Volume 659 Week 32 - Wednesday 16 December 2009 
Volume 659 Week 32 - Wednesday 16 December 2009 
[Volume:659;Page:8587] 
Wednesday 16 December 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be no general debate today and for the House to sit beyond 6 p.m. in order to conclude business as agreed by the Business Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Recession—Protection for Families 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his answers yesterday in the House about protecting families from the recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister said “we have lost 60000” jobs over the last year and “that is a pretty good result” what is so good about an additional 60000 hard-working New Zealanders losing their livelihoods and why has he not intervened as effectively as the Australian Government which for the first time in a decade has reduced unemployment below the level that exists in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister said that because it was a good result. The forecasts that were based on Labour’s economic mismanagement and the global recession forecast 120000 job losses. Because of this Government’s policy only 60000 jobs have been lost. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When he said yesterday that he was giving pay increases to low-paid workers why is the Government continuing to demand a zero wage increase from the thousands of people who work in our hospitals as orderlies kitchenhands and cleaners; and why is he offering a zero wage increase to the thousands of New Zealanders who work as caregivers for the elderly and disabled? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is clear from that question that the member does not know what negotiations and processes are going on. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. What does he say to the New Zealand family who have been refused a food grant and the local food bank is empty; and what does he think the family should tell their kids they will be having for Christmas dinner? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the member is aware of a particular family in that situation then I suggest they approach the Ministry of Social Development because there is provision available to ensure that families have something to eat for Christmas dinner. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that low-paid workers had been given a tax cut what precisely was the tax cut given to those families with dependent children who earn under $40000 a year and how did that compare with his own tax cut? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the October tax cuts which were set out by the previous Labour Government those families all received tax reductions. When it came to the 1 April tax cuts a large group of New Zealanders had not had tax reductions and we made sure that they got the benefits of a growing economy as well. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was relatively straightforward. As this Government claimed that it had given tax cuts to low-paid workers I asked about the tax cut given to the particular group with dependent children that earns under $40000. I could not tell from the Minister’s comments whether he even addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must confess as Speaker I could pick up what he said. He said that in fact a group of people—probably that group of people—received tax cuts in October last year and that a further group of people who did not receive tax cuts in October last year received them in April this year. Although it may not have been exactly the answer that the member wanted it was an answer to the question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister say to the family referred to yesterday by the Auckland City Missioner where the income earner in the family has lost his job the family have lost their home and they “have nothing for Christmas nothing for extras and are really struggling and yet a year ago they were OK”; and how has he protected that family from the sharpest edges of the recession as he quaintly puts it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we pointed out as a result of Government policy 60000 families who would have otherwise lost their jobs have kept them. That member knows that in a recession— 
Hon Members 
: That’s just rubbish. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Unfortunately that family probably relied on the reassurances from the Labour Government that it had fixed the economic cycle and had provided them with a permanent job. That is not how it turned out and we are spending every waking hour cleaning up the mess left by him which is hurting our families. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many additional children have been forced below the poverty line over the last year as a result of the near-doubling of unemployment and as a result of most workers on low to middle incomes actually having a reduction in real income or has he not bothered to ask about that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well of course the member is trying to copy political tactics from other countries as if— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that you had a discussion about the Prime Minister’s repeatedly not answering the question but going off on a tangent and the Acting Prime Minister is doing that on this occasion today. I ask you to bring him to order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The slight dilemma I have is that if the honourable Leader of the Opposition reflects on his question he will see that he basically accused the Government of not caring about people who may have lost their jobs. Under those circumstances it is difficult to expect the Acting Prime Minister to give a totally objective answer when he has been accused of that sort of thing. If the Leader of the Opposition objects to the way it was answered I invite him to repeat his question without making that kind of emotive allegation and we will see whether we can get a more objective approach from both sides. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has he asked how many additional children over the last year have been forced below the poverty line as a result of the near-doubling of the unemployment rate and the fact that a great many workers have suffered a reduction in their real incomes as the Minister of Finance pointed out in a statement yesterday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to that is yes. I have to say that this Government has found it hard work to deal with people who are hurting because the previous Government so badly mismanaged this economy. When the recession came along— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer to my question could not possibly be “yes”. It asked how many additional children have been forced below the poverty line. “Yes” is not an answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that—and I stand to be corrected—the member in his question asked “Has he asked how many … children … have been forced …” and the Hon Bill English replied “yes” which meant yes he had asked that. My dilemma is that I think an answer to the question that was asked was given. Does the honourable member have a further supplementary question? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I am still waiting for the answer to the first one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the question was answered. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Having asked that question how many additional children are now living below the poverty line as a result of the doubling of the unemployment rate and the fact that a great many workers have suffered a cut in their real incomes this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot tell him the number off the top of the head but I can tell him why they might be. First workers lost their jobs because of the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. Secondly if families have found themselves below the poverty line— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
:—it is because they are on a benefit level set by the previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it was not the last day of this sitting of the House I would probably be asking the Hon Bill English to leave the Chamber because I was on my feet. What he said was beyond what was necessary given the question that was asked. He answered the question and he went on to make far more comment than was necessary. It is the last day and I will put up with it for today but I will not do so in future. 
Economy—Management 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps has the Government taken to manage the economy in 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government inherited an economy in bad shape because it had been so badly managed. The Government has had to deal with the fall-out of many families losing their jobs and finding themselves on low incomes on benefits set by the previous Government. That is why the Government has invested in long-term infrastructure tax assistance for small businesses a large-scale home insulation programme and cutting red tape so that businesses can make positive decisions to employ and invest. 
Craig Foss 
: What has been the effect of the Government’s initiatives? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The effect of the Government’s initiatives has been to protect thousands of New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of the recession. We have at the same time laid down the platform for lifting our economic performance because all those people who have lost their jobs because the New Zealand economy was mismanaged will not get them back until a business decides to employ them. 
Craig Foss 
: What expressions of support has the Government received for its sensible economic management? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been many but there is one that I would like to quote: “We must insist on value for money from the public sector. The state must play its part in stewarding limited budgets and targeting resources to those who need them most.” That was the one useful thing that the Opposition’s finance spokesman said all year. 
Public Assets—Privatisation 
3.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did he say at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update lock-up yesterday that while the Government does not plan privatisation in this term of Parliament it recognises various assets as not well-managed or struggling to keep up with the pace; and did he single out four entities in this context? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The answer to that is yes and that is because that member’s Government left behind a swath of badly managed taxpayers’ assets and we are trying to sort them out. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When the Minister said that Television New Zealand was not well-managed and was struggling to keep up with the pace was he sending the signal that the only conclusion a National Government review will arrive at is to sell it off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. I was describing the state of an asset that that member’s Government left in appalling shape. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he agree with the 2025 Taskforce that “It is difficult to conceive of a reason why the New Zealand government should own a large coal-mining company three major electricity generating and retail companies one of New Zealand’s largest exporting firms …”; if not what is the compelling reason? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the Minister of Finance said that Kordia and New Zealand Post were “not well-managed” and “struggling to keep up with the pace” was he sending the signal that the only conclusion a National Government review can possibly arrive at is to sell them both off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. I was describing the state of those assets. A large number of taxpayers’ assets have been left in an appalling state by that member’s Government. We are taking responsibility kicking its cronies off the boards and lifting the performance of those assets. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When he said that New Zealand Post was “not well-managed” and “struggling to keep up with the pace” was he talking about Kiwibank’s performance? What was it that disappointed him and why was he not more open about including Kiwibank in the State-owned enterprise sales list directly? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: When I made those comments I was commenting on the state of the assets. I know that Labour will not accept responsibility but its members should apologise to New Zealanders for how much value their Government destroyed and for how badly a lot of taxpayers’ assets were run on their watch. 
John Boscawen 
: What is the compelling reason for the New Zealand Government to own a large coalmining company three major electricity generating and retailing companies and one of New Zealand’s largest exporters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The compelling reason is that it does own them and given that those assets were built up by taxpayers giving up their PAYE each week this Government takes its role of protecting and growing the value of those assets very carefully. They have been built up by hard cash paid each week by people who could easily have used it for other purposes that might have suited them better. The previous Government did not understand that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he single out Television New Zealand Kordia New Zealand Post and KiwiRail if he does not plan to open the door to sales; is it just coincidence that this comes a day before a report recommending partial privatisation or is it cover for his brazen manipulation of history and his obvious lack of a real plan for growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I singled them out because as I described them at the time they are fading network businesses. It is very difficult for New Zealand Post for Television New Zealand or for Kordia actually to make money. If that member’s Government had paid more attention to what was going on with those businesses taxpayers would not have lost so much money. 
Schools Primary—Teaching of Reading and Writing 
4.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received about the teaching of reading and writing in years 1 and 2 at primary school? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a report from the Education Review Office that focused on how effectively reading and writing was taught in years 1 and 2. The report found that although 70 percent of teachers are doing well 30 percent are not teaching reading and writing effectively and they set low expectations for students. It is extremely concerning that the report finds 67 percent of school leaders—that is principals and senior managers—are not properly monitoring how well those young children are achieving or progressing and that three-quarters of principals do not set high expectations of achievement levels. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What is the Government doing to address those issues? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: National standards which will be in schools next year give schools a shared set of expectations about achievement in each year of school. Plain-language reporting to parents and communities will ensure that parents are well informed about their child’s progress right from when they start school. When a child is struggling national standards will ensure that parents are aware at an early stage so that they can help. That is what parents want and that is what this Government is making sure they get. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Has she read page 5 of the report which states: “Although high teacher expectations are important they are not sufficient on their own to enable children to achieve. Expectations for high standards must be accompanied by good teaching …”; and what specifically in her national standards will improve teaching? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was listening quite closely to that question and I could not hear it for the barracking from the Government benches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The backbenchers on the Government side were making an absolutely unacceptable level of noise. They should realise that sitting close to the wall means that noise just bounces into the centre of the Chamber and it is extraordinarily difficult to hear. I invite Kelvin Davis to repeat his question. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Has she read page 5 of the report which states: “Although high teacher expectations are important they are not sufficient on their own to enable children to achieve. Expectations for high standards must be accompanied by good teaching …”; and what specifically in her national standards will improve teaching? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I totally agree and effective teaching is at the core of national standards. Effective teaching is using formative assessment; that is constantly monitoring how effective the teaching is and making changes. It is about informing parents so that they can be involved in the process too. That is what this report says principals and senior leaders in three-quarters of schools are not doing effectively for years 1 and 2. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Can she understand the frustration of the 70 percent of teachers who are doing a great job according to the report but are resentful of national standards being imposed on them threats being made to sack boards of trustees their professional integrity being smeared and moves to prevent criticism of the Minister? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No but I certainly understand the frustration of parents around this country who are fed up with unions dictating to them how their children should be educated. 
Vulnerable Citizens—Prime Minister’s Statements 
5.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his comment: “This Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and we have made sure this year that we do not. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Government still consider the National Council of Women to be an organisation that represents the views of a large cross-section of women in New Zealand including vulnerable women? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The National Council of Women is a longstanding and respected organisation. 
Hon Annette King 
: What was his response to a recent letter to him from the National Council of Women which stated that the new accident compensation sexual abuse guidelines are discriminatory under the UN conventions particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and has he given any commitment to investigate the council’s claims? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am simply not familiar with the letter or any reply that the Prime Minister may have given. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer will he respond to the National Council of Women’s request that he implement temporary special measures as provided for under the UN conventions before 10 January 2010 when all the existing accident compensation claimants will be transferred to the new guidelines which have been condemned by clinicians throughout New Zealand; if not will he now endorse those guidelines so the public and the National Council of Women know where the Prime Minister of New Zealand stands on this issue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am sure the Prime Minister would be happy to discuss that issue along with any other issues with the National Council of Women. As I understand it the guidelines that have been prepared by the Accident Compensation Corporation are consistent with the legislation passed by this House and were prepared by clinicians. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the National Council of Women to the Prime Minister dated 14 December. 
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. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What is he doing to address the findings of the recent OECD report which showed that nearly one-third of New Zealanders on below-average incomes had missed out on health care because they could not afford it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would be interested in looking at that report but I would be surprised if it was not contradicted by evidence from New Zealand which I understand generally shows people are getting access to health care. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is he aware that the third  
Vulnerability Report 
 showed that there is a hugely disproportionate impact for some sectors of our communities and in particular the 14 percent unemployment rate for Maori is over three times higher than the 4.5 percent rate for Pakeha? What specific strategies are being devised to address the long-term inequities that have contributed to poverty and social injustice within our society? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Government is fully aware that the impact of the recession is disproportionate on some groups of people. That is why it is absolutely vital that we get on and create an economy where those people get the opportunities they need to overcome their disadvantage and to get out of the low-income trap. I am pleased to say that we have been able to work with the member’s party to back measures that will achieve that. 
