing it concentrate on servicing members of Parliament. There is still some work to be done, but there has been tremendous progress in that area.

I also want to acknowledge the seamless change of guard with the Clerk of the House. David Wilson, you have been a pleasure to work with over the last 6 months. I congratulate you.

I say to my fellow presiding officers, the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Chester Borrows; Lindsay Tisch; and the Hon Trevor Mallard, that I think we are a creditable team. We work hard in this place to preside over some fairly difficult debates in a way that is truly unbiased. Thank you to that team for your help.

One of the other things I wanted to note was the work of the Officers of Parliament Committee. Through this year we have made progress now, with the appointment of Judge Peter Boshier. He starts tomorrow as the Chief Ombudsman. We were also involved in the appointment of the Deputy Auditor-General, Greg Schollum, who took up his position in September. I take this opportunity of thanking members who sat on that select committee for their work. I think we can be confident in the success of those two appointments.

To my own office staff, Lisa Kinloch, Oliver Whitehead, and, of course, Roland Todd, I think we have a good office. There are times of tension in any office. The team helps me in a professional way, with distinction, and I extend my thanks to them.

Also, as many have mentioned in the debate, I want to acknowledge all of the people who make our jobs possible as parliamentarians: the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, messengers, security staff, telephonists, cleaners, receptionists, travel office staff, catering staff, library staff, VIP drivers, and I have probably missed some. All of those people work in a very courteous way, providing the best possible service to us as members of Parliament, and I know we all extend to them our best wishes for a merry Christmas.

Finally, to honourable members, can I take this opportunity of wishing you all a very merry and safe Christmas. I am looking forward to seeing you back early in the new year for the battle of 2016. But now it is whānau time. Let us go and enjoy it.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.