Wednesday, 20 December 2017

WEDNESDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2017

WEDNESDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Partnership Schools—Potential Closures

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she stand by her statement on behalf of the Government that “children are at the heart of everything we do.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Can she explain, then, how her Government’s policy on partnership schools will benefit the children in those schools?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can explain that. Every child deserves to be in a school where they have registered and qualified teachers and where they have the ability to be taught our fantastic curriculum. What we are keen to do and what the Minister of Education has said is that for those schools, there is a pathway for them to become schools of special character. There are options for them to keep their doors open. We’re keen to work with them on finding that path forward.

Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen the statement by a student from one of the schools: “Before attending this school I barely did anything with my life. I hated school and was never motivated to improve, but thanks to this school I have a chance of changing my life for the better.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I haven’t seen that specific quote, but I’m delighted to hear a child with a chance to engage in their education. We want for those children, though, to make sure that they are being taught in schools where they have registered and qualified teachers. We are working alongside those schools to make sure that they have a pathway to remain open. We’re not asking much from them.

Rt Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister visit at least one partnership school and talk to the students about their experience and their views on whether their school should be closed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One thing I will say is that it’s this Government’s ambition to make every school the best school it can be, and there are a range of schools doing a fantastic job, and, actually, all they’ve asked for is that those schools who the Government gave special treatment to be treated equally. That means curriculum, that means having qualified teachers, and it means the same level of funding. There is a pathway forward for them and we’re working with them.

Rt Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister’s policy is that everyone be treated equally, what does she have to say to those students who believe that by going to one of these schools they’re actually doing a lot better than at the school where they were treated equally?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: They can continue on in those schools, if those schools are willing to teach the curriculum and have—[Interruption] I’d really be interested in what the Opposition’s opposition to having registered and qualified teachers actually is.

Rt Hon Bill English: If she believes that “children are at the heart of everything we do”, why won’t she visit a partnership school and ask the children at the school for their views before she proceeds to close their schools?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, we’re not focused on closure; we’re focused on giving them options to make sure that if they continue to teach the curriculum and have registered and qualified teachers, there is a pathway for them to remain open. I’d be very interested to hear why the Opposition believes that having registered and qualified teachers is such a barrier to good education.

Rt Hon Bill English: Why can’t the Prime Minister of New Zealand answer a simple question: will she visit a partnership school and speak to the children about their views about their school? Why can’t she answer that question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition rose, and he started to ask his first question, then he followed up with a second question, and he’s perhaps going to move on to a third. That’s against the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the right honourable gentleman is absolutely correct. I’ve been trying to be a little bit reasonable with people who are taking unaccustomed roles, until they get used to it. I will be tightening up in the new year, but I think the Prime Minister’s got 2½ questions and she can pick a bit to answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My objection is that the member is implying that we’re closing those schools rather than working alongside them to transition them away from that old, failed model into a model that simply asks that they teach the curriculum and that they have registered teachers. I have to say, it’s purely—from the students’ perspective, that’s purely administrative; purely administrative.

Rt Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister visit a partnership school and speak to the students to ascertain their views about their school?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the implication that I’ve never in my life met a child who has been to a partnership school is wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. While I’m calling a member, I don’t expect three of the five most senior members of the Opposition to be yelling as loudly as that. They will cease.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports suggesting that the Māori students of this country should not be the victims of blind ideology when it comes to privatised education?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I’ve also seen a line of questioning about it too.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 2, the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I—

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry. I beg the member’s pardon. I didn’t hear Nikki Kaye.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that all partnership schools with contracts will remain open if they meet the three criteria that she just mentioned: registered teachers, following the curriculum, and comparable funding?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As our Minister of Education has said, that’s a process he’s going through as we speak.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are around a thousand children attending partnership schools, compared to the 760,000 students attending school overall, and does she think the New Zealand children—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! As a result of the interjections—I think there were five—I will take two supplementaries from the Opposition. Chris Hipkins, start again, please.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is she aware that there are around a thousand children attending partnership schools, or charter schools, compared to around 760,000 children attending school overall; and does she think that those 760,000—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will sit down. He’s asked a question.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and if we’d seen that kind of advocacy from the Opposition on the 760,000, maybe we would not have seen debacles like national standards.

Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update—Fiscal Risk

2. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident he has met all his responsibilities under the Public Finance Act 1989 in relation to his Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update released last Thursday?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, and for the benefit of the member, that means it’s legal, not “pretty legal”.

Hon Steven Joyce: When did the finance Minister formally advise Treasury that the Government was no longer considering a public-private partnership for Dunedin Hospital and that it would be funded from the Crown’s capital account?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe I have made a personal formal acknowledgment of that. It is the Government’s policy view that we should fund health and education capital expenditure as a public good.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the finance Minister explain why Treasury did not include a specific fiscal risk for Dunedin Hospital in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU), a project likely to cost between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion, even though it meets the requirement he signed on 7 December to inform Treasury of all material implications under the Public Finance Act?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am advised by Treasury that this is considered under the heading “Other Capital Cost Pressures” on page 84 of the HYEFU, similar to how such projects have been treated in other updates.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the finance Minister explain how it didn’t warrant its own listing as a specific fiscal risk, and is he suggesting that it’s going to be less than the other risks—for example, the clothing allowance for unsupported children and orphans, which did manage to make the threshold for inclusion as a specific fiscal risk last week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in the House yesterday, the specific fiscal risks and how they are categorised are a matter for Treasury. Treasury advised me that they consider this under the “Other Capital Cost Pressures” on page 84.

Hon Steven Joyce: When did he formally advise Treasury of the Government’s commitment to additional rapid transit projects in Auckland, at a cost of up to $15 billion, as he stated in his recent speech to the Auckland chamber of commerce?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe I have formally advised that, but that is covered in the specific fiscal risk section around the Auckland transport alignment process. And I would like to say that the member should de-stress a little about this because we have—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member had answered the question; there’s no need for the gratuitous political—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s absolutely right, and right from the beginning of his answers today, Mr Robertson has been giving more than is necessary. [Interruption] And the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for interjecting while I am on my feet.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does the finance Minister recall signing the disclosure agreement that appears on page 1 of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, in which he clearly states that the contents of the document are his responsibility; and is he now at all concerned that he has failed to meet his obligations as the Minister of Finance under sections 26U(3) and 26V of the Public Finance Act to disclose all circumstances that have a material effect on the fiscal outlook?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I am not concerned at all. I signed that in good faith, as other finance Ministers have in the past, including, I presume, the member when he put forward the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU), which also didn’t include the commitment to Dunedin Hospital, made four days before the PREFU.

Fiscal Strategy—Budget Policy Statement and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update

3. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Finance: What reaction has he seen to the Budget Policy Statement and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update that were released last week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen some positive reactions from the banking sector. The ANZ said, “In our view, … we are constructive about the prospects going forward …”; “the overarching message from today’s figures is that there is room to accommodate [lifts in spending and operating plans] right now.” The ASB said, “The HYEFU and the healthy [fiscal] forecast operating balances shows that the Government has remained committed to the Budget Responsibility Rules.” The BNZ said, “Any fuss about the HYEFU might particularly nonplus international observers. [It looks] very good. [It] conforms to the promises made by [the] Finance Minister”.

Rino Tirikatene: What other reactions has he seen from economic commentators?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen numerous positive comments from a variety of sources. PricewaterhouseCoopers said, “The Government is projecting significantly higher allowances for capital expenditure, with schools, housing, and transport being the main winners.” Rod Oram says, “Treasury’s forecasts in its half-year economic and fiscal update will be comforting to Government and business alike.”

Rino Tirikatene: Has he heard reports of any other reactions, including shortness of breath, resulting from the release of the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Surprisingly, I have heard one, from Barry Soper, who said, “It’s fair to say National was a bit like a fish just landed and gulping for air.”

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the selective quoting of the comments from the banks, I seek leave to table a document that says, “Economists cast doubt over Treasury’s—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The name of the document, who it’s by, its date, and whether it’s publicly available.

Hon Steven Joyce: It is by Hamish Rutherford, it is dated 12 December, and, yes, it is publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat and stop trifling with the Chair.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In terms of trifling with the Chair, we’ve just had a list of questions and answers in this House that you’ve previously ruled out as Ministers responding in terms of reactions to their particular announcements, which aren’t actually reports. So I understand completely, except that perhaps I was bending the rules slightly in terms of my point of order. But it was literally in response to the approach that was taken, and allowed to be taken, during that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to remind the member of a saying that I’m sure many of our grandmothers told us “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to your rulings, or advice, to the House last week on what reports could be requested of Ministers by way of questions from the Opposition, either primary or supplementary, and your concern that some of the questions being asked by another party, who are part of the Government, to one of their Ministers, also requiring comment on a report, were not to progress. So I’d ask you simply to have a look at what you were ruling last week, and then consider the exchange that’s just taken place with Mr Robertson and see whether or not there is a little bit of leniency being applied to Mr Robertson that wasn’t applied last week.

Mr SPEAKER: I am happy to look at that. I will say that I have been listening pretty carefully, but I think the questions that were ruled out were people seeing reports for things before they had responsibility, as opposed to around things that they had presented to this House. But I will check that.

Health Policy—Medical Cannabis and Mental Health Pay Equity

4. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What measurable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Merry Christmas to that member. I’m delighted to answer his question. They will deliver better health for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Yeah, yeah, yeah! Merry Christmas to you, too—that’s you as well, Mr Speaker. Can he explain why he told unions that he was delivering on his promise of a pay equity settlement for mental health workers, but then, within two hours of celebratory Christmas press releases from the Public Service Association, E tū, and the Council of Trade Unions, he had to directly go back on his verbal and written assurances to say the unions “have got ahead of themselves … No announcement has been made … [and] there will need to be a Cabinet process.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That was obviously a long way from the primary question, but I’m happy to answer. And—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Can I just say that whether things are close to or not is a matter for me, and any comment that the member makes is a reflection on me and it will stop.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I welcome the member’s interest in the unions, and wish to assure him that I have written to the unions to express the Government’s interest in resolving an issue that was not resolved under the previous Government’s watch. The unions are excited, and they have every right to be excited.

Dr Shane Reti: What will he say to the Green Party, who believed his election promises on wide-ranging medical marijuana reform but go into Christmas saying, “we are disappointed the bill does not provide coverage to all people suffering from conditions who could benefit from its use”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The same press release the member’s referring to also says that the Green Party are delighted with the progress being made. Look, we could always go further, and, in fact, there is a member’s bill in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick that will give the Parliament an opportunity to go further should it wish to. So this change that we are bringing to the House, in terms of making medicinal cannabis more available and accessible, is further than any Government has gone in the past. We need to celebrate the progress, and then the Parliament will have an opportunity to test whether it wants to go further in the new year.

Angie Warren-Clark: What announcements has he made about better health outcomes for people requiring medical cannabis?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Today, I have announced a comprehensive package to make medicinal cannabis accessible to those with a terminal illness or in chronic pain. This will include a statutory defence for those who are terminally ill; they will be able to use illicit cannabis products without fear of prosecution. We have also established a scheme to ensure medicinal cannabis products can be more easily imported and domestically manufactured.

Matt Doocey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How does the Minister explain his officials’ admission at the Health Committee today that despite the Government’s promise of action on mental health, he has made no decisions on changes to services and the details of his inquiry are not yet settled?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We will not take nine years to make mental health a priority. This Government is committed to a review of the mental health system. We’re announcing a ministerial inquiry in the new year as part of our 100-day plan. We’re making very real progress, unlike that prior Government, which took nine years and did nothing.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government support the member’s bill in Chlöe Swarbrick’s name that the Minister has raised in the House?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That’s a conscience issue—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Yes, that’s exactly right. It is a conscience issue, and it has been so ruled.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is he concerned that he can’t back up his claims of problems with the bowel screening programme, that he can’t meet the expectations he generated on medicinal marijuana, and that now he’s publicly embarrassing the Prime Minister by making promises on mental health worker pay equity that he’s then had to backtrack on?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. There’s only one person in this House who should be embarrassed: it’s the member.

Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m raising this as soon as I can, but, before, in ruling in respect to a question, you made mention that some issue was a conscience issue. Now, that is not the province of the Speaker; that’s the province of caucuses and should not be used as a way of determining what questions can or can’t be answered.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Just to make it absolutely clear, whether something is a conscience vote and a personal vote is a question for the Speaker. I have been asked, and I have so ruled. If a particular party decides to have a collective conscience, then that is a matter for the caucus.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it’s an interesting ruling and one that’s certainly new to me. I’d like you to point to somewhere in Speakers’ Rulings that would say it is current convention, or perhaps indicate that you are going to bring down a new ruling to that effect.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll just make it absolutely clear that whether or not an issue is a personal vote based on the fact that it’s a conscience vote is something that the Speaker is responsible for, and it always has been.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, there is not a point of order at the moment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m going to raise—

Mr SPEAKER: We’re not going to continue with that issue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: As long as it’s a new issue, Dr Smith.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have been a member of this House for 30 years—

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a new issue, Dr Smith?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is the first occasion on which the Speaker has made a ruling—

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Smith will resume his seat.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, you’re not going to try it as well, are you?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I—

Mr SPEAKER: Because it is—we are getting into the—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’ve left us in a difficult position.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’ve left you in the difficult position of asking you to have a look at the Standing Orders, and I think if you look around Standing Order 142, you’ll work it out.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is true—that is quite true. However, the question remains: have you decided this will not be a personal vote—this Chlöe Swarbrick bill?

Mr SPEAKER: It’s been inquired of me by members in this House as to whether it will be a personal vote on a conscience basis, and I have ruled that, yes, it will be.

Education Policy—National Standards, New Entrants Age, and Partnership Schools

5. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements, including “I’ve discovered that anecdotes are not always a good way of making Government policy”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, Merry Christmas; and, yes, I do stand by my statements in the context in which I made them.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that national standards will end but schools will not be forced to get rid of national standards, and why does he think it’s good Government policy for the Ministry of Education to remove key support and documents from their website—effectively, forcing schools to ditch national standards?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll go through this slowly. We have been very clear that national standards have now been abolished. What tools schools use to measure a child’s progress are up to them. The Ministry of Education—as was explained to the member at select committee this morning—has removed the elements of compulsion on their website around what schools have to do with regard to the previous national standards regime.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement regarding partnership schools that “They won’t continue under Labour. The 2019 schools will not open.”, and is it good Government policy for the Crown to be facing potential court cases and have schools unclear on the eve of Christmas what criteria they need to keep open?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve been very clear that the Government intends to fulfil its pre-election commitment—made by all three of the governing parties—to remove the charter schools, or partnership schools, model, and if we want to avoid any legal challenges to that, then me answering the latter part of the question would simply increase the odds of that.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that an amendment will be progressed that changes the school starting age, and does he believe it’s a good way of making Government policy to not tell any coalition partners, the Prime Minister, or Cabinet prior to making the announcement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The coalition partners, the Prime Minister, and Cabinet all were aware of the collective view that we took into the election campaign opposing the cohort entry policy introduced by the previous Government, which they didn’t consult anybody on before they introduced it and legislated for it in the House. We’ve been very clear that we will go through a consultation process with regard to changing that process, and I’ve been also very clear with the public about my intention. On the one hand, the Opposition seem to be saying we’re not public enough about our intentions, but on the other hand, they criticise us when we are.

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, a secret agenda.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Exactly right—exactly right!

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that “Giving all children the best possible start in life is one of Labour’s highest priorities.”, and if so, why has he pushed through rushed ideological changes to our education system with little consultation and detail and at a huge cost to New Zealand parents and students?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, and I haven’t, and—thirdly to that—unlike the previous Government, we won’t be freezing funding for early childhood education for the better part of a decade, which has set New Zealand children back.

Jan Tinetti: Has his view that Government policy should not be based on anecdotes influenced his approach to replacing national standards?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s absolutely right. It has indeed influenced my approach to replacing national standards, which is that we will go through a thorough process, unlike rushing through the introduction of national standards, which the previous Government did, and they got it badly wrong.

State Housing—Housing Stock Retention

6. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding State houses?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Today the Prime Minister and I announced that the previous Government’s State house sell-off is over. This is yet another of our first 100-day promises fulfilled by the Labour-led Government. The last Government spent millions shuffling an ever-dwindling public housing stock between the Government and community providers. That is no solution to the housing crisis. This Government is focused on building more and more houses through KiwiBuild, State housing, and by backing councils, iwi, and community housing providers

Greg O’Connor: Why has the Government made this announcement now?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We felt it was important to get this piece of work complete before Christmas so that we could give families living in State houses, particularly in Christchurch, peace of mind over the holiday period. Letters are in the mail to thousands of affected State House tenants in Christchurch, letting them know that under this Government there will be no mass sell-off of their homes. Making this announcement at 12 Fife Lane, in Miramar, the first State house built by the first Labour Government 80 years ago, symbolises the rebirth of State housing under this sixth Labour-led Government.

Greg O’Connor: What are the Government’s plans for Housing New Zealand, now the State house sell-off has been cancelled?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are working with Housing New Zealand on multiple fronts: first, we want to increase the number of State houses being built; second, as a major land owner and builder, Housing New Zealand will play a major role in KiwiBuild; and, third, we are working to transform Housing New Zealand into a compassionate, world-class public housing landlord, not a cash cow for the Government.

Job Creation and Unemployment—Minister of Employment’s Statements

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Employment: Does he agree with the comments on newsroom.co.nz that “having not kept a close eye on the unemployment rate he was surprised to be told by officials after becoming Minister that it was at its lowest rate in a decade”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with my full statement provided to Newsroom. What is surprising is that the national unemployment rate doesn’t reflect the high Māori and Pasifika unemployment or the high unemployment in the regions and amongst young people.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If he didn’t know what the unemployment rate is, if he didn’t know what the average wage is, if he thinks the free market has—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: —I’m coming to it—if it failed in this country at a time when 245,000 jobs had been created in the past two years, how can the people of New Zealand have any confidence that the Minister of Employment knows what he’s talking about?

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A question cannot be asked with a preface; it needs to be direct.

