Volume 669 Week 63 - Wednesday 15 December 2010 
Volume 669 Week 63 - Wednesday 15 December 2010 
[Volume:669;Page:16441] 
Wednesday 15 December 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for there to be no general debate today and for the House to sit beyond 6 p.m. to complete the adjournment debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Growth 
1. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress has the Government made this year in laying the foundations for a more ambitious and faster-growing economy? 
 BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have made very considerable progress particularly since ambitious growth for this economy is certainly going to take some time in light of the global financial crisis. Over the last 12 months we have introduced the biggest tax reform in 25 years improved public services by freeing up about $4 billion for front-line services by reducing back-office services and ineffective programmes invested billions of dollars on roads begun the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and a large home insulation package started New Zealand’s first public-private partnerships focused on improving education and skills with the introduction of national standards and brought about the amalgamation of eight councils in Auckland into one council very successfully. 
Amy Adams 
: What impact has the Government had on New Zealand’s national savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Over the last 2 years private savings have lifted but Government savings have fallen. The net effect is that national savings have lifted substantially as witnessed by the improvement in the balance of payments. Looking ahead over the next 3 years the external deficit is likely to increase as the economy improves but it is expected to be at about half or less of the level that it was at in the 5 years prior to 2008. The Government will continue to look for opportunities to reduce its deficits and therefore make more of a positive contribution to national savings. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the main challenges that the Government faces in 2011 and beyond? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are of course many challenges but the Government has picked out a few that it thinks are pretty important. More than 170000 long-term beneficiaries have been on benefits for 5 years or more large numbers of people lack adequate housing and find themselves sitting on waiting lists and thousands of young New Zealanders leave school every year without proper qualifications. And that is after 9 years of a Labour Government that said it would fix all that but instead damaged the economy and made a lot of our social outcomes worse than they had been. 
Amy Adams 
: What can the country expect from the Government in 2011 and beyond? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It can expect the same excellent leadership that it has had from the Prime Minister as well as continued sharp thinking and innovation on how to lift our economic growth rates. The Government will be sticking to its six core areas of economic policy: delivering world-class infrastructure better public services improved regulation better skills and innovation and a growth-friendly tax system. Alongside that it will be confronting the challenge of lifting our national savings rate so that we can reduce our debt to overseas lenders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the public also expect in the next year for him to repay the half a million dollars that he got from pretending to live in Dipton? 
Hon Member 
: No responsibility. No accountability. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to both sides of the House. I was pondering the question that was asked because there are questions around the extent of responsibility. But perhaps I should not be ruling the question out. I am sure the Minister is perfectly capable of handling it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows all those matters including certification by his colleague Margaret Wilson of my living circumstances were dealt with by the Auditor-General. 
Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that by early 2010 New Zealand will be coming out of the recession “reasonably aggressively”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my full quote from March 2009 which is the same one I used yesterday. I enjoy saying it every day that I get the opportunity to: “I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” As I said yesterday those statements have proved to be absolutely entirely 100 percent correct. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for an economy that has stalled for revenue and employment that have not grown by the predictions that were set 6 months ago and for a deficit that has ballooned out of control because of his tax switch which as Fran O’Sullivan said was a fizzer? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If it is a fizzer the member should reverse it. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is right. The only thing the member has decided he will not do any more is the bus. We will not see him on the bus. I will talk about the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update for a moment and pick up on the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion that growth has not been strong. The growth forecast to 2011 is 2.5 percent. What was it in 2009? It was 1.9 percent. What was it when the Government inherited it? It was minus 3.2 percent. What was it a year earlier? It was 2.1 percent. What was it a year before that? It was 1.7 percent. What was it another year earlier than that? It was 2.4 percent. In other words we have to go all the way back to 2004 to get growth like we have had this year. Is it spectacular? No but we are in the middle of a global financial crisis. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition has any comments he should make. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If everything is as rosy as the Prime Minister would have us believe how does he account for the Auckland chamber of commerce survey yesterday of 1000 firms that showed business confidence at the lowest level in a decade? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It reflects the fact that the international situation is difficult. People find that— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Take responsibility. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I always take polls with a grain of salt. The Leader of the Opposition probably should as well. 
Chris Tremain 
: How much is the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update deficit track an improvement on previous forecasts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a good question. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update deficit track shows the Government’s Budget coming back into surplus in 2015-16. That compares with the 2008 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update forecast in which Treasury was expecting a decade of deficits. Members will recall headlines such as this one: “Treasury books ‘sea of red …”. Two months later the updated forecasts were even worse showing never-ending deficits and debt. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 2 long years. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am amazed that the member has made it past question No. 1; it is a miracle for Trevor. The long and short of it is that the deficit is coming under control. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister say 6 months ago that the deficit then was as high as it should be allowed to go as reported in the paper this morning and what excuses does he have for the fact that that deficit is now billions of dollars higher than he said it should be 6 months ago? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Six months ago I did not predict that there would be an earthquake in Canterbury. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon Rodney Hide—[ 
Interruption 
] Members are having a reasonably boisterous day because it is the last day of term as one might say. But there is a limit to how boisterous it should be. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does it concern him— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Let Roger ask the question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Sorry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please take no notice of other members and ask his question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is that an order? Does it concern the Prime Minister that the Labour leader Phil Goff is so bereft of ideas that he is reduced to asking the same question day after day? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all the question is overall out of order. Secondly the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can ask for opinions but the dilemma with this particular question is that it made an assertion that was unreasonable and unfair I think. I have no problem with members asking questions to seek opinions but I think the question was somewhat unfair. I invite the member to reword the question to try to bring it more within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Has any consideration been given by the Government to providing the Opposition with more resources given that the Labour Party is so bereft of ideas that day after day it asks the Prime Minister the same question? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes there has been consideration but one thing I have found with the Leader of the Opposition is that repetition helps him. If he just goes to bed at night saying: “Cunliffe Cunliffe Cunliffe” he will eventually get it right. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the National backbenchers on this occasion that a bit of fun is OK but please—I have called the honourable Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that his tax cuts for the wealthy had no effect on borrowing or on the deficit when Treasury reported yesterday that they had in fact trebled the deficit to over $3 billion? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Leader of the Opposition is completely off-beam there. If one has a look at the April 2009 tax cuts and the 1 October tax cuts and adds them up over the 4-year forecast period one will see that there is a net surplus of $132 million. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has he seen any reports of alternative fiscal strategies? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. In particular I have seen a fiscal strategy that runs a little bit like this. The first part of it is to bring in less revenue by taking GST off fruit and vegetables and by not taking dividends from electricity or State-owned enterprises. However I have to say anecdotally that I asked the fruit and vegetable shopkeeper where I lived what he thought of that. He said he would rather pay three times more GST than have Labour back. That was the first thing he said. The second part of the fiscal strategy was to spend more than the Government is spending on a whole range of things which includes the Superannuation Fund and research and development. The third part is to boast that one is going to pay off debt much faster than the Government is. That makes no sense—that is Phil Goff’s plan. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the fact that although Australia created 54000 new jobs last month alone his gimmicks like the cycleway and the Job Summit have created no jobs at all? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because that is not correct. 
Sue Moroney 
: How will it help New Zealand to come out of the recession when more than 96000 New Zealand families face increased costs for early childhood education of up to $80 per week per child because of his funding cuts to early childhood education? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I refute the assertion that it is 93000 families. Secondly it is an important point for the House to note that there is not less money going into early childhood education; there is more money going into early childhood education—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes there is. Thirdly they cannot have it all ways can they? This Government has maintained entitlements and benefits to New Zealanders. It has had an impact on the deficit that Phil Goff was just moaning about but the new alternative leader of the Labour Party wants to spend more money. 
Sue Moroney 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members that I acknowledge it is the last day of term and it is bound to be a bit noisy but I must be able to hear members. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is he aware then of recently released survey results showing that 90 percent of centres will have to increase their fees to families; and why is his Minister of Education writing to early childhood education facilities advising them that they may wish to consider a new optional charge for 20 hours’ early childhood education? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am aware that the Government is putting more money in early childhood education than any other Government ever has. The only survey I have seen recently is the one that showed Helen Clark going up in the polls and Phil Goff going down. 
Sue Moroney 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear what the member is calling. Is it a supplementary question? 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being called and it will be heard in silence. 
Sue Moroney 
: The question was very straightforward. The Prime Minister failed to address the question of survey results showing that 90 percent of early childhood education centres will have to increase their fees and neither did he comment on the views of his Minister of Education. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member looks back at the primary question she will see that it asked whether he stands by his statement of a certain date that New Zealand will be coming out of the recession reasonably aggressively. The member cannot expect the Prime Minister to have detailed information on early childhood education funding issues given the primary question. The member asked him about a survey and I think the Prime Minister answered about a survey. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an email to the Prime Minister from the Matua Plunket Kindergarten in Tauranga asking the Prime Minister’s advice on how it should deal with the funding cuts that he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I take it a further point of order is being sought—[ 
Interruption 
] Look this is the last day but the member will not—will not—under any circumstance say that sort of interjection. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to make a point of order she should please do it or she will sit. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can I do it in silence as point of orders are supposed to be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that she has one more chance. If she does not come to a point of order immediately she will sit down. I ask members to respect the House and have the point of order heard in silence. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Anne Tolley to the Matua Plunket Kindergarten where she advises the kindergarten to increase an optional charge for early childhood education— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Schools—Reports to Parents 
3. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What feedback has she received about the quality of school reports to parents this year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a lot of positive comments about the changes to school reports this year due to this Government’s national standards. Parents are welcoming the plain language information about the progress of their children and about what they can do to help at home. They tell me that it is a huge improvement on previous years and that they have a much better understanding of how their child is doing in reading writing and maths. 
Allan Peachey 
: What feedback has the Minister received about other information schools are providing to parents with school reports? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have been informed that many schools are including information sheets like the one I am holding from the ministry with their school reports this term. This information contains helpful tips for parents to help their child’s learning over the summer break. Parents wanted better and clearer information. I am proud to say that this Government is delivering for parents and for students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How many communications to her has she read that have described the reports based on the template her ministry has published on her behalf as narrow and shallow? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: A couple of people have talked to me about their unwillingness to use those templates. The advice I have given them is the advice I have given in this House before—actually that is just an indication of what schools might deliver. The really important discussions those schools should be having is with the parents so that they are delivering the information parents want from those schools. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Business Recovery Package 
4. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Is he satisfied that the Canterbury earthquake business support measures undertaken by the Government have worked as intended? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 To the extent that any Government support measures could ever make up for the impact of a global recession and New Zealand’s largest natural disaster yes. But if there are some unintended consequences the member wishes to put in front of me I will certainly consider them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is he satisfied that his package of $600000 made up of 2½ full-time employees and $100000 in cash for business promotion will have any practical effect to help businesses across the Canterbury region when local retailers have predicted as late as today that 20 percent of businesses in Kaiapoi for instance are likely to close as a direct result of the earthquake? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are two points I will make about that. First: yes I am. The money is being administered by authorities that are outside of Government—non-governmental organisations effectively—and I know that they are leveraging that sum against very kind offers from APN and from Fairfax media and that the local authorities are also contributing to it. The important thing for those businesses is to get customers so advertising the fact that they are available to provide services is a very important factor. In the case of Kaiapoi it is estimated that about 80 percent of the space north of the river is likely to be demolished. There is not much a Government can do about that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with his colleague Nicky Wagner who said in an email to Canterbury business person Roger Thomas on 8 December 2010: “Businesses that are struggling need to have a good look at themselves to identify whether it is just the earthquake or whether they are at a stage that they need to do more work on their business model and the earthquake has just brought it to a head earlier than it would normally.” or does he think that those comments are out of touch and rather insulting to business owners struggling in the aftermath of the biggest earthquake in New Zealand’s history? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for what Nicky Wagner might say but the Minister is capable of handling his responsibility. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can sympathise with the member’s concern about businesses that are struggling. He is asking me to comment about that particular exchange without knowing the full exchange. I know the gentleman concerned Roger Thomas. He is a former travel agent—he may still be in that business. There are a number of businesses that are thriving at the present time and there are many that are in some difficulty. I say to the member that no business can ever afford to be static at any time so reconsideration of a business model is something all businesses regularly do. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the email—also to assist the Minister who has not seen it—of Wednesday 8 December 2010 from Nicky Wagner to one Roger Thomas noting that businesses have to have a look at themselves. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that an estimated 30 percent of San Francisco businesses folded after that city’s 1979 quake has the Minister any estimate of Canterbury business closures following the 4 September quake and would 30 percent or more be acceptable to him? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think that anyone could compare the two earthquakes for the simple reason that New Zealand is one of the most highly insured countries in the world. Our uptake of business interruption insurance is very high. That is not the case in San Francisco—I have made checks on that. As to what an acceptable level of business closure is there is no level that would be acceptable in its entirety. But inevitably when there is a disaster there are disastrous consequences for some people. We are trying to mitigate as much as possible against that. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Minister have the Prime Minister’s full support for his portfolio given that Mr Key told the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce shortly after the 4 September quake that the Government would do “whatever it took to assist the region”—a pledge that last week saw the Cabinet reject a modest $4.1 million package sought by the chamber and the Enterprise North Canterbury board to stop Canterbury businesses from bleeding jobs and closing their doors? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The final part of that question is pure supposition on the part of the member; it is unnecessary scaremongering. The Government has put up the money for the reinforcing of those suburbs to ensure that New Zealanders who own those houses—Canterbury residents—do not lose their equity. We have also ensured that there has been no delay to the Earthquake Commission making payments. I ask anyone to tell me whether the $450 million paid into Canterbury substantially for chattel damage is having a positive economic effect. I can quote the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce which is saying that yes it is having a big effect. 