Climate Change Copenhagen Conference—Legally Binding Agreement 
6.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with his Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues that it is “extremist” for small developing countries like Tuvalu to push for a legally binding agreement from the Copenhagen climate conference? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I would disagree with the Associate Minister if that was actually what he said but it was not. He said that Tuvalu walking out of the negotiations in order to make that point was extremist. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can his Government criticise Tuvalu’s negotiating position and tactics when the Climate Action Tracker report that he trumpeted in this House just yesterday has just downgraded its ranking of New Zealand’s negotiating position from medium to inadequate where inadequate is the lowest ranking possible? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite satisfied—and the Prime Minister is probably in Copenhagen by now—that those who are representing New Zealand will represent New Zealand’s interests well. The only real question mark over New Zealand’s credibility in these negotiations is the performance of the previous Government of which that member was part which oversaw record increases in carbon emissions. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is he aware that small island nations like Tuvalu have been brave in stepping outside the traditional mantra of the Group of 77 by calling for controls on emissions growth in major developing countries within the Group of 77; if so how then does he justify his Minister criticising Tuvalu rather than congratulating it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Copenhagen discussions are meant to be a negotiation. New Zealand will take part in that negotiation. We are fully aware of the concerns of the small islands. It is a bit hard to negotiate if people leave the room when it gets to the hard bit. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can his Government possibly justify calling Tuvalu’s position “extremist” when in fact New Zealand now occupies the extremist position as bringing one of the worst pledges to the table at the climate conference according to the very report from the Climate Action Tracker that he was trumpeting yesterday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said before the main question mark over New Zealand’s credibility is that over the last decade we had among the fastest growth in carbon emissions of many developed countries. That was under a Government of which that member was part. New Zealand has a very credible position. We have a sensible and wide-ranging emissions trading system and a sensible target. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that Mr Groser’s personal attack on Tuvalu’s chief negotiator will help build New Zealand’s relationship with our Pacific neighbours and foster a successful agreement at the conference? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will know New Zealand has strong relationships with our Pacific neighbours. As the member will also know Mr Groser is one of the more experienced international negotiators around and I am sure he will contribute to whatever result we can get out of Copenhagen. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister understand that Tuvalu is currently being submerged under water and could be wiped off the map by sea-level rises resulting from climate change; if so can he understand why the delegates from Tuvalu may have strong feelings about the lack of action at the climate conference? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. We would also argue that New Zealand is one of the few countries that are doing their bit because we now have an emissions trading system in place after much discussion within our Parliament which is more than almost any other country can say. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Groser’s comment last week that New Zealand’s ranking as medium by the Climate Action Tracker put New Zealand in respectable territory at the Copenhagen talks; if so will the Government now revise New Zealand’s negotiating position given that New Zealand has just in the last few hours been downgraded by the same report—the report that the Prime Minister gives so much weight to—from medium to inadequate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have a credible and respectable position. Those who are representing New Zealand there will negotiate fundamentally in our interests to get some kind of outcome from Copenhagen that is of benefit to the whole planet. New Zealand has a credible and respectable position and we will be sticking to it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the Climate Action Tracker report dated 16 December which rates New Zealand’s climate conference offer as inadequate. 
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. 
Housing Affordability—Initiatives 
7.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What new affordable housing initiatives has he implemented since becoming Minister? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 We will now underwrite loans for building on Maori land which banks and the previous Labour Government refused to do. The Housing Innovation Fund has been boosted to $20 million. Well what is new there? We now build houses not simply fund administration systems capacity building and reports. Tenants can now buy their State houses if they choose to. Community housing groups have fed back into the Gateway Housing scheme how it can best provide for them. I thank colleagues for making it cheaper for builders to build with the changes to the Resource Management Act and the Building Act. I thank the Minister of Finance for better managing the economy during a difficult time for those with mortgages and rents. I have more but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has heard quite sufficient. 
Moana Mackey 
: We love the court jester routine; it is fine. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know what it is too. The member was called to ask a supplementary question not to take an attempted cheap shot at a Minister answering questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to waste any further time on this. The point the member makes is a perfectly valid point of order and that should not have happened. However when Ministers go on for a little too long like that they do invite comment and it would be helpful if they did not do that. At the same time the member should not have done that. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does he reconcile his claim in the House today and back in August that by extending Labour’s Welcome Home Loan scheme to Maori multiple-owned land he had fixed the problem and “solved it in 9 months” with the statement of the Housing New Zealand Corporation chief executive Lesley McTurk to the Social Services Committee last week that “We haven’t worked through the detail of the policy work.” and with the fact that she was not able to provide any details or even a time-frame for completion? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We currently offer a policy for Maori wanting to build on multiple-owned land. They cannot borrow at the moment; the banks will not loan to them because they have no security. Labour ignored this problem. The Maori Party got talking to me it asked us to do that and now we will. It is a great result. 
Moana Mackey 
: If this policy is currently in place as he claims and is not still being worked on as the Social Services Committee was told last week by the chief executive of the Housing New Zealand Corporation how many houses have been built on Maori multiple-owned land under the extension of the Welcome Home Loan scheme? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: At the moment Maori are engaging with the Housing New Zealand Corporation on their ability to borrow. Obviously as the policy was only just announced they are not building houses at the moment. 
Moana Mackey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked how many houses and the Minister did not answer that very simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is very noisy and it is very hard for me to hear. However I did hear the member’s supplementary question and it asked how many houses have been built under this policy. In trying to hear the Minister’s answer under a lot of noise I did not hear the substance of the question answered. I invite the Minister to indicate to the House how many houses have been built under the policy. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not have on hand how many houses are being built at the moment. 
Moana Mackey 
: Can he confirm that of the 40000 State houses available to be sold to tenants one is being prepared for sale as reported by Television New Zealand and does he stand by his statement that this is “meeting our expectations” meaning that at his expected rate of uptake fewer than 10 homes would be sold to tenants under his Government; and how much taxpayer money has been spent on this aspirational policy? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is true that we are offering State house tenants the opportunity to buy their own homes and 1300 have shown an interest. At the moment no tenant has bought a State house but the National Government is offering State house tenants an opportunity. We are not so condescending that we would say to State house tenants that they could never own their own home. This is not a condescending Government. 
Question Time 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker―[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I accept that this is the last sitting day and there is a bit of noise but I ask members to be reasonable. Members complained when―[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and I expect some silence. Front-bench members complained when there was noise from the back of the House; now they are making an awful lot of noise across the House. I ask them to now show some respect to the back of the House. 
Roading—Wellington-Levin Road 
8.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has he received on yesterday’s announcement of a strategic plan for the State Highway 1 Wellington to Levin corridor? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen many reports in the last 24 hours mostly welcoming yesterday’s announcement. The Mayor of Porirua Jenny Brash said Transmission Gully provides better community and environmental outcomes. The Greater Wellington chair Fran Wilde said it is a great Christmas present for the whole region. Even the member opposite the Hon Darren Hughes said that the decision to give the go-ahead to the Transmission Gully project is welcome news for motorists in the Wellington region. Of course not everybody is happy and I recognise different opinions. But after decades and decades of debate we finally have a strategic plan from Wellington all the way to Levin that makes sense and has a funding track to enable it to be built. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Hon Darren Hughes. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did the member want to ask a supplementary question to his primary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has called for a supplementary question. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Transport document dated 10 December 2008 which shows that Transmission Gully will increase congestion will reduce rail patronage by 13 percent and could take substantially longer to open than the coastal route. 
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. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does his confirmation that if there is to be a toll for Transmission Gully it will be around $3 mean that the Government will look at a public-private partnership for the construction of that road? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have not confirmed that there will be a toll. I have said that there quite probably will be a toll and I have indicated it would be in the order of $2 to $3 in today’s money. I do not necessarily expect that it will be a public-private partnership because the funding is mostly in place for the project and tolling would pay only a small proportion of the cost although every bit helps when we are talking about $1 billion. But we will see how that all develops and which construction contract arrangements proceed as the agency goes through its work. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What cognisance did the Minister take of the provisions of the United Future - National confidence and supply agreement which strongly supported the construction of Transmission Gully? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am very pleased that the National Party along with United Future and other support parties has secured the funding necessary to build the largest piece of the Wellington to Levin corridor. The member for Ohariu has been an outspoken supporter of Transmission Gully and I thank him for his tireless advocacy. As the member will know better than me over the last 9 years there has been plan after plan for this project and only this Government has stepped up to put a funding track in place that can allow it to be built. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is he aware of the considerable local opposition in Kapiti to turning a local Western Link Road the construction of which is just months away into a four-lane 100-kilometre-an-hour Western Link expressway? I have received 1000 responses to it in just the last 2 days with 76 percent of people supporting my position and just 24 percent of people supporting National’s position. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is not a popularity contest; it is building the best strategic plan for the highway through the region. It is very important that we do so. However I have also received lots of correspondence in the last couple of days including from various people who have offered their support and are encouraged that the Government has made a decision. One person sent me his copy of Darren Hughes’ newsletter thing. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: What did it say? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It said that Labour had 9 years in Government and did nothing. There were reports after reports but nothing happened. That is what he wrote on Darren’s survey form. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Does this progressive and visionary Government have the funding available to follow through on the commitment to build Transmission Gully and the other Wellington roads of national significance projects? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes. The previous Labour Government committed only $400 million to Transmission Gully and asked the region to somehow fund the rest. This Government has stepped up with $11 billion in new State highway infrastructure and is getting the job done. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment  Bill—Holiday Pay 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What is the basis for the changes in the treatment of using holiday pay towards the costs of being injured at work in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) 
: 
 This is a reinstatement of policy back to the pre-2008 position. It is consistent with the way other Government agencies such as the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income treat annual leave as income for the purposes of income tax and a calculation of benefit entitlement. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why did the Minister ignore the advice from Treasury which opposed these changes on the basis that they would save just $1 million and that the savings were small compared to the fairness concerns? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: The member said that it was a saving of only $1 million. That is typical of Labour’s loose attitude towards spending taxpayers’ money. It explains why the net liabilities of the Accident Compensation Corporation have soared from $4 billion to $12.7 billion and claim costs rose by 57 percent in 4 years under the previous Labour Government’s watch. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will the Minister justify to injured workers and their families the plan to take their holiday pay or is the Minister being a scrooge and are these changes to accident compensation just the beginning of the National Government’s plan to reduce holidays for everyone? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: There is no such plan. That member sits on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which is right now considering the bill. I think she has plenty of opportunity to debate the issue there. 
Darien Fenton 
: If the Minister were injured during the summer adjournment would he expect the accident compensation scheme to demand that he use his holiday pay to recover? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am pleased the Associate Minister has the delegated authority for injury prevention; she will try very hard for New Zealanders to have a safe summer holiday break. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I half expected one of my colleagues to take the point of order. There was a direct question about the use of holiday pay for accident compensation and the response related to the delegated authority for injury prevention. There was no link between the question and the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the question had been an objective question that asked purely about the use of holiday pay in the event of injury I would have been able to assist the member much more. But the question was a hypothetical question about the Minister for ACC getting injured. Under such circumstances I do not think I can expect any particular answer of the Minister answering the question. We need more objective questions. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. 
Capital Market Development Taskforce—Recommendations 
10.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What priority will the Government give to responding to the recommendations of the Capital Market Development Taskforce? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 It will give that a high priority. The Prime Minister will lead the Government’s response with an announcement early in 2010. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the task force for their service and in the spirit of Christmas to acknowledge the previous Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel for establishing the task force. 
Jonathan Young 
: What priority has the Government given to earlier recommendations of the task force? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In response to the task force’s interim report the Government worked quickly to implement a number of important measures including passing legislation to enact new simplified disclosure prospectuses bringing in new securities regulations and helping to facilitate changes to the NZX listing rules in order to make it easier for firms to access capital. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will he rule out the task force’s recommendations for the partial listing of Government assets in line with the pre-election promise from the Prime Minister that there would be no sale of State assets in this term; or did that promise not extend to partial privatisation? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. The promise relates to any dilution of equity in this term. The member is quite aware of that. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Invitation to Minister 
11.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Has he received my invitation dated 14 December to accompany me after Parliament rises on the Gillespie Pass tramping circuit in the north-eastern parts of the Mount Aspiring National Park so that he can inspect firsthand areas in the conservation estate included in his stocktake of mineral resources and will he accept it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I have received that invitation and I say to the member that I think the itinerary that he has put together for he and I to traipse through the backblocks of New Zealand is truly splendid. So on the one hand I am deeply touched that the member wants to spend so much quality time in the high country alone with me but on the other hand I notice that all I am required to do is bring a pair of boots. I have seen that film  
Brokeback Mountain 
 
so I am afraid that I will remain unavailable. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister reconsider if I offer to carry his pack? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Given the circumstances not even if hell freezes over. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why will the Minister not accept my altruistic offer made in the spirit of Christmas goodwill and once and for all throw off that epithet of “Minister of Stationary Energy”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Not even will the spirit of Christmas cause me to make such a fundamental life-change. I will assure the member that I appreciate the sentiment—well actually I do not appreciate all of the sentiment behind the invitation but I understand what he is trying to say and I will be spending time over the Christmas break enjoying some of New Zealand’s more pristine areas. Unfortunately he will not be accompanying me. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister expect to receive any other invitations from members of the Opposition? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I do. I live in great hope that I will receive an invitation from the Hon David Cunliffe the man of the people to enjoy champagne and oysters at his Herne Bay residence where I understand the theme of the function will be “My Future; Your Best Interests.” Further I expect to receive a tramping invitation from the Hon Shane Jones to tramp up and down Queen Street and drop into McDonald’s where we will have lunch with Parekura Horomia. I also anticipate an invitation from the Hon Phil Goff but I understand that it will be a “Bring Your Own Vote” party and that not many will be going. Despite these exhortations and despite the desire of Opposition members for me to join them in these ventures I want to make it very clear that regardless of their needs I am not jumping the waka. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would not like Mr Brownlee to go away ill-informed. It was Burger King not McDonald’s. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I hope that my slip of the tongue has not destroyed Mr Horomia’s sponsorship deal. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Sector Research 
12.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently made to progress agricultural greenhouse gas research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 We have taken big steps. For several months I and Tim Groser have been working extremely hard to build international support for the New Zealand concept of a global alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases. This work will come to fruition overnight in Copenhagen where a significant number of developing and developed nations will join New Zealand to formally establish the alliance. In addition New Zealand will announce a major funding contribution equalling tens of millions of dollars to the alliance. 
