Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:644;Page:14056] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do at its rising adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 12 February 2008 and that the sitting days in 2008 be as follows: 
February 12 13 14 19 20 and 21; 
March 4 5 6 11 12 13 18 19 and 20; 
April 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 and 17; 
May 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 28 and 29; 
June 17 18 19 24 25 and 26; 
July 1 2 3 22 23 24 29 30 and 31; 
August 5 6 7 26 27 and 28; 
September 2 3 4 9 10 and 11; 
and that the House do at its rising on Thursday 11 September 2008 adjourn until Tuesday 23 September 2008. 
I want to start with the traditional responsibility of the Leader of the House which is to thank all those who have contributed to the smooth functioning of this place over the last year. I thank you Mr Deputy Speaker Madam Speaker the two Assistant Speakers the Clerks of the House—we have had two this year David McGee who is now an Ombudsman and Mary Harris who is now confirmed as the new Clerk of the House. We have a female Speaker a female Clerk of the House and a female Prime Minister and some members may feel slightly threatened by that and potentially redundant if they are not careful. I also thank all the Assistant Clerks the clerks of select committees the Table Office staff messengers the security staff the secretaries the research units the ministerial staff and the rest of the very large number of people who work in this complex of buildings without whom it would not function at all. 
Part of this motion provides for the sitting timetable for next year. I have no doubt that some journalists—and maybe one or two characters opposite—will draw certain conclusions from the timetable. They should not do so. The election has to be held no later than I think it is 15 November and therefore a timetable has to be provided that can go to the latest possible point in relation to that election date. It is not to foreshadow when the election date must be because an adjournment motion still has to be moved at some point before the House can rise and subsequently be prorogued and dissolved. In this motion there are up to 23 weeks available for sitting before the general election has to be held. If a general election were held as late as 15 November there would be relatively limited time for sitting after the election before Christmas. 
By and large—and I may surprise people by saying this—this has been a very measured year in the House. There has been a certain level of hysteria over the last week or so—and some people got themselves very thoroughly excited—but the reality is that this House has sat under very little urgency in 2007. By historic standards there has been a very small amount of urgency indeed. A major legislative programme has been completed during this year. The reason for that I think is that MMP is slowly transforming the style of debate in this House in terms of reducing the amount of time spent on delaying tactics on relatively non-controversial or non-controversial legislation. As a result a great deal of legislation even more than in the past is going through relatively quickly and a small number of pieces of legislation are being concentrated on for a great deal of attention. That means it is possible to complete a legislative programme with considerably less urgency than would have been required 5 years ago certainly 10 years ago and even more 20 years ago when the House sat under considerable amounts of urgency. 
I particularly note the passing of the Income Tax Act—the largest statute on the books inevitably. We are the only developed country to succeed in completely revising its income tax legislation. Many other countries have tried but none has actually succeeded in doing that. I also note that the new electronic system will finally be going live some time over the summer vacation—not on time and certainly not within budget. I have to say that somewhat unwillingly as Minister of Finance. That will raise some interesting questions for future Parliaments about whether we should adopt the procedures of some legislatures around the world where the electronic version of statutes is now the authoritative version of the statute. The reason being that it is very much easier to update the electronic version with amendments and to produce a clean copy for people to use as opposed to something that looks a bit like the leftovers from the fish and chip wrapping of older statutes with little bits of paper tacked in all over them and where one tries to work out what the statute is actually saying. 
To turn to the wider political scene the year has been marked by a number of very strong characteristics. The most important is a continuation of economic growth—the longest strongest phase of economic growth in over 30 years in New Zealand. Even the Business Roundtable is starting to wonder whether in fact this can continue—this kind of death-defying gravity-defying act where against all principles of the far right the economy continues to grow despite not adopting any of the far right’s policies. It has been a year in which we have seen significant business taxation reform with legislation passed to cut the corporate tax rate—the first significant cut in that rate since the mid-1980s. Indeed as I pointed out to someone ungently earlier last week I cannot find a year in which the National Party in office ever cut the corporate tax rate—and I have gone back 40 years in the records to discover that. The National Party is great in Opposition promising things that never seem to happen when it is in Government. 
It was a year in which we also introduced major charities tax reform by lifting the cap on charitable donations—something which New Zealand First took somewhat amiss and misinterpreted in some recent activities in that respect. But I notice that when the National Party did not pay back its GST it gave it to a charity if I remember rightly. That might be why Mr Key was so careful in his response to what Mr Peters was actually proposing in that particular regard. It was a year in which we saw both the launch of KiwiSaver and massive enhancements to it and now we have probably something like 350000 New Zealanders signed up to KiwiSaver. And still today in a specially called press conference the Leader of the Opposition could not tell us what the National Party policy was on KiwiSaver. I think he is counting slowly until he gets to the point where he decides that he will have to do another U-turn in that regard. 
It was a year in which the Government announced its plans for an emissions trading scheme—the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme being introduced by any country in the developed world. It was a year in which sustainability came to the fore in terms of economic policy and supporting policies. It was a year in which we passed 350000 new jobs since this Government came into office at the end of 1999. It was a year in which the participation rate in the labour force continued to be maintained at very high rates—very high rates by New Zealand standards but also very high rates by the standards of any other developed economy. We maintained the fifth lowest unemployment rate in the developed world. It was a year in which we saw the number of people on the unemployment benefit drop to less than one-eighth of what it was when we became the Government only 8 years ago. 
It was a year in which the National Party the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and a few others colluded to mount a campaign against 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Eighty-three percent of 3-year-old to 4-year-old children are now in that 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Steve Maharey is the man whose fingerprints are all over that policy and he will carry it with him to his new job as vice-chancellor of Massey University. I have to tell him that we have no plans for 20 hours’ free education at Massey University; they will not get that one out of the next term of the Labour-led Government. It was a year in which we have now completed the provision of more than 5000 additional teachers over and above roll growth since we became the Government. It was a year in which we introduced major tertiary education reforms and only the Southland Institute of Technology seems to be really upset. It was a year in which we developed a major skills strategy to be released soon. It was a year in which we have seen significant improvements in literacy and numeracy achievement at primary schools. 
It was a year in which we have completed cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper pharmaceuticals. It was a year in which we have seen elective surgery up in hips knees and cataracts and in which we have seen a continuation of a major hospital building programme. We have seen the introduction of 4 weeks’ annual leave actually coming into force and extensions to paid parental leave. And it has been a year I have to say of major progress in Treaty negotiations made on the foundations laid by yourself Madam Speaker and by the Hon Mark Burton. Next year we will have a programme of tax cuts for the next term of Parliament that will address the issues around fairness in that regard. 
I will finish on one small minor note. I have been listening to this debate over the electoral finance legislation and I have to say that I have never heard so much codswallop from the Opposition in all my life. I particularly enjoyed Mr Finlayson’s speech just now when he said we must have a bipartisan approach on this legislation and if National were the Government it would repeal it before Christmas. I do not know whether he thought about that before he made that statement—no select committee no consultation with any Opposition parties. No it will go before Christmas he said. 
I just want to touch on this issue of money spent under the Parliamentary Service. I hold in my hand a box of chocolates. I will table this box of chocolates. It says “Best wishes from Gerry Brownlee MP Ilam Christchurch.” and it has on it the parliamentary crest. I want to know whether Gerry Brownlee is using taxpayers’ money to give out free chocolates to the people of New Zealand. If so why have I not received a box of chocolates from the member? Why have the members on this side of the House not received their boxes of chocolates? I seek leave to table Gerry Brownlee’s box of chocolates and I invite the Table staff to eat them subsequently.