Mr SPEAKER: And I did warn the member part-way through it. It’s only in the spirit of Christmas that I let the member attempt to answer it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m not quite sure what the question was, but I do—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Speaker, if I could just address “Corin Dann” on the other side there. In terms of the New Zealand public, they should feel very confident that, as a Minister of Employment, I’m going to address the mess that has been left by the previous Government. And we’re going to get to people who have been ignored in the regions and particularly in South and west Auckland.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I take either of the supplementaries, I am going to ask Mr Jackson to withdraw that comment. I think he managed to insult both a member of the House and a member of the gallery at the same time. He will withdraw.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Minister tell the House how he thinks most jobs are created in New Zealand?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, that’s a wide-ranging question, but it’s a good question. Probably through innovativeness and creativity, and this Government has that in abundance.

Jo Luxton: How does the unemployment rate for young people and Māori compare to the national rate?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, that’s a terrific question. I’m advised that the unemployment rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is 13 percent and for Māori 20.4 percent, compared with a national rate, as we know, of 4.6 percent. It’s important to note that the gap between the Māori rate and the national rate persists and is sizable, nearly double, and that the same trend is observed for Pasifika people—and I want to mention disabled people here, today, too. So I think that we need to take note of this, unlike the previous Government, who, I think, should take full responsibility for the negative statistics that we have right now.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he wrote in the Manukau Courier that it might be time to set up another commission to, amongst other things, “understand … the current blockages to full employment” and that it should “reflect Government’s tripartite responsibilities under ILO conventions and responsibilities to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi.”, what did he mean?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What I meant—thank you for the question—is that the Labour Party has actually got a history in terms of these commissions set up. We had a great Labour and Future of Work Commission that was run by the Hon Grant Robertson and the Hon Andrew Little. I wanted to set up something along that vein and form partnerships with unions, Māori, and community groups—and maybe a task force also—so that we can come up with a proper employment strategy.

Local Government—Māori Participation and Representation

8. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local Government: What will she do to build support and acceptance for Māori participation in local government?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Mr Speaker, Merry Christmas. It may come as a complete surprise to that member, but I look forward to working alongside local government to increase civic participation and, importantly, their efforts to engage Māori in local planning and decision-making.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does she agree that there are hugely destructive consequences of division, separatism, parallel representation, and parallel laws within the local government sector?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: What I do acknowledge is that there are many councils who are meeting the challenge of increasing engagement and participation with Māori and iwi. They are doing some very good work at a number of levels. Much of this is arising from the Treaty settlement space, and I want to applaud those councils who have made a decision to move towards Māori wards. It’s their decision and we should support them.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does she feel she has an obligation to stand up for Māori New Zealanders and condemn anti-Māori statements, such as that we have political separatism—“a pathway to purgatory”?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As the Minister of Local Government she has no responsibility in that area.

Jami-Lee Ross: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the beginning of the question was: does she have responsibility to stand up for Māori New Zealanders? There are certainly members of Cabinet who have that responsibility; not that member in this portfolio.

Jami-Lee Ross: Can I rephrase the question then, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll be generous, and you can have another go.

Jami-Lee Ross: OK. As the Minister of Local Government does she feel she has an obligation to stand up for Māori New Zealanders and condemn anti-Māori statements about the practices within the local government sector, such as that we have political separatism—“a pathway to purgatory”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I thank that Māori member for that question and acknowledge that the views of others, while I don’t hold them, are the views of others. By and large, local government is working constructively to meet the challenge of increasing civic participation. There has been continual low turnout at local government elections. They want to do something about it. They are taking leadership in some areas to increase the participation of specific groups.

Jami-Lee Ross: What will she say then, as Minister, to the prominent political leader who said to Local Government New Zealand recently, “in local government as in central government there has been a pandering to division, separatism, parallel representation and parallel laws without any regard to the hugely destructive consequences.”—that quote being from the Rt Hon Winston Peters?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re a coalition Government that recognises and understands the many challenges within our communities. While that member wants to kick the tyres, what I can say is that we do believe that by working together—[Interruption] You may not like it, but we do believe that by working together for the benefit of all New Zealanders, many boats can rise, and we’re making some good inroads, and the 100-day plan is just the beginning.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister confirm that as far as the Māori people are concerned, where it impacts on her portfolio, she and this Government are interested in equality based on not pigeonholing people but by judging them on their performance and their commitment and their skills, and not discovering that they are Māori in the same way Columbus discovered America, purely by accident?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were, earlier on, pulled up for having a number of parts in our questions. That had several parts and is clearly out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: And what I will do, as I did earlier, is allow the Minister to answer any of the questions that were asked.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In so far as my portfolio of responsibility is concerned—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order. The member will resume her seat. A point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, noting the content of that extensive question, and its rather pointed aspects, I wonder if you might consider, sir, also allowing Willie Jackson to answer that question.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Mr Speaker, in so far—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I’m just sort of considering how trifling that was and whether it deserves anything else but, again, I’ll be kind to the member.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In so far as my portfolio is concerned, I can assure many members in this House, as they will know, that representation on councils is first and foremost based on merit and a will and willingness to serve their community and the interests that are there. They do recognise there is an overall challenge about increasing civic participation, and I am engaging with them on that matter.

Kiritapu Allan: Does the Minister advocate for separate Māori representation in every local authority?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I support local democracy and I want to acknowledge and applaud those councils who believe that Māori wards is one of many ways to ensure that valuable contributions can be made to the decision-making and planning processes in their district. Their leadership will make a difference. They want to ensure that that reflects the will of their local community.

Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library for my office, which is a compilation of quotes from the Rt Hon Winston Peters about this very issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Have those quotes been previously published?

Jami-Lee Ross: It’s a compilation, sir, from the library. The library document has not—it’s from the library.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll put it in the hands of the House. I think it’s a marginal call if all it is is a republication. Is there any objection to that book being tabled? There appears to be none; it can be tabled.

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

Government Tree-planting Programme—Crown Forestry

9. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What announcements has he made today about Crown forestry?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): In characteristically modest form, I have announced a renewed mandate for Crown Forestry, to enable it to kick-start the Government’s ambitious one-billion-tree tree-planting programme. Crown Forestry has been given the green light, and Government will hand on $14 million to this agency to support the planting of trees during the winter planting season.

Clayton Mitchell: What feedback has he received from the forestry sector about the tree-planting programme?

Hon SHANE JONES: There has been an enormous amount of positive feedback ever since my good self was made the Minister of Forestry. This has caused people to acknowledge that, at long last, there is a genuine and a well-resourced Minister of Forestry. They support the clear direction reflected for forestry in the mix of policies driving our Overseas Investment Office approach, and, more importantly, people from the regions are approaching me with land to begin the tree-planting programme.

Clayton Mitchell: What work will Crown Forestry do with natives? [Interruption]

Hon SHANE JONES: I’d like to seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation: I’m both Māori, Dalmatian, and Welsh. In so far as the native nephews go, boots will be laced, spades will be handed out, and they will stride across the landscape, planting as they go. In so far as the native trees, there will be a significant improvement so that we don’t suffer the further political pathogens from the other side of the House as kauris die before our eyes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister still proposing to count the 15,000 million planted every year for the last decade for restocking as part of his “new” planting programme?

Hon SHANE JONES: In the Prime Minister’s speech, the term that was used in relation to our one-billion-tree strategy was “programme”. The programme comprises efforts that the industry is already engaged in. It includes improvements to the emissions trading scheme, and, hopefully, with the acquiescence of the Minister of Finance, improvements to the tax system. In so far as that particular member is concerned, I hope that someone plants hemlock.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m going to deal with that one first. That was an unparliamentary comment and will be withdrawn and apologised for.

Hon SHANE JONES: I withdraw and apologise.

Clayton Mitchell: How does the tree-planting programme that Crown Forestry will kick-start contribute to New Zealand’s climate change targets?

Hon SHANE JONES: In 2030, as a consequence of the last Government’s inattention, we are likely to face an expense of $34 billion due to the 200-million-tonne carbon deficit. By planting trees, we believe that an expanded size of the nation’s lungs will reduce that cost and decrease our reliance on having to go to the international market and buy international credits.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order as I believe information has just been delivered to me that suggests the finance Minister may have misled the House, and he may wish—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat, and he will consult with members on either side of him who can tell him the appropriate course of action to take if he believes that is the case. The member is out of order, but I don’t want to spend an extended time now coaching him on the appropriate approach.

Unemployment—Measurement

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Statistics: Can he confirm it is Government policy to review the official measures for unemployment to ensure they accurately reflect the workforce of the 21st century; if so, when does he expect that review to commence?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no decision has been taken in respect to the timing of that review.

Chris Bishop: How does he reconcile the Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government policy to review the official measures of unemployment with section 15(1) of the Statistics Act 1975, which says, “The Statistician shall have the sole responsibility for deciding the procedures and methods employed in the provision of any statistics produced or to be produced by the Statistician,”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The Government can ask for a review. It is up to the Government Statistician to define the terms of that review and the methods to conduct it. So we can ask for a review, but we can have absolutely no influence over Statistics New Zealand or the chief statistician in terms of what it is that they look at.

Chris Bishop: Well, given that, what is the purpose of doing a review if the department can ignore it and the independence and the credibility of the department are to be guaranteed, as he’s just said?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I think it is extremely important that we continue to maintain the independence and credibility of Statistics New Zealand. It is a vital Government function, and its independence is completely important to its ongoing function in Government and public trust.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: what is the purpose of the review? He just talked about the independence of the department. What’s the purpose of the review?

Mr SPEAKER: I think between that and previous answers it had been approached. Do you have a further supplementary?

Health and Safety—Injury Prevention

11. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What advice does he have for New Zealanders about staying safe and healthy over the holiday season?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I wish all New Zealand families a merry Christmas and a happy and healthy holiday break, but I do ask them, please, to take extra care at work and on the roads. I’m sad to report that there have been five workplace fatalities in the last week and four road deaths in the last 24 hours. We extend our condolences to all of the families who are grieving the loss of a loved one this Christmas.

Jamie Strange: How will the Government ensure that more workers come home safe and healthy at Christmas?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I want New Zealand to be among the safest countries to work in in the world. We’re making good progress on that but we still have a long way to go. Early next year, the Government will consult on the workplace health and safety strategy, our 10-year plan to lift New Zealand’s health and safety performance. Alongside this, I’m expecting ACC to continue to focus on effective injury prevention, particularly in high-risk industries such as farming and forestry.

Jamie Strange: Does the Minister have any particular injury prevention advice for Christmas Day?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, I do. In particular, be careful while decorating the Christmas tree. Last year there were 137 ACC claims related to tree decoration. There were also claims related to hanging lights, opening Christmas presents, carving the dinner—and even popping the champagne cork resulted in eight claims alone. Stay safe, have fun, and please make sure you come back in 2018, because under this Government it’s going to be a cracker.

Digital Services—Chief Technology Officer

MELISSA LEE (National): My question is to the Minister for Government Digital Services, and asks: what is the difference between the Government Chief Technology Officer, the Government Chief Information Officer, and the new Chief Technology Officer role that she is creating?

Mr SPEAKER: Now, I think what we’ll do is we’ll just get the last bit of the question asked as per the yellow sheet, thank you.

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Government Digital Services: What is the difference between the Government Chief Technology Officer, the Government Chief Information Officer, and the new Chief Technology Officer role that she has created?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister for Government Digital Services): Mr Speaker, happy Christmas to you and to my colleagues across the House, to the Hansard staff, the Clerk’s Office, the messengers—

Mr SPEAKER: No—no speeches, please. Get on with it.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: The member may be confused by these roles because the job titles changed under her Government. The Government Chief Information Officer changed to the Government Chief Digital Officer in June this year. The Government Chief Technology Officer reports to him. The new Chief Technology Officer (CTO) position announced yesterday is a ministerial appointment, and will have a broader advisory focus, going across the economy, society, and the Government. The other roles are held by senior officials and focus on digital transformation across Government and its implementation.

Melissa Lee: Why has she announced this new role, when this position already exists and is delivering support for the Government and the communities of New Zealand?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I don’t think the member was listening to the answer to the last question. These roles are not the same. The Chief Technology Officer appointment is a ministerial appointment, and will have a broader advisory focus, going across the economy, society, and Government. It’s an outward-facing role. The other roles are held by senior officials and focus on digital transformation across Government. Unlike her Government, this Government is investing in this space, rather than cutting funding.

Melissa Lee: How can she justify spending an estimated half a million dollars a year on this unnecessary role, when the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update indicated the Budget was tight and her Government can’t even find $350,000 for a worthy cause like KidsCan?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Because, unlike the previous Government, which paid lip service to the digital economy, which paid lip service to digital inclusion, which paid lip service to digital rights and data governance, this Government takes this seriously and this is a strong step in creating a digital strategy for New Zealand, which the previous Government never did.

Melissa Lee: Aside from the salary and expenses and travelling totalling $500,000 per annum, what other costs does she expect the creation of the role will incur?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Those figures are estimates. I would expect that the CTO will be prudent and careful with any taxpayer money. We have gone through the appropriate checks to ensure that that salary is in line with a role of this type, and this is an important area of priority for this new Government.

Dr Duncan Webb: What support is she aware of for a Chief Technology Officer?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: What a good question. On 21 September, the former Minister Simon Bridges said he was “considering the establishment of a chief technology officer-led think tank.” Given that statement, I would have thought there would have been more excitement about my announcement from the members sitting opposite me.

Bills

Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 19 December.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Williams. As we were interrupted last night, I was addressing the very sensible question that Dr Smith had put to the committee and put to me as Minister in the chair around the intentions in respect of the Building Act and exemptions that are provided for under this legislation. Well, as we know, the reinstatement of the cathedral is a complex engineering task and the design will be undertaken in stages over many years. At this stage, there’s not enough information to assess the kind of Building Act exemptions that would be required. This will be a task for the joint venture—that is, between the Church Property Trustees and the independent trust that will manage the project. The joint venture will provide the necessary detail to the responsible Minister to advise if any exemptions to the Building Act are required as engineering and design work becomes more developed.

What I can confirm to that member at this stage is that the Church Property Trustees have received advice that under the building code, the tower will require the addition of a lift and secondary stairwell. That will increase the scale of the tower by 50 percent and it has significant implications for the design of the whole base isolation system. Addressing this problem may require the use of an Order in Council provision seeking exemption from the Building Act. However, detailed information from the proponent, which will be required under clause 8(4), would be needed to justify and support such an order, and then the robust checks and balances of the legislation would come into play. For example, there would be the role of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Review Panel to use their expert skills to analyse the Order in Council, the role of the Regulations Review Committee to also examine that Order in Council, and the Minister consulting the Minister responsible for the administration of the Building Act, subject to the Order in Council. There would also, of course, be engagement with local authorities, other appropriate people, and the general public.

Related to that question, the Hon Nick Smith asked me whether or not there was a benchmark of new code or expectations for the new building standard that I would want the strengthened Christ Church Cathedral to have, and would I give an assurance that this wouldn’t be a standard less than the Building Act required. I’d like to reassure that member that I appreciate the need for safety. I think that as we’re rebuilding a building in Christchurch, that has to be appreciated, and, again, this will be a matter for the joint venture as it undertakes the detailed design and engineering work. But I would expect the joint venture to recognise the importance of the Cathedral Working Group report, and that report recommended a solution that included seismic strengthening and base isolation that achieves “An Importance Level 3 Design in accordance with New Zealand Standard for Structural Design; 100 percent of the current building code for seismic performance; Improved life safety and contents protection; Minimal damage to heritage features/fabric; Minimal visual impact and intrusion; and Improved usability.”

So they are all good considerations to have, and I would expect that the Cathedral Working Group report will inform the joint venture’s final design of the building. However, ultimately, that is a decision for the joint venture to make. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I appreciate the Minister in the chair’s response, but she has not addressed the fundamental question that is critical to the powers that she is seeking from this Parliament around the Building Act. The very simple question I put to Minister Woods—and I’ll put it to her again—is that Parliament, post - Christchurch earthquakes, has put an enormous amount of work into setting a minimum standard for earthquake-prone buildings, and that is that any building has to meet a minimum of 34 percent of the new-build standard. Now, while I’m supportive of this bill before the Parliament giving the Minister the power to use Orders in Council—and I’m sure the member is aware of the concern of the Regulations Review Committee, which is that we’re giving you very wide powers—I want a reassurance that you are not going to use those powers to go to less than the 34 percent that Parliament has deemed and the royal commission has recommended.

Now, it may be that the Minister wants to use these powers to exempt the cathedral spire from having to have a lift as well as the historical staircase. I’m quite relaxed about that, but I do not think this Parliament should be relaxed about walking away from that 34 percent minimum standard recommended by the royal commission and imposed in the Building Act amendments passed two years ago.

This bill could give the Minister the power to undermine those standards, and I just simply seek a reassurance. Given that the Christ Church Cathedral has faced six earthquakes with significant damage, I simply seek a simple reassurance that those Building Act amendments for earthquake-prone buildings will not be bypassed through these Order in Council powers.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Williams—I’m sitting behind you, so thank you for noticing me here. Picking up where my colleagues left off last night, which is around the examination of Parts 1 and 2 of this bill, the Hon Nicky Wagner has gone through and talked about the Cathedral Working Group’s recommendation and the desire for that document and that hard work to be acknowledged and recognised within the legislation, which is what we have put in.

The elements that emerged, I suppose, through the select committee process was when the Christchurch City Council people came up and wanted to be more involved than they have been—they had read in the media about some of the aspects of this. As we know, yesterday morning, the Christchurch City Council formally ratified the $10 million of their contribution, which is a great relief to everybody. I think that given the amount of skin in the game that they have put in, there was a discussion—I’d like to hear the Minister’s view on this—as to whether the city council should be represented at any stage. Whether it is in the expert panel, or whether it—and that may not be the right place for it because it is very much a skills-based group. But when it comes to perhaps acknowledging some of the heritage values, or some of the wider concerns of the importance of this symbol of Christchurch—this extraordinary cathedral—to the people of Christchurch, the Minister might be interested to explore how the Christchurch City Council can really make a very meaningful contribution to whatever happens in the future.