Colin King 
: Why is the Government contributing unprecedented funding and effort to the global alliance? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The global alliance stands to be the biggest single effort that the world has ever seen aimed at practically addressing the challenge of reducing farming emissions while ensuring that food production meets the demands of a growing world population. The Government proposed the alliance and is supporting it strongly because we are committed to ensuring that farmers have practical and realistic solutions to reduce their emissions. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will this new agreement commit the dairy industry to a 25 percent cut in emissions by 2020 as the United States has just announced; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It will not specifically do so; the alliance will allow scientists from all around the world to find solutions by which not only the dairy industry but all farmers can look to reduce emissions while not reducing production. 
Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill introduces new legal arrangements that will enable polytechnic councils and the Crown to respond decisively and appropriately to the educational and financial challenges facing the sector. The new arrangements need to be in place as soon as possible to give the reconstituted councils time to start addressing the financial pressures on their polytechnics. I therefore thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their consideration of this bill within a shortened time frame. I also acknowledge the hard work of officials select committee staff and parliamentary counsel in progressing this bill. 
This National-led Government is committed to establishing a world-leading education system—one that equips New Zealanders with the knowledge skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21st century. A key priority is the development of high-quality relevant and efficient tertiary education provision that meets the needs of students employers and the economy. The polytechnic sector has an important role to play within the tertiary education system as the primary provider of vocational education and training opportunities for New Zealanders. It is critical therefore that New Zealand has well-governed polytechnics that are educationally sound and financially viable. 
At present educational performance across the polytechnic sector varies from good to poor. 
Hon Members 
: Oops she’s lost her place already. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Of concern to this Government are the six polytechnics— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Read the book. 
Sue Moroney 
: She’s looking for the pictures. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There are no pictures. Of concern to this Government are the six polytechnics whose educational performance has been identified as poor. Indications are that without major changes these polytechnics will be unable to achieve significant improvements over the medium to long term in the quality of education provided to students. 
Historically financial performance has also varied across the polytechnic sector for a number of reasons. Some polytechnics have not managed costs within revenue. Others have faced increased competition from private providers. Regional polytechnics have been unable to take advantage of economies of scale because of the decline in their local population base. Since 2005-06 the sector has received $416 million in extraordinary funding to address issues of poor financial performance. Despite such assistance six polytechnics will not be financially viable in 2011. A further six can become financially viable but only through compromising educational quality. Across the board polytechnics are not living within their means. In 2008 polytechnics spent on average $1131 for every $1000 of core income earned. Given the tight financial environment within which this Government has to operate the polytechnic sector can no longer rely on additional funding being made available to address financial viability issues. Rapid innovative and decisive action will need to be taken by polytechnic councils and the Crown to address the educational and financial challenges facing the sector. 
The bill establishes new legal arrangements that provide polytechnic councils and the Crown with greater decision-making flexibility. For the benefit of the House I will reiterate the bill’s objectives. This bill’s first objective is to improve the governance capability and effectiveness of polytechnic councils. The second objective is to allow the Crown to more effectively respond to the risks posed by polytechnics with educational or financial performance issues. This bill introduces new governance arrangements for polytechnics with the aim of building the capability of councils for decisive and responsive decision-making. 
As a number of submitters commented a reduction in the size of polytechnic councils from the current 12 to 20 members would be of considerable benefit. From 1 May 2010—or earlier if circumstances require—polytechnic councils will consist of eight members only. Each polytechnic council will comprise four ministerial appointees and four council appointees. Again I thank the Education and Science Committee for its recommendation that councils be given the discretion to appoint four members. This pragmatic approach recognises the advantages of giving a polytech council greater flexibility to tailor its composition to reflect the particular needs and interests of its community. It will also enable the responsible Minister to appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson from amongst all eight members instead of only five. 
Under the bill there will be a new emphasis on achieving and maintaining good governance practices. Appointments to polytech councils are to be made on the basis of relevant skills and experience especially governance experience. Council members will be expected to comply with new individual duties which will reflect the primary obligation of members to act in the interests of the polytech as a whole. The introduction of such duties was welcomed by submitters. This Government regards the need for adherence to good governance practices as a serious matter. It is important as is demonstrated through members being made accountable to both the responsible Minister and the polytech council itself for breaches of the new individual duties. 
A feature of this bill is the collaborative governance arrangements which include the formation of a combined council governing two or more polytechs. The decision to enter into such an arrangement is a voluntary one to be made by each participating council. The inclusion of collaborative governance arrangements within the bill enables councils to consider innovative solutions to future governance issues and ensures that the legislation will not pose a barrier to their implementation. The bill also addresses the Crown’s ability to respond appropriately and in a timely manner when individual polytechnics are at risk educationally or financially. On the passage of the bill an extended interventions framework will come into effect for the polytech sector; one intervention will provide for a gradually escalating series of responses to situations of risk. 
A number of miscellaneous amendments are included in this bill. The most significant are those enabling the Manukau Institute of Technology to establish a tertiary high school from the beginning of 2010. I am delighted at the endorsement of the proposal for a trial project received from submitters and members of the select committee. This Government is committed to reducing the number of 15 to 19-year-olds who are leaving school early and without adequate qualifications. The operation of a tertiary high school is a significant step and I thank members of the House for their support. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I will begin with something that has been lacking in the contributions of the National members to the entire passage of this Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill and that is a vision for what the polytech sector ought to be able to achieve and contribute to New Zealand. Polytechnics provide an extraordinary range of educational opportunities which an intelligent Government should be able to use in order to guide them to meet the future needs of this country. The skills development that is required at this time in our history depends on the kind of vision that one has for the country a decade or two—or more—on from here. We know that that kind of vision and the kind of energy that could be given to the polytech sector is missing because this is the only piece of legislation that the Minister for Tertiary Education the Hon Anne Tolley can come up with to direct our polytechs for the future. 
This is a bad law. It is a limiting constricting and restrictive bill. We should be looking at how to harness and energise the polytech sector to do what is needed to provide the skills for the future of New Zealand. This bill is not a response to regional learning needs. Polytechs are a response to regional learning needs. That is their purpose. They fulfil an extraordinary need. They fill a gap in an essential part of the delivery of tertiary education in New Zealand. Part of it concerns the preparation and the upskilling of the workforce—that is the current workforce not just the future workforce. So for those people who are not able because of family commitments to migrate to large cities to go to universities then polytechnics are exactly the right place for them to access tertiary education opportunities—whether they are diploma certificate or degree programmes—locally and as close to them as possible. 
If this was a visionary piece of legislation that equipped New Zealand to meet the educational needs that would prepare us adequately for the future it would be applied to wananga and to universities as well. If there was anything visionary about this legislation why would it not be applied to wananga and universities? The answer is that the Maori Party would not have a bar of this legislation being applied to wananga and therefore there was a political reason for the Government not to extend the provisions of this legislation to wananga. The reason it is not extended to universities is that they are too hard for the Minister to deal with. So we are left with the polytechs. 
What is the basis of this legislation? The Minister has tried to outline—for the first time I have to say in the entire presentation of this bill before the House—some rationale for the development of this legislation. It goes like this. It is based on old information; it is based on a mentality that the Government had when it was in Opposition. I thought that it might have got out of that mindset by now a year into its tenure as the Government. Government members are stuck back in their Opposition heyday of accusing everything in polytechs of being a twilight golf course—that everything was a twilight golf programme that they could mock parody and ridicule. Any concerns about those objections raised in the 9 years those members were in Opposition were—if they were justified—addressed by the previous Labour Government. This Government is acting on old information and outdated data. It needs to get out more and go and visit the local polytechs to find out what they are in fact offering. They are upskilling not only our young people and not only our second-chance learners but adult and working people in New Zealand who are looking to upskill and reskill themselves in the event that they have lost jobs. So this Government has taken this legislation to address old outdated information. Its members have not kept up the analysis is inadequate and the recipe is not appropriate. 
This legislation cuts back the numbers on polytechnic councils. That is the major thing that this legislation does. Nothing in the bill is about a vision for polytechs. Nothing in it is about the skill needs of the present and future workforce of New Zealand. It is simply all about governance. Who said that governance was in trouble in the polytechs? I absolutely dispute the Minister’s claim about viability in the polytech sector. If the Minister had some vision about polytechs she would know that it costs to provide tertiary education opportunities in a long skinny country like ours just as it costs to provide hospitals in regions. The purpose of having polytechs in regions is to enable educational opportunities that are post-compulsory to be made as available as they can be to as many people as possible. That is a vision; that is the start of a vision. In response to that legitimate vision for polytechs this Government is cutting back the numbers on councils. In so doing I say to Maori Party members it cuts iwi representation—it cuts them out. The bill says that it is desirable to have Maori representation but it makes no effort to ensure that that happens. 
The bill cuts out student representation—representation from students who have contributed. I will quote from chief executive officers who made submissions to the Education and Science Committee. The chair of the Wintec council Gordon Chesterman said of the students association that its members had contributed greatly to the council in the 9 years he had been chair. They had been very professional and had made a great contribution. He said: “I certainly wouldn’t be frightened of having that continue around the table.” So what is it that the Minister is frightened of? What is it that the Minister does not want to have around the polytech council tables that could assist appropriate governance? It is community input community representation and people knowing what is required on the ground in each region. It is in fact people to direct the polytech through the governance structure to deliver its mandate to provide relevant tertiary education offerings and courses to the people in those regions. 
So we have the cutting out of iwi representation of representation from students and staff and of industry representation. Surely this Minister could have listened to employers around the country but that is not the pattern of her tenure in this portfolio. She does not make a habit of listening to anybody so even industry representatives who are able to say what industry requires in each region are unable to be guaranteed a position on a polytech council. This is not a visionary piece of legislation. It is not even about a tight financial environment as the Minister said in her speech. This is about a lack of vision for the tertiary education sector. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I would like to take a moment in the short time that is available to me to thank the officials who serviced the Education and Science Committee and who on many occasion were required to work under considerable pressure as indeed were the committee members themselves. It became very apparent early on that there was a sharp division between the Opposition parties—Labour and the Greens—and National and ACT about the nature of representation. But I am gratified to be able to report to the House that all members engaged in a constructive and positive manner and I believe that the submitters who were heard by the committee were given fair and considered consideration and were treated with respect. I thank all members of the committee on both sides of the House for that. 
I want to make a couple of comments about the division that exists between the two sides of the House. Labour members have in their work in the committee—and fair enough—and in their speeches during the Committee stage yesterday made a lot of the point of representation. It seems to me that the critical issue concerns what is more important: whether it is the structure of representation or the quality of the learning opportunities that exist for students in the polytechs. What this bill attempts to do is restructure the system of governance to make it more responsive to the needs of students in the lecture rooms the workshops the laboratories and that sort of thing. The big work is yet to be done and that is the appointment to councils of top-quality people who will be able to give the polytech sector the standard of governance it will require if it is to move forward. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I regret that the member who has just resumed his seat Allan Peachey did not take his full time because in my opinion that member of all the National members—in fact of all the people on that side of the House—has the best grasp of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. He worked hard as chair of the Education and Science Committee to try to broker a compromise that was in the interests of the polytechnic sector and of long-term stability in that sector. But unfortunately the woman was not for turning and for that reason we were unable to make that sort of progress. I think Mr Peachey understands the potential of the sector in a period of relative turn-down. During a recession and coming out of a recession are really important times for polytechnics to be involved in skill development and in working with the business community in particular in order to prioritise and get the resources where they need to be so that we have the skill development that this country so desperately needs. 
I think all of us accept that the current shape of polytechnic governance is not perfect. I think all of us believe that there are too many members on some of the councils. There is an acceptance that we could bring the numbers down without losing anything and that from that we could get a coherence that would work. I see that the member is nodding. But I think there is also a view amongst many people that the changes have gone too far and that when the Minister for Tertiary Education forces her appointments to be made then at that point the gaps will become apparent. There will be communities or communities of interest that will not have any input at that particular level although we all think that input is important and valuable. Obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating in that particular area. 
I join the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee in thanking the officials. They did do a good job. It is fair to say that during the process they were under some pressure because as I have discussed with the chair they forgot I think whom they were advising. I think that for a period of time they thought they were advising the Minister and they were getting the Minister to clear their reports to the select committee. That of course is constitutionally inappropriate. They were appointed as advisers to the select committee on the bill and for them to brief directly someone who was not a member of the select committee was not appropriate. In the end I think we cleared that issue up and got it sorted but there was a period of tension when the officials indicated that it was their intention to breach the privilege of this House and to report directly to a member who was not a member of that select committee. It does not matter whether that member is their Minister; for the purposes of this exercise they were appointed as advisers to the committee. I can hear the Minister chirping. She does not understand the legislation and she certainly does not understand the importance that this Parliament has put on its privileges and the approach that should be taken in that area. 
I say to the Maori Party members that I regret that their amendment was not passed. I regret that they did not do some work on it earlier because I think it was the sort of amendment that had the potential to garner further support from other parts of the House if in fact there had been a proper process. In fact I think a member who sits directly behind the Maori Party whip if he had been pushed pretty hard could well have been talked into supporting it because it is absolutely consistent with the things that he has been pushing for over a period of time. But the records will show—and I regret to say this to the Maori Party—that on the first reading and the second reading the Maori Party members voted for the continuation of this legislation which wipes out Maori representation. It is all very well for those members to say other people did that too but Mr Flavell would never have accepted that sort of excuse from children when he was involved in the education system. The fact that Johnny and George did it does not mean that Sam should do it as well. That excuse is the approach that Mr Flavell is using at the moment and it is just not good enough. 