Climate Change Cancun Conference—Agreements 
5. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Will the Cancun agreements achieve the agreed goal of confining global warming to 2 degrees Celsius; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: The Cancun agreements set a goal for long-term temperature stabilisation confining global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. As a result of the Cancun agreements for the first time we now have actions to reduce emissions by all major emitters brought under the UN system. Without that breakthrough any climate deal would be ineffective. So the Cancun agreements have the UN’s climate negotiations back on track. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Accepting that the Cancun agreements are obviously long term in nature does he none the less agree with the independent analysis done by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that the emission reductions agreed to at Cancun will probably result in global warming of 3.2 degrees Celsius? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not actually seen that analysis which the member may be surprised to know. But there are all sorts of estimates by scientists of large increases in sea levels large increases in temperatures and small drops in temperature. We know that the agreements made at Cancun do involve all major emitters and that is a necessary pre-condition for any progress at all. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In the knowledge that there is a range of scientific opinion but that none the less there is a balance of opinion that warming will go beyond 2 degrees and maybe to 3.2 degrees is he aware and is he concerned that warming of 3.2 degrees will result in a high probability of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting and therefore at least a 7-metre rise in sea levels as the centuries go by? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree there are all sorts of doomsday scenarios around climate change. Some of them are credible; some are not so credible. The Cancun process represents a credible attempt by countries that are by and large badly affected by the global financial crisis and therefore pretty aware of the costs of any policy to their populations to do their best to get some common agreement that may allow for reduction in pollution with some effect on global warming. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that the majority of people around the world do not regard the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as a group of doomsday-sayers and given that the Cancun agreement as it stands will not avert such warming will the Government push for a binding commitment to greater emission reductions than is currently the case? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the Government has its own targets that it has set. It has taken part in a very complex multilateral process and I know that the member is well aware of that. I think that everyone has learnt from the excessive optimism of the Copenhagen conference that progress by this means is bound to be slow and I would have to say much less spectacular than the member’s party would wish for. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Indeed I thank the Minister for reminding us about the national targets but is it responsible for his Government in terms of his national targets to offer only a 10 to 20 percent reduction in national emissions by 2020 when the evidence shows that the developed nations need to make 25 to 40 percent cuts in emissions to achieve the agreed 2-degree warming target that he acknowledges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is possible depending on how we measure the target of one country against that of another that on equivalence of effort the New Zealand target is a bigger ask than the targets of a number of other developed countries. As the member knows unless everyone heads in the same direction together the policies that will fulfil those targets will simply shift carbon emissions to countries that are making less of an effort. If going forward together means going more slowly it still will probably make more progress than New Zealand striking out boldly on its own only to see carbon emissions increase in other countries and with no effect on improving global climate. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he think it is going ahead boldly together for New Zealand to propose at Cancun a reference level of emissions from forestry that would result possibly in an increase in our total national emissions by 45 percent during the second commitment period; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand has taken a responsible negotiating position including on forestry. It reflects what we believe is the right balance of our own economic interests and the global interest in managing climate change. This process has a long way to go but we make no apology for taking a balanced position reflecting our economic interests. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that the UN General Assembly agreed 22 years ago in Resolution 43/53 that “climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital interests of all mankind.” is it not time that we actually did something? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I think it might reflect the limits of United Nations - driven idealism which I know is at the heart of the Green Party’s view of the world. But we have often found that United Nations statements do not translate into reality very well. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 1988. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The second document is a briefing paper dated 11 December and published jointly by Climate Analytics the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Ecofys which points out the likely probability of the degrees of global warming and which the Minister said he had not seen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Given the slow progress internationally shown at Cancun and given the global financial crisis will the Government agree to the ACT Party’s request to put on hold the doubling of fuel and electricity price increases and the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I neglected to seek leave to table another email. This one is from Roger Thomas in response to Nicky Wagner’s email. It is dated 8 December 2010 and says: “You must be pleased you are a list member of Parliament as I struggle to see how you could ever be elected”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is interesting here is that the member has used the point of order process to seek leave to table a document to read out an email. I guess it is possible to do that but it is hardly in the spirit of the process of seeking leave to table a document. However leave is sought to table a document that would not otherwise be available. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Medicines—Access 
6. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on improved access to medicines? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Pharmac has released its annual review for 2009-10— 
Hon Member 
: Get your pyjamas off. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is quite smart actually. Pharmac has released its annual review for 2009-10 which shows that spending on subsidised medicines has risen from $653 million to $694 million. That is an increase of over $40 million on the previous year. This increase has allowed 20 new medicines to be funded and access has been widened for 25 others. It is the largest number of investments in medicines since 1999. This means that not only are more people being treated but also we have prevented many illnesses from getting worse. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How many people have benefited from more access to existing and new medicines? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The total $60 million boost to medicines since the change of Government has meant that a quarter of a million more Kiwis are now receiving subsidised medicines that they could not have got 2 years ago. In total 3.2 million New Zealanders received subsidised medicines in the 2009-10 year—the highest number ever. This is yet another example of increased spending in health by the National-led Government delivering more front-line services for New Zealand patients. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he consider that access to one’s husband wife family or friends is also important to overall health outcomes; if so why did he do nothing to stop the closure of the Taihape hospital which caused all the residents to have to move some up to 2 hours away from their family? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to answer the question in so far as it relates to the primary question if he has the information. The primary question asked about what reports he had received on improved access to medicines. The supplementary question did not ask anything about that at all. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether he considered that access to family members was also important to health outcomes—that is in addition to the improved access to medicines that the Minister referred to in answering the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as that part of the question has a linkage I invite the Hon Tony Ryall to answer it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can say that the people of Taihape are receiving a significant number of community services and it was a very unfortunate situation when the company that was running the services put itself into liquidation. But we moved swiftly to ensure that we could maintain and improve the other services that could be provided there. The good news for the people of Taihape is that many of them are benefiting from the extra $60 million that this Government has put into medicines to improve front-line services for New Zealand patients. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What help will access to medicines be to the Campbell family who have moved their 96-year-old father and 93-year-old mother into their own home—they are getting no financial support from the Government—solely so that their father and mother could stay in the district they love? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure that if they were in touch with the Whanganui District Health Board we would be making sure that they got the entitlements they were allowed which I have to say would probably do more for that family than that member’s repeated questions. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he stand by his statement of 19 March last year that access to cancer treatment must be delivered quickly or district health board chairs will be sacked; if so has he reviewed the position of Dr Virginia Hope given that adults in the Capital and Coast District Health Board region are now facing waiting times for chemotherapy treatment of over 8 weeks? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Dr Virginia Hope has been there for about a week. Her appointee Sir John Anderson was chairman in the previous period. 
Pike River Mine Tragedy—Prime Minister’s Statements 
7. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “It’s clearly been a large sum of money. But at the end of the day I gave a commitment to the families at Pike River I’d do everything I could to get their men out I stand by that. I think the Government has done everything it can do so far”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. We are doing everything we can and we will continue to within the constraints of safety. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is the Government doing everything it can to support the families affected by the Pike River disaster economically? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe so. The families who have lost a loved one will of course be eligible for accident compensation. That is a substantial payment to those families. It will not do anything to bring back their loved ones but at least it will give them the comfort and support of knowing that money will be coming into their families. Work is going on to try to help that community. In respect of the other families who are left behind obviously the company has gone into receivership. I understand that the Mayor of Grey District met with the Minister for Economic Development this morning. The last comment I would make is that New Zealanders will be aware that they have given very generously on both a corporate level and a personal level to a fund for the families of the Pike River miners. Obviously I would encourage disbursements to be made from that fund as soon as possible. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What level of support can the Pike River families and the Grey District expect from his Government’s economic recovery package given the precedent set by his $1.5 billion bail-out of family investors in South Canterbury Finance and the $33 million support for Warner Bros films? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I think it is important to understand that the $1.5 billion was to honour a commitment made by the previous Labour Government which he was a Minister of—that is an important point. Secondly in terms of the $33 million for Warner Bros that was to secure 3000 jobs that the Council of Trade Unions and the Labour Party wanted to see leave New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] I am surprised that the Labour members are a bunch of  
Hobbit  
haters but obviously they are. Thirdly we will be working with those families. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the Hon Damien O’Connor. [ 
Interruption 
] I want to hear the Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why is the economic recovery package for the Grey District not being announced until January next year when people who have lost their jobs or been affected by the Pike River disaster need certainty before Christmas? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My understanding is that all of the employees of Pike River Coal will be paid right through to Christmas and that is because they are getting redundancy payments. I do not think that the challenging issue is necessarily that point; it is about future employment from there. The good news as the member will be aware is that the unemployment rate on the West Coast is lower than in other parts of New Zealand; it is about 4.5 percent. The second thing is that I have had advice that the economic implication of the Pike River mine is about $12 million out of about a $600-million economy there so although it obviously has a significant impact on Greymouth there is a lot of activity going on on the West Coast that will help to provide employment opportunities. 
Prisoners Employment Training—Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 
8. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any progress reports on the Government’s Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Over the past year there has been a significant increase in the number of New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications achieved by prisoners. In the last financial year 495 New Zealand Qualifications Authority national certificates were achieved by prisoners. This compares with 275 in the previous year and represents an increase of 80 percent. There was also a big increase in the number of level 3 and level 4 qualifications achieved during the year. The qualifications cover building construction horticulture mechanical engineering and crane operation. These are real qualifications that will help prisoners to find jobs when they are released which means they are less likely to reoffend and end up back in prison. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What progress has been made towards increasing numeracy and literacy education for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The number of prisoners undertaking literacy and numeracy education has increased by 15 percent over the last financial year. The number has grown from 1300 in the 2008-09 year to 1496 in the past year. The department has been able to do this by providing literacy and numeracy tuition as part of prisoner employment training. Last month a further 14 employment instructors gained adult education qualifications which will enable them to provide that tuition. This Government is determined to increase the number of prisoners who can read write and do maths as this will help offenders to get their lives back on track when they leave jail. 
Economic Development Minister—Cabinet Papers Submitted Since July 2010 
9. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How many additional Cabinet papers has he submitted to Cabinet since he told the House in July “In my capacity as Minster for Economic Development I have submitted 14 papers to Cabinet in the last 6 months”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have submitted 11 papers as Minister for Economic Development 18 papers as Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and 20 papers as Minister for Energy and Resources since that time—49 in all. 
Hon David Parker 
: Do any of those papers update Cabinet on the ever-growing wage and salary gap between New Zealand and Australia given that even when using John Key’s massaged purchasing parity figures the wage gap with Australia has risen yet again to total $175 per week for each worker with the gap having widened by $37 per week since the election? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No but I refute those numbers of course. 
Hon David Parker 
: If he refutes those figures on the basis that the Prime Minister previously used is he aware that the alternative and official measure of using the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the official New Zealand figures show that the gap has increased yet again; and will he at least promise the House that by the election next year the gap will be no higher than it was when he took office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Answering the first part of the question—actually I cannot recall the first part of the question so the answer is no. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to restate my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess that is not an unreasonable request since the Minister did not recollect. I ask the Hon David Parker to restate his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is he aware that the official measure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the official New Zealand figures from the quarterly employment survey show that the gap has increased yet again; and will he at least promise that by the next election the gap will be no higher than it was when he took office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is a Government that does not sit around twiddling its thumbs and reading reports from other countries. We are about the business of helping this economy grow. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did any of those Cabinet papers include consideration of milestones for closing the wage gap with Australia; if not is the reason for his continued refusal to give us milestones by which his Government can be judged the same reason that his Government has stopped promising a step change in the New Zealand economy—that is that the Government is so obviously failing on both counts? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: All papers submitted to Cabinet by all Cabinet Ministers are submitted with the intention of making life better in New Zealand for New Zealanders. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing on the basis that the Prime Minister used earlier in the year—purchase price parity—that the wage gap has grown yet again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a second document comparing the Australian official statistics and the New Zealand quarterly employment survey which shows that the gap has grown 37.7 percent since the election. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whose document is this one? 
Hon David Parker 
: It is prepared by the Parliamentary Library comparing Australian and New Zealand statistics. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the nature of that question. I did not want to interrupt because I knew the Minister was more than capable of answering it but the nature of the question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: The nature of the question was: “How many papers had the Minister submitted to Cabinet?”. Then the next question asked: “Did any of these papers cover the wage gap?” and then we had a whole series of supplementary questions that were actually about the wage gap which to my mind amounted to a question without notice. It seems to me Mr Speaker that you might care to reflect on whether it is appropriate that someone asks a question about the number of Cabinet papers and then proceeds to ask a whole series of supplementary questions about what was not in them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point of order the member has raised is a perfectly fair point of order. The member will note though that the Minister’s answers to some of the questions that did not relate directly to the primary question were not very precise. The member asking the question knew better than to seek my help to get a more precise answer when the supplementary questions did not relate closely to the primary question. The Speaker has to assess all of these things on balance and there was no way I would expect the Minister necessarily to give a more comprehensive answer under those circumstances. But the point the member makes is a perfectly reasonable point. 
Rapa Nui / Easter Island Land Protests—Government Position 
10. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What steps has the New Zealand Government taken to denounce the shooting by Chilean forces of indigenous Rapa Nui during an operation to evict them from stolen ancestral lands that they were seeking to reclaim? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The New Zealand Government views with concern reports of clashes between Chilean police and indigenous Polynesian residents of Rapa Nui also known as Easter Island. It is understood that the clashes occurred as the police attempted to remove indigenous protestors from buildings they occupied approximately 3 months ago. The New Zealand Government urges the parties to find a peaceful resolution to this matter and will convey that view to the parties as appropriate. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as endorsed by the Governments of both New Zealand and Chile which states that indigenous peoples have the right to not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories and what steps will he recommend the New Zealand Government take to ensure that the rights of the Maori people of Rapa Nui are properly recognised? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: With regard to the first part of the question the Government’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is well known and is a matter of public record. With regard to the second part of the member’s question the land as I understand it was occupied by protestors because they regard it as ancestral land that was unlawfully taken many years ago. The Government of Chile takes the view that it has acted to try to maintain law and order. I was delighted to see the statement of President Piñera in recent days that he hoped the land claim could be settled in a peaceful and harmonious manner through dialogue. I understand that that sentiment has been reciprocated by some of the protestors and that some progress accordingly is being made. 
Hone Harawira 
: What steps can the Minister take to support the recommendation that the Maori Affairs Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives travel to Rapa Nui to monitor the events there as New Zealand’s way of supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in particular the rights of indigenous peoples to prompt resolution of disputes with States and to effective remedies for all infringements of their rights? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have to confess to the member that I was not previously aware of that recommendation from the Maori Affairs Committee but the Government of course always gives the most serious consideration to representations made by the committee as it will on this occasion. 
Accident Compensation Pre-existing and/or Degenerative Conditions—Coverage 
11. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he have any concerns about the way ACC in general and claims general manager Denise Cosgrove in particular is interpreting ACC legislation regarding personal injury claims which are being declined on the basis of degeneration or pre-existing conditions? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Acting Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No I have no concerns about any individual Accident Compensation Corporation employees. However I have stated my concern as to the number of complaints I am receiving from members of Parliament and the public and I have given ACC very clear instructions that where elective surgery is required as a consequence of accidents it needs to fairly meet those legislative obligations. ACC has commenced an internal review of the decision-making process. This review will include consultation with key external stakeholders and is expected to conclude in March next year. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will claims by specialist orthopaedic surgeons that ACC uses a group of retired or general surgeons to decline claims on the basis of pre-existing conditions or degeneration based on X-ray or scan results only and without ever seeing the patient be part of the ACC review process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not able to give that detail to the member other than to say of course that often clinical judgment is involved. We have gone from a situation where the amount of elective surgery paid for by ACC rose between 2005 and 2009 from $130 million to $240 million and clearly the accident rate did not double in that period. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will the fact that the ACC injury claims of young New Zealanders are being eliminated on the grounds of pre-existing conditions and the claims of older New Zealanders on the grounds of degeneration and the threat this fact poses to the credibility of the accident compensation scheme itself be part of the ACC review process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I know that part of the ACC review process will be reviewing the various trends. I am able to advise the member that 80 percent of such claims are accepted and ACC expects to fund over 37000 elective procedures this year. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will the findings of District Court Judge Beattie that ACC is in a significant number of appeal cases quick to seize on degeneration as a reason to refuse claims his action in quashing ACC’s decision to decline and his awarding of $2500 costs against ACC be part of the internal ACC review process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure a number of factors will be taken into account in the ACC review. The fact that between 2005 and 2009 the cost of elective surgery on ACC increased from $130 million to $240 million should also be taken into account; I think the member would accept that there was not a proportionate increase in accidents during that period. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Given that Denise Cosgrove was one of the people who insisted that ACC was correct when for nearly a year it turned down 90 percent of sexual abuse claims and that the Minister admitted months later that ACC had handled the issue badly will he say in several months’ time that ACC has handled surgery claims badly as well? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a hypothetical question. We need to make sure a review tries to understand why in 2005 we paid about $130 million for elective surgery and 5 years later levy payers were paying $240 million for elective surgery yet the accident rate certainly had not grown by that amount. 
Fisheries Officers—Honorary Fisheries Officers 
12. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: How will fisheries officers be helping to better protect New Zealand’s fisheries this summer? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 This summer while most people are enjoying the Christmas break fisheries officers will be working hard to protect New Zealand fisheries. In particular I would like to acknowledge the now 200 honorary fisheries officers who complement the work of the 150 warranted fisheries officers around the country. These volunteers willingly give up many hours of their spare time to provide a valuable service in protecting our fisheries. New Zealand’s coastline is very long and one can appreciate that it is very remote so the assistance of volunteers is essential for the protection of our fisheries resources. 
Colin King 
: What steps has this Government taken to better protect our fisheries for all New Zealanders? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: This Government is committed to increasing front-line capacity. By June 2011 a record number of 225 honorary fisheries officers will be deployed across the country. Also this month the Ministry of Fisheries opened a new office in Kaikoura with seven staff. For the last two decades the Kaikoura coast has mainly been patrolled by staff travelling all the way from Christchurch Blenheim and Nelson. This new office is a significant boost to the ministry’s presence and capacity in an area where fishing activity is increasing. 
Points of Order 
Credit Contracts (Oppressive Lending Provisions) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Credit Contracts (Oppressive Lending Provisions) Amendment Bill to be set down as a members’ order of the day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These two bills are part of a package of legislative measures giving effect to the Government’s electoral reform commitments. As I have said many times in this House electoral law should be based on a broad consensus so that the rules are enduring and certain across elections. In that sense the most important aspect of the new electoral finance regime has been the process used to construct it. The law also needs to be fair and transparent so the public can have confidence in the integrity of the outcome of elections. In February 2009 the Government repealed the Electoral Finance Act 2007 and replaced it with an interim regime. We then undertook to introduce new laws after a thorough and lengthy consultation process involving all parliamentary parties and the public. Only those proposals that had widespread support would proceed. 
The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill has resulted from the work of many people including those who submitted throughout the consultation process all parties represented in this House through the Electoral Legislation Committee and officials who have worked extremely hard on this particular package. The bill reforms the election advertising and donation rules in the Electoral Act 1993 to provide greater clarity transparency and accountability in election campaigns. Candidates political parties and third-party promoters will better understand their obligations and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role will be made simpler. Additional regulation of third-party promoters is introduced to improve transparency and accountability and to uphold public confidence in the conduct of elections. The bill also makes a number of changes to the donations regime to provide for administrative efficiency and again greater transparency. I am confident that this bill strikes the right balance between participation and fairness. 
The Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill provides a permanent definition of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”. The bill also aligns with the proposed electoral finance rules to ensure that Parliamentary Service funding is not used for election advertising. Together these bills will enhance the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections. 
Finally I thank all parties and the public for their participation and interest in this area and their desire for an enduring legislative framework for electoral finance laws. I commend these bills to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the final reading of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. These bills did not excite the same level of public attention as did the Electoral Referendum Bill. The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill attracted 44 submissions 11 of which were heard by the Electoral Legislation Committee and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill attracted only six submissions four of which were heard by the committee and I guess that is a higher hit rate for those who were heard as opposed to the others. There is a significant reason for that and I will come to that when I speak on the Electoral Referendum Bill. 