So the reinstatement review panel has been covered, and the skill sets, and we discussed this quite widely at the select committee and following on from the procedures. Some of the other aspects around the application of the legislation, and particularly some of the anachronisms, really, that have been sitting in the law for a period of time around the restrictions and conditions relating to cathedral land, we were able to cancel as a result of examining them. The Minister will be aware that the Cathedral Square Ordinance 1872 law around the erection of buildings on part of the land formally held was not helpful to the restoration process, and so that particular piece of legislation—and section 8 of the Mining Act 1971, which also posed another restriction—was something that we talked about and felt was not going to be helpful for the ongoing work.

But one of the questions I would like the Minister to address, if she would, is the length of time that this Act will be in existence. As with many Acts that have been before this Parliament over the last two years, some of them have a sunset clause. They have a termination time attached to them. This one has around 15 years to run, and some of the regulations that underpin the law also have 15 years. So that is spelt out carefully, and I acknowledge the work of the officials in ensuring that it is appropriately recognised within the various clauses of the bill. But I wonder if the Minister has formed a view at this stage, early on in the piece, whether the 15 years is going to be—if the goals that have been set through this restoration project, or reinstatement project, are coming close to being achieved, I wonder whether any thought would be given to stopping this legislation at that time. I mean, when the cathedral is rebuilt—and it will be rebuilt. Perhaps when the money is raised and the spire is also erected, there may well be a time that it’s finished—quite quickly, we would hope—and at that time, the Minister, or subsequent Ministers, may feel that the Act could finish at that stage, or, with the repeal of the Act, just carry on for the 15 years, beginning with the date of the commencement of the Act.

I’d be interested in the Minister’s views, because, along with all of us on the select committee and all of us who are interested in what is going on with this legislation, and for the sake of the people of Christchurch, the progress we feel, and the goodwill behind it—and now with the financial backing of both the Crown and the council and, it would appear, a very enthusiastic group of private stakeholders raising money—I think that this is a project that could actually progress at a great rate. So, having got rid of some anachronisms, which are laws that continue on well past their use-by date—I would hate to see that this particular piece of legislation does that.

So those are a couple of issues. If the Minister would like to comment on them, I would be very interested to hear what she would have to say on those subjects. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I would just like to address, in particular, clause 9(1)(a)(i) in Part 2 and our changes to this clause around engagement with the Christchurch City Council. I just want to give the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, a little bit more information on this and why we came to this decision, and perhaps ask her a couple of questions following on from what Maggie Barry has said.

The Christchurch City Council came to see us in person and they gave us a really informative submission in Christchurch. Their view was in full support of the bill to facilitate this reinstatement. They agreed with the approach of using the Order in Council mechanism to provide this streamlined consenting process. However, the issues that were raised by the council were, for the most part, around consultation. I just wanted to bring it to the Minister’s attention that they did bring up the fact that they were somewhat upset by the short, truncated process of the select committee and that they didn’t have much time to come and speak to us. As you can imagine, what followed on from that was the fact that they put to us that they are one of the bodies that are involved in the regulatory process required for this project. They were concerned with their level of involvement and engagement in the Order in Council process.

As the bill stood, prior to any changes, the council was involved in the process only if the Minister considered it appropriate to make information related to the draft order available under clause 9(1)(a)(i), but after extensive discussions in the select committee, in recognition of their regulatory involvement in this project, the Christchurch City Council—we identified them as a body that we should make reference to in this clause 9 on engagement. So we therefore changed that clause to state that “the Minister must—(a) make available a document referred to in subsection (2) to—(i) the relevant local authorities and the persons or representatives …”, and it carries on as it did before. So we inserted that clause there, particularly after we’d heard from the Christchurch City Council and their concerns around involvement and engagement in this process.

I wanted to bring this to the Minister’s attention because they also, as the Hon Maggie Barry said, talked to us about their need and desire to be involved in the review panel. We did talk about this in great detail as well with the officials, who actually did say that there will most likely be people on that panel who will be experts in local council, but it was the council’s intention that they did want someone on there, and that was the level of engagement that they wanted. We felt that it was appropriate to mention them in clause 9(1)(a)(i) but not to push any further on the review panel.

The second thing that I wanted to bring to the Minister’s attention was the fact that we had many submitters, including the Christchurch City Council, tell us that there should be various other Acts included in schedule 2, including the Building Act, the Local Government Act, the Local Government Act 2002, the Public Works Act, the Land Transfer Act, the Reserves Act, and also the Land Transport Act. Now, we deliberated for some time over the Land Transport Act, but on the advice from officials we decided not to include that.

But I want to let the Minister know that we did have quite a long discussion about the fact that we are adding a significant amount of extra Acts to schedule 2, and that was a concern for us. The current Minister certainly doesn’t fall into this category, but what we were imagining was the worst possible Minister, and certainly that is not this Minister. [Interruption] Ha, ha! Not at all. But what we were thinking was if in future there is this fictitious, awful Minister, we did want to limit their powers as much as we could, but we did feel that by putting in these additional Acts, it will give this Minister flexibility to allow the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral to go ahead in a timely and cost-effective measure.

So I just wanted to bring those things to the Minister’s attention, but, in particular, that engagement with the Christchurch City Council—they were very forthright about their need to be engaged, and we did agree with them. I would encourage the Minister to bear that in mind when she is going through the process, that we specifically listed them under clause 9(1)(a)(i), and I hope that she keeps that in mind.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I just want to take the chance to respond to a few more of the questions that have been put. I want to return and give Dr Smith the reassurance and reiterate that while it is not the role of the Minister to do the detailed design and engineering work, what I’ve indicated is that I think the working party report will have a huge influence over what is decided, and that safety was one of the key things that was signalled in that report. So I can give that member a reassurance that it is well over the 34 percent of code. It is, in fact, 100 percent of seismic strength, along with base isolation, that was recommended in that report, so I hope that gives that member the level of comfort that he requires.

The Hon Maggie Barry asked about the Cathedral Working Group report and where that was referenced within the Act and why it wasn’t referenced in clause 10—and this was also an issue that Matt Doocey brought up in his contribution last evening in a question, so I get to answer both these questions with one call. The importance of the Cathedral Working Group report is referenced in many parts of the bill. It is there—it is in new background clause 2A, and there are amendments to clause 3 where that document is referenced. It was felt that that was sufficient to make sure that that important document was given the weighting it was due in terms of the decision-making powers, and it very much will be part of the criteria that the responsible Minister needs to use for that.

In regards to the Hon Maggie Barry’s question around the role of the local authority, I think, actually, her colleague answered that with her next contribution, of course, with clause 9(1)(a)(i) in terms of the Christchurch City Council being put there. As a Minister, I fully appreciate the role of the council in this process. In fact, it is an issue, and the cathedral being an issue, that I discussed early and often with both the mayor and the full Christchurch City Council, both of whom I met with within my first month of being Minister and discussed the issue of how we were going to work together in terms of the cathedral’s reinstatement. I see this very much part of the enduring partnership that we as a Government will build with the Christchurch City Council to ensure that we can get the kind of momentum that we need for the future of our city.

I think a further question was then put by the last speaker, Erica Stanford, asking about the role of the council on the review panel. I think, actually, her colleague the Hon Maggie Barry had addressed that in her earlier contribution—that the review panel is not a representative body; it is a body of experts, and there are other ways, which are covered off in the bill, in which it is absolutely critical that the Christchurch City Council has input into those decisions. But it is not through the expert review panel; it is as part of the consultation that the responsible Minister must do.

The final point that was raised by the previous speaker was around ensuring we are protecting against the fact that we have extraordinary powers in this bill, and I am confident that we have struck the right balance between the need for momentum and a broad sweep of checks and balances, which will ensure that good decisions are being made. These go through from the need to consult across this House and to continue the collegial, cross-party approach that we need on Orders in Council, which, indeed, has been the practice on many Orders in Council and extraordinary powers that have been exercised in regard to Canterbury over the last six years, right through to the regulations review panel and an independent review panel. So I am confident that we have the necessary checks and balances on what are extraordinary ministerial powers. Thank you.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much. I think the Minister gave us a good summary of what’s happening in this bill, and I just want to reflect on a couple of things that were in Part 2. Obviously, the Orders in Council—we think that that mechanism works well. The only change that we made was to limit the time from 20 working days down to 15 working days. We felt that that gave a balance. Of course, 15 working days is a full three weeks, and we thought that that gave balance for people to have a say but also not to hold up the process.

Definitely, the reinstatement review panel that was detailed right in this part—and I think we were happy with the rules around that. The ability to introduce new Acts—well, of course, with the submitters, we ended up introducing quite a lot of Acts that were important to the submitters: the Building Act 2004; the Land Transfer Act 2017; two local government Acts, 1974 and 2002—that was at the request of the Christchurch City Council—the Public Works Act 1981; and the Reserves Act 1977. So, of course, the Minister has an enormous amount of power with these Acts in the legislation. Although the mechanism for the clause to introduce new Acts is in this bill, we are pretty sure that we’ve covered the lot of them, and we’re not expecting any more Acts to be introduced.

Finally, of course, to keep a balance here, we do have the 15-year sunset clause, and I think that is appropriate. It also means that we need to get this job up and on the way and the reinstatement completed. We are happy. The Environment Committee worked very well together. We are happy that we have got a balance in this bill. We are very aware that it’s extraordinary legislation under extraordinary circumstances, but we believe it’s an enormously important bill to the people of Christchurch, Canterbury, and beyond, and we hope that by writing this carefully and thoughtfully it will empower the people to come together and to make this reinstatement work smoothly in a streamlined, efficient, and effective way. Kia ora.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I really just wanted to say a couple of words about the issue of reinstatement in committee, because I think it’s worth noting those discussions—in particular, the addition to the definition of “reinstatement” of the Cathedral Working Group paper and, in particular, the fact that anything set out in the Cathedral Working Group paper or contemplated by it as reinstatement will fall into that definition.

I think it’s important to note that, because what became apparent was that although there were some differences in language, all submitters were fundamentally at one in respect of the definition of “reinstatement” and what it actually meant, and the additional clarification in the definition there that, indeed, although something need not be exactly replaced, the fact that it’s not exact replacement, exact reinstatement, or restoration doesn’t mean that it doesn’t fit within that definition.

I just really wanted to take a moment to inform the Minister of those discussions so that she was aware when she came to look at those questions in terms of making any orders. That’s really all I wanted to add to this debate today.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I’m pleased to make a short contribution in this committee stage.

I also just have a couple of questions for the Minister in relation to the definition of “reinstatement”. The new paragraph (fa), “use of any new materials:”—I note that that doesn’t sort of link to any part of the cathedral. They are the addition of new materials, and I’m wondering if there’s any intention behind that, because every other element to that definition is linked to the cathedral in some way.

Also, I’m just wondering why the bill also—and I may be wrong here, but when I look at clause 8(4), there’s reference to the “joint venture or entity that’s managing the reinstatement of the Cathedral”. But I note that that’s not included in the actual—it seems to me there’s no reference to that, and I’m assuming that that links back to the document, but there’s actually no sort of definition or further elaboration of the actual joint venture or of the entity that’s managing the actual reinstatement of the cathedral, and I’m just wondering if that’s intentional, or is it all implicit by virtue of the Cathedral Working Group report? Thanks.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I move, That the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to acknowledge the organisations and members of the public who took the opportunity to make submissions to the Environment Committee, and those who did take the time to appear before that committee in both Christchurch and Wellington, especially with such a truncated time frame. I’d also like to thank the chair of that committee, Deborah Russell, and members of the Environment Committee for their consideration of this bill.

I do also want to acknowledge what an extraordinary piece of legislation this is. This is a bill that confers on a Minister extraordinary powers, but with a good balance of checks and balances on those extraordinary powers.

I’d also like to take the time to acknowledge the officials who have worked so hard in getting this legislation to the House, getting this bill passed by Christmas so that Christchurch can have the hope that the centre of our city can start regenerating and that that building that sits at the heart of our city, as we enter into this Christmas period—people in Canterbury can have faith that our city is on the road forward, that we are marching towards having regeneration, and that there is a positive future for us.

We are committed to providing an enabling environment to facilitate the reinstatement of this most significant of Christchurch buildings. This commitment is crucial for the people of Christchurch, for nearby businesses and landowners, for investors in the city, and, of course, for the potential donors to the reinstatement project itself. I’d like to reiterate that—the potential donors to the reinstatement project itself.

Through this legislation, we are ensuring that certainty about the delivery of the cathedral can be provided, and that is critical for our city. We are recognising the cathedral’s contribution to the cultural, social, and economic well-being of our city. It’s important to Christchurch’s regeneration and, importantly, its heritage value. This will support the regeneration of not only Cathedral Square but the wider central city.

But I want to take a moment to discuss the work that is occurring alongside this bill to facilitate the reinstatement. This legislation is a critical building block in getting our cathedral reinstated, but there are others that we also need to consider. The Christchurch City Council yesterday, of course, made the vital decision to also fund this project, and I would like to congratulate the council on coming to that conclusion.

Also, as set out in the offer of support, I am in the process of establishing a trust that will raise funds for the reinstatement and enter into a joint venture with the Church Property Trustees, who are the owners of the cathedral, to undertake the delivery of this cathedral project. In November, I appointed Mr Peter Guthrey as the chair of the trust, and I hope to make further appointment announcements prior to Christmas. We are intent on getting the momentum needed to make sure that our cathedral can be reinstated.

The bill and the establishment of the trust are another step forward on this road to reinstatement, but there are many more that we need to take. Reinstating the cathedral is a task that will take time. Fund-raising for the cathedral will be a significant undertaking, and I am confident that the people of Christchurch, New Zealand, and the world will come together to support this reinstatement. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I seek leave of the House to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question to question No. 3 today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is set—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Sought.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): —sought for that. Is there any objection to that being taken? There is none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to part of question No. 3 today, I read a quote from the ANZ in response to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. I don’t believe I offered the full context, so the full quote was: “In our view, while we are constructive about prospects going forward, this economy has already picked the low-hanging fruit.” I read an edited version of that statement: “In our view, we are constructive about prospects going forward”. I don’t believe that was accurate, so that’s why I need to correct it.

Bills

Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am enormously pleased that we’ve got to this stage with this bill before Christmas. It is really something to celebrate that we now have this enabling legislation almost in place and that, with the Christchurch City Council’s commitment to their grant, it means that all the last bits of the plan are in place for this cathedral to be reinstated. That’s something that we can celebrate pre-Christmas. I am particularly pleased because when I went to the synod and talked to them about this, I promised that we would have action by Christmas. So I’m delighted that I can stand here and take some credit for getting some of that done, but also give credit to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration as well.

This is such an important building to Christchurch. It is an important part of our history. It’s an important part of our culture. As we’ve already talked about, every Christchurch person, Canterbury person, and most visitors that come to Christchurch have some kind of relation to this building. But it’s also bigger than that. This is much more than just a building, much more than a church, much more than a cathedral—it is a significant heritage building that has been the symbol of our city for over 100 years. The thing that strikes me about this building is that, yes, the reinstatement is going to be a huge project, but when they decided to build this cathedral, there were only 5,000 people living in Christchurch and yet they built a cathedral that seated 1,500. So it was an enormous undertaking for a very small population to create a neo-Gothic building of this kind of stature. So a reinstatement is a big challenge, and I know it’s going to take up to 10 years, but in terms of the challenge of building it in the first place, I’m sure we’ll be able to do it very successfully.

Of course, the fact that the earthquakes damaged it so badly that it sat in the centre of our city, neglected and decaying, for the last seven years has meant that even though there’s been so much debate over the future of this building, even though lots of people had different ideas and not everybody supported a reinstatement, everybody has got to the stage that we need a decision, we need to go forward, and we now have a decision in place. I’m very hopeful that the community will come behind this decision and take pleasure in the rebuild, the reinstatement, and take pride as this building evolves once again.

I just want to make a short statement of thanks to everybody who’s been involved in this project. As we know, it’s been seven years. It started off by purely getting people out of it and looking after people who were injured and looking for the dead bodies, which luckily weren’t there. So it started seven years ago, and, from that time, the passion and the commitment of the people who cared about the cathedral and cared about the centre of the city has meant that there’s been lots of debate. I would just like to pay my respects to the Church Property Trustees, who are responsible for this building, who are the owners of the building, and Bishop Victoria Matthews, who is, obviously, the bishop of the diocese. They have worked long and hard to try and get a good solution.

I would also like to pay respects to the heritage people, particularly the Great Christchurch Building Trust, and the leaders of that group, of course, are the Hon Jim Anderton and the Hon Philip Burdon. They both lead a very large team of people who were absolutely committed to getting the best possible outcome for Christchurch. And then, of course, I’d like to pay credit to the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who, when we were absolutely at a situation that we weren’t sure about the objective facts about this building, managed to have two reports. The first was the Miriam Dean report, which was an engineering report that confirmed that the cathedral could be reinstated for about $100 million, and then, of course, the Cathedral Working Group, which has detailed the plan to go forward. We appreciate that work, because that’s led to the Government package, it’s led to the funding options, and it’s led to this legislation. So I think it’s a very satisfactory way through this process. It has been blood, sweat, and tears, but we are here and now we can get together, get behind it, and make sure that this reinstatement goes as smoothly, as efficiently, and as effectively as possible.

So, just in conclusion, I would like to celebrate with everyone here that we have got to this point in the project, that this legislation will empower and fast track the reinstatement of the building, that the Christchurch City Council’s grant is the last bit of monetary funding that we need for it to happen, and now I think we can just get on with it. This is a significant heritage building. It is the symbol of our city, and I hope every Christchurch person, Cantabrian, and visitor to our city will be proud of the reinstatement. Thank you.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): As this cathedral rises again in the next few years, I think it’s going to express many things: a rebirth, a regrowth, a new hope in Christchurch, and a real symbol of the community. I think one of the things that it can symbolise as it grows again is actually the process of our robust democracy in Christchurch and in this country.

This bill has come about through a really robust democratic practice that has come from right through the community. It came about in some part because of the operation of our legal system, with litigation. People might not regard that as part of our democratic practice, but it’s actually a really important way that we discuss how things ought to go. I know that that litigation was long and hard fought, but eventually it brought us to a conclusion and brought some ideas out and brought people to a place where they could gather and actually talk to each other about how to go ahead from there. That was the first part of the democratic practice.