I turn to the Minister and say I really appreciate seeing her in the House today. I appreciate that she gave a speech. I appreciate that she covered the areas that were missing in the second reading in the speech that she did not give. I appreciated her fleeting visit to the House during the second reading and I appreciate how fast she moved when she realised what was going on in the House. It is pretty sad when a member who has been here I think for 7 years and who has been a Minister for a year does not understand that she has to be present in the House to make a second reading speech. Anne Tolley used to be a whip— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday a number of points of order were taken against that member for referring to a member who was not present in the House and he continues to do that now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that if he wants to raise a point of order he should come directly to it. What happened yesterday is in yesterday’s newspapers and it is not particularly relevant to what is happening today. I listened very carefully to the member’s presentation. He made comments about how he appreciates the Minister being in the House and appreciates the time that is spent here and he did not refer directly to the Minister being absent from the House which was the subject of the member’s point of order. Therefore the member is in order and I invite him to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought you might have dealt with the fact that Paul Quinn referred to the Minister’s absence from the House in his point of order. That in itself was out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I say I very much appreciate the fact that the Minister has turned up today and has used her second reading speech so that all the work of the officials has not gone amiss. I regret the fact that she appeared to get her pages out of order and lost her way as she was giving her speech. My advice to her is that it is very useful before one comes to the House to read through a speech and to make sure that the pages are in the right order and that it makes sense. Then she will not make a mistake again of the type that she made. 
I cannot remember back to the Minister’s first reading speech but I must say that— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: You do have trouble with your memory. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister’s first reading speech did not create a great impression on me but I know that her “second reading speech” made no impression at all. In the Committee stage she did 3 minutes and 20 seconds over a period of 2 hours during which time she was signing her Christmas cards and I say that showed very well on Parliament TV. I compliment the technicians who showed the Minister on a number of occasions when they thought she was going to speak writing on her Christmas cards. But I think we are having the third reading now and what did the Minister do? She got the pages of her speech wrong. She got at least three pages out of the four wrong and the first one I cannot remember. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Have you got anything to say about the bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister is chirping away asking whether I have anything to say about the bill. I have actually been in the House and I have talked about the bill right through the debate. I am sorry that that member has not chosen to get on her feet and speak properly on the bill up until now. 
The Minister can chirp criticise wail and cry but in the end this bill will go down as the legislation that has struck out representation from iwi on polytechnic councils. National has said to Business New Zealand that it does not want its representatives who know about the local economy to be on councils. National does not want local business people to be on polytechnic councils because Anne Tolley knows best. I say people should talk to Anne Tolley about the WelTec council talk to her about the people from the Wairarapa who are on the Universal College of Learning council and talk to her about Gordon Chesterman who used to run the election campaigns for the National Party in Hamilton. He came to the select committee and said we should not do this. A whole pile of people who are members of the National Party know about polytechnics. We know that they are members of the National Party because they told us that. We have worked with them in the past and we know them well. They are good people mainly. I appointed numbers of them to polytechnic councils because they had the talent to do the job. The Minister has said that what they say does not matter. Anne Tolley does not care what her National Party members say and she does not care what the chairs of the councils say because she knows best. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I will start by recognising the officials who worked on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill the chair of the Education and Science Committee and all the members of the select committee. I think it was a fair process even if there was not a constructive outcome. As a part-time member of the select committee it took me a while to grasp what this bill was all about. I thought it was about improving education but eventually I grasped that it was about extending control and facilitating business governance. Thus I came to agree with some of the other speakers in the Committee stage yesterday who said that the bill had been misnamed. The bill could be more accurately described as the “Gut the Polytech Councils Bill” or the “Desirable in Principle Retro-racism Bill” or perhaps the “Yes Minister You Choose Bill”. What does the bill have to do with improving tertiary education? We do not know. The Government was certainly not able to explain it at the select committee. 
I do agree with Maryan Street’s comments on the speech the Minister has just made to explain it but it has not really helped. It seems like one of those weird niche ideas that someone has dreamt up in response to a challenging educational environment. Maybe if we severely cut the numbers of people on councils everything will magically be more efficient. Sometimes I think if I hear the word “efficiency” in education again I will have a tiny breakdown. What is so efficient about reducing tangata whenua community union and employer representation on a polytech council? What test of efficiency are we using? What is so efficient about reducing councils to eight seats and then ensuring the Minister selects half of them? Who will be efficiently marginalised? 
This bill is built on a number of bad marginalising concepts. Bad idea No. 1 is to get rid of any Maori representation as of right. The Maori Party put up perfectly good amendments on this issue and Maryan Street also attempted to get the bill back on some kind of fairness track. The Maori Party described positive working models whereby mana whenua and polytechs are now working together on councils to ensure that the interests of the many Maori students are well looked after. The Minister just implied in her speech that the problem with this kind of representation is that it represents a particular interest group not the interest of the polytech as a whole. This ignores the fact that some parts of the community get systematically forgotten unless their interests are actually at the table. It ignores the fact that although we can work for the good of the whole from our different places we cannot speak for each other. I cannot speak for Maori student needs even though I have spent many years teaching Maori students in polytechnics. That is why we need Maori and students at the table to make sure that the invisible is made visible. 
It is a bit like Parliament: who would want only one culture one gender one class or one age group making all the decisions in this place? Who is made invisible in that process? Then there is the small matter of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the articles that relate to governance of tauiwi and rangatiratanga of tangata whenua. Without giving members a 3-hour lecture on the articles of the Treaty I would like to point out that the relationship— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We would like the 3 hours. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I know that members opposite would love it; I could do it brilliantly. I would like to point out that the relationship was established in 1840 and the opportunities to make that relationship vibrant and effective exist through arrangements between mana whenua and Pakeha institutions now. To deliberately reduce Maori representation at the same time as endorsing a Maori flag is a deep contradiction that the Government needs to explain. This issue is important not just for Waiariki Institute of Technology or Tairawhiti Polytechnic but for the southern campuses and city campuses as well. Honouring Te Tiriti is not just about the number of Maori students on campus. It is about the right of mana whenua to assert the issues associated with the whenua whanau hapu and iwi where the polytechnic is situated and from a mana whenua perspective. Why would we step back from that relationship and write a bill that reduces rights of representation to the phrase “desirable in principle”? 
Student representation is very important on polytech boards. It is very hard to get student representation as polytechnics are traditionally less organised and unionised especially in the smaller regions. A student representative plays a vital role in grounding the council decisions in the reality of the experiences of the student body. A teacher or an administrator or a ministerial appointment cannot see the world through the eyes of the student who is living with the debts the workload the campus infrastructure and the social challenges of that particular environment. To meet the student needs a council needs to hear a student voice not as a lobby group at a meeting but as an equal with a place at the table as of right. The staff or union representative is also important because the teaching staff live with the consequences of all council decisions and have a unique perspective. 
There are many community people who should be at the table presenting their views and knowledge not just one person alone amongst a group of insiders. How well the group of at least 10 people serve their polytech really depends on a good process on trust and on good leadership within the group. So why would the Minister be the one appointing the chair and the deputy chair? The Government tells us that a council can appoint any configuration of eight people. We can choose which representatives one’s particularly community requires. But the Government is saying that with four ministerial appointments we can choose only four from either the former statutory appointees or from our community. We cannot have both as of right. 
As I said in the Committee the issues facing polytechnics are very challenging. They include financial survival in a difficult economic environment and walking the line between being a community education provider and user-pays pressures which successive Governments have ratcheted ever upwards. Polytechnics are required to be in touch with the needs of local employers—now without necessarily being able to include those employers on their councils. They are supposed to provide for cultural and educational diversity often in communities where people have very little money and no extra resources. 
I am speaking from experience having worked in the Bay of Plenty at Tairawhiti at Waiariki and in Wairoa in various outposts of polytechnics. I know firsthand the struggle to resource and meet the needs of students in these environments. It is not about reducing the governance input. In order to keep up the growth in financial expansion that polytechs are expected to do they have to keep inventing courses and getting students signed up. In some cases the courses are severely undersubscribed and on the brink of being unsustainable. The solution is not necessarily to cut the governance or cut the courses but to actually invest in education. The pool of suitably qualified tutors can be very small and small-town pressures to graduate students can be very real. We need to be resourcing these institutions. On top of this those polytech councils will now be 50 percent externally appointed by people who are not necessarily connected to those communities in any way. 
Therefore we say that this bill is not helpful. If polytechnics are to flourish the issues they have brought to the select committee need to be respected. Although I was only one of the Green members who sat on that committee I heard a lot of the submitters and I read all of the submissions. It is simply not true to say that there was enthusiasm for this bill or respect for the proposal around governance. Instead we have this very very strange law which nobody seems excited about or proud of or wants to speak very long upon yet it will pass. No one will be better off and the real challenges in tertiary education have not been addressed. The Green Party is very aware of those challenges. We think that we should be addressing those challenges through legislation and through the select committee consideration. But those challenges have not even been discussed because they are not on the table through this legislation. I have to say that this is a bad end to a sad year for education. We will not be supporting this bill. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Merry Christmas to you in case I do not see you later on and a happy New Year. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. 
I do not think it is any surprise that every time the Maori Party stands in this House we stand firm I think and I hope on the foundation of kaupapa Maori. What is kaupapa Maori? It is the inherited values of our ancestors. We hope that we bring those values to every debate as we seek to represent the authentic independent voice of Maori in this Parliament. Central to our approach has been the commitment to kotahitanga to a common unity of purpose. A commitment to kotahitanga is not mutually exclusive. It can also embrace diversity and difference. Importantly it requires the representation of all interests within the scope of the overall design. 
When we looked at the proposals for the new interventions framework for the polytechnic sector we thought about how best to ensure representation issues were taken seriously. Our aspiration has always been for increased Maori representation on tertiary governance bodies including mana whenua and Maori student representation. Yet the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill moves in the opposite direction in that the size of the polytechnic councils would be reduced from between 12 and 20 members to eight members with four of the eight members to be appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education. In effect this means that there will be no guaranteed seats for staff students iwi Maori and community representatives. This is completely against the aspiration we hold in the Maori Party and as a consequence we voiced our opposition in our vote in the first reading. We knew that providing for only one community member would mean that most Maori representative seats would be scrapped. 
There is no provision in the current legislation for Maori representatives of any kind. Although some might refer to the requirement of section 171(4) of the Education Act that “It is desirable that the council of an institution should reflect so far as is reasonably practicable—(a) the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities served by the institution;” in practice it is basically a toothless provision. 
In the Committee stage I noted that we cannot rely on those sorts of clauses for the special status of Maori because they do not address the constitutional significance of the Treaty in any debate on Maori representation. Our constituencies have elected us into Parliament to do everything we can to advance their aspirations. Fear of failure cannot be a justification not to try something. Our members have always urged us to act believing that it is far better to try and fail than to fail to try in the first place. 
During the Committee stage I put forward an amendment to establish a process for Maori representation that would be transparent and clearly stated whereby the appointee truly reflects the values and aspirations of the community. The idea was to create not only a requirement for Maori representation but also for it to come from across the board: two academic staff positions with one for Maori and two student positions with one for Maori as well as Maori community representation. All community representative nominations would need to at least be passed by local hapu and iwi. The amendments increase the membership of the polytechnic councils from eight to 12 and they reinstate compulsory seats for the vice-chancellor academic staff students and community-appointed members. In addition specific provision is made for Maori membership on the council in order to give real expression to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The issue of Maori student representation on councils has always been of great importance for Maori students and to Te Mana Akonga the association of Maori students across all campuses. That organisation has a Treaty claim to amend the Education Act to explicitly provide for Maori student membership so the amendment we put forward was a positive signal to that very large constituency that there are members of Parliament who are willing to listen and to learn from their leadership. 
The issue of a Maori staff representative has also been of much interest among our membership and indeed right across the education sector. We were keen that the polytechnic councils would be able to benefit from members who have the capacity to uphold academic standards in teaching learning and research. It was also a deliberate effort to try to layer in greater recognition of kaupapa Maori in both standards and methodologies. Of course it is not solely an issue of representation but is also one of the complexity of well-intentioned legislation with mismatched policy inconsistent strategy and mismatched business plans. I am reminded of the saying by another great Te Arawa philosopher: “Never be afraid to try something new. Remember amateurs built the ark; professionals built the  
Titanic 
.” 
The legislators policy makers writers and architects of the tertiary education governance arrangements sure had the highest intentions but if it does not make a difference on the ground then surely we need to take the risk and look for solutions that will. That was where we were coming from in terms of our bicultural model that recognises Maori representation on polytechnic councils. The Maori Party has greatly valued the support of the Waiariki Institute of Technology in developing this model. It is about representation within a new paradigm that was all about our recognition and representation against the Treaty model. What we want is very simple. As far as is possible we want to see councils reflect the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities they serve. It is pretty simple. 
There is an important element to the discussion that I believe members of the House need to consider. If we acknowledge that the larger proportion of Maori constituents fall within the lowest socio-economic bracket which we also acknowledge stems largely from Crown policies retarding Maori social and economic growth from as early as 1840 then surely it makes sound economic sense to recognise that the clauses alone will not serve the wider interests of the group. The greatest of high-flying intentions will amount to nothing unless there are faces at the table to speak to the immediate short-term and long-term needs of all the people across the community. 
Inconsistency within the legislation the Treasury allocation to each ministry the policy writers’ approach to give actual meaning to these clauses and the strategic and business plans within our public agencies are what have let us down. This repetitive failure forces us as a party to demand more on behalf of Maori but what we are really asking for is clear consistency and equal access for all people within Aotearoa who sit every day within a less privileged position. Unfortunately for all of us Maori make up a far greater majority within that grouping and this is why we are forced to ask the hard questions. 
At the select committee stage Te Runanga o Manukau Institute of Technology took these views to the table. It recommended that consideration be given to the inclusion of a Maori directorate function in its case known as Te Amorangi. In the legislation there is an acknowledgment of the high percentage of unemployed and uneducated tangata whenua in the Counties-Manukau area. Other submitters also echoed that view. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation suggested that diverse communities cannot be adequately represented by a single person. The students association of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology also made the point that students are key stakeholders in polytechnics and contribute a lot to their councils so their views should be heard. 