I wish to acknowledge the work of the select committee as well as the Minister of Justice has done and in particular I thank Amy Adams for her competency in chairing the committee and her willingness to engage on issues where there was not agreement. There are issues upon which she and I will never agree but I respect her position. The reason I respect her position is that as a result of the discussions we have had I actually understand her position—I do not agree with it but I understand it. I believe that the genuine contest of ideas that often happens behind the closed door of a select committee is something that the public never fully sees or appreciates and I want to put that on the record. 
I also acknowledge the Minister’s willingness to seek a compromise that enabled a consensus to emerge around the most important elements of the legislation. The two parties have both had to give something in order to gain what it was they felt was a priority in reaching that consensus. We will be supporting measures in this legislation that do not form part of Labour policy but they are part of achieving that broad agreement that the Minister spoke of. 
For Labour the important issue was the cap on third-party spending. We believe that without the cap the potential for well-resourced campaigns to exert undue influence or even the perception of undue influence would be damaging to the integrity of our electoral system and run the risk of what I call the Americanisation of New Zealand elections. 
I have spoken on issues through the debate and I will summarise them to remind us why we are having this debate. I will not defend Labour’s attempt to write new rules in the wake of what happened in 2005. Those rules were not durable because there was no attempt to reach consensus or to make compromises. The reason for that was the very uncompromising position of a party that avoided the regulated period to set the scene for one of the most bitter campaigns that I have ever experienced in my then 15 years in politics and that culminated with the unprincipled collusion with a religious sect to help bring down a Government. The irony that the sect does not vote and that it used subterfuge to hide its true identity was not lost on a voting public who would have been unaware of its involvement had it not been exposed prior to the 2005 general election. Trust between the two major parties had already broken down completely when consensus on race issues was finally destroyed with the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard campaign masterminded by John Key’s right-hand man Steven Joyce and the team from Crosby/Textor. The billboards with the photoshopped photographs of the scowling face of then Prime Minister Helen Clark contrasted with the benevolent kindly face of the then Leader of the Opposition Don Brash set the scene for a campaign I would prefer to forget. But it is a campaign that I will always remember in order to remind me of what would have happened if the subterfuge had not been exposed in time. 
This bill will not stop the scene-setting behaviour outside the regulated period but it will stop third parties like the Exclusive Brethren going to the Electoral Commission with a $1.2 million campaign. After finding out that using Don Brash’s photo and promoting him as the next Prime Minister would require the consent of the National Party and that the whole $1.2 million would be charged to the National Party they then changed it to attack Labour Government pamphlets on health and defence and the Greens on drug policy. To know that that religious sect preaches the virtues of integrity but failed to practise them by hiding its true identity with false addresses as it did in that campaign was a revelation of the extent that those extreme right-wing organisations will go to. They will not be allowed to spend $1.2 million in the next campaign as a single entity; $300000 will be the limit and by law we will be entitled to know who they are and where they can be genuinely contacted. 
I hope I never see the likes of the 2005 election campaign again. Let us contest ideas and aspirations let us debate plans and strategies let us engage with the public and with each other with respect for the democratic process and let us never ever allow this place to become subservient to the influence of a well-resourced minority who would never stand for election to serve the public interest but who would only ever seek to exploit a private benefit from the shadows. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and this law does cast light into those shadows and that is why Labour will support its final reading today. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It feels like the end of a long journey standing here to contribute to the third reading debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. It has certainly been a big part of my year’s work and I start this contribution by thanking the Minister of Justice not only for the process he has put up on the reform of electoral finance laws which I think has been an excellent robust transparent and inclusive but also for giving me the opportunity to get involved in the process. It has been something I have very much enjoyed. 
I recognise that I am a new member to the House but I think that gives a perspective in these debates that should not go without inclusion in the argument. It has been very interesting to work with all the members of the Electoral Legislation Committee. I acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel the Hon Pete Hodgson and the Hon Darren Hughes; the members of the committee on my side Paul Quinn Hekia Parata and Chris Tremain; as well as Metiria Turei John Boscawen Rahui Katene Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne. They all were very good to work with. They all came with an open mind and a real understanding that if this was going to be durable solution we had to as far as possible put politics to one side and try to address this bill very much on its merits. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in her contribution we did not always agree—we usually will not and probably my caucus is quite pleased about that; I certainly am—but I think we did get to a very good place and there is no substitute for having people who live and breathe this stuff contributing to the future of it. 
I will make a couple of comments about where we got to on some of these matters. We have gone through them as the bill has progressed through the House on a number of occasions. One thing I will touch on really because it has not had a lot of airtime in this debate is the changes to the advance voting rules. Clearly the bulk of this bill is on electoral finance the regulated period the campaign limits and the disclosure and spending limits which have received most of the airtime. But I think it is worth getting on the record that those changes to the advance voting rules will make the whole process of advance voting a lot easier a lot more inviting and they should we hope lead to a significant increase in participation in the voting process. It has certainly been the recommendation of committees’ inquiries before and I am very pleased to see that we have had the opportunity to make that happen. 
I want to comment on the issue of spending caps. I said in my second reading contribution that my starting position was that I did not see one as being warranted. I did not see it as being a considerable issue in New Zealand but philosophically I have no problem standing here and supporting the position we have now come to. As I have said everyone who undertakes election advertising other than third parties is subject to a cap. 
I go out there spend funds that are my own or are funds I have raised and I am subject to very tight rules on how much I can spend and on what. When the National Party the Labour Party and the Green Party campaign there are very strict rules on what we can spend to ensure that it is a contest of ideas. It seemed to me to be odd to say the least that in a very tightly constrained area a third party could come in and spend at will against us. 
I think it is worth noting for anyone following this that there have always been limits on what third parties can say in positive campaigning by which I mean a bill board that asks the public to vote for a certain party and candidate. It was only ever negative campaigning that was open slather. I have to put on record that the last speaker Lianne Dalziel spoke at some length about the nastiness of negative campaigning but to be really fair about it I have to say it is not a one-sided thing. The 2008 election was a pretty good example of some fairly strong negative campaigning from the Labour Party. But that is a part of it and we can all take the hit and the cut and thrust. But what I do not think was right was that third parties be they unions religious groups business groups or lobby groups could spend at will when the parties and the candidates could not. 
Fundamentally I have no problem supporting a limit. The issue for me was to ensure that the limit was high enough to ensure that every citizen of New Zealand has the chance to engage in this debate in a meaningful way if they want to do so. My own view was that a limit of around $500000 would have been good but a limit of $300000 over 3 months means that we know there is still a significant ability for everyone to engage in the election process and undertake election advertising. There is no limit on discussing the issues. There is no limit on anyone who wants to take a stance on an issue. This limit applies only to the carrying out of election advertising. 
Finally I will touch on disclosure limits. I know that the Greens have expressed their concerns with the small change we made to those. I want to put on record that those limits of $1000 and $10000 before one has to name one’s donor have been in place since 1993 without review. Yes transparency is an important part of the process but so is the right to freedom of association and privacy around donations. 
No one in this country should have to disclose who they support politically. If they want to make a contribution that is not big enough to buy influence then they should have the ability to do that without fear of retribution from people on the other side of the political debate. We have seen that happen often enough to know that it is a real threat and we have to set a balance between the public’s right to know and the donor’s right to support parties of his or her choice. For me we have to ask at what level the balance should swing in favour of disclosure. I personally am of the view that at $1500 and at $15000 we are still very much in favour of transparency over the donor’s right to privacy. I think a small increase is not only warranted but necessary. I am very pleased to support it. 
I conclude by very warmly commending the Electoral (Finance and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill to the House. I hope we have achieved through this process an enduring solution to these difficult matters. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will probably not take my full 10 minutes. I do not want to repeat a lot of stuff that has been said on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill but I want to repeat a little bit which is that the process worked and it need not have. It worked I think for just about everyone. When some minor parties in contributing to this debate say they are very distressed about this or that aspect of the outcome I think they may also say that the process was none the less a valuable one. In respect of the major parties which were the ones that had to put together the deal on third-party expenditure the $300000 figure came about because Labour and National talked to one another. It was a deal from which Labour and National emerged near enough to equally unhappy. That is what negotiation is like. The people who made it happen were the folk on the Electoral Legislation Committee who have been mentioned by Amy Adams as well as the Minister of Justice. 
It need not have happened. It need not have happened because there is an awful lot of bad blood going back to the 2005 election. Lianne Dalziel put that on the record firmly again. I think she did it really well and I am glad she did it but it does not need to be done again by me. I will not do it afresh. What happened is we moved from that point of very serious disagreement over the years to the 2008 legislation being repealed and an interim regime being put in place and now we have the third reading of legislation that will have some durability. So I thank colleagues from other corners of the House including the Minister. 
I am still distressed that and do not easily understand why some of the media think this bill is a bad thing. Some of the media think Simon Power is a disappointment. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s not just relating to this bill; it’s very wide. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister is a modest man. The 
 Listener  
surprises me. I read  
Listener  
editorials. They are usually a good read. I find them informative I find them educational I agree with them more often than I disagree with them but this one I disagreed with. It started off by saying that yes it is true that money can buy elections absolutely it is true. It gave the argument away at the beginning. But it then went on—and I thought it rather specious logic—to suggest that because we would all know who these dastardly people were we the public would rail against their unregulated expenditure and the money would be wasted. That is tantamount to saying that the advertising industry is a joke. The advertising industry probably does not think that is the case. It probably thinks that expenditure on good careful marketing makes a difference to the product being backed. That was none the less the approach taken by the 
 Listener.  
The 
 Listener  
did not submit on the bill. The 
 Listener  
did not appear before the select committee. It did not have to—of course it did not—nor did the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which made similar comments. But I am surprised that they would support a situation in which candidates as Amy Adams has said and parties are rule bound during the regulated period but any other third party seeking to influence the outcome is not similarly regulated. If they want to argue that the figure is wrong that is fine. If they want to argue that some of the other detail in the legislation is wrong that is fine too; I have no doubt that we have not perfected it the first time round. 
But boy we have agreement across the House. The Greens wanted it to be tighter and the ACT Party wanted it to be looser. They will speak for themselves and I acknowledge the different positions they have. But across the two main parties the ones that are called the old parties by the third parties we now have agreement on a regulatory regime for third-party expenditure. What caused that was as Lianne Dalziel pointed out the involvement of the Exclusive Brethren. We had had some third-party involvement in elections before a little bit here a little bit there—nothing too bad. I can remember the SPCA deciding that Michael Laws was a good guy—or something equally unlikely. I think it was in 1987 or 1990—something like that. It was a long time ago. It did not need to be regulated. It was just a bit unusual. But now it is clear that we have reached a point in our history where some regulation is needed. 
That concludes my remarks. I will finish where I began by saying that for me the process has been a very good one and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who took part in it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will start where my colleague Mr Hodgson ended because the process has been a comparatively good one in dealing with quite fractious electoral law matters. 
It seems to me having been involved in the first Electoral Finance Act process a few years ago that this is actually part of the same process and is just unfinished business. If there had been enough time to deal with the issues we raised then—and we dealt with them in a very fractious and combative manner but if we had been allowed to go through the process such that we had a bit more time to then deal with those issues—we would have probably ended up in exactly the same place. When a highly reactive often emotional approach is taken to develop legislation on a very technical and often principled-based issue like electoral law it is a real difficulty to find the best form of electoral law to provide the best protection for the community and for political parties. So in some ways I see this bill as the end result of a process that was really just unfinished business. We would quite likely have ended up here if we had had the time to go through this properly. 
Of course the difficulty was that as Lianne Dalziel explained the 2005 election was a very unusual election in some respects because of the Exclusive Brethren attack. I acknowledge my late colleague Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons who exposed the Exclusive Brethren campaign and the relationship between the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party in that million-dollar campaign. If it had not been for Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons chasing down those people they would not have had their role in the campaign exposed to the extent that it was. That is the history out of which this legislation has been born. It has taken 5 years for us to work through to get reasonable electoral law. 
But the issues are even older than the 2005 election. In 1986 the Royal Commission on the Electoral System said it was not fair if some people in the community used their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who was to govern and what policies were to be pursued. It advised in 1986 that there should be a cap on third parties campaigning in an election. It was 20 years later in 2005 or just after that one of the bigger parties finally saw the validity of that statement—because there was no cap until after 2005. Finally one of the bigger parties saw the validity of that statement because it was subject to a million-dollar uncapped campaign against it. So it was not until it actually felt the pain of that attack that it realised the royal commission had it right. We should have many years before instituted a process of caps on third parties. 
The political consensus we now have which is very good and very valuable that there should be caps on all political players during election campaigns is excellent but it should not have required the 2005 attack campaign to make parties especially National and Labour understand the importance of having electoral law based on sound principles from the start. We had a 20-year gap and the 2005 election before that principle was made apparent to the two older parties. Only then did they feel that they could support what was the only principled and rational change—to have the third-party cap. 
We cannot allow our electoral law to be developed in that kind of way. We should not wait for crises to happen; we should have an electoral law system that is based on principle. A rational approach to a principled and values-based system that supports the public’s right to a fair electoral process has to be the basis of our decisions. Although in the bill we are instituting those caps with a largely across-the-board political consensus which is great we have failed in the bill to apply the same kind of principle or to learn the lesson from 2005 and the 20-year delay in reaching that consensus when it comes to donations and the right of the public to know who is funding political parties. 
This bill makes it easier for political parties to hide from the public those who are giving them money. That is a recipe for corruption. It does not mean that parties are behaving corruptly but it keeps open the door for that possibility. How many more years will we have to wait before some other crisis happens for one of the older parties to understand it is really important that the public know who is giving money to a political party so they can feel confident that no one is giving money to political parties in exchange for policy? That is the inherent evil that we should be trying to prevent. People should not give money in secret to political parties in exchange for policy deals should that political party be successful in an election. 
The public need to know who is funding their political representatives but this legislation will make it much harder for the public to know. That is bad law it is bad principle it is irrational and it fails the test of ensuring that our electoral law is fair and transparent and provides the public with an electoral system in which they can have some faith and confidence that it is fair. So it is just difficult very difficult that in one area we can see that lessons were learnt from the failure to act in the past on a principled basis but at the same time we let the same legislation follow the exact same path of failing to understand that principle in electoral law is absolutely critical. 
The process has been better this time round. We have slightly better law this time round than we did last time and on that basis the Green Party will be supporting the bill. But there remains a genuine and ongoing concern that the bill makes it harder by preventing the public from having the right to know who is funding political parties. That therefore keeps open the door to further corrupt practice in the future and it will require another crisis before we can finally close that door once and for all. Kia ora. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 So far in this debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill we have heard a lot about the issue of spending limits for third parties. I will address that issue in my speech later this afternoon. I also want to focus on the issue of broadcasting limits on television but I will start by addressing the issue of donations and limits on donation disclosure. 
I will comment on the comments that have just been made by Metiria Turei. She said that people should not be able to give money in secret to political parties to get policy in exchange. All I can say to her is that she must have a very poor view of her fellow human beings. She must believe that the only— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: For goodness’ sake! 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No I say that very sincerely. The implication is that the only reason a person would give money to a political party or to a cause is that that person wants something out of it. That is what Metiria Turei is saying. She is saying that people should not be able to give money to political parties to buy policy. 
I have fundraised for a political party over the last 10 years and I would say that the proportion of people who want something in exchange is very very tiny. My experience with human nature is that people who give of their own money and time do it for the community interest and not because of what they can get out of it themselves. 
I find it very interesting that in the last week the candidates in the Auckland mayoral election have disclosed how much money they raised and how much they spent. We now know that the two leading candidates Mr Brown and Mr Banks had trusts set up for them into which donors paid money and then each of those trusts wrote cheques of approximately $500000 to fund those campaigns. There was no transparency which is fine because the ACT Party supports the rights of privacy of those individuals who make donations. 
I relate to the House the comment of David Lewis the spokesperson on behalf of Len Brown. He said of the people who had paid into Len Brown’s trust that the campaign raised money from hundreds of people from across the political spectrum who supported the mayor’s vision. Most wanted anonymity as per the current laws simply because they are private persons with no interest in being in the media. There we are I say to Metiria Turei. Those people supported the vision of the mayor. I suggest to Ms Turei that the people who support the Green Party—and I do not know the financial backers of the Green Party—are perhaps different from the people who back the ACT Party. The people who back the ACT Party support the vision of the ACT Party and I would have thought that the people who fund donate to and work towards the Labour Party would support the Labour Party for its vision and not for what they could get out of it. 
I now come to the issue of third parties. It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel has once again brought to the House the issue of the Brethren campaign in 2005. It is also interesting that that campaign came to the public’s attention. The media ferreted it out. It was known. It may well have had an impact on the election—I suspect it did—but it came without any requirement for disclosure of donations. In actual fact it works when the system is left to work as evident from the fact that the Brethren involvement was reflected in the media. 