The next part was their reports, and in particular the Cathedral Working Group report—again, a really robust discussion where people tried to gather together and come to a conclusion, and that is the basis on which the cathedral will be rebuilt. There was a real gathering of voices around that particular report of people who mattered, from Heritage New Zealand to the Christchurch City Council to the people who own the church, the Church Property Trustees—so that kind of democratic process happened as well.

Then there was leadership from members of this House in the previous Parliament. Here I think particular tribute needs to be paid, and deservedly so, to the Hon Nicky Wagner, who fought really hard to get a solution across the Cabinet table in the previous Cabinet. So, in large part, the growing of this cathedral again will be due to her, but also to the current Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, the Hon Megan Woods, who has got this bill to the stage where it is getting through the House today when the actual solution is in place. So there are people from right across the House who have worked on this bill to bring it together to the stage where the cathedral can start to grow again.

Then there was the robust select committee process, where we drew on knowledge from people who live in Christchurch: from Dr Duncan Webb; from yourself, Madam Assistant Speaker, as a member of the Environment Committee; from Matt Doocey, who is based down that way; from Maggie Barry, who has a particular heritage knowledge to bring to it—every single member of that committee had something to contribute as part of our process. Of course, we had the expert assistance of officials, people who brought their knowledge and expertise: from the select committee officials; the clerk of the committee and her assistant, who helped us to get this process completed so quickly and, really, so very, very smoothly; to the officials in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who brought their particular expertise to it, and the people drafting the law. This was all part of our robust system of Government, and it’s all expressed in this bill—this bill that will help to reinstate the cathedral. So I think that, as the cathedral regrows, it not only symbolises the community gathering together again in the heart of the community of Christchurch but also expresses what Government, richly understood, can do. So that’s what I’ve been thinking about in terms of this particular bill.

But I just wish to add a final reflection about the cathedral itself. I’ve visited many great cathedrals. I’ve been very lucky to be able to do so. As I was thinking about some of the great cathedrals I’ve visited, I’ve realised that, in some ways, they all merge into one—they’re very similar in many ways—but there is something very special I remember about each one, and it tends to be something to do with words. So, from Salisbury, I remember one of the four extant 1215 copies of the Magna Carta sitting there in the Salisbury Cathedral. In the Winchester Cathedral, it’s Jane Austen’s grave that really sticks in my mind. In Durham Cathedral, it’s the tomb of the Venerable Bede—all wordy things.

I first visited Christ Church Cathedral just before my 17th birthday, on a family trip around the South Island. Because I was brought up in a very Pākehā household, in a middle-class, white household, I didn’t know much Te Reo, but there was a plaque on the wall there with those words that we all know now: he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. [It is people, it is people, it is people.] That’s what I remember from Christ Church Cathedral, and I hope that in years to come, when I visit that cathedral again as it is reinstated, I hope to see that plaque again with those words about the people—the people that it is all about. That’s why it is important that this cathedral is reinstated, and that’s why I commend this bill to this House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. I must say, what a fantastic Christmas present to Cantabrians a week or so out from Christmas, as we pass this bill in its third reading.

I’m going to be as bold as to predict that I feel Cantabrians are going to fall in love with the cathedral again. We’ve had years of division, years of argument, and I feel that, over the course of the next 10 or 15 years, Cantabrians, and especially the people of greater Christchurch or Christchurch, are going to reconnect with the cathedral. But I feel it’s not only going to be the cathedral but the area of Cathedral Square as well.

I mean, it’s interesting, as Cantabrians, we look back at Christchurch pre-earthquakes with a bit of rose-tinted glasses, and in fact there were a lot of areas, including Cathedral Square, that were pretty dated. People weren’t actually happy with the functionality of it, but I think we’ve got a real opportunity now not only with the cathedral but the whole city, as we rebuild the best small city in the world, to actually make Cathedral Square a regeneration area. And the cathedral will be the gem of that regeneration area because, of course, there’s wider regeneration going on with the future use of the red zone.

So it’s an exciting time, and I really hope that people come together, get excited, and who knows? Maybe in a few years’ time we’ll be back to the old days where we’ll be having New Year’s Eve concerts in Cathedral Square. Maybe the Dance Exponents will not be playing their final concert until the next year, and then maybe the next year after that—but all the good stuff that we remember about Christchurch and about Canterbury.

What’s really important about this legislation is that, yes, time is a factor in our rebuild. Yes, things could be done quicker, and when you talk to people on the street, quite rightly, they want anchor projects like the cathedral done quicker. But, actually, when you talk to the people on the ground, their first criteria is they want things to be done right, and they want it to be done to high quality. That’s exactly where I feel this bill has landed. It’s enabling legislation that will actually allow a design to unfold—because, of course, the design will unfold over the years, very much like the city. No city is ever built; it’s always building. It’s going to be quite exciting to see where we end up in 10 years’ time with this new cathedral.

Just to conclude, I do hope that all the stakeholders involved in this reinstatement play nicely and play well over the coming years. I just encourage any prospective donors out there: now is the time to come forward in the Christmas spirit as we look to rattle the tin and get the money together to build a cathedral at the centre of Christchurch. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too have great pleasure in rising to support the passing of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. Today, we have come together as a House to enshrine this important piece of legislation to allow the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral in the heart of Christchurch, where one has been since 1864. I do note the extraordinary powers granted to the Minister—particularly, the Orders in Council provision—and we in New Zealand First have looked at this, but we are sufficiently satisfied with them being subject to judicial review—

Chris Bishop: Oh, Denis wouldn’t have said that.

MARK PATTERSON: —and having a defined scope, and a time frame and a sunset clause of 15 years. We are satisfied, post-Denis, that all the checks and balances are in place.

I would like to acknowledge that this bill had its genesis in the work done by the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Nicky Wagner. The honourable member may be saddened that she didn’t get to put her name on the final legislation, but her contribution is well noted and well-known. I congratulate the Hon Dr Megan Woods for having shepherded this bill through the House. Of course, as the local member in Wigram and as the former Opposition spokesperson on earthquake recovery, she has also played a full role.

I note the contribution of the Christchurch City Council yesterday. It would have been somewhat unconscionable for this House to support this project without the council also having put their money where their mouth is and shown their support. So we welcome that as we all come together.

Also, I acknowledge the local notable leadership—as has already been discussed—by the past members of this House Philip Burdon and Jim Anderton, who have shown wise heads when wise heads have been needed.

I acknowledge the officials for their work in this truncated process. I think what we have seen is the House working at its best, with a degree of purpose and solidarity around this, and it was this signal that we needed to send to the people of Christchurch from this House. They have our full support, and they have certainly seen that. I also think that we need to acknowledge the submitters and, from what I’ve seen and read, the very pragmatic and sound contributions that we got through that.

Importantly, we’re also committed to funding, in the form of the $10 million we have granted and the $15 million loan towards the $104 million estimated cost. There has been some resistance to this. Some of the submitters asserted that this was private property, it was a religious institution, and it was the responsibility of the Church. However, this is a narrow view. This is not just bricks and mortar. This is not just a church. This is a significant and historic building that is intrinsically linked to the city of Christchurch, and anything less than a reinstatement would not have done.

I also note the tourism sector. Christchurch Airport has 8.5 million transactions, or passenger arrivals, every year, with many of them local and international tourists. You have to have a tourism portfolio. Without the cathedral, the Arts Centre, and those great buildings, you become a bigger version of Ashburton without the airport or the university. Tourists are looking to the great tourism paradise of Otago and Southland—to the great lakes down there—and to the emerging powerhouses of Gore and Invercargill as they come on to the tourism maps.

I would also like to just salute those people that pushed back on the original decision to demolish this cathedral. It is vindication for their tenacity, really. While it was messy and litigious, the right decision has been arrived at, and now the ball is back in the court of the local trust to finish the job that we are giving it the opportunity here to do.

With the passing of this bill, we facilitate the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral to the heart of Cathedral Square, where one belongs. Future generations of New Zealanders will thank us. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the passing of this bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, ’tis the week before Christmas, and the present is wrapped. We have as a Parliament come together. We have seen Christchurch as a city come together. We have seen the generosity of spirit that has led to the solution that is the basis of this enabling legislation.

I would like to personally acknowledge—and, again, I think it probably points to the divide that has been bridged by this project—Philip Burdon and Jim Anderton. They are not men that were alongside each other politically but are ardent Christchurch and Canterbury people who understood what needed to be done to get to the stage where we are at today.

To the Hon Nicky Wagner, who did extraordinary work—I don’t know if people realise it, but most Sundays she went to Mass to be able to meet with the Bishop Victoria Matthews afterwards, to enable the right level of relationship and communication and trust to be there. I would have to say that Nicky is one of the most thorough and hard-working members of Parliament and Ministers sticking up for a cause that I have ever worked with, so I would like to give a special shout-out to her.

To the current Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Dr Megan Woods, thank you for taking the patience to explain and articulate some of the issues that lay behind the questions that we were asking. The select committee process was serene, and, again, I commend our chair of the Environment Committee, Dr Deborah Russell, for that.

In fact, one of the things that Dr Russell said a few moments ago got me thinking. We’ve all visited cathedrals around the world. Christ Church Cathedral I remember going to as a youngster, and, in a previous life, we filmed there. I know that the flower carpet that was done through the cathedral—up the main part of the aisle of the cathedral—was truly wondrous. I’ve hardly ever seen a cameraman cry, but our one did that day. He was absolutely moved by the beauty of it and by the context of having the flowers from the Garden City, home-grown in people’s gardens, laid out in the elaborate French tradition of trompe l’œil, with the trickery of the eye but also the parterre—the embroidery on the ground. So this main big carpet was designed to be seen from above, and, to me, that’s what a great cathedral does. It inspires you to go beyond the prosaic and to look up, to contemplate, and to think about things other than everyday life.

Other cathedrals around the world have stories to tell. Something that I think will one day be part of the rich tapestry of the Christ Church Cathedral story is that it did have this terrible episode. Along with Chartres Cathedral in England, which was razed to the ground, it was rebuilt. For those of you who will have been to Monte Cassino, you will know of the big cathedral on top of the mountain there, where so many lost their lives in terrible conditions. The Allied forces bombed it, but it was fully and totally restored, with a level of integrity to heritage values that I think we can all learn from.

Again, as I said in my speech yesterday, I think that the world is, in many ways, a smaller place. We can learn from what is happening in real time in Japan, and from what is happening at la Sagrada Familia in Spain, where, in fact, a New Zealander—a New Zealand engineer—is leading the charge to build this cathedral and finish it for the first time. It was Gaudi’s masterpiece, but he got run over by a tram, and they thought he was a vagrant. He died penniless in the paupers’ hospital and his plans were not found, so for a long time it stood there—in perhaps a similar way to the way that the Christ Church Cathedral has—as a testimony to potential and to what might happen one day. With the help of an international team with a New Zealander at the heart, it is now nearing completion. It is a remarkable design. It has lost nothing of its power and its strength through the years that it has sat mouldering quietly before the right people, the right ideas, the right vision, and the right determination came along, and that is similar, I think, to what has happened with Christ Church Cathedral.

I think it is marvellous that it’s going to be reinstated. I’m really looking forward to seeing what will happen with the spire. The cathedral itself probably deserves one, and it needs one, given the style of the building. The heritage people have been paying a lot of attention to those aspects, and I hope, as my colleague Matt Doocey has indicated, that in the spirit of generosity in the festive season, people will see this as an opportunity to contribute something to the building of that spire and to complete the work that has been started by the Crown, with the $10 million and the $15 million as a non-repayable loan—a suspensory loan—and then, of course, the $10 million from the council. It’s not quite enough, but it’s certainly a starter for 10, and I think that the public of Christchurch, and New Zealanders generally, can have confidence that the project will go ahead in a way that reflects the wairua of the original cathedral but with more. So this is with add-ons, and they will accentuate its charm and its capacity to enthral people for generations to come.

So, from my perspective, the reinstatement is very much a part of this bill that we’ve been working on. The spirit of collaboration and cooperation is, as many have remarked, an endangered and threatened species in this House. It seldom happens that people cooperate to quite this extent, but it is possible for everybody to pull together.

And I hope that the people of Christchurch who have been detractors and who have, as other speakers have noted, been reluctant to see public money go into a church—so, we’re a secular society is one of the arguments. We shouldn’t be putting money into these sorts of things, it should be the responsibility of a church, and so forth—I disagree with that. I think there are probably about 50 buildings in New Zealand that transcend mere local or ownership issues, and the cathedral of Christchurch is one of them. From the time I saw it topple on that awful day of the earthquake in 2011, I hoped it would be reinstated. I kept my counsel on that to myself because, as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage at the time, I felt it would be unhelpful if I waded in. But I think the right decision has been made. I would hope that, in the spirit of harmony that has seen this bill arrive in this House in this state, it will enable all of the good work that’s been put together by the cathedral working party and others to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I would especially like to note and acknowledge Jim Anderton, who, I know, is not well, and who, I know, has given an enormous amount of his time and prodigious energy to ensuring that this project has not been forgotten—that the demolition did not occur. Philip Burdon is another who has given a lot of his time. I think that when you look at that spirit of willingness, it is to put aside all differences—as the parliamentary prayer used to say—and to be able to join together for a common cause and make it happen, because no one would have done it if we all hadn’t done it.

That is why this piece of legislation is so special, and the fact that it happens just before Christmas is, I think, serendipitous. It is perhaps coincidental, but it certainly deserves to be happening at a time when celebration, harmony, and goodwill to all people and all buildings should prevail. So that is why I fully support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Meri Kirihimete. I’m very pleased to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party and thank the Hon Maggie Barry for reminding me and bringing to my mind’s eye that beautiful vision of the floral carpet in the cathedral. It was an incredible feat of organisation, getting all the flowers and then the design on the floor of the cathedral.

I guess that is why the cathedral is more than just a church building, because it has been used for a lot of community events, a lot of secular activities as well, and because it draws people in who are not necessarily religious. It is part of inspiring buildings that they create that sense of place, which the cathedral certainly does at the heart of Christchurch city, and that they create memories for the community.

I will be delighted when this bill goes through, because walking down Armagh Street last weekend, past the Canterbury Provincial Council Chambers, which was very soon after the earthquakes—it was very badly damaged, but there were efforts made to weatherproof it, so that it could be restored over time as funds, skills, and skilled craftspeople permitted. It has been an absolute tragedy that the Christ Church Cathedral has remained open to the weather, to the pigeons, and to the elements. That will have compromised the building further. What this bill going through will mean is that, as a very first step, the building can be weatherproofed and action taken to do that to ensure that we don’t allow it to deteriorate further.

This bill’s also significant because it continues and creates that sense of momentum and energy that has seen groups like the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust work so hard to put before the public, to encourage the Church Property Trustees and others, that, in their vision, this magnificent building can be reinstated and restored. I pay tribute to the former Minister, the Hon Nicky Wagner, for all of the work that she did with the Church Property Trustees, working with the bishop, so that the General Synod made that great decision that they did to accept the Crown offer and to go forward with reinstatement. I congratulate all of the members of the Environment Committee, under Deborah Russell’s chair, and the Hon Megan Woods for continuing the initiative that had built up around the cathedral after so many years of letting it really fall into disrepair because of the substantial difference of views within the Christchurch community over its future.

But I think that is a function and just a sort of aspect of the Christchurch character—that there are these extraordinary arguments around sometimes new buildings, around public spaces like Victoria Square, around the Arts Centre when there was a proposal for a music conservatory there that went to the Environment Court. People in Christchurch really care about what happens in public spaces, so there has been enormous debate about the cathedral. Now, with this bill, there’s a coming together so that everybody is working for that common purpose of reinstatement.

Like others, I pay tribute to the enormous efforts of the Hon Jim Anderton with his work with Philip Burdon and other members of the trust to make sure, in those early days, that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority didn’t issue that section 38 demolition notice that some had wanted. I also commend Minister Brownlee because I think he was involved too in those days to ensure that that notice didn’t go through, as it did with so many other Christchurch buildings to the detriment of the city’s character and built heritage.

This bill, as others have mentioned, does override other legislation with these powers that the Minister has to recommend Orders in Council, but the Green Party is satisfied that there are sufficient checks and balances on that power through things like the expert panel, which will review draft Orders in Council and make recommendations on them to the Minister; the fact that the Orders in Council are made public and that local authorities, as a result of the amendments made by the select committee, also have to be made aware and invited to comment; and the fact that there is a report to the House on Orders in Council and that they have a 15-year life before falling into disuse if they are not revoked before that.

So I think the bill shows, once again, the value of legislation going to select committees, even though there was a very truncated and short select committee process. There were a number of submissions that did result in some quite significant changes to the bill, with the changes to the purpose to recognise the contribution that the cathedral makes to the cultural, social, and economic well-being of the city and that its reinstatement will contribute to that well-being, as well as those existing aspects of the purpose around providing greater certainty for both the Christchurch community and the Church Property Trustees.

I think the addition of a map to the bill, making it very clear what the cathedral area involved, was a good addition. The select committee, I think, has done an excellent job, and I join with others in commending this bill to the House and the fact that it marks a significant step forward in the future of our city, given that the cathedral is such a potent symbol for Christchurch, and thinking of what has been achieved at the Christchurch Arts Centre: the huge craftsmanship that has been demonstrated with the restoration of those buildings and how now they ring with a lot of visitors and residents enjoying once more that important aspect of the city’s heritage and the beautiful combination of stone, wood, and large quadrangles that these heritage buildings represent. So it is a very good day for Christ Church Cathedral, and I’m very pleased that this bill is going forward. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m sorry. Stanford—Miss Stanford. Erica—sorry.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): That’s fine. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really happy and proud to take a call on this third reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. Can I just say that although I’ve only just started to be involved in this, it really does just feel like the beginning—the beginning of, hopefully, what is the end of the reinstatement of this historic and beautiful cathedral.

I’m going to keep this short because I’ve said most of what I want to say in the second reading of this bill, but I did want to say that my perspective is somewhat of an outsider. I’m not from Christchurch. I did live there for a while, but my perspective is of an Aucklander, and what I learnt through this process was that this cathedral is so very important to the people of Christchurch. In fact, three days after the earthquake, I flew down to Christchurch and spent some time in Lyttelton shooting a documentary as part of my previous career. Amongst all of the stories, the personal stories that we heard, one of the things that came through from everyone that we spoke to was their feelings of despair at losing their beautiful cathedral. That is what I bring to these procedures.