It is all now part of the record that we were unsuccessful in having our amendments voted into law but we tried and we will continue to try to ensure that polytechnics are of the people that Parliament is of the people and ultimately that the people are why we are actually here. We will continue to work with the Minister to find a way to address our pleas and we are hopeful of some momentum being gained. 
In closing I reflect on the Hon Trevor Mallard’s statement. Even he will acknowledge that if legislation is going to pass in this House and it can be done without Maori Party support I suppose that is the situation in terms of the democracy of the House. But we have stated our case and we will continue to state our case into the future. As a parting shot I hope that if there are members who wish to espouse the place of Maori at the representative table then over the holidays it would be good for them to look towards the correct pronunciation of Maori words as a starting point. It would then give some meaning to the notion of allowing Maori to be at the representative table. Kia ora tatou. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. In doing so I say that good governance is the most basic of needs for a successful polytech sector. No matter how we look at it until now that has been lacking. This bill is an appropriate framework for that good governance model. The absence of good governance has seen many polytechnics lurching and staggering to perform their very basic functions. Good governance is the foundation of building a trusting relationship with others in the tertiary sector like the industry training organisations which are the industry representatives. That relationship too is lacking. 
When we look at it we can see that the Opposition members’ hissy fit is all about the reduced number of representatives on councils—going from 12 and 20 down to eight—but those members have failed to acknowledge the important role that industry training organisations have been meant to play in representing industry. Over the last 9 years of a visionless Labour Government we have observed the development of a totally dysfunctional relationship between the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand and the industry training organisations. It is called the “overlapping provision”. The less-than-optimum relationship has greatly hindered the performance of the skills and trade training sector. This legislation will develop the necessary framework to improve that essential relationship between industry and the industry training organisation sector. That is why we want to see a much stronger working relationship between polytechnics and industry training organisations. This Government recognises the importance of a dynamic and responsive institutes of technology and polytechnics sector and in doing so has implemented a more progressive intervention framework that I am sure we in the House all agree with. 
This intervention process has two new stages: firstly specialist help and secondly performance improvement plans before the existing Crown commissioner intervention. When enacted this bill will ensure positive working partnerships between the Tertiary Education Commission industry training organisations and polytechs. Gone will be the wasteful days when polytechs headed to Wellington asking for more and more money. Gone will be the rorts and the soft courses that did nothing but fund the wasteful appetites of dysfunctional polytechs. Gone will be the days when the Government masked the bailing out of polytechnics with cleverly named reinvestment funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. 
This bill is the architect of a first-class polytechnic system that will work in tandem with industry and the needs of its students. This bill is urgently required for good governance but equally as important for a first-class tertiary education system which this country needs going into the future. On that basis I commend this bill to the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 There we have it: at the eleventh hour in the third reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill the Government is scrambling to find a reason to pass this appalling bill. Colin King a Government member of Parliament has come up with yet another reason why this bill has been put before the House. Apparently it is because it will force the industry training organisation sector and the technical institutes and polytechnics sector to talk to each other. I wish we could go back to the select committee deliberation on this bill because I sat on the Education and Science Committee—as did Colin King—which considered this bill and nowhere in this legislation is there any requirement for the industry training organisation sector and the technical institutes and polytechnics sector to meet and discuss anything. I think this demonstrates to us that the Government does not have a clue why it has put this legislation in place. At the eleventh hour a Government member is scrambling around trying to come up with something that makes him feel a bit better about it but sadly the reason he has come up with has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. It would be laughable if it were not so serious that the Government in its scrambling around for reasons to justify this appalling bill is taking the community voice out of our polytechnic sector. 
These are challenging times when we need a Government with a specific strategy for skills and skills development particularly for our young people. As we speak far too many of our young people end up on the scrap heap in the dole queues and on the unemployment benefit and that number is growing. Sadly that number will grow significantly in the coming weeks and months as young people leave the compulsory education sector and look for training opportunities. Many of those young people will be looking to our polytechnics for those training opportunities. Unfortunately this legislation does nothing to enhance their opportunities for training. It has been well traversed in this House that the Minister for Tertiary Education who put forward this legislation has been so short-sighted in her approach that she refuses to lift the cap on the number of students who can be trained through the polytechnic sector even though growing numbers of people are going on to the dole queue. This Minister would rather pay the unemployment benefit to growing numbers of our young people than have them trained their skills enhanced and their opportunities in life enhanced by lifting the cap in the polytechnic sector. 
Instead what she has to offer this country on the last sitting day of Parliament is this bill. What does it do? It dumbs down the community voice and it particularly takes away the voice of Maori on polytechnic councils. I think that is a disgrace in this day and age in Aotearoa. It is disgraceful and it also show us exactly where this National Government stands in its complete disregard for the Maori people and the rightful place they have in decision making in this country. Yesterday this Government told Maori people that on only 1 day of the year they can fly a flag from some buildings—and it is a flag that only some of them agree with. They cannot have a seat around the table and they certainly cannot have a guaranteed voice in the decision making on polytechnic councils or on local authority bodies such as the super-city. Any time that Maori get some real power and some real decision-making opportunities this Government shuts them down. So it is complete and utter symbolism to fly a flag on some buildings for one day of the year when on every occasion that this Government gets the opportunity to keep and retain a Maori voice around the table it gets rid of it as the Government is doing in this bill. It is not as if the Labour Party the Maori Party and the Greens have been asking the Government to add something that does not already exist; we have been begging it not to take away a voice that already exists for Maori around the polytechnic council table. But what has the Government done? It has completely ignored that. 
The symbolism of a flag will not mean a thing if this Government will not give a real voice to Maori concerns Maori futures and Maori directions. That is why I was so surprised to see the Maori Party support this bill in its second reading. I think it shows how misguided the Maori Party members are. I know they were well intentioned. They thought they could talk this Government round. It was absolutely clear to every other party in this House that that was never going to happen. But in their naivety they believed that their party had a working relationship with this Government that meant it could make a difference. Well that was naïve and it continues to be naive that the Maori Party can trumpet the fact that a flag will be flying for a day but it cannot get any traction when it comes to stopping this Government from removing the voice of Maori from around the council table. That is the reality of the very sad position that the Maori Party is in today. 
This bill has also been used to remove the voice of students. If there is a group that ought to have a say in the future of the polytechnic councils and what they deliver it is of course students. They are after all the client. They are the people whom the polytechnic councils are there to serve. Yet if we join the dots between this legislation put forward by the Minister for Tertiary Education and another bill being promoted by this Government—it happens to be a member’s bill in the name of Sir Roger Douglas to make student union membership voluntary—we can see what is happening to the student voice in this country. There is a common theme and it is about dumbing down the voice of students. That alarms me because I wonder what the Minister and her Government have coming forward for tertiary education if they are taking such major steps right now to dumb down the student voice. 
It is not just the student voice that will no longer necessarily be around the polytechnic council table; it is also the representation of women. Although women were not specifically prescribed for in the current legislation that we are fortunately still working to most of the gender representation of women on polytechnic councils came from the staff representatives and the student representatives. After 1 May next year they will no longer be mandated to be sitting around the council table. So I fear for the gender balance on those councils. Why is that balance important? Polytechnics train all of our nurses; the polytechnic sector trains all of our early childhood educators; and that sector provides trades opportunities for many many women. So the voice of women on the polytechnic council is incredibly important. I am surprised to see a Government that is busy telling private businesses to get their act together in increasing the number of women on their boards while doing everything in its power legislatively to ensure that there is not such a strong voice for women on the boards and councils that it has control over. 
I am also concerned about the removal of the industry voice from the polytechnic council. If we hear one criticism about our tertiary institutions it is that sometimes they care more about academic achievements and they are not so connected with industry and what it needs in terms of skill shortages and its training needs. This bill takes away the Business New Zealand representation and the union representation from around the table. So the very people who have an intimate knowledge of what the local workforce looks like are no longer around that table. I fail to see how that improves educational opportunities how it improves training outcomes and how it improves employment opportunities for our young people in the polytechnic sector. 
In closing I say that we have seen this before in this country and it has been a dismal failure. This is going back to the dim dark days of the 1990s. The last time a National Government tried this on it was with our hospital boards. It appointed all of the members of hospital boards. It took away community representation then and what an utter shambles that was! It was the forerunner to user-pays and the forerunner to privatisation. I hope I am wrong but I see that around the corner for our polytechnic sector as well. I am proud to stand here as a member of the Labour Party and oppose the third reading of this shocking bill. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is or at least it should be all about students. It should be about which governance structure is most likely to deliver a quality product for the student: the subject and the skills that they require. But if we listen today to the Greens to Labour members and to the Maori Party we would think it is all about representation on the board. Labour wants representation for the sake of it whether or not the person is qualified. If we listened to the Labour Party we would hear that we simply have to have a student on the board whether or not the student is up to it. We have to have a staff member on the board—forget the conflict of interest. We have to have a union representative we have to have a businessman on the board and we have to have Maori representation. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned about a quality product for the student yet I always thought that polytechs were there for the students. Labour members do not ask themselves what will deliver a quality product but rather they talk about the tokenism of having students or unionists. When Labour’s previous leader Helen Clark was Prime Minister she sent out a letter at election time about education. She mentioned public schools 12 times in the letter but never once mentioned students. We have heard that again today. 
This sector needs to have a quality board at every polytech throughout the country. The fact is that we will have a quality board if the Minister appoints a quality chairperson and a quality deputy chairperson. If we get a quality chairperson and a quality deputy chairperson they will ensure that a quality chief executive officer is appointed. If we have this in place the system will work. 
The first question any quality board will ask is what the needs of the people who live in this area are. It will ask what the potential students’ needs are and which subjects and skills they need. We are talking about having to have a student on the board—one student picked at random. What about the 1000 or 2000 students who actually attend the polytech? They would rather have a polytech that meets their needs. They would rather have a board that understands their needs and is able to deliver quality governance. But no! Labour would prefer to have a student or a staff member or a union representative on the board. It does not care about the quality of the product; it simply cares about representation. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Is that right? The staff members don’t care? 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I am not saying they do not care. The first point is that it is not good governance to have a staff member on the board in my view. It is not good governance to have a student representative on the board. Any board worth its salt will meet regularly with the staff representatives and with student representatives. There is one key thing that will mean this sector goes ahead and that is the whole issue of the appointment of the chair and the deputy. If we can get that right if the Minister selects those people right then they will ensure we have a good chief executive and the whole thing will move forward. 
Without that frankly we will have the shambles that the previous Labour Government created and left. It left the shambles of having 20 people on a board. It left the shambles of having every interest group on the board and those groups did not go there with the view of looking at the governance of the institution as a whole but rather went there with the narrow interest of what was good for the student what was good for the staff what was good for the union or what was good for whomever they were representing on the board. Any board functions only when the seven or eight members are looking after the overall governance and the interests of the institution. If we have that we will move ahead and we will not have the shambles that Labour left us. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the third reading debate of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I begin by congratulating Sir Roger Douglas on bringing us back to what really matters—the students. The students really do matter—believe or not I say to the Labour members—and because they matter the governance of these polytechs matters. I will address and perhaps counter the culture of fear evil prophecy and scaremongering that we have heard about from the other side. This is not just today in the House; it happened repeatedly throughout the process of this bill. 
There are 20 polytechnics. They have been allocated $596 million for 2009 and we as taxpayers should want value for money. We should want good governance. We should want delivery of good education standards coming out of these polytechs and educational outcomes that improve those who actually study there. There are more than 186000 students at our 20 polytechnics. There are 68000 fulltime-equivalents and they deserve no less than good governance. The sector is diverse. There are many subject areas and many communities to serve. Polytechs need to run effectively; they need to run efficiently. So why do we need this legislation? Well I ask members to think about the $416 million good money after bad that was spent by Labour in trying to correct—no no it just threw the money at the polytechs and hoped that they would get better from the gift. It does not work like that. 
This bill does not remove the voice of students. It does not remove the voice of staff. It does not stop Maori representation Pacific Island representation or female representation. Believe me it does not. Four members of a polytechnic council will be selected by the current council. They can be four students if the council wants them four staff members if it wants them or whoever it thinks represents the community. They can be four Maori. 
Hon Member 
: The Minister’s choice! 
JO GOODHEW 
: The current polytechnics will select them not the Minister. The Minister will appoint four members. It is clear to me that Labour members have not been awake in the select committee process. They have not read the bill. Maybe they simply do not want to understand. 