It is interesting that Amy Adams acknowledged this afternoon the issue of whether it is philosophically reasonable for a political party or a candidate for election to have a limit on what it can spend while a third party has no limit. She concluded that philosophically she does not have a problem with that. Clearly National does not have a problem with that which is why it is voting for this legislation this afternoon. She said that the limit of $300000 is perhaps too low; she thought that $500000 was more appropriate. In respect of that issue my colleague Hilary Calvert yesterday promoted an amendment to increase that cap to $500000. It is a pity that that amendment was voted down. 
Why would we look to increase that limit? I repeat that each of the major political parties in this House is entitled under this legislation to spend more than $5 million in next year’s election. I repeat that the figure is $5 million. We are restricting the rights of ordinary individuals organisations and associations who want to come together to form a campaign. They can spend no more than $300000 or one-sixteenth of what each of the two major political parties will be entitled to spend in this campaign. I remind the House once again that both Labour and National spent more than $4 million in their campaigns at the last election and under this legislation they will be entitled to spend more than $5.5 million. 
I acknowledge the work of the Electoral Legislation Committee and its chair Amy Adams. As I said earlier in this debate I acknowledge the contributions of Lianne Dalziel and in particular Pete Hodgson whom I got to know better through interacting with him through the work of the committee. 
It interests me that Pete Hodgson referred again to being distressed or surprised that organisations such as the  
New Zealand Listener 
 which he referred to this afternoon and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which 
he referred to in last week’s debate would actually express opposition to a limit. I say to Mr Hodgson that it should not surprise him because they are standing up for the right of New Zealanders to speak out and be involved in an election campaign. 
Mr Hodgson referred to people who do not physically put themselves up for election as the non-participants. That is what he called them. We have 122 successful MPs and probably fewer than 1000 people who physically put their names on a ballot paper but Mr Hodgson referred to other New Zealanders as the non-participants. I say that the people of New Zealand have every right to have a say in how this country is run and to participate. They can participate by being involved in the election campaign of a particular individual or a party. They can throw their weight behind a campaign and deliver brochures and make phone calls or they can form separate lobby organisations. 
There is all manner of third parties. There are trade unions business associations and lobby groups that support a particular cause. I think of the Sensible Sentencing Trust of Family First and of the various trade unions. Each of those organisations should be able put out its case at the 3-yearly general elections. With this bill we are restricting them to spending no more than one-sixteenth of what the two major political parties in this Parliament can spend. Those two parties are using their voting strength to put those restrictions in place. 
It is not the only restriction that the two major political parties impose on the smaller political parties in this House. It might surprise New Zealanders to know that it is illegal for a political party to use its own money to buy broadcasting time. As political parties we cannot go out to the public raise money and buy television advertising. We have a broadcasting allowance. Each of the two major political parties gets $1 million worth of broadcasting time. The smaller parties at the last election—the Greens the Maori Party and New Zealand First—were given just over $240000. The ACT Party was given $100000. We do not have a level playing field. None of the smaller political parties is entitled to go out raise money and try to compete on an equal footing with the major political parties in this Parliament. Once again the ACT Party thinks that is a disgrace. 
Finally I acknowledge that the process adopted by Simon Power was a far far better process than that adopted by his predecessor in the Labour Government. 
The ACT Party will not be voting for this bill; we will vote against it. One of the fundamental reasons we are doing that is that it puts restrictions on freedom of speech which the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the  
New Zealand Listener 
 and most New Zealanders can see. It is a pity that Parliament is going to do that. 
I sadly come back to the comments made by Metiria Turei. How tragic and how sad that a leader of a political party thinks so little of her fellow New Zealanders that she thinks that a party would give money to a cause only because of what they could get out of it. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party is pleased to support the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and in doing so we support the reform of the Electoral Act and the associated guidance it will provide political parties our supporters and parallel campaigners regarding the precious issue of funding for spending on election advertising. The really big question we found missing from the bill and the really big question on our mind is how political parties actually go about raising this funding. If we look at the Maori Party we are expected to do amazing things with five loaves and two fishes. It seems to be the same sort of thing amongst our whanau as well. They are used to doing it that way so we are getting used to doing it that way as well. But that aside we want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power in establishing this legislation and the reforms it makes in relation to going where there is only broad consensus. 
This year there have been a few occasions across the House where consensus has largely been achieved. In particular I think of the tobacco reforms introduced by my colleague Tariana Turia and of the Canterbury earthquake response when parties across the House worked together for the greater good. I have drawn on that precedent in calling for a cross-party accord on child poverty similar in effect to the one on New Zealand superannuation so that members of Parliament can consider policies on children as sacrosanct as policies for older people are. It is a challenge that I hope all members will consider over the summer break. 
In coming back to this bill the Maori Party is confident that it will establish a regime that is fair and transparent for all groups and individuals as is vital for the operation of democracy. The Maori Party supports the range of electoral finance reforms contained in this legislation including a register that is publicly available to record the contributions of third party promoters in terms of their investment in election advertising. We think this will ensure openness and transparency concerning the identities of third party promoters. We have agreed with the proposed increase in the amount of money that parties and candidates can spend on election campaigning and we agreed that it should be set at the rate of inflation for each general election. In the interests of greater transparency for the general public it would however be useful to know why there needs to be twice as much funding available for by-election campaigns. Given the events of yesterday we would recommend such information be circulated before the 5 March by-election in Botany. We believe that these changes ensure that anything spent on behalf of or towards political parties is above board and open. 
The Maori Party has also supported the public’s call for greater transparency in order to desist from the practice of using trusts or lawyers’ accounts to obscure the identity of donors. The Maori Party supports reforms that ensure greater certainty and transparency in the conduct of the electoral process. We were particularly pleased that the reforms remove the requirement for advance voters to make a written declaration before election day. From an administrative point of view this is helpful in removing another layer of costs from the schedule but more important it removes a barrier to participation. We are hopeful that the Maori voting public in particular will be able to take advantage of that mechanism. 
I want to just touch on the move to introduce more certainty to what counts as election advertising by modernising the definition. But we would like to see the issue of unethical advertising addressed in the implementation of the bill. Consider the appalling way in which some parties and advertisers have used Maori as negative fodder during election campaigning. We should never again return to the era when politicians gambled on national identity and threatened the unity that has been so desperately sought by pitching campaigns to create unnatural divisions between iwi and Kiwi. 
Finally although the Maori Party supported the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper keeping broadcasting out of this bill we are disappointed that there is nothing on the agenda signalling the reform of the broadcasting regime that has existed since 1990. Although we can understand that there were widely held views about this we cannot forget the issues that have arisen in the past over varying interpretations of the rules over the broadcasting period. We thank the Minister of Justice for his leadership throughout this bill. We thank the chair of the Electoral Legislation Committee Amy Adams and we also thank all the members on the committee who made this such an interesting and useful way to deal with this issue. We note that there has been cooperation—mostly—right across the House to ensure that this legislation was able to proceed without further delay. 2011 is just around the corner and I have no doubt at all that the drive for an effective efficient and equitable electoral system will continue to remain a priority for all the parties in this House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Electoral Referendum Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Referendum Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill fulfils the Government’s pre-election promise to hold a referendum on MMP. It offers New Zealanders another chance to have their say on the voting system. After five elections under the MMP system National was of the view that it was time for voters to consider whether this system was working for them. The bill provides an indicative referendum on the voting system to be held with the 2011 general election. Voters will be asked whether they would like to keep MMP and if New Zealand were to change to another voting system they will be asked which of the four alternatives they would prefer. 
The alternative voting systems are first past the post preferential voting single transferable vote and supplementary member. If there is a vote to keep MMP the Electoral Commission will review MMP and report on whether any changes to it are necessary or desirable. If voters opt for change this Government is committed to holding a second binding referendum with the 2014 general election. Voters will then be asked to choose between MMP and the most preferred alternative voting system from the first referendum. If the majority of voters prefer the alternative voting system in 2014 then the new system will be implemented in time for the 2017 general election. 
This approach is similar to the staged process made in 1992 and 1993 that resulted in the introduction of MMP for the 1996 general election. This process is lengthy but the alignment of the referenda with general elections is designed to maximise participation from the electorate on such a constitutionally significant issue. There also needs to be sufficient time for public debate and to ensure that the legislative framework for the alternative voting system if required is robust prior to a second referendum. 
Once again I would like to express my appreciation for the work done by the all-party Electoral Legislation Committee. I acknowledge the membership of that committee and the many submitters we had on this bill. I am very grateful for the constructive way in which all parties in the House have approached this matter. That cooperation has been in keeping with the constitutional significance of this legislation which should not be underestimated. As I said in my first reading speech in New Zealand the triennial election of representatives to this House is arguably the most significant constitutional check on executive power. The decision as to how those votes are translated into seats is rightly one for the people to make. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the final reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill on the basis that the legislation has been improved by the select committee process and the input of the more than 1000 people who submitted to the Electoral Legislation Committee especially the 50 or so who submitted in person. Again I place on record that the approach adopted by the chair of the committee Amy Adams and also by the Minister of Justice enabled a compromise to be reached that enabled Labour members to support the bill. With this bill the major sticking point was again the need for a cap on third-party spending believing as we did that without the cap the potential for advertising to distort the effect of the campaign by the well-resourced anti-MMP group which is largely made up of corporates over that of the under-resourced pro-MMP group which is largely made up of community groups was too great. 
I have made much of two issues during the course of the debate. I believe that this referendum is a citizens initiated referendum masquerading as a Government referendum. Secondly I believe that there is a strategy in place to replace MMP with a form of first past the post with 30 supplementary list members who are voted on separately and with a party vote that is proportional only to those 30 members. Part of the strategy is to ignore public demands for changes to some aspects of MMP before subjecting it to a referendum. I am firmly of the view that if the Government truly wanted to test public opinion about MMP it would have allowed that review to precede the first referendum. But it did not allow time for that which makes the need to review MMP post the referendum even more imperative regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. My amendment which was rejected by the Government was designed to achieve that. 
If a second referendum is required—and I doubt that the public will fall for this strategy but just in case they do—then allowing MMP to run up against a brand new purpose-designed system without any review of its flaws would mean that the second referendum would lack integrity. That is why Labour will commit to the review regardless of the outcome of the referendum and if a second referendum is required we will commit to the timetable proposed by this Government and hold it in 2014 but the MMP system that the new system will run up against will have been reviewed so that the public get a real say a real choice. I believe that the Government’s position—that people need to vote on the system they are used to—is spurious because they could also at the same time be voting on a system they have never experienced on the other side of the MMP debate. New Zealanders want us to revisit the thresholds and that we must do. There are other aspects of MMP that must be reviewed. 
So why are we having a referendum on MMP anyway? The announcement was made by John Key at his party conference leading up to the 2008 general election. It was No. 10 on the list of 10 pledges he released that day but I always felt that it was the pledge that certain interests had wanted since the 2005 campaign had gone so horribly wrong for National at the last minute. And this is where there is a link between this bill and the previous bill. Business interests and groups like the Exclusive Brethren had poured millions of dollars into that campaign first through the device of billboards that dominated the landscape from the beginning of the year to avoid the electoral spending caps and to set the scene for a misogynist and racist campaign—remembering of course the “Iwi/Kiwi” slogan and the distorted photographs. National was supposed to win that campaign with Don Brash positioned to deliver to his backers everything they had hoped for: privatisation of our remaining asset base relaxation of the rules on overseas ownership of land making funding from Votes Health Education and Housing currently dedicated to the public systems fully contestable with the private sector— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I am not going to allow a cross-debate to go on while the member is speaking. We tolerate a few interjections but an interchange was going on that was quite separate from the debate. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will just recap on what Don Brash was positioned to deliver: privatisation of our remaining asset base relaxation of the rules on overseas ownership of land making funding from Votes Health Education and Housing currently dedicated to the public systems fully contestable with the private sector a return to market rents for what little remained of the public housing stock and replacing ACC with private insurance. It would have been Ruth Richardson on speed. We can see why National’s backers were appalled by Helen Clark’s ability to put together a series of arrangements that prevented National from taking office and they blamed MMP. 
Roll on John Key in the lead-up to the 2008 election and here is a quote from the coverage of the announcement because I think it speaks volumes about why we are having this referendum: “Mr Key who made the referendum one of 10 election pledges in his speech to National’s annual conference today said he believed voters would reject MMP. ‘I think the country may well vote MMP out but I think they will vote in another proportional system’ he told reporters.”—he knows what is coming—“ ‘I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.’ ”—he knew exactly what was on offer—“But after 12 years of MMP it was important to give voters a choice he said. ‘I do think voters thought they were going to get an opportunity to kick the tyres and we’re giving them that opportunity.’ ” 
That announcement set off alarm bells for me. First there has been a view quite widespread that people were promised a second referendum after MMP had been in for a while. In fact it was a review that was promised and it was promised by a National Government. It was not promised by a Labour Government. It was promised by the party that brought the MMP referendum into effect. That review occurred after the 1999 election when Labour was in Government. It was chaired by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt as the Speaker of the House and all parties were represented on that review. 
Personally I think that approach was inadequate. Personally I think we should have had an independent review of this place take place. I think that would have given us some further grounds for making changes to MMP which I think we could have considered 12 years into the new system. However there were those who continued to make mischief by expressing the view that a second referendum had been promised. Quite frankly if one says things often enough people start to think they were promised something. That is exactly what happened. And guess who did not deliver on this false expectation? Of course it was Labour who did not deliver on it even though we were not the Government at the time the system was changed in the first place. 
So this referendum is not only drawing on that populist view about MMP; it is actually about delivering to National’s backers the opportunity to get rid of MMP altogether and replace it with a system that looks like and sounds like—but is not—proportional representation. I quoted this in the Committee stage but I will quote it again from  
New Zealand Herald  
columnist John Armstrong: “And before anyone mouths the words ‘supplementary member’ let’s beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. No doubt those wanting a return to those dark ages will seductively offer the supplementary member system as a halfway house between [first past the post] and MMP. That system is in part proportional. It might look like a compromise. It is not. It is nothing short of snake oil elixir. Had last year’s election been fought under that system with a Parliament made up of 90 constituent seats and 30 list seats National would have won 67 of them compared with its current 58. That party would have had an absolute majority of 14 seats with just under 45 per cent of the vote. The Greens’ current entitlement of nine seats would have been slashed to just two. So much for proportionality.”. 
We have achieved a limit on expenditure which I hope will limit the ability of the parallel campaigners to distort the truth about the supplementary member system. It is not proportional representation and it is not a halfway house; it is first past the post with a winner’s bonus and it is nothing more. It will do nothing for diversity in this place. It will do nothing to provide a critical check on the unbridled power unleashed by Governments of both colours when absolute majorities were assured. That was what the people of New Zealand voted to reject in 1993 and as long as they are told the truth about what they are being offered they will reject it again. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this third reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I start off by responding to some of what the member who has just resumed her seat Lianne Dalziel has said about it. I think it is only fair to say quite a number of people in New Zealand do not like MMP and thought they were to have another referendum. The fact that those people do not share the views of the Labour Party does not make them somehow part of a nasty political conspiracy. 
In fact I was at a forum the other day on this matter and I was talking to one of the lead campaigners for the campaign for MMP. She was telling the assembled group that she and her mother had had a very interesting debate about this very point. Her mother was staunchly pro - first past the post and had always thought there should have been a second referendum. The campaigner of course took the opposite view and in the great tradition of never discussing sex religion or politics I think things became fairly heated. 
But it is misleading to stand here in this House and try to suggest that there is some sort of nasty hidden political conspiracy because there are people in New Zealand who do not agree with Labour. A lot of people wanted to have a second referendum on MMP; a vast number of people always thought there would be a second referendum on MMP. This Government has always committed to giving the country that referendum. 
I will not stand here and argue about which electoral system is better. The whole purpose of this bill is for New Zealanders to make that decision. Our purpose in putting this bill before the House and the purpose of the Electoral Legislation Committee in its work on it was to make sure that the referendum process was as fair balanced and engaging as it possibly could be and in that respect I think this Parliament will have done an excellent job when it very shortly passes this bill into law. 
I will touch on one other aspect of that: the issue of the campaign spending limits which I also mentioned in the debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. I believe it is important that there are some controls on the ability of parties to wade into this debate. It is important that there are limits on and proportionality between the amount being spent on the public education campaign to ensure New Zealanders are brought up to speed and the amount spent by third parties. 
Finally I touch on this: when we have the debate as a country around which electoral system we prefer I think it is really important that the debate goes beyond simply what the voting system is. The effect of the changes associated with some of these systems touches on matters like the number of electorates we will have in this country. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests to me that the options in this referendum have the potential to give us anything from 30 electorates nationwide through to 120 electorates and that there are a number of stages in between those numbers. That alone is a really interesting debating point. How big should our electorates be? Should they be single-member electorates? Should they be multi-member electorates? How big is too big? How small is too small? I think it is important that when the country starts to think about these issues we realise that the issue is not just a question of how we will vote and how the seats will eventually be divvied up. That is of course an important part of it but I ask members to think through to what a change means to our system of representation and to our roles in this House of Representatives. Whom do we represent and are we able to do that properly? Certainly I will have issues if the electorates continue to get bigger and bigger geographically about how well we can really represent the voices of constituents. 