I have to say that one of the highlights for me from being involved in this was the collaborative process that we had in the Environment Committee—the shared purpose that we had of working together collaboratively to come up with a bill that was fit for purpose and that we felt was going to achieve the purpose of this bill, which is to reinstate this cathedral in a timely manner and a cost-effective manner.

It was really important, as a newbie, to understand the context of this bill and all of the work that went in to getting to the point of where we were at select committee, and that meant understanding, in particular, the Cathedral Working Group’s report and the history of that, and the good-faith negotiations that all of those groups went into to come to agreeing to that really important document, which is why it’s so important that that document is now referred to in this bill. That was the work of the select committee—that we felt that that was such an integral and important document that it needed to be referenced in this bill. I think that will give many parties on all sides of this debate who have vested interests and a great deal of passion around the cathedral some comfort.

I was also really pleased in this bill that we also included the Christchurch City Council in the engagement clause, clause 9. As a regulatory body that will be involved in this process of reinstating the cathedral, the bill beforehand really didn’t require them to be consulted with unless the Minister thought that it was right. The fact that we’ve now put them in there is, I think, a really important step because they are such an important partner in the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral.

I want to thank all the submitters that we heard from. We heard from nine; in between Christchurch and Wellington, we heard from nine. They were all fantastic. They gave us some really constructive criticism, which we listened to very, very carefully and took on board, and I feel that we ended up with a bill that balanced some of those competing views, and we came up with a bill that really is fit for purpose. In fact, those submitters brought forward some ideas that we hadn’t thought of and were particularly insightful. We considered them very, very carefully.

We also, while deliberating, were very conscious of the fact that we were giving incredible powers to a Minister. We knew, through that whole process, that we needed to make sure that there were the appropriate checks and balances, and that was on our minds the entire time, but given that it is such a small geographical space, we felt that the powers that we were giving to the Minister—everything would be fine.

The last thing that I wanted to say—

Hon Ruth Dyson: She’s not the worst Minister. Who’s the worst Minister, again?

ERICA STANFORD: Oh, the worst Minister? We didn’t have a particular Minister in mind; we were imagining one.

I just want to finish by saying that this is indeed a Christmas present for the people of Christchurch, although the kind of Christmas present you get that you open up and find is actually a kitset and it’s going to take 10 years. But I jest. This really is a monumental occasion. It’s fantastic for the people of Christchurch. I cannot wait for the day that I take my children down to Christchurch to show them the new, reinstated cathedral, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill about the cathedral that is in the heart of my electorate, and I look forward in some years to taking Ms Stanford and her children through the cathedral. I’ll happily host her and any of her colleagues at any time.

This building is and will be a magnificent monument in the middle of Christchurch, and I do remember myself looking at it with awe and wonder as a young man, and then taking my own children there and seeing them have the same sense of awe, looking at this Gothic architecture, these huge vaults, and the perhaps somewhat dim but awe-inspiring interior. I remember taking them to the area where one lights candles and, not being particularly religious, having to explain to them what was going on. I thought we would light a candle, explaining to them that it was a prayer candle and what one was supposed to do was to think of someone in need and say a prayer as you light the candle in a symbolic sense. This is a symbol of Christchurch, because it really has represented not only the physical destruction that has blighted Christchurch but also the dissension that has blighted Christchurch. What we’ve seen here is an example of how not to do things, and then a real change in how things can be done.

It is clear that arguing from separate corners gets us nowhere, and trying to solve problems by recourse to the courts alone won’t get us any further. So it’s with a great deal of joy that I see that we’ve managed to move past that, and I do commend all of those involved. Most recently, it’s been the Christchurch City Council, who have made good on their promise, as they must, to contribute to the restoration. I recognise the ratepayers of Christchurch, some of whom won’t like bearing that burden but who will bear the burden of an increased rate to do that. I also recognise the change of direction of the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust, and their willingness to engage in the processes that have been put before them.

Special mention does need to be made of the Church, because it is the Church, or the Church Property Trustees, who own the land, and they have changed their view. They have agreed to do something that was not their first choice, and they have had their property rights altered. I know the synod, and members of it, considered this very, very carefully indeed, and I thank the members of the synod for the considerable time that they spent on this.

Jim Anderton has already been mentioned; our thoughts are with him and the work he’s done on this job, and with the bishop, as well, who has led the Church through this time.

Probably lastly, I recognise the politicians. Nicky Wagner, the former Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, has been instrumental in bringing these people together, and I recognise that, and I recognise that she’s a close neighbour and that she also will enjoy this cathedral. I recognise Megan Woods for her bringing this bill to the House, and also my colleague Deborah Russell, a new MP, who showed real wisdom and care in chairing the Environment Committee. I was very proud to work with her on that—a special mention there.

One thing that will be important is the continued engagement and consultation, because, as has been mentioned, these are special powers, but they will get engagement only if they are carefully consulted on. But, really, what has to happen now is the process itself—the engagement of architects and builders and engineers, but also real artisans. This is a worldwide, exciting project. Stonemasons from around the world want to come here and do this. This will be a magnificent building. I really look forward—this will be much more than just a monument; it will be a meeting place. It will be a marae for Christchurch. It will also be a refuge, a place of silence and solitude, for some. It will also, of course, be a church and place of worship. It won’t happen overnight, but when it does happen, it will become what it once was—a jewel.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call in the third reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. I just want to congratulate again the select committee, the Minister Megan Woods, and the former Minister Nicky Wagner for the work that they’ve done to actually get this bill here today and to get it through for the people of Christchurch.

Regardless of all of the submissions that came in through the Stuff media and people saying they didn’t want it—some wanted it but didn’t want to pay for it etc., etc.—the arguments were debated in many ways within those newspaper articles. So I am really pleased that we’ve got to this point. As the speaker before me, Duncan Webb, just mentioned, we are now ready to move through to the next stage: the hiring of architects. I am sure that, after today, once this bill reaches its Royal assent through the Governor-General’s signature, that side of things will actually start to roll fairly quickly.

I want to extend my thanks to the Christchurch City Council. They have done an amazing job to get to their decision, which they announced last night. Also, to the ratepayers: I mean, it is a little bit more in your rates but everybody—not just yourselves in Christchurch but everybody in Aotearoa New Zealand—is going to enjoy the results of this new church and what it will bring to the city of Christchurch. I for one will be pleased to actually see something go up in that square. After a while, you get a bit sick of driving around just a pile of dirt sitting in the middle. I think it will be in memory of all of those people who did lose their lives. This is a resurrection for the centre of the city.

I won’t take up any more of the House’s time. The committee has done a great job. The contributions here have been very good, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There are three points that I wish to make in the important third reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. The first of those is that I cannot think, in New Zealand, of a more iconic heritage building than the Christ Church Cathedral. It is a building that has stood over the Canterbury Plains for over 140 years as a symbol of Canterbury’s both pride and also prosperity. I think we also need to acknowledge that those crippling photos of the Christ Church Cathedral became symbolic of the tragedy of the 22 February earthquake in 2011. And I think, if we’re honest, its image would have been repeated millions of times around the world as symbolic of that major disaster for New Zealand. That is why the reinstatement of that cathedral is such an important part of the rebuild and the recovery of Christchurch.

For those of us that have travelled to Europe, and you’d go to some of the cathedrals and buildings that were restored after World War II, I do not think any one of those cities would regret either the time or the money that they spent on the repair of those buildings, and I’m sure future generations of both Cantabrians and New Zealanders will feel exactly the same way in future years when the Christ Church Cathedral is reinstated.

The second point I wish to make is about the quite wide-ranging powers that are in this bill that are being vested with Megan Woods as the Minister in charge of the recovery in Christchurch. We on this side of the House are pragmatic. Yes, they allow a Minister to issue Orders in Council that override the Resource Management Act, the Building Act, our Historic Places Act, and many other laws. The only point I would make to members opposite is that I sat in this Parliament and heard my colleague Gerry Brownlee accused of being a Henry VIII, accused of all sorts of sins for identical law, actually, under far more pressing circumstances in the immediate recovery of Christchurch and Canterbury. I am actually proud that Nicky Wagner and the team on this side of the House has not played that game of saying one thing in Government and doing the opposite in Opposition.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Doing the Maharey rule.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have consistently—as my colleague refers to it as the sort of Steve Maharey rule. Actually, National has been consistently—both in Government and in Opposition—pragmatic so as to be as supportive as possible of Christchurch in doing everything possible to recover it. And I do challenge members opposite to reflect on some of the speeches that they gave and the hard time that they gave my colleague Gerry Brownlee when he was doing the right thing for Christchurch in the recovery of that city.

The third point I want to make is actually one of tribute. That is a tribute to the work of actually both Nicky Wagner and Megan Woods for rising above the normal argy-bargy of Parliament and working hard on this outcome. It’s actually really hard to get all the ducks in a row to be able to reinstate the Christ Church Cathedral. There is no magic formula as to how much the church trust itself should pay, how much the ratepayer should pay, and how much the taxpayer should contribute. The pragmatic deal that sits behind this bill, in my view, has occurred only because—whether it has been the diocese property trust, whether it has been the synod of the cathedral, as well as both the former and current Ministers applying pragmatically and being focused on a solution. Yes, there will be those that are frustrated that it’s taken six years to be able to get to this point, to enable a clear plan for the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral, but Parliament should reflect on the fact that it took over 35 years to build the original cathedral and, in the same way, we will get there.

I have one last little plea: there is another gorgeous, beautiful Christ Church Cathedral in New Zealand. It’s actually the second-most visited—prior to the Christchurch cathedral—tourism cathedral in New Zealand and it is in the city of Nelson, which I’m privileged to represent. I do say to the Government that, actually, rather than waiting for the next earthquake and for the next one of our cathedrals to come down, it is far more economic to strengthen our heritage buildings now than to wait for the next quake and the sort of dilemma that we’ve had over the Christ Church Cathedral.

I was pleased to work with my colleague Maggie Barry in establishing a Government fund to assist with the strengthening of those heritage-type buildings. I’d encourage the Government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, in the House, to support that fund and to ensure that we get ahead of the risk, and that for those iconic sorts of buildings like the Christ Church Cathedral, we work with the communities and strengthen them before we get the next earthquake, so that we don’t again face the sort of dilemma that we faced over the cathedral. Again, I commend the Ministers that have been responsible for this bill. We should celebrate this plan to reinstate Christchurch’s cathedral.

Bill read a third time.

Adjournment

Sittings of the House

Standing Orders

Sessional

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 30 January 2018, and that the sitting programme for 2018 be:

January 30 and 31;

February 1, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, and 28;

March 1, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29;

April 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12;

May 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 24;

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

July 3, 4, 5, 24, 25, 26, and 31;

August 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 16;

September 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27;

October 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31;

November 1, 6, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29;

December 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13.

I also move, on behalf of the Hon Chris Hipkins, That the following sessional orders be adopted:

Standing Order 47 is suspended, and the following order is adopted in its place:

47 Appointment of Monday, Friday or Saturday as sitting day

(1) The House may order that a sitting day be held on a Monday, Friday or Saturday.

(2) The Business Committee may—

(a) include a Monday or a Friday in a recommended sitting programme:

(b) determine that a Monday or a Friday is to be a sitting day when determining a variation of the sitting programme.

(3) On a sitting day held on a Monday, a Friday or a Saturday, the sitting hours are as for a Tuesday, unless the House or the Business Committee decides otherwise.

Standing Order 75 applies to any other day appointed by the Business Committee to be a sitting day, unless the Business Committee decides otherwise.

Standing Order 79(a) is suspended, and the following subparagraph is adopted in its place:

(a) that the hours of a specified sitting day be adjusted:

Standing Order 81(4) is suspended, and the following paragraphs are adopted in its place:

(4) After being adopted by the House, the sitting programme operates subject to—

(a) any decision by the House to the contrary:

(b) any variation of the sitting programme determined by the Business Committee under paragraph (5).

(5) The Business Committee may determine that the sitting programme is to be varied by the addition or omission of one or more sitting days.

This is the second adjournment debate this year, but those who keep this place running all year round, let’s be honest, deserve our thanks every single day.

I will start, Mr Speaker, with you. There has been no doubt that there has been a change of tone in this House since your arrival. I’ll admit that there are days where it feels like a tennis match, with the exception that the referee can actually deduct points as they go. But you, Mr Speaker, have chosen to, literally, make this a family-friendly House. That is something to be applauded, and we acknowledge you for that.

We, as a Government, wish to thank and acknowledge the Clerk’s Office, the Hansard Office, the Bills Office, the Table Office, the catering staff, the security team, the messengers, and the Library and IT teams for their tireless patience and for their endless smiles in the face of adversity. I thank all of them, on behalf of this team, for the service that they continue to give this place, and for, quite frankly, the joy that they bring this place when we sometimes lower the tone. I wish, on behalf of our team, that they all have a restful break, free from politics and free from politicians.

I wish to briefly indulge and thank my team: the newly established team in the Prime Minister’s office. This has been a huge transition and they have worked so hard, and I am incredibly grateful for that.

Finally, we are all representatives that sit here from Tuesdays through Thursdays, and while we are here, there are individuals who work in our electorate offices on our behalf on a daily basis. They are us when we are not there. They are the face of our representation when we are not there. Their work is hard, sometimes difficult, and we all, I am sure, owe them a debt of gratitude. I personally wish to thank the team in my office: Barbara and Therese—Therese is on to her second Prime Minister in her service—and I am very, very grateful for the work that they do. I cannot imagine being represented by anyone better.

I can say, from a personal perspective, that I have learnt many, many things in 2017. I have learnt the difference, when plumbing a toilet, between an S trap and a P trap, and why I personally should install neither. I learnt that elections, in this day and age, can be a good, clean contest of ideas, with the exception of a few holes. And I’ve learnt that, in amongst election periods, they are still periods where we are all, ultimately, human. They’re periods that are full of love and hope, and sometimes grief.

I learnt that if you’re ever a deputy to someone like Andrew Little, you should prepare for the unexpected, and possibly run for the hills. And, if you’re a deputy to someone like Andrew Little, you too will get the opportunity to see what an extraordinary man and politician he is—and one of a kind. I acknowledge him.

I learnt that 100 days is not as long as you think. But most of all, I have learnt that, with an amazing team, with a genuine belief that things can and should be better, that with support parties who agree that things in New Zealand can, and should, be better, and with an annoying dose of relentless positivity, when you say “Let’s do this.”, you actually can.

So, what have we done? What have we done over this short period of time since 26 October? What have we managed to do alongside our coalition partner, New Zealand First, and with the support of our confidence and supply partner, the Greens, in that short space of time?

We have increased paid parental leave so that we will see families get 26 weeks with their families to spend more time with baby at the most crucial time in a child’s life. That is something we should all be proud of. We passed the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), which makes sure that Kiwis live in a warm, dry home, and what could be more fundamental and more important than that? Again, Andrew Little—I thank him for the work he did getting that bill ready. We’ve increased student allowances, because it was time to acknowledge that those who are investing in their education deserve the ability to be able to afford to live, and in places like Wellington and Auckland and, in fact, everywhere, it simply wasn’t acceptable to say that roughly $170, on average, was sufficient to do that.

We made the first year of post-secondary education free, and as much as I heard rhetoric from the other side of the House with unambitious statements around why someone who worked in a supermarket wouldn’t be interested in this—well, I can tell you, I worked in a supermarket, and this is exactly the kind of policy I would have wanted a caring, thoughtful Government who invests in its future to think about. This is what this Government has done.

The people who are most likely to access this policy aren’t just school leavers; they’re people who are already in the workforce who may need to retrain. I met one of them not that long ago. I was at a cafe when a woman said to me that next year she was going to go and train to be a primary school teacher, and I thanked her because of the need that we have. I asked her a little bit about her plans: “Have you ever been to university before?” She said, “No.” She said, “One of the reasons I’m going is because of you and your Government.” That is the kind of difference that we want to make. We want this to be a productive economy where we train and invest in our people, and that is what this policy is all about.

Alongside that, we’ve established the Pike River Recovery Agency, because we’ve always believed there was more to be done to support families to see a manned re-entry of Pike River. That is this Government’s ambition.

We started work on addressing our commitments and obligations when it comes to climate change, and Minister James Shaw has done an enormous amount of work to get the Climate Commission, a transition body, ready to go, as well as the consultation on what will be, eventually, our Zero Carbon Act. I implore all members of this House: we’ve given that a long lead time because we hope that that will be legislation that will be supported by every member in this place. I have that same ambition for our child poverty legislation. This is a Government that hopes that we will one day be a country that is world leading because of the standards we set ourselves and measure ourselves against, and report against, to tell New Zealanders how we are progressing. Yes, that means a living standards framework, it means tracking our progress on environmental degradation, and it means reporting on child poverty, and when we do all of those things, I believe we will be the envy of the world.

We delivered the Families Package—384,000 families who will see, on average, an increase in their incomes of $75 a week. That amounts to one of the most significant things, in my mind, that we’ve done in these past weeks: a 48 percent decrease in child poverty once that Families Package is fully in place. Nothing makes me more proud than to see us investing in those who carry our future, and those are our children.

We managed, of course, to today reiterate our plans to ban the mass sale of Housing New Zealand properties. That felt particularly special to me as the leader of the Labour Party, as I stood on the lawn of the home that was built 80 years ago by a Government who knew that housing was the cornerstone, the foundation, of a future for families in their community. While we are dealing with the other side of the House’s legacy—which means we have 5,000 fewer Housing New Zealand houses than when they started—we will turn that around.

We’ve also kicked off a ban of overseas buyers. We’ve kicked off medicinal cannabis legislation and have dumped national standards. We’ve also restarted contributions to the Superannuation Fund. We have done this in 56 days—56 days.

I want to wish everyone in this House a merry Christmas. I want particularly to wish everyone on this side of the House a restful break, because we’ve got a lot of work to do. But to the people of New Zealand: merry, merry Christmas, and I can assure you there’s a lot more to come in the new year.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take part in this adjournment debate—

Hon Chris Hipkins: The collar’s away already.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, yeah, sorry. I’ve got to look the part. But isn’t it good that we can go into Christmas without consultation or a “Christmas commission”. It’s just one of those things that happen, and it’s hard to believe, after listening to this Government, that it’s allowed to happen without the new Labour Government somehow taking credit for it.