However good governance is what polytechnics like my own Aoraki Polytechnic are looking for. They have accepted the challenge of making selections prior to the implementation date. They have said that they are looking for good governance skills good high-level business and financial skills legal skills strategic thinking skills governance experience leadership ability and knowledge of the sector. They have said that eight members can achieve that and they look forward to being able to rise to the challenge of selecting four. They have also said to the Minister that they will be looking for her help in appointments to their council. Having 12 to 20 members on a council did not mean good governance nor does eight. Good skills mean good governance and eight members are plenty to achieve that. This bill addresses the issues within the sector. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill because at the end of that speech I was more confused about what we are doing here at the end of the sitting than I was beforehand. I will correct the previous member who was speaking Jo Goodhew on what the Waiariki Institute of Technology actually said about governance. It said that it wanted nine to 12 members. That is what the people in your community want and you are telling them that they want something else. That is exactly what they want. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Mind the pronouns. Do not include the Speaker. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise. I sat through the hearing of the submissions by the Education and Science Committee and I agree with my colleagues that they were handled with courtesy. We listened very carefully to those who came and spoke to us. But the overwhelming impression from those people who came along to submit to us was their unanimous disagreement with this legislation. It is bad legislation. This is what they said. The Universal College of Learning said it does not enable communities to be represented well. The Council of Trade Unions recommended eight to 12 people on the boards; the Waiariki Institute of Technology as I have said recommended nine to 12; and the Manukau Institute of Technology said up to 12. They wanted to keep their community input. Without the numbers they did not believe they would be able to keep their community input. They did not believe they would be able to meet the gaps in skills. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why? Did you ask them? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: They run these polytechnics as that member quite rightly knows. That is the reason why they believe they need to have those numbers. Unitec said that membership of eight would impact on the skills of the representatives. It recommended that discretion to increase the number to 12— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why? What was their reason? They didn’t give you one? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The bottom line is that there is an assumption here that somehow the system is broken because as the Minister for Tertiary Education said half a dozen polytechs are not financially viable at the moment. The bottom line is that in the end we are not sure that reducing the number of representatives on the boards to eight will fix the problem. We could be coming back here in a year or two to look at the polytechnic situation again having realised that limiting the boards to eight representatives has not worked. Why? Because we have done no analysis. There has been no analysis of those six polytechnics to see what the problem is. Polytechnics such as Unitec in my own electorate have said that they have had a 13 percent increase in students and no increase in funds. That is one of the reasons why polytechnics are not doing well at the moment. They have not had the funding to meet their needs. 
Sir Roger Douglas talked about the need to look at the student and the student’s needs. Yes of course that is right but then he digressed about the need to look at the boards and that is exactly what this legislation that we are looking at does. Maryan Street mentioned the fact that all that is done by this legislation which we are debating on the last sitting day of the year is to change the boards without any analysis of whether that will improve the functioning of those polytechs. I believe that it is a complete waste of time particularly when submitter after submitter who came to the select committee unanimously disagreed with the legislation. 
The Human Rights Commission which does not have a vested interest said one size does not fit all. We have an extraordinary range of polytechnics yet we are restricting them to having only eight members: four appointed by the Minister and four coming from the communities. A number of polytechnics have multiple campuses and multiple communities and they will not be able to be represented under this new legislation. Their boards simply will not have the scope. It is not about numbers; it is about management. Jo Goodhew just said that. Why are we sitting in the House today on the last sitting day of the year debating the numbers? It does not make any sense. It is about competence and it is about community. Those are the key issues—not the numbers. 
What else did the Human Rights Commission go on to say? It said that smaller does not mean better management. Again I agree with the Human Rights Commission. I think Allan Peachey agreed with the Human Rights Commission and so did other National members who are feeling rather uncomfortable in their seats. People from their own electorates who had come in to submit were disagreeing with the legislation which was being rammed down their throats. 
The other thing that people brought up was their worry over the ministerial control. They asked where is the independence of these organisations; where is the independence of polytechnics to be able to run their own affairs respond to their own communities and respond to the business and work environment that is around them. That was what they were asking. They also asked why there are to be eight members. Eight is not a good number. They asked why we should not have an odd number of councillors; at least that way there could be a majority rather than the boards occasionally being tied four-each and unable to get a good decision. 
This is a bill without any analysis of what the real problem is. It is designed to fix a problem about which we have no analysis and it is being applied not to the polytechnics that are failing or not doing well but to all polytechnics regardless of their size regardless of their location regardless of their make-up and regardless of their community involvement. That is what is happening in this legislation. As I said only a handful of polytechnics are not performing. It was mentioned to me that there were 13 percent more students but no increase in staff to support them. My colleague Sue Moroney also mentioned that the real issue is that student numbers are now being capped; students not being able to go to polytechnic is the real issue. It is not about reducing the number of board members from 20 to eight; it is about good management and it is about polytechnics that are responsible and responsive to their own communities. 
Quite bizarrely the Minister said in her 20 August press release: “We are ensuring that in the future polytechnics have strong skilled Councils which will make them easier to govern more effective and responsive to their communities.” I am at a loss to understand how polytechnics can be more responsive to their communities with a smaller number of people from their communities on their boards. All of the polytechnics talked about the value of the range of experience they have on their boards whether that experience be from the local community the business community the union movement or Maori people of the area. All of the polytechnics spoke about the value of having those people on their boards. Now we will be restricting that responsiveness as well. 
Lastly I will say that the proposal by the Manukau Institute of Technology that is part of this legislation has the backing of the Labour Party even though we are voting against the legislation as a whole. Mr Stuart Middleton from the Manukau Institute of Technology has done an excellent job and he deserves to be commended. He is a former teacher of me and of others in this House and we support his proposal. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I stand in support of the third reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister for Tertiary Education. If I might say so she is a hard-working Minister who is relentlessly committed to educational excellence. 
I believe that the children are our future. We need to teach them well and let them lead the way. We need to show them all the beauty they possess inside and give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Our young people deserve the best education possible. This bill will ensure better governance of polytechnics. It will ensure that our young people receive higher-quality education. This bill is about students and it is about what they deserve. 
Polytechnics are extremely important to all of our local communities as well as to our national economy. We need strong institutions that are financially sound as well as responsive to the needs of their communities and their local economies—institutions that meet changing needs. This bill proposes that the membership of polytechnic councils be reduced in size from 20 to eight members. Submitters told us that they agreed that the number on councils was too high; they agreed that they wanted flexibility. That is what this bill delivers. Four members will be appointed by the Minister and four by the councils themselves. The Government will not dictate to the council how those four members are made up; the individual councils will have that choice. That allows them to choose what suits them best. 
This bill is yet another fine piece of legislation that has been passed by the National-led Government led by the fine Prime Minister John Key. Goodness I have lost count of how many bills we have passed this year! There have been over 70 bills and they are delivering the promises that we made to New Zealanders. They are delivering a brighter future for all. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Adjournment 
Sittings of the House 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 9 February 2010 and that the sitting days in 2010 be as follows: 
February 9 10 11 16 17 18 23 24 and 25; 
March 16 17 18 23 24 25 30 and 31; 
April 1 20 21 22 27 28 and 29; 
May 4 5 6 18 19 20 25 26 and 27; 
June 1 2 3 15 16 17 22 23 24 29 and 30; 
July 1 20 21 22 27 28 and 29; 
August 3 4 5 17 18 19 24 25 and 26; 
September 7 8 9 14 15 16 21 22 and 23; 
October 12 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 and 28; 
November 9 10 11 16 17 18 23 24 and 25; 
December 7 8 9 14 15 and 16. 
It has been a long year for the New Zealand economy and for New Zealand families. If we cast our minds back to January or February when the House got back together we will remember that the world was transfixed by a financial crisis and there were some very real concerns that the economies of the developed world would go into some kind of free fall and meltdown. So coming to the end of the year we are able to reflect on what is perhaps New Zealand’s good fortune—we dodged the worst of the financial crisis—and also on the good management of a Government that has helped to stabilise the economy and helped to stabilise and rebuild confidence. Yesterday the Government produced some economic forecasts that show some improvement on the Budget as recently as the middle of the year. 
It is a time also when we should reflect on those who are hardest hit by a recession and generally in this recession as in others they are often those who are least able to carry that burden. So there will be families going into Christmas where the primary earner or both earners have lost their jobs and they will be concerned about what their prospects are for next year. In fact many of them will be concerned about how they will get through next week. That is why it is so important that we continue to focus on policy that will give hope to those families who face Christmas with doubts about their own futures. 
It is also traditional at this time of year to thank those who have helped to make our democracy work and on behalf of the Prime Minister I wish to do that. But I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his leadership and also for something that we have not seen in politics for a long time and that is the sheer enjoyment of the job. The sheer enjoyment of the job is a happy change from the dour sad look of the previous Labour Government as it departed this Chamber just 13 or 14 months ago. 
I thank you Mr Speaker for your oversight of the Chamber. I see now that the public holds you in the same high esteem in which we have always held you. I have been in the House with you for 19 years Mr Speaker and it is pleasing to see that others are seeing those aspects of your character that we have always known about. I thank your Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers. 
I thank the staff and officers of Parliament in the Clerk’s Office and the travel office the security staff and the police who work in the complex and always have a pleasant word for us. I thank the select committee staff the Hansard reporters the messengers the catering staff and the cleaners whom many of us see coming into the building just as we are leaving. I thank the librarians in the Parliamentary Library Parliamentary Service the staff who support our MPs and also our out-of-Parliament offices and the staff there who tirelessly work for our constituents many of whom of course have greater needs because of the recession. 
I thank those staff who actively support the Government: the staff in Ministers’ offices and in the whips’ office; the staff in the Cabinet Office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who with their high degree of professionalism ensure the successful operation of Cabinet; the support staff in Ministerial Services and the Visits and Ceremonial Office; the VIP Transport Service staff who also always have a pleasant conversation with us to pass the time of day; and the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
I also thank officials from Government departments. It is always a big deal for officials when the Government changes but this year I acknowledge the professionalism and excellence of the New Zealand Public Service. It has handled a change of Government and a drastic change in fiscal outlook with professionalism with independence and I might say in some cases with courage and urgency. 
I thank the Government’s support parties. They came to the support arrangements with this Government with great goodwill and I can say with something of a divergence of interest and opinions. But it has always been clear from the start that the relationships we have with United Future the ACT Party and the Maori Party are relationships based on respect not always agreement. I thank them for the integrity they have brought to some sometimes very difficult issues—the integrity of being open with their concerns and of dealing openly about those concerns with other Ministers and their integrity in backing the position that the Government has come to. I am very pleased to note that the innovations this Government has made in building on changes that the previous Government made to coalition arrangements have worked out well—such as support party Ministers regularly attending Cabinet committees. That has created I think more of a sense of a collective interest and a broad understanding of each other’s points of view about a wide range of issues. I acknowledge the critical part that those parties have played in bringing stable Government and if there was a year when stable Government was needed in New Zealand it was this year when there has been so much uncertainty in the wider world. 
I thank the press gallery whose esteemed members have provided careful reporting and thorough analysis of what the Government has been doing and who have shared in a professional manner both the good news about what the Government is doing the bad news about what the economy is doing and the occasional minor issue that the press thinks is a big issue. But you know that is all part of the political process. 
I also thank the lobbyists because they have learnt what good governance is about. We have had to educate them; when they turn up now they bring along serious cases and they are willing to take responsibility for the discussions and the decisions that are made. How many times have members of the National-led Government had lobbyists and interest groups say to them: “Isn’t it great the Government has changed.”? And some of Labour’s best friends have come along and said to us that it is great that the Government has changed. 
I thank the Opposition for giving us such a free run. I never thought that getting into Government in a recession would be so easy in the Chamber and so easy in the battleground of the media. I particularly thank my Opposition counterpart David Cunliffe. I had thought through the year that he was auditioning for the leadership of the Labour Party but he is not; he is auditioning to be the next James Bond. What is more he has almost persuaded me that he might be the right sort of person for that part. 
Of course the Labour Party can reflect on the year. At the start of the year its leadership was secure and firm but now by the end of the year it is in doubt. There is no point in Labour denying that because I know what it looks like. I can give Mr Goff in fine detail the manual that his caucus is following—step one through to step 17. Labour members are up to about step two but there is nothing more inevitable than step three step four and step five and I am quite happy to report on the benchmarks as they go. So the first report I tell Mr Goff is that Labour members are on step two. There will be a barbecue season—there is absolutely no doubt about that. There will be a barbecue season. But I can tell members that it will not be at Phil’s place. It will not be at Phil’s place. I wish the Opposition and their families all the best of Christmases. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 A year ago today Bill English moved the adjournment motion—and just as badly—but at that stage Steven Joyce was not smiling quite as much as he is in the House today. I want to go back to Bill English’s speech of a year ago because he described the outgoing Labour administration as “scandal ridden”. 
At the very time Bill English was giving that speech he was busy. He was busy rearranging his personal affairs so he could claim twice as much for his housing allowance as any other Minister had ever got—$47000—by claiming he had no pecuniary interest in his own home. The Auditor-General said that Mr English patently did have a pecuniary interest in his home. Mr English of course claimed that he lived in Dipton to be eligible for any housing allowance at all but at the same time he was claiming that he lived in Wellington to be eligible for a self-drive car. I ask Bill English whether it was Dipton or Wellington. Which was it? 
Anyway $47000 was not enough. He wanted more. He wanted more for his cleaner. The irony of that is that the cleaner was part of that very same occupation that Mr English as Minister of Finance said did not deserve a pay rise this year despite the fact cleaners are low-income earners. Bill English launched the crusade to cut the real incomes of the lowest-income people of this country from the “moral high ground” of claiming $47000 a year in housing allowances alone. That is more than any of those cleaners get from their entire income for the year. That is no moral high ground at all I say to Mr English. Mr English has the temerity to talk about scandals but when it comes to scandals Mr English is the gift that keeps on taking. 
Sadly Mr English is not alone. There is Mr Hide over there. That is Mr Hide the perk-buster. Mr Hide was into perks as hard and fast as he could. He was claiming he was against perks but he was secretly taking them. Then of course there was Mr Harawira. He was happy to have the taxpayer meet the cost of his travel to Europe but he did not turn up at the meeting the taxpayer paid for him to go to. For Mr Harawira accountability apparently is a Pakeha concept and the people who paid the taxes for him to go were worthy only of insult and obscenity. 
When Mr English finished his speech last year he promised that the National Government would act in favour of the majority of this country. Over the last year we have seen from this National Government anything but that. This National Government looks after privilege. Why else this time last year did Bill English move through Parliament legislation that gave 30 percent of the money for tax cuts to the top 3 percent including himself and his colleagues over there? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am having a bit of trouble hearing the member because colleagues of mine are able to read his speech from a BlackBerry. He left out the bit about multinationals. I seek leave to table his speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I had better take that as a good-humoured interjection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government is about privilege. It claims it has no money to meet the basic needs of ordinary working New Zealanders but it has put $110 billion aside to look after the interests of the multinationals and the polluters. The Government did not bill those who are causing the pollution which is what an emissions trading scheme was meant to be about. Rather the bill will be passed on to hard-working New Zealand taxpayers who will be paying for decades to come for this Government’s dirty deal on the emissions trading scheme which will be disastrous for our economy and disastrous for our environment. 