There are a number of aspects to this debate that I think will make for a very interesting next 12 months or however long the period will be over the teacups and over the roast turkeys. I hope New Zealanders will engage in this debate and leave aside the silly maxim about not discussing religion sex or politics. Those have always been the best three topics of conversation in my view. I hope people will actually start to have these discussions and ask the family over the Christmas table about what they think and what a change will mean. If we get some of the stuff out we might be surprised at how many members of our own families have a different view from ours. I end with one plea: that we respect that everyone will come to this issue with their own views and that we should discuss those views on their merits rather than attacking people who hold opposing views. With those words I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will make a short contribution to the third reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill because my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has done such a splendid job of covering the issues. Her contribution is a hard one to follow actually. I thought however that Amy Adams made some really good remarks. She suggested that we should think beyond the systems we might have or might be choosing between in the future and think about what that means. She gave electorate size as an example which is a really valid reasonable and reasoned point. It is one that of course Maori members of Parliament have been familiar with for more than 100 years. They were limited for that period of time to just four seats irrespective of how many people were on the electoral role. That is what we find if we go back in history. 
In fact if we go back in history—since I have started to do so—we find something else under first past the post. I have been a member of Parliament under first past the post for two terms and this is my fifth term under MMP. But before I was a member of Parliament I was a paid dogsbody for the Labour Party off and on through the 1980s. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Marginal seats. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes! There is a really interesting feature of our history that most people in this House will know but some will not so it is time they caught up. Rob Muldoon who was the Prime Minister of New Zealand from 1975 to 1984 for 9 years—actually for 8½ years because he cut and ran in the middle of 1984—won more votes in only one election which was the 1975 election. He came second in 1978; he came second in 1981. We all remember that Social Credit got 2 percent or 6 percent and then famously in one election got 16 or 17 percent of the vote—21 percent was it? 
Hon Simon Power 
: 21 percent. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do apologise. That figure struck us as the most obnoxious thing about first past the post but there was also the formation of the Government. That towering giant of New Zealand politics managed to win one election in his whole life as Prime Minister. So there you go. 
In respect of supplementary-member representation I simply add to the remarks of the Hon Lianne Dalziel by saying that it is not the same as first past the post; it is just three-quarters of the way towards it. That is kind of the best way to think about supplementary-member representation. I make the point to the House—and it matters—that the Labour Party does not have a position on which system we should have in New Zealand in the future. As individuals Labour members have positions. Lianne Dalziel has given the House the benefit of her position and it seems to me that she will vote for MMP. I will go to the polling booth and do the same thing. It may be that many most or all of my caucus colleagues will do the same but the Labour Party still does not have a position. 
The reason is that it is not OK and I think everyone agrees for a political party to say to the public that it wants to be elected by a particular method. It is a decision for the public. It is appropriate for political parties to argue about what will happen if they are elected—they want to do more of this or less of that—but how they are elected is for the people to decide. For that reason the Labour Party does not have a position on the form of voting and never has had. I think that is probably a position that most parties would hold to though if they do not it is their business. 
With those few remarks I again acknowledge the way in which our Electoral Legislation Committee worked under the amply capable chairpersonship of Amy Adams. I wish for the speedy passage of the legislation. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 A number of interesting and important issues have been raised so far in the debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. Following on from Pete Hodgson’s speech I agree with the analysis of the supplementary member system as described by Lianne Dalziel: it is just first past the post in drag. I think the public will be able to see that easily enough. 
I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with a politician or political party saying which system they think is better. The Green Party makes no apology for saying that it wants to have a system of democratic representation that is as fair as possible for all New Zealanders and that all New Zealanders are entitled to be represented in the House of Representatives. That is after all what it is for. 
We should always strive for the best possible system one that provides the greatest level of fairness and representation. There is no doubt that our current system of MMP provides a much greater level of representation and fairness for a much broader section of our New Zealand community than first past the post ever did. There are people in the House representing views that were never otherwise heard in the House and that is the point of a representative democratic process such as we have in this country. 
It is nothing to be ashamed of and we should always strive to make it better. I agree with Pete Hodgson that it is always a decision of the citizens as to which system they use. We use the referendum system so citizens can make that decision and rightly so—it is a decision that belongs to them and them alone. 
It is very important to talk about the different kinds of systems that are possible for the management of a democratic process such as we have in this country and to analyse them on the basis of their ability to provide fair and genuine representation for all voices in the community: not just the wealthy; not just the property owners as was the case in the past; and not just those who are privileged and have access to people with power but all of those who have been marginalised in the past by the systems of power we have by the elite and by the influence of wealth on our political system. 
The people who have been most marginalised—whether it is women Maori young people or people who have a different analysis of power—are all entitled to representation here as well and there is no doubt that MMP has provided that representation. We see that by looking at those sitting in the Chamber as we speak. There are more Maori in the Chamber there are more women in the Chamber and there are younger people in the Chamber specifically because we have an electoral system—MMP—that provides for a much greater level of representation for all communities. That is a good thing. We must protect that and continually strive for it. 
We are pleased with a number of very good things in this legislation which sets up the referendum to look at our electoral system in 2011. The caps on spending that apply to electoral finance have been applied here as well. All the political players in the referendum debate will have a cap on their spending to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone involved and that is good. We do not want money to be the major influence on how citizens decide their political system will be managed. It is very good that we have the spending cap. 
I will raise one query around the decision to have the referendum at this time. Amy Adams raised a number of issues about the size of electorates for example and a whole lot of subsidiary issues that sit around the kind of electoral system that we might have. I note that a constitutional review has just been announced by National and the Maori Party as part of their confidence and supply deal. The constitutional review covers a range of matters from matters that are as significant and deep as the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our constitutional arrangements which really is the first question to operational matters like how many MPs there should be. 
The breadth of the review is such that it makes one wonder why we would have a referendum on MMP in the middle quite separate from that discussion. If we will be talking about how we should be governed and asking citizens to discuss and make decisions about how we should be governed and all the different aspects of that—what value is set for how we should be governed what the principles are by which we should be governed how we should structure the process for governance who should be part of that process who should make the decisions what the constraints are and all of those things—then surely the electoral system is part of that discussion. 
To have these two very different processes occur at the same time does not make any sense from the point of view of having a rational discussion about our constitutional arrangements. It is a disappointment. By splitting out MMP in a referendum at this early stage we are predetermining what will happen with our electoral system while at the same time we are asking the public to discuss that very issue in a completely different forum. It does not make any sense from a practical point of view. We want the public to have a broad discussion about these issues yet they have been separated out structurally. It is not a good way to go about it so I am disappointed. 
I am disappointed that in the deal between National and the Maori Party they were not able to see that these issues fit together and that they should have been dealt with in a more consistent and systematic way so we could provide a system for the public to have that discussion in a very a systematic way with the greatest level of support. I think that was a missed opportunity and will continue to be a missed opportunity over the next few years. 
Overall the Green Party supports this legislation. I reiterate that it is absolutely the right of citizens to make decisions about the electoral system they use to elect those who will govern on their behalf. We look forward to that process. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill which we understand will go through unanimously in the House later this afternoon but we do so with some reservations. Once again we have a problem with the fact that people who want to be involved in the election are being limited to spending $300000. Far from informing people we are actually restricting the rights of New Zealanders who want to participate in this referendum to inform and lobby their fellow citizens. 
It has been quite interesting to listen to the last three or four speakers. We heard from Lianne Dalziel a clear personal support for MMP and a criticism of the supplementary-member representation system. It is interesting that the Hon Pete Hodgson drew the conclusion that Lianne Dalziel was personally supporting MMP. He made the comment that Labour has never supported a political system but that it has always believed it was the right of the people to decide on what political system politicians should be elected under and that it is simply not the role of Labour to be advising lobbying or campaigning for one system over the other. 
It is very interesting to compare that approach with the approach of the Green Party. Metiria Turei said that the Greens think it is very very right for the Green Party to get out there and promote one political system over the other. Of course the Green Party owes its existence in this Parliament purely and simply to the MMP system as I do myself. I am a list MP here and I am here as a consequence of MMP and of course Green Party MPs are elected entirely under the MMP system. But in outlining the case for MMP in the way that Metiria Turei did she showed New Zealanders why we should not have restrictions on third-party participation. As a member of Parliament she can use this venue and she can use the media coverage that she attracts as co-leader of the Green Party to put the case for MMP. She can do that entirely free of charge. There is no cost to her in standing up in Parliament this afternoon and putting the case for MMP and having journalists and New Zealanders around the country listening to this broadcast on television and actually hearing that case. Metiria Turei says that by putting a cap on expenditure we are ensuring a level playing field but we are doing exactly the opposite. We are not ensuring a level playing field. What about people who support first past the post? Where are they in Parliament this afternoon? From where are they getting the free publicity that Metiria Turei has received this afternoon? The Green Party owes its existence to MMP. It has clearly signalled that it will campaign strongly for MMP. It will be required under the rules of the referendum to register and to spend no more than $300000 on advertisements. But it will have an advantage that is not available to other New Zealanders who want to form themselves into groups to support or oppose one of the four different types of electoral systems. The Green Party will have that advantage. 
Interestingly Lianne Dalziel quoted the Prime Minister John Key as perhaps suggesting we should be moving in the direction of the supplementary-member representation system. That is also free publicity that he gets as a Prime Minister. 
The ACT Party is voting for this legislation. We think the public of New Zealand deserve to have the right to have a say on the way that politicians are elected and the way that this country is governed. But we would much prefer that there are no restrictions which would enable New Zealanders to form lobby groups and support groups or whatever to get out there to get involved and to try to inform their fellow New Zealanders about the different options and promote any particular option that those support groups wanted. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand today and speak in the third reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I state from the outset that the Maori Party does not consider referenda to be an effective form of gauging Maori views. There is a huge body of evidence about the tyranny of the majority which I merely point to as being inconsistent with the partnership envisaged in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
We cannot separate out the issue of participation in referenda from the wider analysis of Maori representation in the political process. The Maori Party believes that Maori should be fairly and effectively represented in Parliament in a way that reflects their place as the Treaty partner. The voting system should contribute towards the same. We have considerably more confidence in the capacity of MMP to do that than any other forms of voting systems including first past the post—especially first past the post. 
In a report prepared for the Electoral Commission in May 2007 it was noted that the introduction of the proportional representation - based mixed member proportional electoral system has brought about increased participation by Maori in the political system and increased competition for the Maori vote. We welcome that increased hunger for political representation as a sign of a healthy democracy. 
Recently I was privileged to represent the New Zealand Parliament at a conference organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations Development Programme on parliaments indigenous peoples and minorities and effective participation in politics. That was a very interesting conference which as I say I was privileged to participate in. The interesting thing for me was that before I went while I was preparing for my speech there I had some research done by the library that pointed out the proportions that make up in the New Zealand Parliament. 
If we look at the proportion of ethnicities here in this Parliament against the proportion of ethnicities in the wider population we see that it is practically percent for percent. Of course recently we had the addition of a Pacific Islander and the resignation of an Asian MP. But regardless of that our New Zealand Parliament is very much made up of ethnicities that represent ethnicities here in New Zealand very well. 
Our overwhelming interest in this legislation has been to ascertain whether it will ensure that our elections are fair and reflect adherence to our foundations in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In keeping with the special constitutional status of Maori our preference has been that a robust and comprehensive process of public dialogue be entered into with Maori to canvass areas of detail such as dual candidacy closed party lists party thresholds overhang and other such matters. 
We note that in terms of the 2008 relationship and confidence and supply agreement between the National Party and Maori Party both parties agreed that there will not be a question about the future of the Maori seats in the referendum on MMP planned by the National Party. 
Finally we see a relationship between this Electoral Referendum Bill and the very important context developing as a result of the constitutional review. I am greatly looking forward to being closely involved with this project which I see as a vital opportunity for engagement on some key aspects of our society: the nature of electoral participation the foundation of our constitution and the procedures and conventions that are unique to this land. 
In many ways I think this review will help to deliver on the expectation from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its November 2005 report. That report recommended that a special rapporteur be directed to visit Aotearoa and report back on the relationship between Maori and the Crown. One of the key recommendations from that visit was to endorse an earlier recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal calling for a longer conversation with Maori. We welcome the constitutional review and indeed the electoral referendum process as all part of the context of building that longer conversation. 
Finally I acknowledge the significance of the working group on constitutional transformation which has been brought about by Professor Margaret Mutu and Moana Jackson to engage with Maori and to work on developing a model constitution for our country. All of these developments are very positive and we see them as more signs of a maturing nation. We are pleased to support this third reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
Adjournment 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 8 February 2011 and that the sitting days in 2011 be as follows: 
February 8 9 10 15 16 17 22 23 and 24; 
March 8 9 10 15 16 17 22 23 and 24; 
April 5 6 7 12 13 and 14; 
May 3 4 5 10 11 12 17 18 and 19; 
June 7 8 9 14 15 16 21 22 and 23; 
July 5 6 7 12 13 and 14; 
August 2 3 4 9 10 11 16 17 and 18; 
September 6 7 8 13 14 15 27 28 and 29; 
October 4 5 6 25 26 and 27; 
November 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 and 17. 
This has been a very interesting year and before I make any reflective comments on that I would like to first thank you Mr Speaker for presiding over this House along with your presiding officers and for the way in which you have ensured that we operate in the way that is fitting for a Parliament of this nature. That is greatly appreciated not only by members of the House but also by many as you are no doubt aware outside of the House as well. Thank you for that and we wish you a restful festive season and all the best for 2011. I also thank the messengers; the security staff; the Hansard Office staff; everyone in the Clerk’s Office particularly Mary Harris the Clerk who has served us so well again for one more year; those in the Parliamentary Counsel Office; the House staff who look after us here; the Bellamy’s staff whom I particularly appreciate; the VIP drivers; my electorate office staff; my ministerial office staff; Ministerial Services the Parliamentary Service the Diplomatic Protection Squad; and the many others who make this place work including all of those who clean our offices during the evenings and keep the grounds looking tidy outside. We wish them all a happy and festive Christmas season and all the best for 2011. 
This year 2010 has to say the least been an interesting one. Not only has the Government been able to progress an awful lot of legislation but also we have had to deal with two very unsavoury incidents that have affected the lives of many many New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] I take that back members are right to say that the word is not appropriate—not unsavoury but— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Difficult. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —difficult and tragic. The first was the Canterbury earthquake of course when so many people were displaced for a short time but then got back in their homes once they realised they were safe. To put that incident into scale worldwide it was the fourth-biggest earthquake incident insurance-wise since 1970. It is the third-biggest insurance payout for any disaster in the world this year so it has a magnitude that is quite considerable. It is interesting when we look at other earthquakes of its size how totally miraculous it was that no one died and that was the result I think of not only the building code that has been mentioned so many times but also the time of day that it occurred. A similar event in Kobe killed some 6500 people and in other events of similar size the death toll has run to hundreds of thousands. So there is some satisfaction that we were prepared well enough to avoid that loss of life but the loss of property will take quite some time to recover from. 
Then there was the terrible tragedy at Pike River Coal on the West Coast which certainly touched the hearts of all New Zealanders. It was very raw for people because they could see night by night on the television people who were in a dreadful situation not of their own making and quite unable to be helped and that unfortunately continues. Our best wishes and our hearts go out to the families who will have a lonely Christmas this year. I think that the words the Rt Hon John Key offered at the memorial service particularly to the mothers of the children who were affected will be of some comfort to them although precious little in fact. 
I do not want to sound trivial but there have been other disasters this year as well. One of those would have to be the incredibly poor poll showing of our opponents on the other side of the House— 
Grant Robertson 
: Such a statesman! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I know that they are calling on me now to stay as a statesman and keep talking in these general broad and above-the-issue terms but I think it only appropriate that we record the fact that this has been a year that has been an abject disaster for Labour—an abject disaster. It started to become apparent how bad it was when its communications plan was revealed earlier this year and Clare Curran attempted to present Phil Goff as “fresh” “funky” and “forward-looking”. From there it has just slowly gone downhill. Perhaps it came to its climax with Labour’s dreadful confusion over whether New Zealand should have supported the production of the  
Hobbit  
movies remaining in New Zealand. I think it is sad that a party that once claimed to be the doyen of the creative side of New Zealand could have lost it in such a way. 
I suggest that some of the members on the other side might want to spend some time over the Christmas holidays getting in touch with their creative side. I suggest that Mr Hodgson goes back to Dunedin and gets in touch with Mr Taylor and his unit down there and makes a little programme called “ 
CSI: Dunedin” 
 which he could of course star in—he has shown his credentials in that way in recent weeks. I suggest that going back to South Auckland Mr Goff might like to get hold of some of those production houses. He is the perfect leading man for a remake of  
Cold Case.  