Can I thank all of those, though, who have carried us through this year, starting with yourself, Mr Speaker. It’s a welcome change that you’ve decided not to participate in every ruck and stick to reffing. Can I also thank the staff of the Chamber and the messengers, who these days are a great deal younger than they used to be, I’ve noticed, but just as interesting to talk to. All the parliamentary staff who helped with the big shift—the end of a Government and the beginning of a new one is a ruthless process; it all has to happen very quickly, and people who are probably going to lose their jobs are often making the shift. I want to offer them our sincere appreciation for carrying that out with professionalism and so effectively.

Can I, from my former capacity, thank the Diplomatic Protection Squad (DPS). I found myself, actually, on the way to the Chamber here, outside the door without my fob to swipe, and I saw one of the DPS staff over there and I was waiting for him to come and do it for me, but he didn’t do it. But I can let out a secret: I invented the walk-run so that DPS could keep up with me when I went out on exercise.

Can I also thank the cleaners and the security staff, one of whom today was so happy; I said, “How’s it going?”, and he said to me, “I’m living the dream.” How much more positive and enthusiastic can you be than that?

Can I thank all the Parliamentary Service staff and National Party staff who worked so hard and still do, because, much as we’ve moved to Opposition, our MPs continue with their role of representing the community.

Can I also acknowledge our public servants. We’ve come to the end of nine years of competent and successful Government—they’re about to get a taste of the other version—but through that time, and particularly through this election year, there was total professionalism and focus while we as a Government continued energetically and competently up to the day that we lost office.

Can I thank my colleagues and our volunteers for their focus. There hasn’t been a political party who, after nine years of office, has campaigned so vigorously with so many new ideas and such a strong sense of direction about where the country could go, and that is what we carry over into Opposition. And in Opposition, of course, we believe that New Zealand is going in a good direction. It’s confident in the world, it’s got a strong economy, and it’s got strong Government surpluses, and we intend to use our influence to ensure that the Government builds on that strength rather than squandering the opportunity.

I must say, it has been a bit rich sitting here listening to the moral awesomeness and self-congratulation of the Labour Government over the Family Incomes Package when they opposed every single measure that it took to generate the surpluses that they are handing out. That is why they won’t get the credit they expect from the New Zealand public, because the New Zealand public know it’s a bunch of people who found the lolly bag and ran the lolly scramble without having any idea where it came from.

That is the significance of cancelling the tax cuts. It’s not so much the thousand dollars, although that would have made a difference to people on the average wage; and I suppose if we’ve come to Christmas thankyous, thank you to the Labour Government for taking away the thousand dollars, I think, that I was meant to get, and handing our household $6,000, which we didn’t expect, we don’t deserve, and which should be going to other, much more important investment in New Zealand than to the free tertiary year of education, which is soaking up staff out of McDonald’s, which has got 18-year-olds planning their holiday—I’ve heard these conversations myself—and the sheer dumbness of paying for 80,000 people to get it free, and to attract another 2,000 into the tertiary system. But I will say thank you. I will say thank you to the Government for that unexpected gift.

We are in some kind of an alternative universe now, where a billion is half a billion when it comes to trees. When the Minister of Forestry said he thought his relatives should get off the couch, I thought: why is he talking about Kelvin Davis like that? Actually, it is apparent he is spending more time on the couch than his nephews, and when he goes to count the trees he has to subtract all the Christmas trees that I’ve seen around the country. He can’t count those, even if he’s going to count every other tree that everyone else was going to plant anyway.

But Christmas is a time for kindness and generosity. You know, the test of a Government is a small thing. I asked the Prime Minister today whether she would have the kindness and generosity to go and talk to the students of the partnership schools. If you really think young people are at the heart of what you do—you know what I found with young people? You talk to them. Don’t talk to the unions of the adults who look after them. In fact, when talking to their parents you’ll only get half the story. Talk to them. That’s what kindness would be—showing them respect.

And then we hear, “But it’s only 1,000.”—it’s only 1,000 out of the 700,000. Well, I want to say to those young people, I want to wish them the best for Christmas. They were looking forward to the new year with hope and aspiration about the wonderful changes going on in their lives. But what they are now feeling is the lack of kindness, the lack of generosity, the lack of respect from a Government who won’t even address them in the direct way that Kiwis always do when they’ve got something important to say.

I have to say, for me, that has been such a disappointment—to be lectured by Labour about not caring, and then having a Labour Government say, “We won’t talk to the kids.” Well, there’s still an opportunity in the new year. There’s still an opportunity for the Labour Government to identify, and the Prime Minister to identify, with some of the most disadvantaged young people in our country, to turn up and ask them what they think. Let’s not have the media there. Well, they won’t turn up if there’s no media there—photo opportunity. It is just a bit unfortunate that, as we head into Christmas, this Government was unable to find within itself the kindness of reaching out to people who are now confused and disappointed about the policy.

As we head into Christmas, we look forward to 2018. It sure is a big change from being in Government. There’s no doubt about that. We had so much going on that was so positive. In fact, quite a bit of it—the new Government, despite criticising it, is going to pick it up, such as big chunks of the housing policy.

Hon Simon Bridges: You’re just renaming it.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Renaming the housing policy. It’s going to have to use the water quality system and it’s going to have to use social investment, just because these are things that work, including in the areas where the Labour Party thinks they own everything. But, of course, actually, they don’t, because 2018 will be more of exploring what has now become a chasm between intention and reality. We’re finding out, day by day, just how big that gap is. In fact, the gap between intention and reality is almost as big as the gap between New Zealand First and the Greens.

So can I wish everyone in the Chamber a merry Christmas, including the members of the Government. It was one of the most intense campaigns we’ve had, with the greatest public interest I can recall in the nine campaigns that I have been in. It’s actually good for New Zealand that the politicians, for once, showed the public we could debate these things intensely and have a democratic transition and the country can get on with the job.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): As Elvis would say, “Thank you very much.” What a tragedy—that in Mr English’s valedictory speech, he found he has a heart and that he actually cares for New Zealanders. But we want to begin, Mr Speaker, by wishing you the very best for Christmas and the new year, all the parliamentary staff wherever they may work, from Hansard all the way through to the cleaners, the caterers, security, drivers—

Hon Member: Speak clearly, you old fool.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speak clearly? Oh, I say. Who said that? The doozy.

Mr SPEAKER: It’s a member who I would advise not to come back in this year.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To colleagues in New Zealand First, inside and outside of Parliament, we had a really tough year, where the prospects were fantastic and then, all of a sudden, one day they changed and we were fighting for our political lives. Such is politics. But then, after all the votes were counted and negotiations were completed, our party, in the end, decided that the country needed to change course. So thank you for your efforts to make this country a better place.

Now, this is the season of goodwill—lest we forget. [Interruption] I would have thought that Mr Bridges would be the last guy to open his mouth today—the very last guy. Congratulations on being a father for the second time—

Hon Member: Third time.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, third time. The rest of us were out campaigning too hard. We couldn’t leave off for things like that.

In the last election, the National Party made countless promises. As the polls started to change, they got desperate and nearly everything they promised was going to be financed by public-private partnerships. They had no idea about the Dunedin Hospital or Whangarei Boys High School or motorways everywhere. [Interruption] The man that just opened his mouth, the fellow with the $11 billion hole, was probably the biggest cause of National’s demise.

Hon Steven Joyce: Oh rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, not rubbish. There were shortages in the police of 1,000. There were multimillion dollars of debt in the district health boards. Everywhere you looked, there were shortages, and they were making the claim that they were responsible, good fiscal managers.

Hon Member: We were.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, they weren’t. Oh no, they weren’t. They borrowed like there was no tomorrow and they tossed money around, like an eight-armed octopus, to their mates. They borrowed to have tax cuts, and, boy, they’re embittered now that they’re not going to happen next April, because we have better causes, in the interests of equity and fairness, to finance that desperately need our support right now.

Could I just say—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why don’t you take it off the pensioners?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we’re not taking it off the pensioners. Every pensioner out there knows that there’s one Government, this one, that will look after them. Oh yes, they do. I can tell you, I get so much correspondence from people saying to me, “Thank God you guys are back.” Oh, they do. They say it to me everywhere I go. They even want photographs, and autographs, and everything else. I say to them, “Look, we’re just doing what should be done for the people of this country who we respect because they’ve created New Zealand the way it currently is.”

Can I just say that the defence budget, for example, was $20 billion over 20 years, and not one cent ascribed in the last Budget.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, it’s rubbish. That’s your specialty. It is rubbish. It appears as a fiscal risk. That is not budgeting. Sorry, didn’t put any money in. There was a blowout of $154 million on this latest frigate upgrade—$154 million. Did they tell anybody? Not a word. Not a mutter, not a murmur—didn’t say a thing about it. So they deserve to be where they are.

Can I just say this: you know, in foreign affairs, it was chronically underfunded, rundown, aid underfunded, and, when it comes to the racing industry, a report came out today that was a disgrace for a country like ours. Nine years of doing nothing and then emerges case after case of what looks like animal cruelty. They had four Ministers. Not one of them knew the back end of a horse. They knew what came out of it, but they didn’t know how to deal with the problem. It was a shocking report out today, and we’ll fix it up.

They claim to be prudent managers, but, you know, the ASB report out this week says the growth rate was falling to 2.6, the population growth is 2.2, and even this foreign-owned bank is pointing out just how pathetic National were as economic managers—just pathetic.

Hon Steven Joyce: Give it up, Winston. Nobody believes you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I’m not giving it up; I’m giving it over. Their only answer was to go into further and further overseas ownership, and thank God that’s stopped.

A collapse of National’s marketing spin leaves its leader hopelessly exposed. The very worst place to be today is on the front bench of the National Party. Oh, yes. Oh, I can hear the grindstone now. I can see the sparks from the knives being sharpened as we speak—[Interruption] You’d better stay and listen to this. It includes you—probably for the last time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m not going anywhere.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be very remiss of me, as the Minister for Racing, not to offer some odds on the likely leadership of the National Party. So can I start with the first one, that Selwyn MP Amy Adams. She is playing such a long game that it will be all over before she starts. She’s sitting at 30:1. Then we’ve got the favourite from Papakura, Judith Collins. She’s been playing a short game for a long time, so I’ve got her odds at 5:1. Then you’ve got an outsider from Tāmaki, Simon O’Connor, the oldest young man in New Zealand politics. He’s 50:1. Then you’ve got the $154 million deficit Coleman man from Northcote. He has in the past not got out of the gate—the district health board gates, that is—so he’s 100:1. Another outsider is Nick Smith, the member for Nelson, who at least has the virtue of perfectly embodying how old and tired National looks.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Twenty years younger than you, mate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I love having Nick Smith in this House, because he makes me look young.

That only leaves three pretenders. Steven Joyce—won’t make it to the start. His form is terrible. He’s the $11.7 billion fiscal hole. It was all fake news. The election campaign was worse for it, and his leaders were diminished in their deceit for the country, and he will instead follow General Omar Bradley’s advice to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions.

That leaves just two. That leaves just two. George Eliot once said that there were men whose very presence imbues in others deep trust and reverence. The member for Tauranga is not such a man. He is most definitely not such a man. He is a one-lane bridge blocking a highway full of caucus ambition that will particularly run him down if he gets in their road. And you know who’s in his road over there.

Which leaves only one. Given how much the National Party leaves in the tank to the Chinese interests, there’s a real chance that National’s Manchurian candidate, Yang, will steal the leadership odds. I’ve got him up 2:1 to be the next leader of the National Party. [Holds up newspaper] It’s all there, and the reason why, and they won’t respond. It’s sad about that, because a once great party called itself “National” when they understood.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Asian bashing is your specialty.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, it’s not. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and we know what tune National’s calling these days.

Hon Amy Adams: Yeah, and who calls your tune, Winnie? Who’s calling your tune?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, have a look at the electoral returns.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the member and make it clear that he’s got to take particular care when he’s coming close to making suggestions about the responses as a result of financing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was being asked a question, Mr Speaker. If you have a look at the annual returns, which you’ll see very shortly, you’ll see for every dollar we spent on the campaign, the National Party spent 10—spent 10 per vote. That’s my answer, Ms Adams. We don’t get funded like the National Party, and that’s why we are the longest new surviving party since 1916. [Interruption] Aren’t you proud of that? I am.

I want to close—with all the shouting and attention, they’re all buoyed now—but I know deep in their hearts that being on the front bench there is the most dangerous place to be in New Zealand. We’ve got to be safe on our roads, we’ve got to be safe in our beaches and on our land these holidays, but the most dangerous place to be right now is the National Party front bench, because over there they know they can’t win ever with them. Thank you very much.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Well, Mr Speaker, I’ll obviously want to say some things about the commentary just offered to the House by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, but can I begin by wishing you Christmas greetings; all the best for 2018. I’m sure that your early form is going to—I was going to say improve; that’d be inappropriate for me say that—develop over the next year, and, alongside that, our understanding of how you choose for the House to operate, I’m sure, will also develop.

Can I thank the attendants in the House, the Clerk’s Office, and others who make this place work. Can I thank all of those who make the building a pleasant place to work in. Our own staff, some of whom were with us in Government—to all those who were with us when were in the Beehive, thank you and best wishes for the season to them. To those who have come with us over to this side and the new people who have joined us, we also thank you for your effort as well and look forward to working with you throughout the next couple of years.

I think it’s interesting when a Government steps up at a time of an adjournment debate and wants to outline the record that they’ve had, albeit in their short time—in this case—in Government, but can’t do it without being sort of overtly nasty about the way in which they present it. In the end, if you think about the last speech that was just given, not a single mention of a single achievement by that gentleman’s party in coalition Government—not a mention. Not a mention about what is going to happen in the next 12 months, not a mention about anything that has happened in the last three months. That leads us, of course, to the conclusion that it’s all in that secret 33-page document that only he knows about and the Prime Minister knows about and Grant Robertson knows about and any number of other Ministers including Phil Twyford know about.

This is a Government that has a brilliant way of saying to New Zealanders, “We are open, we are transparent, we are listening, we are caring,” and then being absolutely none of those things at all. As you heard outlined by the Rt Hon Bill English, even a simple thing—a simple thing—like talking to children whose opportunity is about to be taken away from them is something the Prime Minister can’t find a few minutes to do.

It was interesting to hear this new term—I think it’s new; we haven’t heard it in the House before—“the living standards framework”. Well, what is a living standards framework going to look like? What do you expect they would measure for those things? Well, is it going to be employment? We heard today that the employment Minister doesn’t even seem to realise that we have the lowest unemployment—the highest level of employment—that this country has seen. No understanding of where the 245,000 jobs came from in the last two years. He said, “Well, it’s through innovation and entrepreneurship and the Government.” Well, it was this side of the House who were in Government, and the entrepreneurship and innovation is not something that we’re seeing the other side of the House demonstrate at all. Every one of the policies that have been brought in so far are old—most of them from last century.

I just want to make the point, when it comes to child poverty, that had that package not gone through this week, on 1 April next year 50,000 young New Zealanders would have been above what is known as the poverty level—50,000 of them. And alongside that, all those working New Zealanders, who contribute to the well-being of this country, would have been $1,000 a year better off. Further, had we gone through with the promise from this side of the House—and everyone knows it could have been delivered—in 2020 another 50,000 young people would have been lifted above that low level. Those are the sorts of things that matter in people’s lives.

But what we got from the Government was this bold claim of 88,000 young people being moved above the poverty line from about 2021—a year after National would have delivered 100,000. But, worse than that, they’ve been told by the officials, who look at all these things, that the actual number is only 12,000 more than what would have happened on 1 April next year—a lousy 12,000 more, three years later than it could have happened. And it won’t take long before that sort of spin that the Government put on it is well exposed by people who are interested in it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is not a leadership bid.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And when we—well, you see, there we have it. The gentleman over there on the far side of the House is calling out, “This is not interesting.” I’ve got to say that when you’re in your advanced years and you are looking at a holiday, and you’re poring through the brochure to work out what you can get off your revised SuperGold card, probably a speech in Parliament isn’t that interesting. But, most certainly, it’s a lot more factually condensed than anything the member offered today.

So, since he’s engaging—since he’s engaging—let’s look at some of what he had to say. Firstly, there was that ridiculous comment about defence being underfunded. The first thing is that if the member likes to look at it, that was, as he said, a 15-year programme. We assume now it’s gone—it’s not going to happen. It was a 15-year programme to replace important assets that the New Zealand Defence Force have on a case by case, business case basis, which is perfectly reasonable. So here’s the question—just give me a nod—will the P-8s be purchased by the Government in the decision next March? [Interruption] No. Ron Mark said, “No.” Ron Mark just said, “No.” They’re gone, because he wants to buy some shonky piece of equipment that’s probably on the second-hand market to ensure that the New Zealand Defence Force remains in the sort of dreadful condition that it’s been in through all the years of previous Governments—mainly, Labour Governments.

Then there is the question—here’s the question: will we be getting the replacements for the armoured vehicles? Doesn’t even know about it—doesn’t even know about it. Doesn’t even know about it.

Oh well, here’s another one. Here’s another one: will we be getting military personnel transport capable of getting people to the Antarctic? [Interruption] What? “Where’s that?”—“Where’s that?” I can’t believe it. The member just asked, “Where is that?” Well, it’s a little distance south from here, but it’s a place New Zealand has huge responsibilities for. That is even more unbelievable than I had thought.

So that whole defence programme—that’s absolutely gone. It’s staggering, because I heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters quoting Omar Bradley. Well, General Omar Bradley was a great soldier. He really was, I suppose, the second in command to Eisenhower during the Second World War in Europe. I wasn’t there at the time; the gentleman probably was. And I’ve got to say—

Hon Ron Mark: You’d never pass the fitness test, Gerry.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, I see—I see. I see. So now Mr Mark wants to tell me I’m not going to pass the fitness test, but we know he’s got the Defence Force taking him through parachuting—yes?—

Hon Ron Mark: I’ve done that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —or they haven’t told you. Well, just make sure they put a pack on your back when you go out the door. The second thing is they want to take him through the obstacle course. They wanted to take him to the rifle range out at—where is it?—the SAS training thing. Unfortunately, when they handed him the gun, he picked it up the wrong way and they had to take it off him in a hurry.