This Government does not put the burden on the privileged. There is no point Mr English in the cheap words of sympathy you gave to low-income earners at the start of your speech when you have been looking after the privileged and you have been putting the burden of this recession fully and squarely on low-income earners. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It happened several times there but the member knows he should not be bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance on the matter. Mr Hide is quite correct. I did not want to intervene because I did not want to interrupt the speech of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. But he must not use the word “you”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He said “you Mr English”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been in the House long enough to know that saying “you Mr English” is totally inconsistent with the Standing Orders. A member cannot for good reason say that because it personalises the debate. The member cannot say “you Mr English”; the member cannot use “you” because “you” is referring to the Speaker. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yesterday Mr Key in this House boasted that having 60000 additional New Zealanders deprived of their livelihood through unemployment was “a pretty good result”. But I will tell National members who do not seem to understand what it means to a person to be unemployed about the case of a young man whom Maryan Street and I visited by chance in Nelson last Thursday. An article about him has been written in the  
Nelson Mail.  
The young man’s name is Ivan Culpitt. He is 22 years old. He has over the last 7 months applied for 20 jobs but failed to get them. 
Mr Culpitt is desperate to get off the sickness benefit and get into work. He turned up at the place we were visiting McCashin’s Brewery and Malthouse and told the employer he would work for nothing—work for nothing—because he was so desperate to get a job. The woman who was running that brewery a very nice woman by the name of Emma McCashin said in this article and to us on the ground that every week she is phoned by people so desperate for work that they are indeed prepared to work for nothing. 
I acknowledge the commitment of Ivan Culpitt to finding that job but no New Zealander and no young New Zealander should have to go out and work for nothing because things are so tough and that person cannot get a job. I say to the National members opposite that when they are smug and arrogant about those people—as they were during question time—they should think about that young man and about the New Zealanders who are suffering at the moment because they have no chance of employment. 
As we adjourn this House and as we think about what we may be doing a week out from now when we spend time with our families I ask the members of the Government—both National and ACT members—to think about what was said yesterday by the Auckland City Missioner Diane Robertson about what is happening in her agency. She said that a new class of people is coming through her agency. She is seeing people who had never been there before and who had never asked for assistance before—thousands of additional New Zealanders. 
We have heard the same story from the Salvation Army from the Citizens Advice Bureaux and from the Family Budgeting Services. She told us a story about a woman who came in with three young children. The woman’s husband had been made redundant 8 weeks earlier. The family had lost their home. They had no money for Christmas and nothing for extras. I ask National members not to give us the cheap words we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister but for God’s sake I ask that next year they start to govern for ordinary New Zealanders who are missing out on the things that New Zealanders should be able to expect to have in life. 
Finally I acknowledge the parliamentary staff who do the work that makes the functioning of this institution possible. I will begin with you Mr Speaker and your office. Thank you for your service to the House this year. I acknowledge also the Clerk and the Clerk’s Office for the work they do. I thank the Hansard reporters who are sometimes called upon to write down things—particularly from the Government benches—that do not make much sense. 
I thank the security staff and the messengers who have had to fight this year for a decent wage for working in this House and I thank the cleaning staff who are still fighting to get a decent wage. I acknowledge our executive assistants and our media research clerical and electorate office staff. They work hard and they work professionally. For those of us who have the privilege of having drivers I acknowledge them also for the work they do. 
Last but not least I acknowledge the spouses and families of parliamentarians from whichever side of the House we sit on. Our families and our partners do not choose the careers that we have chosen for ourselves but too often they pay the price for that—the price of our absence and the price of unwanted publicity. I wish all our colleagues and all New Zealanders a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 First of all on behalf of the Green Party I extend to all members in this Chamber our best wishes for the season and I extend best wishes particularly to the Speaker. I think our Speaker has really put his heart and soul into the job—probably more than any other Speaker I have seen since I have been here. We certainly appreciate his efforts to get Ministers to answer the questions at question time rather than to talk around them. 
The Green Party like the previous two speakers also wishes to send its greetings to all those many people in this complex who help us to do our work including ushers security staff police messengers travel office people Bellamy’s workers librarians and everyone in the Clerk’s Office including all the select committee staff. That is not to forget of course our own personal party staff executive assistants out-of-Parliament people and administrative research and media staff. Finally this Christmas we should not forget those largely unseen but hard-working people who clean our offices at night and who as Phil Goff just mentioned are underpaid. The Green Party is also concerned at the underpayment of the security staff and we strongly support them in their negotiations and collective action through the New Zealand Public Service Association to get a better deal. 
Christmas is a time of goodwill to all men and women and I think we should be thinking particularly of those poor families who will not have the wherewithal to have a sumptuous Christmas dinner or to buy much in the way of presents for their kids. Unfortunately New Zealand is becoming a more unequal society with serious levels of poverty and flowing from that we have a serious crime problem. However at Christmas we should have compassion both for the victims of offences and for the criminals in jail and for the families of both of them. It was estimated on Radio New Zealand this morning that there are 20000 children of prisoners and we should remember them because they will not be having a very good Christmas with their father or mother in jail. 
This year Chief Justice Sian Elias gave us a strong hint that we should be looking at ways of reducing crime other than just locking up more and more people for longer. The decade-long battle between Labour and National about who can be the toughest on criminals has resulted in New Zealand having one of the highest imprisonment rates in the Western World. Only the Greens and the Maori Party have argued for a better approach focusing more on restorative justice and rehabilitation than on punishment. Mind you there is one crime that the Greens are thinking of adding to the statute book and that is a crime against the climate. But that might not get a majority in the House because some of the current members here might end up being incarcerated. 
That brings me to Copenhagen. Our MPs on the spot Jeanette Fitzsimons and Kennedy Graham say that the rallying cry on Copenhagen streets this week has been “climate justice” which means that rich countries with higher per capita emissions have to take the prime responsibility for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and also make a huge financial contribution to poorer countries to allow them to move to a lower-carbon economy. 
The need for climate justice shows that we cannot solve fundamental environmental problems—and climate change is the pre-eminent one—without addressing the social and economic inequalities between nations and within nations. This also highlights why the Greens are so strong on international human rights. Countries that are not democratic are generally despoilers of the environment. In this respect we are disappointed that John Key has followed Helen Clark in keeping Ministers away from the Dalai Lama when he visits in order to satisfy the political mandarins in Beijing. 
Four Green MPs did meet the Dalai Lama when he visited this month. His comments on what was happening on the Tibetan Plateau were alarming. The massive deforestation by Chinese loggers can only increase greenhouse gas emissions and it can also reduce rainfall on the plateau. When we combine that with global warming melting the glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau we are looking at an environmental and social catastrophe because almost half the world’s population in South Asia East Asia and South-east Asia relies on water coming from the Tibetan Plateau. The one-party dictatorship in China is simply not up to solving such a vital ecological problem which is why we must strongly support all the democratic forces in China be they harassed Chinese human rights campaigners or those wanting more rights for the Tibetan and Uighur people. 
The urgency of massive expenditure by rich countries to combat climate change is one reason why we should be against wars such as that being prosecuted by the United States in Afghanistan unfortunately with the assistance of our SAS. About $1.4 trillion is currently being spent annually on military equipment and fighting wars. Would it not be a better use of that money to spread renewable power generation in poorer countries rather than use it to drop bombs on them? 
Next year the Green Party will be continuing to challenge the largely “business as usual” economic policies of National and Labour. We know that this unsettles those wedded to economic orthodoxy where the dominant measure of economic health appears to be the growth of GDP largely through producing more consumer goods and further drawing down on the world’s scarce resources. We are confident that next year even more New Zealanders will be agreeing with the Greens about the need for a more intelligent approach towards a more sustainable economic future. 
This year has been a year of transition for the Greens with nearly half of our caucus being first-term MPs including David Clendon who replaced Sue Bradford when she left recently. Sue Bradford achieved so much for us during her 10 years in Parliament and won huge public respect. We have also been lucky to have Russel Norman and Metiria Turei so capably step into the shoes of our founding co-leaders Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons. 
Here is a sample of what we in the Green Party have achieved this past year. We have put a lot of work into what we call the Green New Deal and that is a green answer to the combined economic and environmental crises we face. We were able to advance some of the items under the Green New Deal under our memorandum of understanding with National to work together on issues where we can agree. This includes the $323 million home insulation scheme to make 180000 homes warmer and drier. Another project that is consistent with the Green New Deal has been the national cycleway where our MP Kevin Hague has been working closely with John Key. Mind you most of what National has done is not socially or environmentally friendly and has increased greenhouse gas emissions such as the focus on new motorway construction in and around Wellington and Auckland which will only encourage more travel by car. 
Much of National’s programme has eroded gains of previous years often through reduced funding. This includes the accident compensation levy rises cuts to night school funding less support for community organisations and amendments to the Resource Management Act. But even when we have not been able to defeat a bad bill we have sometimes been able to moderate it. In the debate over the Resource Management Act amendments for example Russel Norman teamed up with community and environmental groups to ensure that Kiwis still have some say over our water land and wildlife. Russel has been a champion of progressive tax and banking reform and he blew the whistle on proposals for factory dairy-farming in the Mackenzie Country. 
Metiria Turei has shone light on National’s plans to allow some level of mining in our conservation estate. We say we should love our national parks and protect them not mine them. Catherine Delahunty has battled for New Zealanders to be given information about toxic sites which took a big step forward with the introduction of new rules that require councils to make public what they know. Sue Kedgley has kept up the good fight for consumers to know where their food comes from. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First of all let me wish the very best to all the good people of Epsom who have done a wonderful job of supporting their local member. I have to say that on becoming a Minister I was very concerned about whether I would be able to perform adequately the duties of a local member but I have to say that with the help of other Ministers it has been very easy. What I found with National Ministers is that they actually do care about individual constituents so when I have taken concerns to the respective Ministers we have had a very good result and the outcome that we would expect. I would also like to thank all the ACT supporters and all the ACT voters who have supported us over the years. 
Our goal this year was to show that we could work well in Government that we could work well with the parties in Government and also that we could make a difference within Government so that giving one’s party vote to ACT would actually mean something. I believe that we have demonstrated that. I would like in particular to say how marvellous it has been to work with the Prime Minister John Key. John Key said at the start following the election that what was important to him was not the words on the paper of any confidence and supply agreement but the relationship that would be developed between National and the confidence and supply parties. I have to say that the Prime Minister and every other Minister have actually worked very very hard in terms of their integrity and their respect for the ACT Party and likewise with the Maori Party and United Future. The leadership John Key has shown in respect of the confidence and supply parties has made for a stronger and a better Government than would otherwise be the case. 
I thank all the Ministers I have worked with. It has been a fabulous year. I also particularly thank the Maori Party and United Future. Oftentimes we disagree on the policy issues but that is what we would expect when we come from different political parties. At no time have those disagreements spilled over into any loss of respect or into attack or insult. The relationship has been one of utmost dignity and I have to say I greatly admire the Maori Party as a consequence. I thank my electorate staff for working tirelessly on behalf of the people of Epsom. I also thank Mr John Carter the Associate Minister of Local Government because he has worked incredibly hard in that role and without doubt we actually have two Ministers of local government rather than one Minister and an Associate Minister. 
I thank Brendan Boyle and the team at the Department of Internal Affairs and the officials at the Ministry for Economic Development and at Treasury whom I work with. I thank them sincerely for their superb efforts. There is no doubt that those departments have faced big challenges and they have worked hard especially on the reforms under way in Auckland. The Auckland Transition Agency established to oversee the move to one unitary council in Auckland is doing a fantastic job. Executive chair Mark Ford general counsel Rob Fisher and the team at the agency deserve mention for their calm determined and professional work on what is no small task. I am grateful to them for all their efforts and look forward to their continuing in that job. 
To my parliamentary colleagues and in particular Mr Cunliffe on the Opposition benches the ACT Party extends its very best for the Christmas break and for a holiday with their families and friends. Of course we often disagree on matters of policy but we share a common goal which is to make New Zealand a better place for everyone. We disagree oftentimes about the best way to do that but I do not think there is anyone in this Parliament who does not want the best for our country. 
Mr Speaker your efforts in this House deserve special mention. I agree with all the commentators who laud your work in making Parliament an institution of which we can all be proud. I think that you have shown leadership and wisdom that has done New Zealand and our great institution of Westminster parliamentary democracy a wonderful service. I wish you and your wife a very good Christmas and holiday. You can reflect on putting something into our country and into our Parliament that is no mean achievement and that is a great respect for Parliament. 
I also thank everyone who works in the precincts. They have been mentioned but we all know that what makes our Parliament work is all the hard work of others who support the MPs often at difficult hours and often in difficult time frames. They too can have a break. 
I also wish the press gallery a good break and a good 2010. The relationship between the Government—and indeed politicians generally—and the press gallery is a robust one as it should be in any functioning democracy. I think that we have a great respect for the journalists and I think too despite what people might think at times the journalists too have a great respect for us as politicians and more particularly for this great institution that is our Parliament and this wonderful thing that is our democracy. 