Then there is his nemesis Mr Cunliffe—or Mr Caygill depending on what day of the week it is. Mr Cunliffe is a guy who I think would be perfect for a starring role in  
The Mentalist 
 although I understand from his office that he is also considering the lead part in  
Two and a Half Men. 
Shane Jones the self-confessed movie buff will make a new feature film known as  
“A Mighty Totara Rises Again” 
. This will of course be a sequel to his well-known classic “ 
Hung Parliament 
”. Clayton Cosgrove might like to do something with the title “ 
WWF 
”—all bluff all bluster lots of lycra and absolutely no winners there. We know that one of the most creative people in Labour is Trevor Mallard. It has to be conceded that he is very creative. We look at those blogs—there he is out there a poor man’s David Farrar making up all and everything we could possibly imagine to try and indicate that he is on top of the job. It is much easier sitting in front of a little—what do they call those things—keyboard and making it up than actually doing any work. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well look I do not mind admitting that I am a bit behind the times. I see that that member has an iPad; one does not need a keyboard with that. 
One of the highlights of the year for me was to be confronted with my advancing years when I spoke to the Youth Parliament and suggested to them that when I was younger we did not have such wonderful things that they enjoy like Sony Walkmans. I can assure members that that brought down the House because there was not a single person in that Youth Parliament who was born at the time the Sony Walkman was a popular item for people to carry around. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes Sony Walkman that is right. I tell Simon Power that he is a young man too. In the end it is that lack of experience that is holding him back. 
I say to our coalition partners that it has been a delight to work with them this year. [ 
Interruption 
] No it has truly. If I had more time I would go into some of the delights of the discussions with Rodney Roger Heather and Rahui. It has been fantastic. I have loved our discussions. I thank those members. I do hope that they enjoy the Christmas season and have a great New Year. 
I finally want to acknowledge the Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key for his extraordinary leadership of this nation. The fact is that that leadership is enforced not only by his own party and by the coalition partners who work with him but also by large numbers of New Zealanders who are very supportive of his style and the leadership he is showing for this country. 
To all of my constituents in Ilam I say thank you for all of their forbearance this year. It has been a difficult one. I look forward to 2011 and continuing beyond the election to serve that great electorate. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The Leader of the House made an effort to be statesman-like—it lasted 1.5 minutes. Then he got into a range of descriptions of film shows and who should be starring in them. Of course the member is the self-proclaimed star of  
Free Willy 
. There is a sequel to that about  
Whale Rider 
 that I will not go into in this House. 
We are now 2 years into the term of this Parliament 2 years into the term of this National Government and it is time that the National Government took responsibility for what is happening in this country. We had a tax switch this year; this is the year of the tax switch. Bill English stood up and said the Government would turbocharge the New Zealand economy—turbocharge the New Zealand economy. Well Fran O’Sullivan writes for the  
New Zealand Herald  
and she is known to be a supporter of the Government. She reflected on that. The turbocharge she said would actually be more of a fizzer. This is a tax switch that did not work. This was a tax swindle because we were told that it would compensate New Zealanders for increased costs and they would be better off. Of course one could not believe that because this was from the same Government that said very sincerely in a Bill Clinton - type way “National will not be increasing GST.”—and National did not have relationships with anyone on that. 
The truth of the matter is that this Government has governed for the privileged. It has governed for the privileged. That is why 42 percent of the tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of income earners. What about the people whom I will acknowledge soon like the cleaners in this building? What did they get? The bottom 20 percent got just 2 percent of the tax cuts. Do members know the real disgrace about the tax switch which came out in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update? The tax rewards for the wealthy were paid for by borrowing—paid for by borrowing. You know this Government will borrow according to Treasury figures $3 billion to reward the people who receive the highest incomes. You know there are 650 millionaires in this country. What did they get? They received over $1000 a week extra in the hand. But if we ask constituents in Wainuiomata in Miramar or in Mt Roskill the people on the median wage what they got they say they received $5 a week. It is $5 a week as against $1000 a week. It is a disgrace. 
This Government must bear responsibility for the figures released by Treasury this week. There is a blowout in the deficit of $2.5 billion. At the start of this year—not even at the start; it was in May 6 months ago—John Key said the deficit was at the maximum level that the Government could take it to. Six months later it is $2.5 billion more than it was then and who is responsible for that? The National Government. John Key got up in the House today and said it was because of the global economic crisis. You know Mr Speaker—you have been a trade Minister and I have been a trade Minister—this country is earning more than it has ever earned before because it has the highest terms of trade ever. Money is flooding into this country but it is not going into the pockets of average New Zealanders—the people now paying $2 a litre for petrol the people paying $22 a week more to rent a house in Auckland than they were last year the people whose rates are going up the people paying 12 percent more for their fresh fruit and vegetables than they were this time last year. 
This Government says it is against taking GST off fruit and vegetables. Gerry Brownlee should know more than most people do that in this country one child in four is already obese by the time they enter school. This country has the third-highest obesity rate in the world and the least we could do is to give families the chance to afford decent food for their kids. 
I want to talk about employment too because this year ends on a sad note for a lot of New Zealanders: 150000 New Zealanders are out of work. I ask the members across the other side of the House which ones of them feel proud of the fact that nearly 50 percent of our Pacific and Maori teenage girls are out of work and not in education and training. Who feels proud about that? More than one-third of our teenage Maori and Pacific boys are out of work. I say to this Government that after 2 years in office the unemployment rate is three times the rate that it inherited from the previous Labour Government and that is a disgrace. Members on that side of the House are not doing their job. 
The financial management of this country has been a disaster. I ask Gerry Brownlee why the Australians have created 350000 new jobs this year—54000 in November alone—and all that his Government has come up with is some gimmicks. There was the cycleway. How many jobs were there from the cycleway? Was it 200? Did it get as high as that? 
Hon Member 
: 200. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It was 200. When we talk about unemployment figures we are not talking about statistics. In the supermarket in my electorate that opened this year there were 150 new jobs—and I welcomed that—but 2700 people in my area lined up to apply for them. They were not highly paid jobs but 2700 people applied for them. Those people asked me why Paula Bennett blamed them for being unemployed when there are not enough jobs to go around. 
This Government has failed. It has failed on its own measures. It said it would close the income gap with Australia. Do members remember that? That was the promise before the election. What has happened since the election? That gap has grown by 37 percent. That is a mark of the failure of this Government. The wage gap between New Zealand and Australia has grown by 37 percent. Which members of the National Government and their coalition partners are proud of that achievement? That is absolutely appalling. 
There is no plan to build our economy into a stronger economy. There is a plan however to make cuts. Why is it that the  
New Zealand Herald  
day after day runs cases of people who have suffered accidents and are now told that under Nick Smith ACC regards the outcome of an accident as something that results from a degenerative disease—a degenerative disease? Why is it that the number of people who challenge ACC decisions has trebled and many of them are winning? Also this Government is surreptitiously—and not so surreptitiously—cutting money for our kids. In early childhood education $400 million was cut. Fewer kids will progress and fewer kids will be successful in their education and be able to make the most of their lives. That is something else for National to be proud of! 
I want to acknowledge the two tragedies that have affected New Zealand. First of all there was the Christchurch earthquake. I have spent many days in Christchurch and I acknowledge the work that Gerry Brownlee has done as I acknowledge the work that all of my colleagues and Jim Anderton have done in helping people whose lives have been disrupted and who have suffered through that earthquake. I just hope I say to Mr Brownlee that now that the television cameras have gone the promises made apparently so sincerely will be upheld in the years to come. I hope that that is the case. 
The miracle of the Christchurch earthquake was that no one was killed but tragically across the alps 29 miners lost their lives at Pike River. I think that everyone was sincere when they offered their support and their sympathy to the bereaved family members who had lost their husbands their sons and their brothers. And I say absolutely sincerely that if there is any way in which we can recover the remains of those whose lives have been lost then we have an obligation as a country as a community and as a Parliament to actually retrieve those remains. Cost should not be a problem. The promise was made that their sons their brothers and their husbands would be brought out if that was humanly possible and I hope that the Government will honour that commitment. If it does it will have the support of this side of the House and the support of all New Zealanders. 
It remains for me today to acknowledge those whose work has contributed to the functioning of this House: your office Mr Speaker the Clerk’s Office Bellamy’s the cleaners the library the messengers the security staff our electorate office staff our executive assistants and our media and research people. I acknowledge the families of parliamentarians. They have to put up with a lot because of the jobs that we do. I offer members of the House and all New Zealanders a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The year 2010 has come and gone at least in a parliamentary sense. I convey the Green Party’s thanks to you Mr Speaker for your patience fortitude and skill in handling this august if rather unruly institution. I thank all staff who labour to keep us functioning but who get no public recognition. Their courtesy and devotion to their jobs are unfailing and we thank them for making ours not only possible but more pleasant through their good nature. I acknowledge the ushers who greet us the security staff who protect us Bellamy’s who feed us the librarians who inform us and the messengers travel staff and everyone in the Clerk’s Office. Not least I thank the select committee staff who strive to help us to think clearly and sensibly which is not an easy task. Also I thank our own party staff executive assistants out-of-Parliament people and administrative research and media staff. 
As we bask in the sun and reflect on the year most of us will combine a sense of achievement with some apprehension about what we have not achieved particularly I think in respect of climate change from Copenhagen to Cancun. The year 2010 has seen human drama around the world and here in New Zealand. We might ask where we are heading as a nation and indeed as a global community. 
We bipeds are a strange mix of brilliance and stupidity and I do not mean just the Greens. We flew our first solar-powered plane yet we pumped carbon into the atmosphere faster than ever. We trapped antimatter in the European Organization for Nuclear Research—or CERN—Large Hadron Collider near Geneva yet we cannot rid ourselves of malaria. We clocked 10 years of continuous living in space and it is 41 years since we walked on the moon yet we are killing life here on Earth. 
Our shrinking global village more transparent now through WikiLeaks reveals some oddities as well. Dubai completed the world’s tallest building not much short of a kilometre high into the sky. It is gleaming and beautiful yet it cost $1.5 billion which could have gone into malaria eradication. A major slump in the Dubai rental market has meant that it has a vacancy rate of 92 percent. So we have a lot to learn and we do not seem to be learning it in time. 
The world has suffered natural disasters this year: the earthquakes in Haiti Chile and China and our own miracle in Christchurch where a 7.1 magnitude quake close to the city returned no fatalities. Tragically we were not so fortunate at Pike River coalfield. The volcanic eruption in Iceland gave us a foretaste of the disruption the global community will experience when climate change reaches danger level. Let me assure ACT that such a specific event is not necessarily due to climate change; neither are the floods in Pakistan and Australia the forest fires in Russia and Australia the landslides in Mexico or the drought in China Africa and Australia. What I do know is that the Optimum Population Trust concludes that Australia is overpopulated and that its optimal population may be around 10 million. It may be right; it may be wrong. But it raises issues that can no longer be ignored. It seems that 6.7 billion on the planet may be too many for Earth. 
Here in New Zealand we remain part of the global problem of unsustainable living. Humanity is overshooting the planet’s ecological capacity by 40 percent. If there is one thing that defines the Green Party it is sustainability. The truth is that we in the Green Party love this country too much to trash it for the sake of a few dollars. We prefer to look after it for its intrinsic value. 
Five overarching green goals drive our politics in 2010. We promote a smart green economy for New Zealand. We believe a fairer society will be better for everyone including the rich. We love the land and we want to protect it. We embrace honest politics and we cherish safe and healthy food for ourselves and our children. Each Green MP has worked in different ways throughout 2010 to realise those goals. 
The fundamental divide between the Green Party and the Government concerns economic growth. The Government continues to cite economic growth as its mantra neurotically seeking signs of recovery back to a growth pattern like a drunkard reaching for the bottle to get through the hangover. It talks of a balance between economic opportunity and environment responsibility but continuous growth will never result in balance. Rather it will result in a trade-off in which degradation trumps conservation. This year the Green Party more assertively promoted ecological economics as the alternative to the traditional neo-classical economics that underpins that growth addiction. The sustainable economics conference we convened in the Legislative Council Chamber just last month brought together economists and environmentalists for a dialogue over the relationship between these policy areas and the need to strike a consensus among parties. I thank Minister Nick Smith and Labour’s David Cunliffe for joining us in agreeing to participate in the dialogue joining with me on a panel on the political perceptions of sustainability. This could be seen as the beginning of a constructive dialogue between National Labour and the Green Party over a 21st century macroeconomic policy that will preserve the planet and bring security and prosperity for all. I do not think there is a more important or constructive thing we could aspire to do together. 
Russel Norman voiced the concerns of many Kiwis when it comes to the foreign ownership of New Zealand’s strategic assets. We were pleased to see the Government keep the current guidelines for the Overseas Investment Office after it originally wanted to weaken the rules. Russel Norman has also critiqued the Government over trade policy especially the patent absurdities of the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership. We trust that the Government will see the light on this issue next year. Dave Clendon has been promoting sustainable business throughout the country and has proposed to this House a sustainable development commission. 
It is time for a fair society. Metiria Turei’s Mind the Gap campaign highlighted the obscene inequalities that have developed here in recent decades and the need for a sense of decency and an egalitarian ethic. The home insulation programme that Jeannette Fitzsimons pioneered with Labour continues to live under this Government. I shall maintain that cooperation with Minister Brownlee into 2011. In a similar vein Gareth Hughes’ warm and healthy rentals campaign including a member’s bill to that effect promises to transform for the better the way that Kiwis live in their homes. A successful Supplementary Order Paper by Kevin Hague will ensure that the Health Quality and Safety Commission can rely on public funding. Catherine Delahunty’s proposal for a disabilities commissioner persuaded the Government to establish just such an office. 
We are working to protect our land. Metiria Turei helped to save our national parks from mining. The Government changed its plans because Kiwis love their parks. I pay a special thanks to the 47000 who signed her petition. Public opinion also prompted action to stop factory farming in the Mackenzie Basin an iconic landscape that most of us want to protect. Russel Norman broke the factory farming story and campaigned alongside environmental and animal welfare groups to save the Mackenzie Basin. Russel was effective also over the Mangatainoka River. Fonterra reconsidered a plan to dump wastewater in the river after we urged it to show leadership and stop polluting. Catherine Delahunty persuaded TradeMe to join us in saving rainforests and to support the local timber industry. From this week it will allow the sale of new kwila furniture only with a sustainability certificate. Kevin Hague is pursuing with the Government a $4 million pilot project to protect New Zealand forests and native species with better pest control. Kevin is also continuing to work with the Prime Minister on a national cycleway. 
The voting public wants Parliament above all to practice honest politics. It was the Green Party under Metiria Turei’s leadership that led the charge to clean up the system for MPs’ pay and expenses. Last year the Greens voluntarily released our own expenses. By late 2010 Parliament had agreed to adopt our policy of an independent authority for MPs’ pay. Metiria Turei also played a role in convincing the Government to put in place campaign spending caps for elections as well as for the MMP referendum. Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill focused attention on how New Zealand wishes to structure its constitutional arrangements in the 21st century. It will live for another day. Our intervention on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill helped to ensure that defendants retain the right to be present in a criminal trial. I pay tribute to Minister Simon Power for his judgment on this issue. My new Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is attracting National and Labour support. I look forward to working with Chris Finlayson on this. 
We cherish safe and healthy food. Our animal welfare standards jumped with Sue Kedgley’s measure on the phase-out of sow crates being adopted by the Government. The Green Party was acknowledged for a decade of work to stop the cruelty. 
Lest this sound like so much braggadocio let me assure this House that we do not believe we run the country but we do set the agenda for change and one day we shall run the country. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First of all on behalf of the ACT Party I wish you Mr Speaker and your wife a very happy Christmas. Also on behalf of all New Zealand I thank you for your service as Speaker. I think everyone appreciates the good humour and the grace you have brought to the job of Speaker your fairness in the application of the rules and your sense of appreciation of the importance of Parliament in any functioning democracy. Certainly you have improved question time out of sight for the people of New Zealand if not for Government Ministers. Certainly you have made question time relevant and I thank you for that. 
I acknowledge in this Parliament—and I am sure others will appreciate this—our VIP Transport Service driver Jimmy who has retired after 33 years of service to sit on the beach at Waihi. I also note the very sad loss of Twiss who passed away early this year who was a friend and confidante of us all. It was a sudden and very great loss. 
I acknowledge all the work of Ministerial Services and the Parliamentary Service in particular the messengers who have to sit through some pretty mind-numbing speeches— 
Stuart Nash 
: Speak for yourself. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I was thinking of Mr Nash. I also acknowledge the Hansard team because not only do they have to sit through those speeches but also they have to type them up. I wish that Mr Nash would think of that more often. But I have noticed that they can take Mr Nash’s speeches and make them read rather well so I thank the Hansard team. 