But, getting back to Omar Bradley, he was one of the great leaders, and he would not have countenanced anything that Mr Mark is doing. He will be the first defence Minister to preside over the serious deterioration of New Zealand’s defence capability. I have no doubt about that, and it’s pretty clear from today’s performance in the House that he himself knows that’s going to happen.

We also, of course, look at this programme put together by the Government, and it’s extraordinary that they sort of come in here and say, “Oh look what we’ve been able to do after all this time. Look what you guys didn’t do. Aren’t we wonderful for doing it?” Well, where do they think the cash came from? Where do they think the capacity came from?

Then we look at these extraordinary claims, like from Phil Twyford over here. Let me tell everyone in New Zealand that when this House resumes in February, there will not be one—not one—of the 100,000 houses that Labour intends to build. I don’t doubt we’ll go through most of next year and still not see one of them. The other thing is, when he was saying, “Well, there were 5,000 houses sold.”, he’s got no idea of how many of those houses were put into social housing organisations, which are far more capable of looking after people than the institution that he’s now become the great protector of.

This has been a great year. It’s been a fantastic year. I agree with the Rt Hon Bill English when he said that the transition of Government—while, of course, difficult for this side of the House—was conducted well. It shows what a great country we are. We should all be very proud of that. I wish everybody a very merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Mr Speaker, I wish you and all in this House season’s greetings. For making our work possible in this House, a huge and undying thanks goes to parliamentary staff. To those who clean, who cook, and who keep us safe, and to the librarians, the clerks, and our Green staff, our volunteers, and our champions, I wish you all the joy over these holidays, because that is well earnt.

The adjournment speech is about reflecting on the parliamentary year that’s passed, and for me, that’s about seven weeks long, so I’ll zoom out as I look back to the campaign. It was tough—it was tough for every one of us in it, but undoubtedly also tough for everyone out there. But it was also exhilarating. It was a defining moment for our democracy, which we learnt is alive and well. Then we stopped and learnt about MMP. We learnt to count. We realised we have a beautiful system where every vote counts, and we get to have diversity within our Government. It turns out that if you have a lot of friends in here because you like diversity of thought in your politics, you get to win, and that is how we changed the Government.

Then the real business of MP-ing began, and for me that was quite a gauntlet. It hit me that my portfolios like trade, foreign affairs, and defence meant that I might be in opposition a lot of times in this House, even from inside the Government, and even when everyone else in the House agrees, like on that little issue, that little trade agreement—don’t call it the TPPA. The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) agreement—a rose by any other name—came up for negotiations right around the time I took up the mantle of Green Party trade spokesperson. It got a wee bit lonely in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when we questioned the ministry on that one—the Hon Gerry Brownlee asking how wonderful the trade agreement was before the change of Government, my Labour Party friends asking how wonderful it had become since, and me asking, “But foreign investors can still sue us for law change, right?”

But that is what diversity in Government looks like. That’s what we are proud of on this side of the House. Our identity, each as representatives of different schools of thought, different constituents, makes us stronger.

The CPTPP wasn’t even the first splash of cold water that actually woke me up to this mad world of politics, because the other big global issue that hit New Zealand around the time that I took office was the humanitarian crisis on Manus Island. I got hundreds of messages from people on the island, family members, and activists from around the world, and the full weight of being the refugee MP hit me. The panic hit when I realised that these were our kinds of people. They were political cartoonists, they were activists who had criticised their Governments, and they were members of the rainbow community—gay men running away from the likes of ISIS. Our Government put this on the agenda for talks across the Ditch because friends don’t let friends torture refugees. I got a huge platform to criticise our friends across the Tasman and it felt great.

Apart from these portfolios making me a political minority, I realised that they were also ones that women have rarely held in New Zealand politics. I checked with the Parliamentary Library today and it turns out that women have never been Ministers for trade, for foreign affairs, or for defence here. Only two women have ever been full spokespersons for trade; only two associates for foreign affairs. Never has a woman been defence spokesperson, and now a greenie gets to do it. We need a voice of protest. We need a watchful eye. We need a voice for peace and disarmament with a human rights perspective at that decision-making table. I want to give full credit to the Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, for taking such an inclusive approach with me on this. With our wildly different, but weirdly similar, experiences of Middle Eastern war, I think those meetings are going to be very interesting.

I think in global terms, and I see us in New Zealand as standing as a counterpoint this election to the rise of populism around the world. We got to stand for inclusion, for diversity, for nature, and for fairness this election and I am so proud to represent the Green Party in taking those lines forward on behalf of New Zealand. Those are our values that I’ll be proud to represent going forward. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. So, I’ve heard that these things are supposed to be funny, but the problem is that I’m not. Ha, ha! It doesn’t bode well for my backup dream career of stand-up comedian, but I hadn’t thought that this was something that was incredibly well known until, this morning, I discovered that there was cross-party consensus on the issue at my Education and Workforce Committee, where Marja Lubeck offered to have a secret signal in order to ask my colleagues to laugh at my jokes. But I think that I will leave the puns and humour to the “Minister for Dad Jokes” and co-leader of the Green Party, the Hon James Shaw.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak at this adjournment debate, and it is actually a genuine pleasure to be in the highly privileged position of doing this job. I want to thank voters for turning out and voting for a change of Government. I want to thank everyone and anyone who’s had anything to do with putting the Greens in the position of a Government support partner, and from the bottom of my heart I want to thank the staff who work behind the scenes to make this place function, who work tirelessly to feed us, to organise us, to help us in here look good: the cleaners, the clerks, the cooks, the librarians, security staff, buildings, IT, and the parliamentary tour guides. And I want to shout out as well to the Chamber officers, who have been carefully carting around the babies, who now call this House home, in and out of the place at a compassionate and considered arm’s length. We in the Green Party recognise the mahi of all who work in this House to make it function and we are stoked that it will be recognised with a living wage.

I learnt very quickly that becoming a politician is much like becoming an adult. As a kid, you look at adults and you think that they know the meaning of life, that they have a clue. Then you grow up and you realise that nobody really knows what the heck is going on. I found that becoming a politician is much like that. We’re all simply doing the best that we can with the resources available to us, with both the baggage and the insight that our life experience gives us that we bring to this place.

It’s exactly five weeks since I spoke in this House for the first time, giving my maiden speech. In that time I have inherited a weighty handful of portfolios, debated several times, had my name minted on a little name placard for select committees, and aged what I feel is about a decade. I’ve come to notice that there are a few things that make my party and my colleagues pretty special. Being in the Green Party, it’s frequent to catch oneself doing notoriously Green Party things. Just last week a few members of caucus were in the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s office over the dinner break. We found ourselves eating carrots and hummus and vegan bliss balls—leftovers from the Minister’s meeting with officials that, obviously, we could not let go to waste.

Chris Bishop: Oh, righty-o. What sort of luxury’s this? Largesse, already?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Just as Julie Anne Genter wheeled out a brand-new prized possession.

Chris Bishop: What’s Julie Anne doing?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: It was, of course—I’ll let you know, Chris Bishop—a Shakti acupuncture mat, which we all promptly tried and tested. Another evening, after the House had risen, myself and one Kiritapu Allan found our way to a particular fast food outlet, one of the only things obviously open about 10.30 p.m. on a Tuesday. Where upon my meek order for a side of fries all by themselves, Kiri laughed and discovered, whilst eating her Big Mac, that I was a seemingly very on-brand vegetarian—those East Coasters, Mr Speaker, I’ll tell you. Ha! Then during a poorly timed politics 101 radio segment, with my colleague from the National Party, Hamish Walker, the country overheard the upcoming stops going through my bus’s loudspeaker, offering me the opportunity to extol the virtues and values of a well-resourced, well-connected public transport system. I’ve learnt some EAs manage correspondence, organise diaries, and book travel arrangements. But at noon yesterday, mine could be found in the Bowen House bathrooms meticulously repotting my plants. I could go on.

All of this is the colour and the happiness and the pretty darned unique moments that my friends and whānau in the Greens and in this Parliament give. These kinds of things, I think, are what the spirit of the holidays should be: sharing our humanity and our flaws, building our communities, and having a laugh. It’s not the big stuff or the hard stuff but that transformational change. Ending poverty, serious action on climate change, and cleaning up our rivers, is now not only on the agenda but being legislated, planned for, and worked towards under the instruction of this great new Government.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Astounding forbearance, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call in this adjournment debate—a time to thank all the people that work so hard for us and enable us to do what we do. Before we get there, let’s reflect on a year, and what a year it was—a year full of ups and downs, twists and turns, and campaigns of two halves, both in the nation and, indeed, in that small burg of Ōhāriu, just north of where we sit.

But, you know, coming through the campaign in the last few weeks in particular reminded me of just how glorious Wellington is. We’ve treated MPs from around the country to the very best that New Zealand / Godzone has to offer—the bright blue skies, the sun, the bearing heat. Then, late this morning, as I returned from select committee duty in Auckland, I was reminded of the gentle zephyrs that Wellington has to offer—something like 60 knots from the south. The plane was bucking all over the place—up, down, left and right—and all I could think of was that it’s an absolute joy to live in a city with no air pollution. Of course, Mr Speaker, you would know well from cycling to and from Wainuiōmata that you get a whole lot of extra bang for your workout with those Wellington zephyrs, and the one today will give you a bit of trouble on the way home, I would imagine.

But in reflecting on that campaign, at the national level, we had a campaign of two halves. The second half went fairly well for National. We ended with just under 45 percent of the vote—the largest party in Parliament. Alas, MMP doesn’t quite work that way, so we find ourselves on this side.

In Ōhāriu, it was a campaign of two halves. The first half went the way of MMP campaigns in Ōhāriu for the last 21 years. The second half was a little bit different. I didn’t quite get the result I was looking for, but it was possibly the most exciting 4½ weeks of the three years or so that I’ve been fortunate to be in Parliament.

While going through that campaign and in the weeks since, I have been reminded as I work within the communities of Ōhāriu, dealing with our people, of just the diversity of the people and their backgrounds, their aspirations, their jobs, and their challenges. We have an electorate that is a microcosm of all that New Zealand has to offer. It is, without question, an absolute joy to work with the people in our community and to help, where one can, to support them in whatever their ventures are and what they’re doing, and it serves to remind constantly of the reason we are all here. For if we are here for one thing, it is to do what we can to make the lives of those people better—the people in Ōhāriu, who are just like the people across New Zealand.

Whatever we do, what policies we have, the positions we take, the things we advocate for, the occasional heated arguments that take place in this Chamber—they all serve in the quest to deliver for the people of New Zealand, to support their aspirations, and to give them all hope in their brighter future that there is potential for them, and certainly potential for their children. Every day—every day—in Ōhāriu I’m reminded that that is what I and we are all here for.

It’s an absolute pleasure to serve in this House, and I want to take a moment now to thank all of the people that serve on the precinct to help us do what we do. Whether it’s our office staff, such as my new executive assistant, Sue Locke—a woman of great experience around the business of Parliament. The first thing I did after the election was drive to Tawa and employ Peter Dunne’s long-serving electorate agent Sue Locke, and she’s an absolute godsend of information and connections with our communities. She does a great job for me in my role, just as Gay Ballance does for me in my Johnsonville office.

But they are also supported indirectly by so many other people on the precinct. Whether it’s our security team, which is helping to keep us safe here but also to keep our staff safe in our electorates; our gallery and Chamber staff, who help to make sure that our business is facilitated in this Chamber; the people in Hansard, who are dutifully recording and making sure that we capture accurately what we do; the people across the Parliamentary Service in IT and facilities; human resources—across all of the elements that enable this place to function and enable us to do our jobs, I wish them all a very merry Christmas and give them my very hearty thanks.

To you, Mr Speaker, congratulations, and I look forward to perhaps being told off once or twice. I look forward to our return in late January for another round of this. Thank you.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On the night of 1 August, I sat in my office upstairs here in Parliament House in a complete state of shock and some sense of terror. It was the day on which Andrew Little had resigned as the leader of the Labour Party and Jacinda Ardern had been elected. I want to say, as Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister, did earlier today, what I think was one of the most courageous acts in politics that I have seen, which was Andrew Little deciding to step aside as the leader. It was an extremely difficult decision for him, one I know that he anguished over, and I just want to reiterate what I’ve said before in public, again, that I regard that as one of the most selfless things I’ve seen, and I know that Andrew is going to be a magnificent Cabinet Minister and will show leadership in a way that others haven’t, from that role, in what he did then.

It was also not all that long that night after Jacinda Ardern had given her first press conference in the Legislative Council Chamber, which I think, if anyone ever on any side of the House in politics wants to look at how you handle a pretty difficult situation, Jacinda did a magnificent job that day. As the Prime Minister of New Zealand she has shown what many of us knew for a long time: this was a person of character, of intelligence, of humour, and of deep empathy. To me, they are the characteristics of what makes a great leader in politics, and we are seeing that every single day. I, as someone who has known her as a friend for many, many years, want to say that I am so proud of that and so proud that she is leading our country.

When I was sitting in the office that night on 1 August, I read an article by a journalist that said it was complete madness that the Labour Party had decided to change leaders seven weeks out from the election and it would not be possible for us to win the election from that position, but maybe we might save the—

Hon Member: You didn’t.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —I’ll come to that—we might save the furniture. It got me thinking about a song that I knew, which I like very much, which was Tim Finn’s song “It Couldn’t Be Done”. I played it in the office, and while I was sitting listening to it the Hon Chris Hipkins came into my office and I turned the sound up. There’s a line in the song that says “They said it couldn’t be done, and we had no idea that it couldn’t be done and we needed to find a like-minded someone who had no idea that it couldn’t be done.” Well, the Labour Party was lucky to find two like-minded someones who didn’t believe that it couldn’t be done, and that was the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party.

I want to acknowledge both of those parties for joining in a coalition agreement that does not believe that we should be satisfied with the status quo and does not believe that it can’t be done. In fact, we believe the opposite. We believe that there is so much more that New Zealand can do and that we can do that together. We come from different traditions, but we have a shared belief that this country is a great place and it can be better still. So I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters and all of the members of the New Zealand First caucus for the decision that they made to join in this Government and to the Green Party of Aotearoa for joining along in a confidence and supply agreement to make the big changes that we’ve already heard spoken about by the leaders of both New Zealand First and the Labour Party today.

Someone on the other side interjected just before and said “You didn’t win—you didn’t win the election.” There was, in my mind, the greatest civics education exercise of New Zealand’s life on Facebook: the steak and cheese pie post. I will run through it briefly because I think it’s important to get it on the record of Hansard, and I’m a person who likes the odd steak and cheese pie—too many, I know you think that, Mr Speaker. But the steak and cheese pie theory goes a little bit like this: Bill goes to the shop and there’s one pie left in the shop—steak and cheese—and it costs $5.00. Bill’s got $4.40, so not quite enough to buy the pie. Then Jacinda walks into the shop and she’s got $3.70. She looks around and there’s Winston Peters and he’s got 90c, and he says “I’m going to add that to go towards $4.60.” Then James Shaw arrives and he says, “Well, I’ve got 80c.”, and suddenly Jacinda’s got enough money to buy the steak and cheese pie. Now, Bill’s still in the shop and he looks around and he sees David, but David’s only got 5c, so he can’t help.

Hon Simon Bridges: He hasn’t got that much.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s true, Simon Bridges. He hasn’t even got 5c, but that’s right.

Hon Phil Twyford: He’s got no sense.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: He has no sense at all. So at that point Jacinda and Winston and James can buy the pie. That’s MMP, because you’ve got to work together and you’ve got to have friends.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did I know Grant Robertson would have a pie analogy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: And of course I am going to talk about pies, Simon Bridges. What do you expect? So New Zealanders actually get MMP. They actually understand that it requires to have a majority of the seats in this House, and I am extremely proud as a person who campaigned for MMP in the early 1990s to see a genuinely MMP Government that is working together and cooperating together.

I want to wish everybody who works in this complex a very, very merry Christmas. Every single part of the operation that makes Parliament work is incredible. There are selfless people who work overtime to make sure that we as politicians and MPs can do our jobs. I want to mention just one particular part of that organisation. It’s not one I’ve always been favourable about, and that is the people who work in Copperfields, in the cafeteria. The people themselves are great; the food’s not fantastic.

Hon Simon Bridges: He’s back on food again—he’s back on food again.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s right. Gerry’s not here, Simon. I have to do this. But I want to pay tribute, because tomorrow the staff who work there on behalf of that particular caterer will no longer work there. I want to pay tribute to them. I want to mention Mohammed, who will probably watch this speech on Facebook from Egypt, and I want to wish him all the best for this time of year. But I want to acknowledge those people who, when their job changes, when their employer changes, it’s difficult, and I want to say thank you to all of those people here.

Finally, I want to thank all of the partners, spouses, and significant others, and families of MPs. They do it tough, especially now those of us who’ve had the transition into Government recognise that it’s even tougher for families when people become Ministers. They deserve all of our thanks, and for the next few weeks I hope all of us get to spend time with those people, tell them how much we love them, and enjoy Christmas. Merry Christmas to one and all, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I should start by thanking you for your service in this House towards the end of this year, upholding the rights of minorities—as I asked in the speech to congratulate you on your election. I want to thank all of your staff and the clerks supporting you but also all of the people that make this place tick—the messengers; the Table Office; the Bills Office; the librarians, who are very, very good; security; the caterers, who took up a lot of the previous member’s speech, it seemed; and even the IT department—for keeping this place operational.

I want to thank my colleagues here in Parliament. I want to congratulate the new Government, and I have to say that Grant Robertson is right that the country has had an enormous civics lesson. You need to be able to count to 61 in this place, and it doesn’t necessarily matter how you do it. MMP has been in place for 21 years now, and we have to accept that or change it. Options are there, but those are the only ones we have.

I want to thank my colleagues and erstwhile confidence and supply partners in the National Party, and I think that we should be back if we’re smart, if we’re collegial, and if we’re strategic. Those are the questions that we have to ponder over the summer.

I particularly want to thank the people of the Epsom electorate. It’s a great honour to be elected and sent to this place to represent your neighbours, especially when you have such a fine set of neighbours, as I do, in the Epsom electorate suburbs of Epsom, Mount Eden, Parnell, Remuera, Newmarket, and a lucky section of Greenlane.