I acknowledge the tremendous work throughout the year of Mark Ford and the Auckland Transition Agency in producing the new Auckland Council; the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs Brendan Boyle and his team; and also the staff of the old councils who worked assiduously to produce a good result in Auckland and of the new Auckland Council who are working so well to make it work for the benefit of Auckland and the rest of the country. 
I acknowledge the Prime Minister John Key who undoubtedly is doing a fantastic job as Prime Minister which is acknowledged by the people of New Zealand. As a Minister I have found him fantastic to work with. I also acknowledge my ministerial colleagues. I acknowledge all the ACT staff in Wellington and in Auckland and our new MP Hilary Calvert. I also acknowledge the people of Epsom who support me as their MP. 
Phil Twyford 
: Do they? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I hope that one day Mr Twyford can convince the Labour Party to let him stand for a seat in Auckland and he too can ask people for their vote. I thank the people of Epsom and also all the ACT members and supporters. 
We promised the people of New Zealand that if they voted for us in Epsom and with their party vote it would effect a change of Government and we would go from a Helen Clark - led Government to a John Key - led Government. That happened as a consequence of the vote in Epsom and the vote for ACT. We promised the people of New Zealand that ACT would ensure not just a change in Government but also a stable Government and we have delivered on that. It has not been just a stable Government but also a better Government as a consequence of the party vote for ACT. We have done that. 
The highlights for us for the year undoubtedly include ACT’s achievement in passing “three strikes” legislation to ensure that people will be safer in the street. We certainly know that the people of New Zealand have been asking for it for a very long time and they were delivered it by giving their party vote to ACT. I believe that the change we made in Auckland has been successful and that it will make a big difference not just to the people of Auckland but also to the people of New Zealand. 
I look forward to one year the Labour Party getting positive and starting to make a contribution in our Parliament instead of sitting there even on this pleasant day carping away miserable in Opposition. I guess they are feeling hurt because the barbecue season is upon them. No one knows that more keenly than Mr Cunliffe and Mr Goff. 
We are also proud of the fact that we have done the work to open up accident compensation to choice and competition. We have opened up the opportunity for more people to get work through our changes to legislation with regard to the 90-day trial. I must say what a pleasure it has been for me to work in special education and to see how well the special education review that this Government has done has been received by principals teachers and parents alike. 
On Saturday we passed into law the establishment of the Productivity Commission which will no doubt make a big difference to New Zealand. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We did the work—give us some kudos. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Lianne Dalziel is already shouting her support across the Chamber for the work that the ACT Party has done. I appreciate her support in getting the Productivity Commission up and running. I look forward to next year introducing the Regulatory Responsibility Bill to further clamp down on red tape and the Taxpayer Rights Bill to get on top of Government spending after years of neglect by the previous Labour Government. 
I appreciate enormously the work the ACT MPs and the ACT team have done in campaigning against not just Labour’s 2004 foreshore and seabed legislation but also the present Government’s attempt to improve on that legislation which in fact makes it worse. I also appreciate the team campaigning against the emissions trading scheme and ensuring that this Government has a proper review next year so that we do not impose unnecessary costs on New Zealand producers households and families to no net advantage to the environment. 
I end by wishing the Labour Party members the Green Party members the ACT Party members the Maori Party members and the National Party members all the very best for Christmas. Mr Speaker we look forward to seeing you back in the new year. Once again we thank you for your service and your work as Speaker. Thank you. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. He honore maku ki te tu hei kaikorero mo te Pati Maori i tenei ra. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. It is an honour for me to stand as the Maori Party’s representative today 
.] 
As we approach the year’s end we think of those families who will feel the loss of loved ones who are no longer with them. On this day today we acknowledge those who are mourning the passing of two tribal elders: John Haunui Waikato-Tainui kaumatua for the Maori King and Rongomaianiwaniwa Milroy of Ngati Whakaue and Te Arawa. We recognise too the clouds of grief that have hung over Aotearoa this year particularly over the 29 men who lost their lives in the Pike River mine. Our thoughts are with them all. 
The adjournment debate is customarily a time for reflection on the good the bad and the indifferent that has shaped our year. It has been a big year for the Maori Party and indeed for tangata whenua. Just over 8 months ago I had the privilege of speaking at the opening session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York. I will never forget the awesome sight of more than 2000 people rising to their feet dancing in their own custom to give a rousing ovation endorsing New Zealand’s decision to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That moment in time was a fitting reward for all those who have worked so hard in promoting our indigenous rights and negotiating this agreement at an international level. 
Back home I am excited by the enthusiasm generated through my announcement in July that I was establishing a special ministerial panel to review te reo Maori and in particular Government spending on the revitalisation of our language. Tangata whenua refuse to relinquish their rights to uphold their mother tongue. It is a mark of identity of pride of cultural strength. The Waitangi Tribunal’s report in October challenged the Government to recognise the importance of Maori communities in revitalising the language emphasising that Maori ownership of the Maori Language Strategy is crucial to its success. This will be an ongoing challenge which our nation must address and I am very confident that the panel led by Professor Tamati Reedy will guide us well. 
Another key marker for the Maori Party this year has been the undeniable momentum gained with Whanau Ora. About 160 providers are currently involved in the first wave of Whanau Ora within 25 provider collectives. The basis of the approach is built around strong collaborative relationships between providers and whanau a focus on outcomes not activities and integrated contracting arrangements. But the key to its success is about whanau transformation. It is about whanau building positive pathways to achieve their aspirations. Whanau Ora returns the power and control to whanau to be resilient and nurturing and to develop their own leadership. 
Alongside of Whanau Ora I have been proud of the work that has been done in implementing programmes such as Kaitoko Whanau Oranga Whanau and Mara Kai. These programmes are targeted at supporting Maori whanau. Through the Christmas period I am sure that many whanau will be enjoying healthy food from the gardens that they have worked to create for the benefit of the wider community. We have been working steadily to achieve improved outcomes in the justice sectors through the Drivers of Crime initiative. Next year we are looking forward to sharing the success of Whare Oranga Ake—the kaupapa Maori reintegration units—where the focus will be on prisoners gaining employment and accommodation and improving family and wider social relationships. We look forward to their rehabilitation in the community and their not returning to prison. 
And of course we anticipate great things ahead with the work we have been engaged with on the Rugby World Cup the enterprise and initiative that have emerged from the Maori Economic Taskforce which we have led this year—particularly after our visit to China taking Maori businesses—and of course the nation-building exercise being undertaken with the constitutional review. I want to acknowledge the initiative of the working-group on constitutional transformation led by Professor Margaret Mutu and Moana Jackson which is seeking to develop a moral constitution based on Maori kawa and tikanga he whakaputanga o te rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni me Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
The active engagement and leadership of iwi and the momentum generated by our Maori academics our iwi leaders our Maori scientists artists and educators our Maori authorities and our marae have been of profound importance in influencing this Government. I acknowledge those groups for all their efforts and thank them for the substantial differences that they make to ultimately the fortunes and well-being of whanau hapu and iwi. 
There is of course still much to do. We were not pleased with the super-city process and the way in which Maori representation was diminished. Although we are developing a positive relationship with His Worship Len Brown the broader issue of Maori participation in the decision-making processes across local government remains still high on our agenda. There are still many challenges ahead and we look forward with renewed vigour to 2011 and the debate on water the passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Tukutai Moana) Bill and the ongoing issues that confront too many of our whanau—the impact of poverty family violence educational underachievement and so much more. 
The workload is formidable but the Maori Party is served well by a star team of senior private secretaries executive assistants press secretaries political advisers out-of-office parliamentary staff and department secondees who are some of the most dedicated hard-working and consistently positive people I have met. Ka nui te aroha ki a koutou. Around this complex there is a workforce second to none. We are all indebted to the service and support provided to us by the Speaker’s office; the Cabinet Office; the Office of the Clerk including Hansard the Bills Office and the Table Office; the ever-efficient Parliamentary Library service; the expertise and professionalism of Ministerial Services and the Parliamentary Service; our trusted Kaiwhakahaere - Nga Ratonga Reo Maori; the travel office whose staff help us serve our constituencies so well; and the cleaners and the finance personnel—both doing their best to ensure we keep everything in order! I often think this place and all its inhabitants would be ripe material for one of those  
Survivor 
 reality shows. 
All of us—left right or in the middle—have experienced the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune some of it motivated by political opponents some of it provoked by an energetic press gallery some of it of our own doing but we are also joined by our common humanity. We share the sadness of missing significant family events we feel the same frustrations we lose sleep we have health issues in our whanau we celebrate our new babies and we grieve for those we have lost. I want to mihi to so many people who keep our spirits lifted who support and sustain us through good times and hard. It is done in the everyday conversations we share with the VIP drivers security staff the messengers the buildings staff and those on reception at Bellamy’s in the gym and of course right across this House. 
Finally there are three special groups of people I want to mention. The first is to recognise the hand of manaaki that was extended to us the Maori Party by John Key in inviting the Maori Party to enter into a relationship with National. It has not been without challenge but we are proud of the way in which our relationship has developed and a spirit of cooperation has emerged with some of the key Ministers around the table. Secondly I mihi to Tariana Te Ururoa Rahui and Hone who sacrifice so much for the good of our people. We have worked so hard not just for the gains we have achieved but more important to retain the faith of our people and to keep our reputation high as the strong and independent Maori voice of Parliament. Sure we have our disagreements but we are all for the kaupapa and we are all for Maori and that is unbreakable. And through it all we acknowledge our wonderful whanau who are the all-out stars of this  
Survivor 
 series. It is because of their tautoko their commitment to us and our party that we are able to do what we do. Words can never reflect adequately the vital role that our whanau play in this Parliament for all of us here. 
Mr Speaker thank you for your distinguished and impressive leadership in the House. I wish you and all of our honourable colleagues a restful summer with the people you love. Ma te Atua koutou me o koutou whanau e manaaki e tiaki i te wa o te Kirihimete. 
[ 
The Lord will cherish and look after you and your families during the Christmas period. 
] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the adjournment debate happy in the knowledge that David Parker has not issued any invitations to Gerry Brownlee to join him on a camping expedition through the Southern Alps this holiday period. I do not know for sure but perhaps given the public display of affection between the two members at the end of last year it is still entirely possible. Mr Speaker I wish you and Alexandra a merry Christmas. I acknowledge all my parliamentary colleagues and wish them a merry Christmas and also acknowledge all the staff throughout Parliament and all of our staff in the electorate offices around New Zealand who certainly do the hard yards for us all as MPs. I particularly wish my electorate a merry Christmas; it is a privilege to be their MP. 
It is a tradition to acknowledge the senior Opposition whip. The Hon Darren Hughes has had an outstanding year in more ways than one. Although on this side of the House Tony Ryall takes the cake with his daily shirt and tie ensembles today being no exception I have to say Darren provides a balance to Tony with his cream and beige McAndrews Menswear designer suit combinations—“city fashions at country prices”. That aside the highlight for me this year was when Darren joined the alpha males—Gerry Brownlee and Maurice Williamson—in his admiration of the beauties from the Miss Universe New Zealand pageant who were present in the gallery. Parliament’s most eligible bachelor wanted to point out that he and Labour joined them in their desire for world peace. Following that it might have been better if he had given them his phone number but never mind. 
Parliamentarians around the world are noted for their quick wits and this House is no different. I recall this year that while debating the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I thought a great way to finish my speech would be to read the broadcast of my father’s try in the 1961 game against the French in a howling gale in Wellington. “At least one Tremain had talent!” Mr Mallard shouted across the floor. I thank that member. I really appreciated that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They all agreed with me on that side of the House. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes yes. In giving it out he has taken a bit this year as well. There was the classic situation when Mr Mallard chose to ask the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister stood by his spokesperson Kevin Taylor in calling Mr Hodgson a name that we will not repeat in the House. Although I am sure the Prime Minister was tempted in his response he said more diplomatically: “I think Mr Taylor could in hindsight have chosen his words more wisely but I am relieved that he did not use his fists.” I have to say that is one of the only times I have seen Mr Mallard actually stunned to silence in the House—it was a good one. 
One cannot go past the year without raising a few quotes from one of the House’s more prescient and wise members. Members on this side of the House want to acknowledge the honourable Chris Carter as our Opposition “Politician of the Year”. He genuinely is the gift that just keeps on giving such as his comments this year regarding his leader. Look Phil Goff is a nice guy but he just cannot win and I believe that Labour would do better in next year’s election under a fresh leader. We have been inspired by our selection of the Opposition “Politician of the Year”. I ask the ladies and gentlemen of National to please put their hands together for our Opposition “Politician of the Year” the gift that keeps on giving the honourable Chris Carter. Thank you very much Chris. 
One cannot go through the adjournment debate without highlighting the performance of the Parliamentary Sports Trust which had a great year on the field with games in Tolaga Bay Murchison Porirua the Chatham Islands and Wanganui. Once again the team raised tens of thousands of dollars for charities around the country which is fantastic. A highlight included John Carter’s joke in the Chatham Islands— 
Moana Mackey 
: Toastmasters! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —as Moana gave last night—about a pirate who had his leg and his arm bitten off by a shark. The only problem was that there was a guy in the team playing against us who had had his arm bitten off by a shark. Good on you JC! It was a bit of a classic. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He was involved with Hone too wasn’t he? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes. It has been a year for the many not for the few over on this side of the House. Over on this side of the House we have rolled out policies that have benefited the many such as our six-point plan which we continue to implement. I could be here all day acknowledging the Ministers who have done amazing jobs. I do want to mention one Minister whom I think has done an outstanding job and that is Anne Tolley. In the face of huge opposition from the teacher’s unions and at times quite vindictive personal comments I say to Mr Mallard this lady rolled out national standards. On Monday morning of this week my daughter brought home her second national standards report together with a very clear document. For the first time in my life—and I am not a teacher—I truly understood what my daughter should be trying to achieve at her age. I say publicly that Minister Tolley has done a great job; well done to her. It is fantastic to have her as a part of this team over here. 
National members are not happy with where the economy is right now and acknowledge that we have more work to do. However the release yesterday of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report put us in a good space. The forecast is GDP growth of 2.1 percent now rising to 3.5 percent. [ 
Interruption 
] Opposition members do not like this one: the unemployment rate will fall steadily to 5.1 percent by 2013. Members on that side of the House wish it would go up. There will be accelerating wage growth to about 3 percent in 2012 comfortably ahead of inflation. It is excellent. 
Labour this year on the other hand was in a terrible space which was epitomised by Phil Goff’s speech at Chapman Tripp. Not only did our “Politician of the Year” Chris Carter continue his crusade to undermine Phil Goff but we finished the year really unsure whether the finance spokesman for Labour is David Cunliffe or David Caygill. We also now know that Phil is not particularly confident about his future from when he said that at least he did not say he would be leader of the next Labour Government. We know that Labour is totally bereft of new ideas. Even its speech-writers had to borrow themes from speeches overseas. What is more the only idea of any real merit in that speech—clamping down on taxpayers who rort the system—is one that Labour did a complete flip-flop on within just 3 short days by opposing in the extreme Peter Dunne’s Supplementary Order Paper that was specifically designed to do that. 
This morning Mr Goff was asked what his highlights were for the year on Pippa Wetzell’s show. He answered by saying that the soccer and rugby were the highlights. Pippa pressed on: “No Phil I meant your political highlights.” “Oh” said Phil “Well that would be Kris Faafoi’s maiden speech.” Without meaning to criticise Kris whom I am sure all members would agree made a pretty good maiden speech for that to be the highlight of the entire Labour year makes one wonder. 
On that note I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the highlight of that speech made by the senior Government whip Chris Tremain was the fact that he moved on from thanking Pansy Wong to congratulating Anne Tolley and I think that is probably about it. 
I echo the comments made about the staff. I think Rodney Hide went through the list very well. I am not proposing to repeat it but I endorse his comments about the people who work here. I thank you Mr Speaker. I think you have mainly treated me fairly. I think the only injustice I felt was at the time you tossed me out for Chris Carter’s comment. I was certainly relieved when he got shifted down the benches. I do not think our voices are very similar Mr Speaker but you clearly could not differentiate on that occasion. 
There have been some disasters. I endorse the comments Phil Goff made about the importance of following up promises with action. I will read a text I received 12 minutes ago. It said: “Just chatting to lady at dog park with fat Golden Labrador. Her insurance company told her over $100000 when they assessed. She has a big two-storey house. Piles are stuffed roof is stuffed garage needs replacing and EQC said $22000. She had structural engineers around there today and the house has twisted around three chimneys and they say it must be rebuilt.” Stories like that are coming in from all over Christchurch. 
People are very distressed and the Minister in charge of Earthquake Commission has to get that agency’s act together especially with regard to the people on the phone lines because the systems are not working and that has resulted in a very poor Christmas. One does not get that sort of text unless one is involved in and knows of other cases as I do. 
I want to make a comment on Pike River. Kate Wilkinson the Minister of Labour was here earlier. I do not want to refer to her absence but I am sure that she will be asking herself—as I am; and as other Ministers who have been in charge of reviews of mining safety are asking themselves—whether anything else could have been done and whether it would have made a difference. We will wait obviously for the inquiries and the explanations as to what actually happened before we can go into those questions but I think all of us who have worked in that area have felt some distress and done some personal questioning. 