I also want to thank those people that helped with the campaign. It’s very humbling to lead a political party campaign. The result is well-known and not something I’d like to dwell on in this stage of the proceedings, but, nevertheless, I’m enormously grateful to all of those people who delivered literally hundreds of thousands of personally addressed direct mail letters up and down this country, who gave hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, who managed our campaign, and who delivered our messages. Those people I am enormously grateful to, and I appreciate all of the confidence that you have shown me in the last few months that we can refloat and make this soufflé rise yet again. Thank you to the board, the members, and the staff of ACT.

I want to thank the people who are in my own parliamentary offices and, in particular, Kristen, Brian, Christina, and Mitchell up in Epsom—thank you very much for the outstanding work that you’ve done serving our community. To my staff both before the election and after the election—such is the way of parliamentary staffing—who have helped me do my job down here in Wellington, thank you very much indeed for all of your help.

I couldn’t help but think as I listened to Jacinda Ardern’s speech that I have a pretty simple message for her: Government is basically a service industry. I hate to tell you this, but you are there to provide a basket of services to New Zealanders, as the Prime Minister said in her address when this Parliament resumed—to provide services together that people can’t provide alone—and the question is whether or not those services are efficient. You can do the marketing—or stardust, as Bill English called it—but you actually have to provide services that work.

It’s not good enough just to take 18 billion bucks—which is the surplus this Government has inherited over the next four years—spray it around, and hope that it’ll work. It’ll make the Government popular for a short period of time. But, as Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem is we eventually run out of other people’s money, and when that happens, people are going to ask: “Do the schools work? Does the Government have a solution to the enormous inequity between Māori and Pasifika and Pakeha and Asians in this country?” It is a national shame, and to close partnership schools for purely ideological reasons without thinking about the impact that is going to have and to remove the only initiative that the Government currently has in the tool box that has been proven to close that gap—that’s not how you run effective services. That’s not how a Government that wants to stay in power after the surplus runs out operates. That is a Government that has lots of marketing, but not enough ideas.

One of the tests of this Government is: can they actually come to a clear conclusion on the future of partnership schools kura hourua? There’s so much contradiction right now. The Prime Minister says that they can continue so long as they teach the curriculum and have registered teachers that are funded at the same rate as State schools. Well, guess what? I can tell the Government, as the person who was involved in designing the legislation five years ago and as the person who was responsible for the policy for the last three years—

Hon Chris Hipkins: He wasn’t even here five years ago.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —that they already do all of those things. They already do all of those things. Chris Hipkins says that I wasn’t here five years ago. Well, Chris Hipkins will learn pretty quickly that if he wants to get things done as a Minister, he should respect his advisers, because they are here and they are part of the work. But maybe Chris Hipkins knows it all and doesn’t need any advice. I don’t know. [Interruption] He says he does. He says he does. Well, we’re going to enjoy watching that particular train wreck from this side of the House. What a disaster. Maybe that explains why—on a serious note—he has given so many mixed messages to a group of people who have given their all to provide better educational opportunities for kids who’ve been missing out. What a shame.

I would also say to members, thank you to the overwhelming majority of you who supported the End of Life Choice Bill at first reading. This is a critical issue. Someone said in the New Zealand Herald today that it is perhaps the last major human rights issue that this country has to debate. So thank you to the people who supported it to first reading. To those who didn’t, I would ask you a simple question. This bill offers you a choice that you may not wish to take. Your morality can be contained in a world where this bill is law. The question is: does your morality require you to deny the choice from others who may not share your particular world view? That’s the question. If members could ruminate on that over the Christmas break, that’s all the present that I ask for.

Hon Phil Twyford: But it’s not just about individual rights.

DAVID SEYMOUR: But I also ask people why they do not take advantage of some of the wonderful policies that are available in the ACT manifesto. Phil Twyford there—I could tell him that if he wants to get houses built, and remember he’s in the service industry, it’s going to involve actually removing the land use restrictions, including the Waitakere Ranges heritage protection area. I hope he’s got in touch with Kathleen and Steve Vitasovich, as he promised. He’s going to have to fund infrastructure better, and he can find the answers to all of that in my wonderful book, Own Your Future. I’ll give it to him as a present. It’s available online, and it has the answers.

I wonder about the recidivism problem that the Government faces. If you’d like to know how it is that you get people to learn to read in prison—well, that’s also in there. We know it’s a good policy, because Bill English started campaigning on it three weeks before the election, so it must be a policy that works. The Government would do well to introduce the idea that if you learn to read in prison, you get out early.

The Government is facing a teacher shortage, again. The ACT manifesto tells the Government how to solve this. You’ve got to make teaching more attractive by moving teachers to the kinds of contracts that most New Zealand professions have, not the kinds of contracts that most watersiders had in the 1950s, and if you do that, you’ll actually find a much broader range of people are attracted to the profession.

This Government faces educational failure and inequity on a vast scale, and I’ve already spoken about it. This Government is going to have to come up with a rational answer about what to do with partnership schools kura hourua, and this Government is going to be judged, apparently, on whether or not it can reduce child poverty—that’s in there too.

But I’m running out of time, so there’s nothing left to do other than to thank all of my colleagues, to wish my colleagues in Parliament and their families a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year, and to say that I can’t wait to see you all back here when the House resumes for 2018. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am so pleased to rise to speak in this adjournment debate for 2017. I’d like to start by reflecting on my last two months as an MP, and to share with this House some of the learnings that I’ve acquired, one of which occurred here in this very Chamber and that was to always know when you are on camera and to keep your reactions in check. Because you never know when you’ll be sitting behind a member who stands up to give a speech, like the one from Kaikōura, to tell you the story about the time he shot a deer through the scrotum. Throughout my orientation period, I was led to believe that there was a certain level of decorum in this House, and maybe there still is. Or maybe, on this occasion, that member just dropped the balls.

One of the things that us new MPs need to get used to is that there is often very mean treatment we get on Twitter. I refer to yesterday’s posts from someone—it’s a group called Let’s meme this—in which they had the gall to call me the member that no one had heard of, from the electorate that no one had heard of. That is absolutely gutting, that sort of attack on credibility and authenticity. The East Coast Bays—for goodness’ sake, that electorate brings you the famous QBE Albany Stadium, the home ground of the mighty Springboks. We have a history of controversy. In 1981, we famously voted in Social Credit for seven years in protest of a 5c bridge toll increase. And, speaking of controversy, and more recently, we brought you Colin Craig, political candidate, poet, and well-known philan—philanthropist. Let the record state that I said “philan-thropist”.

Actually, I and the East Coast Bays got off quite lightly in this mean meme-fest yesterday. My poor colleague Andrew Falloon here was described as “a potato elected by Rangitata”.

Andrew Falloon: I’m very appealing—very appealing.

ERICA STANFORD: He is very appealing, I can vouch for that. The member from Pakuranga was congratulated on being the first foetus elected to Parliament, so I can say that I did get off very lightly. And these are just a selection of some of the awful things that get said on social media that we have to get used to. We have to grow a thick skin and we have to just get over it.

There are some things that I cannot and I will not get over, however, and one of those things is the issue of partnership schools and the fact that this Government is committed to closing them down, despite the rhetoric around “merging” them. I had the great honour of attending a rather special graduation ceremony at Vanguard school, a partnership school in my electorate. What I want to tell you is that it was like a graduation and prize-giving ceremony that I have never been to before. These students who were receiving NCEA levels 1, 2, 3, and university entrance certificates were walking across the stage, they were high-fiving their teachers, they were hugging them and embracing them, there were yells from the crowd from their families and their supporters. It was emotional, it was inspiring, and I was proud of them—they weren’t even my children.

At this point, I would like to admit that I like to think about Kelvin Davis—not all the time, just on certain occasions. In particular, I like to think about those comments that I’m sure we all remember that he made on Q+A about a few National Party MPs in the lead-up to the election. You will all remember those wicked zingers that he dropped—something about the PM being a rock, Judith’s stare, and Simon Bridges’ hair. Just as an aside, who in their right mind would make a joke about Simon Bridges’ hair? Look at that luscious mane; that gloriously thick dark mop with not a hair out of place, gloriously swept back for that perfectly casual look. I digress. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Keep it seemly.

ERICA STANFORD: I digress. Back to my main point, although can I say Mr Bridges’ mane is on-point.

The point that I like to think about is the process that Mr Davis had to go through to come up with these nasty comments. As much as Mr Davis is well-known for his quick wit and comedic abilities, I don’t believe that these comments were off the cuff, and I like to think about the process he had to go through. He had to think about doing it, he had to find a pen and a piece of paper, he had to sit down, he had to jot down some notes, he had to practise it out loud; he had to get his timing right, the delivery perfect. He perhaps practised on a friend. Then he had to find the perfect time to use them—and I reckon that’s about a minimum of an hour’s work.

And can I say that while Mr Davis was spending time doing this, what he wasn’t doing was visiting Vanguard—a charter school in his electorate. He’s been the MP for three long years, and he has never visited them. I’ve been the MP for five minutes and I’ve visited all but two schools in my electorate, and I have visited Vanguard on many occasions. I would like to take this opportunity, as the MP for East Coast Bays, to invite both the Prime Minister and the MP for Te Tai Tokerau to come and visit Vanguard to speak to the students, to hear their stories, to see that these schools are changing lives. If this Government is serious about closing the gap between those students who are achieving and those students who are not, then explain to these students why they are closing their schools. It’s my guess that the PM and Mr Davis will not make the time to visit Vanguard, but I will continue to visit, and I will continue to fight—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask the two relatively senior members to settle down.

ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue to fight for this school and for these children, who, quite frankly, deserve better than this Government—and can I say: merry Christmas, Mr Hipkins.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Well, that member obviously didn’t get the memo about the flight times this evening, so I will try to make this a quality rather than a quantity speech. But what we did learn from that speech, of course, is we know one person who’s going to Simon Bridges’ barbecue this summer. I’m interested to know who else is going to Simon Bridges’ barbecue. Who’s going to be going to Amy Adams’ barbecue, and who’s going to be going to Judith Collins’ dark plotting session—because it couldn’t possibly be a barbecue. That’s the question on everybody’s lips.

Hon Member: It’s over the cauldron—it’s over the cauldron.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It’s the coven—the coven—at Judith Collins’ house. That’s the question on everybody’s lips—the barbecue season ahead for the National Party. And, of course, we are interested to know who’s going to be going to the barbecue at Simon O’Connor’s house. We know Simeon Brown will be the first one along to that one—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Colin Craig.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and Colin Craig will probably be there as well—to set up the new “National Party Friend Party”—

Hon Member: Ah, the breakaway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —the “Breakaway Party”. It was so interesting that they had so many questions about the waka jumping legislation, because once that’s passed they can’t set up a breakaway party, so they’d better get on to it fast.

So a busy barbecue season is ahead for the National Party as we go into summer, and I say good on them—good on them—because, of course, it is time for a brighter, better leader for the National Party. Away with the walk-run, I say. The walk-run must come to an end. It’s time to bring an end to spaghetti on pizza and other ham-fisted and belated and misguided attempts to convince New Zealanders that the misery they experienced after nine years under National actually was them just being in touch with the issues. No, it is definitely time, in the words of one esteemed Radio New Zealand reporter, to kill two peas with one pod. It’s time to see the end of Steven Joyce, the “$11 billion man”, and it’s time to see the end of Bill English as leader—the only leader to lead his party to two successive defeats 15 years apart. So I say good luck to the National Party. Merry Christmas. Enjoy the barbecue season, because it’s going to be a tough time ahead.

I say, there’s been a lot of people who’ve been thanked this afternoon. I want to particularly thank the officials and the ministerial staff who have allowed this Government to get up on its feet as quickly as possible. The things we have achieved in the last eight weeks put the last nine years of National Party Government to shame. It is time for us to go and enjoy a Christmas break under the Christmas coalition of Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First. Merry Christmas, everyone, and God bless the National Party.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s going to be just a short call. The thankyous have all been said, so from you, Mr Speaker, right the way through this precinct, I want to thank everybody, as others have.

I also want to acknowledge the whips who sit with the other parties on the other side of the House. It’s always a pleasure to do business with you in this House as we’re working together.

Now, I just want to say it’s been a bit of a year of occurrences and ups and downs and surprises, but the thing that surprised me the other day—and the thing that I’m so grateful for—was that during the piece of legislation that we were doing around the foreign buyers, I actually saw the Green MPs stand up and want to rush this legislation through so that they could then get on and support the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. So I say thank you to this Government for progressing with the trade agreements that are so important to our rural communities and our wider country. If that’s working together, let that continue. I don’t know how long that’s going to last, but I’m going to make the most of it while it is lasting.

I just want to put a call out for kindness and generosity. We hear a lot—particularly from over on the other side—about being kinder to each other, and I think it’s time that we thought about sensible policy and thought about taking the people with us. We work for the people; we don’t deal it to the people. We’re here at their whim, and we need to respect that.

I often hear a lot of rhetoric—and James Shaw and I have had a number of conversations, and earlier in the year one of the highlights that I had was making a video with James about some of the bullying that was going on in schools around farmers’ children. You know, whatever level it is, that is not OK. Whether it’s in this House or whether it’s at schools, for people who do a particular occupation, it’s not our role to bully people. Everybody wants to do the right thing. They just want to know what the expectations are, how long have they got, what it’s going to cost, and where are the tools, and they will get up and they will get on with it. So it’s about doing the right thing.

I, again, want to thank our families, because they offer a huge amount of support for us in the House, as do the huge number of volunteers, not only within our parties but within our communities. I know that if the volunteers in our communities at midnight tonight switched off and said “We’re not going to do anything for the next month.”, we would have a real problem. So I want to put a shout-out to those people. I hope they have a merry Christmas. A lot of them will be spending their Christmas helping other people, as they do.

I hope that this Christmas spirit that we’re wishing each other today will continue into 2018, because I’m looking forward to it. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Mr Speaker, can I just once again congratulate you on your election as Speaker. Can I wish you a very merry Christmas. Can I wish the Clerk of the House, all of his staff—who I’ve learnt, I think, in Opposition, are so integral to the running of this Parliament—a very wonderful Christmas and holiday break, and all of the parliamentary and Government staff across the parties, and in the National Party, for all their great work.

I want to also single out the Hon Grant Robertson, not for the $60 or $70 a week I’m going to get for my newborn child but actually for the Advent calendar yesterday. I appreciate it. I hope he doesn’t mind me saying that with a beard, he would resemble someone else very prominent at this time of the year, so I probably will be telling my children, this evening when I get back to Tauranga, that that Advent calendar came from Santa Claus.

It’s been a very interesting year. I hope the Hon Chris Hipkins doesn’t mind me saying there have been a few hiccups in the House. I particularly appreciated the way so much legislation—I should say, so much National Party legislation—has been progressed in this House over the course of the end of this year and long may that continue.

Can I also say we’ve had a few other firsts: Ministers filibustering their own bills, and a record set, I believe, on a debatable motion, or a motion without time limit last night. The Hon David Parker, of course, kept that going much longer than necessary, and I thank him for that also.

But I say to this House: I wish you a wonderful Christmas, New Year, and break. Have a great rest. You’re going to need it next year, and we look forward to it. Bring on 2018.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, it is a great privilege to be the second to last speaker in this debate. I’m aware that it is now down to you and me—we are the only things left standing between the House and the Christmas adjournment, so I will keep this very brief, as well.

I’d like to thank Simon Bridges for leaving a few rats and mice on the Order Paper after the election. I think we’ve done quite well in tidying up the mess that they left behind, and I can assure him that there is plenty more coming in the new year that will keep the Opposition very busy.

I do want to, on a very genuine note, extend a vote of thanks to people that we often forget in this House—that is, the families of all members of Parliament, and I’d like to thank Barbara Kuriger for mentioning them in her speech. I think we often forget—well, we don’t forget, but we fail to acknowledge that when we come here to Parliament to do what we do, our families make an enormous sacrifice for that. That is across a number of levels, not just through our absence but through the things that they have to do to assist us to do our jobs. So I want to take a moment to thank all of our families for the enormous sacrifice they make, which allows us to do the jobs that we do.

I’d like to thank all of the parliamentary staff, all of the ministerial staff, all of the departmental staff, and all of the people that make this place and the public sector tick and, again, allow the Government to do what it does and the Opposition to do what it does. I wish everybody a very merry Christmas.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to thank members for their contributions to the debate and to put a few facts on the record before some thanks.

The first is that the House has now sat this year for a little over 454 hours. There have been 71 bills introduced, and 52 have been passed. That is probably as a result of there being quite a few members’ bills that haven’t quite made it. There have been 844 oral questions asked. There have been 20,563 written questions asked. And I want to give a bit of a warning that next year I will be looking to the quality both of the questions and of the answers. I want to indicate to new members that their time for being able to read their speeches has passed. And I want to remind the former Ministers that they have to lose their habits of reading from prepared notes.

I want to thank a number of people. First of all, the Rt Hon David Carter. There was an incredibly smooth transition, and I think it is a credit to our parliamentary system, but also to David, in the way that that transition occurred in our office.

I want to thank my fellow official presiding officers—in particular, the Hon Anne Tolley, Poto Williams, and Adrian Rurawhe. It’s fair to say that you’ve had a bit more of a challenge than I have had, during your times in the Chair.

I want to thank the unofficial presiding officer, Roland Todd, and Carlie Bromley from my office as well. Roland, you appear to be adjusting to me—or I haven’t found out if you haven’t. And Carlie’s certainly adjusting well to the change.

I want to thank David Wilson, Andie Lindsay, and the Clerk’s extensive team, which supports us so well.

To Parliamentary Service, who almost certainly got an unexpected big lump of work two or three months ago, I want to thank them for the enormous efforts that they have put in to what very few of us would have been expecting four or five months ago.

I want to thank the team in and around the House: the Serjeant-at-Arms, messengers, security, the people who staff the phones, who clean and cook for us, those who help with our travel and our research—especially the people in the Library—and all of the people who are employed and, in some cases, volunteer to make this place work.

I want to wish all members a safe and merry Christmas. Have a good rest and come back here next year in good form to stand up for the things that you believe in—unfortunately, it’s not always the same.

Motions agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.