I endorse the comments that Phil Goff made about the importance of retrieving the remains from the Pike River mine but it is also important that people are paid their entire wage packages and that people both living and dead get the bonuses they have earned and to which they are entitled. It is basic decency and in my view it is incumbent on the Government to make sure the system works to ensure that happens not withstanding our rules regarding receivership. It is important and it would be a sign of a decent society. 
I will follow Chris Tremain’s theme in relation to Pansy Wong. She jumped before the inevitable firing occurred. She will run but the issue will not go away. It is something that New Zealanders will want to find out more about and will find out more about because New Zealanders do not like anything that looks like corruption in our system. In my opinion this case as it unfolds will look like that and it is not acceptable. 
I will move on to addressing Mr Brownlee. We have good-natured banter across the House on occasions. I congratulate him on his masterful handling of the House over the last week or so. I felt relatively good being in the House with six of my colleagues at 9.45 p.m. on Saturday night while the National members had a voting strength of 58 and then we were so busy that we got to 8 p.m. on Tuesday and there was nothing to do. If that is an indication of the approach and focus on detail that will continue on behalf of National next year then I welcome it and I thank Mr Brownlee for it. I think we will give him the title “House Manager Supreme”. 
I have been searching for something all this year; it is called the plan. I want to know where the plan is. We are told that it has six points. In fact we were told what they were at one stage. I cannot remember them. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh there were six areas. I will comment on one aspect. It is the major part of the plan—it is one I am interested in and care a lot about—and it is the cycleway which will create jobs. 
I am getting slightly sick of the Prime Minister opening cycleways that I rode on 5 years ago. The idea is that the Prime Minister spreads a bit of gravel on a track and it is called a new cycleway and he opens it. I must say to Kevin Hague that he looks a bit of tit as he rides cycleways that many people have ridden on long before. The Greens should be embarrassed to be associated with the pretend new cycleways. There will be some new cycleways and that is really good. I also want to say that a concrete highway from Cambridge to Karapiro is not a cycleway. It is a bit of road and people need to know that. It is certainly not a step change in the economy. 
I have been looking for something else. I have been looking for the statistics that tell us we are closing the wage gap with Australia. First I looked at the statistics that we have generally used—the ones that our library gives us from Statistics New Zealand and its Australian equivalent. They have always shown that the gap has been widening. The Prime Minister gave us a new set of statistics. I think it is fair to say that they were heavily massaged. It was a “most improbable approach to statistics” as someone said. But even the Prime Minister’s massaged statistics now show us that the gap is getting bigger. That is why so many Kiwis—all of us know of individuals; friends family and people who live in our constituencies—are going to Australia. They are going because they have jobs and those jobs pay more and their standard of living will be higher and will get higher still. 
I will finish with a thought and I think it will be a theme as we go forward. I thank a member of the National Government for suggesting that it be the Labour Party theme. It is a question and it is a question that we will ask Kiwis time and time again: “Are you better off now than you were 2 years ago?”. Next year Labour will ask: “Are you better off now than you were 3 years ago when National was elected?”. Some people are. Some people who are in the top 10 percent of the income brackets are certainly better off than they were. But most Kiwis when they are asked whether they are better off will be honest and say no. That is why they will say: “We’re going to wave John while you smile.” 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 First I would like to pay respect to the courteous patient supportive informative and amazing people in this institution—not us but the security staff who stand up literally hour after hour to look after our safety and our visitors’ needs; the messengers who juggle the dead trees from office to office so we can do our work; the kitchen crew at Bellamy’s Copperfields and Olivers and the room service staff. They are all hard-working and polite to us. Much respect also to the cleaners who make the spaces decent and liveable for us. They are people we never actually see but they clean up around our chaos. To all of the Clerk’s office the library and select committee staff Mr Speaker the Parliamentary Service team all our own staff and even the Bycroft’s biscuit tin—thank you for the great impartial service and support all year. 
I wish I could say that we MPs have been as polite and supportive as those other teams but through #Housewatch tweeting I have been monitoring the levels of personal abuse and it has been a curious spectacle. As standards and league tables are the fashion I will rank the parties. Members might be surprised who has been particularly and audibly personally abusive. 
From a party point of view the big disappointment of the year was the ACT Party which was ranking well. However when David Garrett left its ranking collapsed into an occasional courteous and policy-focused interjection apart from some strange loud groans from Sir Roger Douglas when he was goaded beyond bearing by dreadful communist collective planet-loving speeches from people like me. 
The Maori Party Peter Dunne Jim Anderton and the Greens have generally behaved with exquisite decorum despite considerable provocation. Hone Harawira did accuse someone of being very boring but there was more than a grain of truth in that one. At least large numbers of members are trying to work on their te reo and their pronunciation so as to respect our first national language. 
However the two monolithic parties have been locked in their co-dependent ritualistic abuse which is to be maintained at all costs. It is almost like watching one of those terrible marriages where the pair insists on living together but despise each other for using identical tactics in an endless effort to prove that they are different. Outstanding contributors to the level of personal abuse have been the Labour and National front-benchers. I cannot always hear them but the Speaker’s face often says it all. But there have been some standout personal efforts from the National Party backbenches. Paul Quinn has overcome a mortal shyness this year and come out of his shell and we are hoping he may find his way back into it. Chris Finlayson has matched Mr Quinn only with words containing far more syllables. 
My absolute favourite speech of last year was the  
Brokeback Mountain 
 wistful  
Romeo and Juliet 
 romance between Gerry Brownlee and David Parker. That was not abuse; those comments were actually funny as opposed to nasty snide patronising or petty. 
Also memorable was Todd McClay’s attack on Carmel Sepuloni for opposing union-bashing laws while wearing a “mock hyena print scarf”. Imagine what the Greens would say if it had been a real hyena! Imagine the shock across the nation if hyena-like howling and abuse disappeared from this House. 
I live in hope that our behaviour will mature. The public would love it and the children in the gallery would respect it. But in the meantime I will keep tweeting. It is a cheap form of therapy. In the spirit of the season I wish all the members in the House the better therapy of rest sunshine and being with people that we love. 
It has been tough for many people in 2010 and heartbreaking for others. We cannot pretend that Godzone is at peace with itself. However the Green Party is in good heart to contest an election next year under MMP which has brought a degree of sanity and representation to the Parliament. 
In the meantime we wish everyone here the best for a very green Christmas and a happy New Year. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take a call in the adjournment debate as the deputy leader of the ACT Party. It is a very special time of year. It is a chance for us to spend valuable time with our friends and family over Christmas and to take a break from Parliament. 
The past year has been one of highs and lows. Although the Government passed ACT’s “three strikes” policy into law to help protect all New Zealanders it also implemented the emissions trading scheme much to ACT’s disappointment. ACT opposes the emissions trading scheme as it is a costly bureaucratic mess of a policy that is damaging our country and has unnecessarily increased the prices of electricity and petrol and worse still paid massive subsidies to foresters. 
We are out of line with and in front of our major trading partners. We have jumped the gun and are still running and no one is following. As ACT suggested a simple low-rate carbon tax was by far and away the best option as our contribution to a genuinely global effort while we waited to see the science develop and to see whether the rest of the world changed its mind. 
ACT also opposed the anti-smacking law which made criminals out of good parents and worse still created uncertainty. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: It didn’t. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes it did. 
The way the law purports to work is to require the police to act with discretion rather than apply the letter of the law. That is a disgraceful way to make and apply law. ACT proposed a better alternative which would have made it clear where the boundaries are and would have protected good parents while punishing only the bad. It is a pity that that alternative did not see support from other parties in this House. 
This year has also seen once more the foreshore and seabed issue come before the House. ACT is the only party that has maintained a consistent view on this issue which is simply that iwi and hapu deserve the right to have their claims heard in open court. That is why we opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and it is why we do not support the Government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
Next year no doubt will be equally busy and I hope that every member of this House takes the coming break as an opportunity to get some rest in 2011. Today I would like to extend my thanks and best wishes to a number of people beginning with my esteemed colleagues Rodney Hide leader of the ACT Party; Hilary Calvert Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy. 
I thank also the staff at the Ministry of Consumer Affairs who have been invaluable at assisting me in coming to grips with consumer affairs portfolio. I am very grateful for the hard work of my office staff and I hope they all have a peaceful Christmas and a well-earned break. I wish the same for my staff in Auckland. 
Thanks must also go to the Speaker the Speaker’s office the Office of the Clerk the Serjeant-at-Arms the messengers the Chamber officials security VIP Transport Service the travel office Epicure Catering staff the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Parliamentary Library staff. 
I also wish a merry Christmas to ACT’s support partners: the Maori Party and Peter Dunne’s United Future. We three may not necessarily agree on everything but we have a positive relationship that transcends our differences. To my parliamentary colleagues in Opposition ACT extends its best wishes for a merry Christmas and a safe holiday break. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and speak in this adjournment debate. Mr Speaker firstly I endorse the comments of other members in thanking you for the accomplished way in which you have managed this House over the past year. It has not been an easy year particularly so in my electorate of Te Tai Tonga. 
I want to single out Gerry Brownlee for the impressive way in which he has led the response to two extraordinary events this year. In doing so I must also acknowledge my fellow MPs of the West Coast and Canterbury regions right across this House. Together we have been profoundly moved by the heart-wrenching grief of a small close-knit community bereft of 29 of its members. We fielded the crisis calls as families reeled from the consequences of the mine receivership and despaired at the shrinking opportunities they feared for the Grey District economy. We have listened to the frustrations of homeowners as they learnt of the prolonged time frames required for land to be strengthened before the job of reconstruction can even begin. We have sought help for those people facing hardship as a result of the Canterbury earthquake and we will continue to do so. 
Of course we know that hardship is not just specific to Te Tai Tonga. In just these last few days for example we have felt for the whanau associated with the Carter Holt Harvey sawmill in Kawerau and the Prime Sawmills in Gisborne in the wake of announcements made there. Just 2 days ago it was devastating to hear the findings of the report from the New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service which showed that children in low-income households especially Maori and Pasifika children appear to bear the brunt of the recession. A particular low point to note is the increase in the number of Maori and Pasifika children admitted to hospital for infectious and respiratory diseases since the recession began. It is hard to find any Christmas cheer in information such as this. I could add to that list of course the longstanding endurance of the people of Tuhoe as they await a fair hearing. 
How do we find hope that a difference can be made when we are all aware of the struggles and the injustices that continue to be felt? I take comfort from one of our whakatauaki which says “Ano ko te marama kua ngaro kua ara ano”. It may be translated as “Just like the moon that disappears and arises again” or perhaps a shorter way of saying it is six times down seven times up. 
I want to acknowledge the spirit of willingness that we have experienced in various ways this year as different relationships have been built between the Maori Party and parties across the House. These are in the main relationships built out of concern about the people—to eliminate social hazards and to focus on improving outcomes for all New Zealanders. I think of the support that Tariana Turia’s legislative advances in tobacco reform have enjoyed and the profound impact right across the Maori Affairs Committee following the inquiry Hone Harawira initiated to investigate the impact of the tobacco industry upon Maori. I recall the interest illustrated by the Greens and Labour in the bill I promoted to remove GST off healthy food a sharing of minds that was also evident in the Local Government and Environment Committee. We hope that such openness will also be demonstrated when Te Ururoa Flavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill comes up and when the cross-party action I am encouraging on addressing child poverty happens. 
Of course there are also some strange things that happen in this place and I have to note the unholy alliance on the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Bill forged between the Labour Party the ACT Party the Coastal Coalition and the Greens—that was not one that we anticipated. In talking about the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Bill I have to warn Mr Boscawen that when he speaks about it to please pronounce it properly because “tuku tai” is something completely different—it has a totally different meaning. The Maori Party appreciated the strength of support for this bill expressed to us by hapu iwi and electorate organisations throughout the country. They told us that we have kept faith with them in seeking to repeal the 2004 Act and to restore the right of Maori to take the claims to court. Progress is incremental but it will continue to be of utmost priority to us to honour the promise we made to our people. 
Finally I acknowledge the initiative taken by Dr Mapp today in signalling his decision not to stand at the 2011 election. I want to place on record that I am more than happy to help out in a ministerial capacity in defence and in research and science and technology should the Government desire it because that is the way of the Maori Party. We are not only prepared to step up to the plate in every regard but we do so in the knowledge that every issue is a Maori issue—a Maori Party issue—and every day is an opportunity to improve outcomes for all our people. That is why we love coming to work each day. Our best wishes are sent right across the House for a happy Christmas and may all members enjoy the blessings of being with family at this special time of year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I thank you all for your kind comments especially the kind wishes some of you have expressed to my wife Alexandra. I also thank members for the expressions of thanks from all around the House to the hundreds of people who make this place operate. 
I first thank my presiding officers’ team. The Deputy Speaker Lindsay Tisch does extraordinary hours in the Chair and does a remarkable job of organising the team and I want him to know how much I appreciate that. The Assistant Speakers the Hon Rick Barker and Eric Roy do a great job in maintaining the kind of style I have tried to bring to the role of the Speakership. I really appreciate their commitment as well. 
I acknowledge the work of the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee the shadow Leader of the House the Hon Darren Hughes and the whips from all around the House. Many of those people are members of the Business Committee and I really appreciate the constructive approach they bring to that committee as well as to the work of the Standing Orders Committee—a number of those members are also on the Standing Orders Committee. In that light can I acknowledge the Hon Trevor Mallard. Some people may have noticed the odd terse exchange— 
Hon Member 
: Really? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —very occasionally—which the member himself referred to in his contribution this afternoon. I acknowledge that the Hon Trevor Mallard brings a wealth of experience and a very constructive approach to both the Business Committee and the Standing Orders Committee. I want to acknowledge that because I am sure that not many members of the public would be aware of that very valued contribution. 
I thank all members for the courtesy they extend me as Speaker. I know that it is impossible to get everything right. At times I apologise when I do not get things right but you extend extraordinary courtesy to me from the Prime Minister on down. To tell the Prime Minister at times that he is being a bit naughty and needs to sit down is sometimes quite daunting. I am always very gratified by the way that the Prime Minister Ministers and all members of the House treat me with extraordinary courtesy. I am very grateful for that. 
I thank the Clerk of the House. Mary Harris is an extraordinarily competent—extraordinarily competent—Clerk. We are so lucky to be served by her. I mention also her executive assistant Andie who is just a gem. I think the two are a formidable team. I thank the staff of the whole of the Clerk’s Office from the Deputy Clerk right down. So many of them keep this House operating at times in quite challenging circumstances. I thank the select committee clerks and the whole team: the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Bills Office the Hansard team the Parliamentary Library staff our loyal Chamber and gallery officers our interpreters the messengers the security staff the building maintenance and cleaning staff our reception and visitors team—they all play a vital role in how this place operates. I thank our sound radio and television technicians who are working right at this moment to bring our telecasts and broadcasts to the public. We have had a bit of a challenging year this year with the sound system in this place but I think we have overcome most of those problems. I thank the travel office which has to put up with our bookings changing up to five times for every trip we make. I thank the Bellamy’s staff and the behind the scenes team of Geoff Thorn and his Parliamentary Service staff and I include there our electorate office staff who work so hard to support us. Last but not least I thank our remarkable kaumatua Rose White Tahuparae who does her job with extraordinary dignity and actually great organisational skills as well. 
I thank my Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith and my own office staff: Roland on my right here Trish and Beryl who now is in her 25th year of working with me—a quarter of a century. She started in this place ahead of me. She worked in the office of one of Sir Robert Muldoon’s Ministers before I arrived in this place so she has an extraordinary trove of knowledge. Those of you who interact with my office will know how valuable she is. I thank my team because we continue to run the office on just 50 percent of the cost of the office when I arrived in that place. 
To 11 o’clock this morning you people had worked in this place—the House had sat—for 595 hours and 58 minutes. That is 30 hours more than last year. A total of 127 bills received the Royal assent and 12 of them are waiting for the Royal assent at the moment which is double last year’s 66 in total. Written questions lodged have doubled from 19822 to 39817. I say to all members that I think you do deserve a break. 
So too does the press gallery. I acknowledge that its members have also worked hard. I am sure all members of this House would acknowledge that they do not always see eye to eye with everything the press gallery does but its members are committed to what they do and they work very hard. 
All I would say is that it is at times very easy to criticise our Parliament but as someone who has been to many Parliaments in many supposedly democratic places around the world I know that this place has many strengths and to me it is a shame to endlessly criticise it. 
As we depart to enjoy some relaxation this Christmas I am sure that we will all want to remember the families of the Pike River miners so tragically killed just a few short weeks ago. Christmas for those families will not be the same. Such a family-focused time will reinforce their awful loss. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them this Christmas. Colleagues go forth and do enjoy yourselves. Go well and I look forward to seeing you all next year. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 5.51 p.m.