It has been a tough year for Kiwis and a year of some considerable uncertainty. It has certainly been a tough year for a Minister of Finance grappling with a difficult set of accounts and a worldwide recession. It has been good to end the year on some good news on the economic front. What we know about Kiwis is that we can have a great Christmas confident in the knowledge that next year will be better because we actually have had a good and stable Government making the right decisions and that our Parliament is in good heart. So too are the values of this great country in terms of our work ethic our enterprise and the positivity that we can all revel in in this country from the Prime Minister down. Thank you. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i tenei ra whakamutunga. The debating chamber must be the most unusual destination to take one’s honeymoon but you Mr Speaker can be proud of the wedding banquet that you presided over in this last year. The Maori Party stands to congratulate you on the distinguished presence and wise counsel that you have demonstrated in this House. We have valued the fair and firm way in which this Chamber has been managed and a particular delight for us has been to hear the deep resonance of the tone that you have brought to the karakia. We expect that this skill will be heard more frequently next year with the introduction of simultaneous interpretation in the House. We extend our thanks also to Lindsay Tisch as Deputy Speaker and to Rick Barker and Eric Roy in their roles as Assistant Speakers. 
I want to take this time also to acknowledge the leadership of Mary Harris—tena koe—and to thank the Office of the Clerk of the House the party whips right across the House the Serjeant-at-Arms the Usher of the Black Rod the Hansard recorders and all those who maintain the order the decorum and the history of our Parliament. 
We are at a critical juncture in the history of politics. In this last 12 months the Maori Party has been able to ensure the Maori voice is heard by the Government and that it is included in and informs decision making. We believe that Maori need to be participants in decision making not just recipients of it. So policy by policy bill by bill we have seen the expression of tangata whenua in debates on aquaculture broadcasting employment criminal justice the social services education and many more. Of course there have been some notable exceptions in which the collective decision-making capacity of Cabinet or indeed this Parliament has not taken the time to respond to the call from Maori. I am thinking of the Te Ra o Matariki/Matariki Day Bill put up by my colleague Rahui Katene—a wonderful gesture on the pathway to nationhood which was voted down by this Parliament. I think of the Auckland governance legislation which ignored the proposals of mana whenua and rejected the expert analysis of the mana whenua forum of Ngati Whatua of Tainui. There is also the failure to act in the best interests of Maori in the polytechnic sector or more broadly in adult education. 
Although we may agree or disagree with it the strong independent voice of Maori will prevail and we will continue to represent the aspirations of our people in every breath that we take. I spoke earlier of the history that has been shaped in this Parliament. Five years ago the Foreshore and Seabed Act was passed—an Act that polarised the nation and provoked a debate on Kiwi versus iwi. As one of the key negotiating points of the relationship agreement that we signed with National we initiated a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act which has resulted in the Prime Minister indicating a strong likelihood that the Act will be repealed. I commend the work of the ministerial review panel led by Judge Taihakurei Durie. Its report revealed that the Act was built on shaky foundations and gave Maori such umbrage that they considered the propriety of the Government’s delivering some form of apology for or recognition of having done wrong. This has not happened as yet but it was a very positive development that Dr Michael Cullen in his final press conference conceded that Labour should not have legislated to prevent Maori from seeking customary title from the Maori Land Court to the foreshore and seabed. It is only disappointing that the new Leader of the Opposition has not been able to honour those parting words. But we look forward to a new year in which options for a replacement regime will be considered. 
The impact of the economic climate has of course been a huge influence on this Parliament. We have been responsible for the progressing of a number of work streams that emerged from the employment summit including a focus on Maori skills acquisition involving significant investment across a number of sectors in Maori industry training places. I established the Maori Economic Taskforce which has enabled us to move forward with optimism as we think of the huge challenges facing our nation particularly in addressing high unemployment. I congratulate my colleague Tariana on her initiative in the Community Max scheme which has paved the foundation for many of our whanau in determining their own local work options. 
Through tough times inevitably we rely on the community and the voluntary sector to support people in need. The Maori Party recognises the dedicated sacrifice and commitment of the many local heroes and “sheroes” who maintain our communities and care for our people. Within this group are those who care for our elderly the disabled our children those with mental health issues those who have suffered the tragedy of family violence and those who are more vulnerable than others. We commend all of them for the devoted way in which they care for the lives of others. 
But if there is one key area in which to bring about the gains needed in order for our nation to advance it will be Whanau Ora. This policy is transformational. It is about re-energising and re-empowering whanau to do it for themselves: to determine their own destiny. It is about pride it is about potential and it is about our whanau being the beacon of hope for our future. We know that if we can invest in our whanau to take care of their own to assume their responsibilities for their collective health and well-being then ultimately the taxpayer of this land will benefit from that. Whanau Ora places whanau at the centre and builds on the strengths and capabilities already present in the whanau. It is a new approach: an approach in which we trust whanau will lead the way. 
As one example I have introduced an initiative around mara kai to promote community gardening amongst Maori in order to restore the ability of Maori to nourish and feed themselves from their own gardens. The initiative refocuses our energies to promote self-sufficiency well-being and healthy activity as well as reviving the lost art of gardening knowledge including our values of kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga. 
In thinking of these values I turn to extend the appreciation of the Maori Party to all the amazing people who care for our well-being within this environment: the messengers here in the House who travel miles to keep us informed; the library staff who upturn every stone to keep us updated; the security staff who keep us safe; the staff at Bellamy’s and Copperfields who keep us fed; the receptionists and telephonists who keep us connected; the VIP drivers; the Ministerial Services and Parliamentary Service staff; the cleaners; the information technology helpdesk; the building and maintenance team; and the gardeners who keep the premises in pristine condition and maintain the dignity of the House. There are the parliamentary officers who run the Bills Office who serve the select committees or who manage Cabinet committees; and of course we know that a day in the life of any politician can be made or broken through the lens and pens of the press gallery. We salute them all for their efforts. 
In our own Maori Party offices we are indebted to the expert advice of our research team the talents and quick wit of our media team the challenge and thrust of our political advisers the institutional confidence of our departmental advisers and the ever-wonderful management and manaakitanga of our executive team. 
We have had an incredible year in Government and as a party with influence in this Parliament the considerable gains achieved through Budget 2009 and the emissions trading scheme have been possible because of the quality of the relationship we enjoy with National. I thank the Prime Minister for the courage of his vision in extending his hand of welcome to us. His enthusiastic approach to leadership has been embraced by us all and we have all appreciated the confidence and trust of members of his team from senior Cabinet members to backbenchers alike. 
Finally I acknowledge the amazing energy and excellent leadership of my colleagues and friends Tariana Te Ururoa Rahui and Hone. We end this year as we began it united in our vision to make this nation great again. I call the attention of the House to the need to look carefully at the symbolism of the national Maori flag announced earlier this week. Within the spiral-like koru of the black red and white design there is the symbolism of the curving fern frond bringing with it the unfolding of new life hope for the future and the promise of renewal. I wish this for every member of this House. We thank members for the work that they do on behalf of New Zealand. We commend them for their commitment their hard work and the sacrifices that they and their families make for the common good of our nation. We look forward to returning in 2010 to work together across the House to embrace opportunities for cooperation and to truly consider the moments of transformation that will make the greatest difference for the people of Aotearoa. Nga mihi o te Kirihimete me te Tau Hou. Happy Christmas; happy New Year. May Father Christmas fill everyone’s stockings with good ideas about how to work with the Maori Party. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I will begin by acknowledging the tremendous job you have done as our Speaker in the last 12 months. Many commentators have made reference to the way in which you have brought a sense of dignity and order to the House. I think as someone who has been here for a little while that you have done more to restore the standing of Parliament in the public eye than any other single politician in the time that I have been here. I say that not lightly because you have had a very awesome task ahead of you. I think the combination of people sitting down each day to watch on television question time and seeing your insistence—much I suspect to the infuriation of Ministers at times—that Ministers answer the questions that are being put to them has had two consequences: firstly the quality of answers is better and secondly the quality of questions being asked is better too because the prospect of getting an answer is that much greater. I acknowledge the work you have done and I think that all of this House owes you a huge debt for what you have done to restore the standing of Parliament in the public eye. 
I want also at this early stage to acknowledge the commitment dedication and support I have received from my own staff during the year including my office staff and my departmental staff in respect of inland revenue and health; the Cabinet office; and the myriad other people who work to make this place the institution that it is: the library staff the catering staff the security staff the Parliamentary Service staff Ministerial Services the Cabinet Office the VIP drivers the gardeners and everyone—you name it—who makes Parliament this unique village that it is. 
We often overlook the fact that as we come to our adjournment their time goes on. Their shifts will continue. I was talking today to one of our security people who told me that he was manning the Christmas and Boxing Day shift at this building. While we are out celebrating the staff who serve us will continue to work here. I think we should acknowledge that. 
For me this year ends on a very high note. I know that members will forgive me a little bit of obsession perhaps but I was delighted that yesterday saw the culmination of what has been for me a very long campaign to see the Transmission Gully decision finally made in the interests of the people of Wellington. It has been 15 years since I took up this cause. In that time we have had petitions to Parliament I have brought members’ bills to Parliament and I have managed to get it in confidence and supply agreements with both Governments. I want to acknowledge particularly the support of the Hon Winnie Laban and the Hon Darren Hughes on the Opposition side and the support of the Minister of Transport on the Government side in bringing this matter to fruition. 
This issue has for the rest of New Zealand I think a certain quaint feel to it. Why on earth are we obsessed in Wellington about a motorway or a highway? But the reality is that for the people of this region it is important and I think that the overwhelming majority of people of the region will be grateful for the fact that the campaign has transcended political boundaries in the main and is finally now being successful and I think we should celebrate that right on Christmas. 
I was also delighted last week to be able to release an issues paper regarding what has been a long-held United Future policy of income splitting for parents with dependent children as the next step towards the introduction of legislation that will give effect to that policy next year. As part of our confidence and supply agreement with National there will be support for a bill being referred to a select committee. I believe that in the broad context of the way in which we treat households and the whole issue about the best way of ensuring that those kids and families get the best start in life this will be a very timely issue for debate next year. 
It will come along at the same time as we will be engrossed in working through the detail of the report of the tax working-group due shortly. Given its brief of looking at how the Government’s medium-term objective of aligning tax rates could be achieved and all of the issues that have arisen in consequence as part of its consideration a very critical part of the work that the Minister of Finance other colleagues and I will be doing early in the new year will be to translate its recommendations into good sound policy for the future. That is another reason to make sure that the forthcoming summer break is a good one. 
Many people have mentioned in the course of the debate already that this has not been the easiest of years for New Zealand. At the start of the year we faced the enormous uncertainty of an international economic crisis the depth of which we knew not and the duration of which we could only speculate upon but we could note at the time the international anxiety that this looked like being the Great Depression all over again. As 2009 draws to a close we can perhaps breathe a little easier in New Zealand that our worst fears have not been realised. But that is not to diminish the fact that for many New Zealanders this has been a tough and difficult year. The consequences will take some time to work themselves out. As we approach the Christmas break I think we should reflect upon the fact that for many people it might not be the warm and effusive time it might otherwise have been. There may be some cutting back on the presents for the kids and there may not be the level of hospitality around the Christmas table but Kiwis are trying to make do and Kiwis are looking forward to the future. 
I want to make this observation as well: we are all looking forward to our summer break and to the sentiment of the gathering of family and friends but there will be a category of New Zealanders for whom that will not be possible. There are many people for whom Christmas is a time of dread actually. They may have lost a loved one during the year or they may have family overseas. For whatever reason they will be alone. For them we should spare more than a passing thought. They are the people who as all of the commercial and other pressures about the Christmas period weigh down upon them become increasingly fearful of what it might mean. While we are celebrating and while all of us are looking forward to escaping this place I ask members to just spare a thought for those who will be less well off less fortunate and who will be waiting for Christmas to pass so that the normal sphere of life will resume for them. 
Next year will be a year of huge challenge. This year the Government has really been settling down. The challenge next year—and the Government knows its challenge—is to translate a lot of the plans that have been put in place this year a lot of the preparatory work that has been done into definite plans policies and actions. I know that Ministers have a big workload ahead of them and the consequence of that is that next year will be full of immense excitement. There will be all sorts of issues for members to grapple with. The select committees that have been working hard this year will work even harder next year as the legislative programme will be fuller than it has been this year. On that reason alone members deserve a good break. They deserve some time to recharge the batteries to perhaps read the books they have thought about reading all year but have had to discard in favour of the latest departmental or other report to reintroduce themselves to family and friends and to perhaps just be able to enjoy a normal lifestyle for a period of time. 
I do not intend to detain the House longer. I simply want to wish everyone right around this Chamber and throughout these precincts the very best for Christmas and a happy and successful 2010. When the House resumes in February I look forward to the political debate resuming as well. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I begin by wishing you Mr Speaker and Alexandra a merry Christmas. I acknowledge the efforts you have put into lifting the standards in the House. I think the behaviour in the Chamber reflects a superb new level. I also wish a merry Christmas to all New Zealanders in particular to the people of my rohe of Ahuriri—Napier. I say to them that it is a privilege to be their MP and I definitely appreciate it. I wish a merry Christmas to all my friends and colleagues around the Chamber. It has been a tough year but it has been a lot of fun. I say to members to make sure they have time with their families and to look forward to coming back to the House early. 
I reflect the comments of Bill English when he thanked all the staff of the House and all the workers who have done such a huge job in this place. They make it happen for us. In the spirit of Christmas I also acknowledge my whipping colleagues: Jo Stevie Darren Kennedy Te Ururoa and David. We have a professional relationship that at times is one in which we do not agree but I think we have worked at a level this year that has meant that the House has worked on a very professional level. If we reflect on it we see that 70-odd bills were passed through this House this year. I understand that the average over the years has been in the low 60s so that has been a good effort from around the House. I am proud of it and I am proud to acknowledge the work of Gerry Brownlee in that particular effort. 
I do not think we can go past thanking the people of New Zealand. Without them our party would not be in Government and our friends in the minority parties would not be here as well so I thank New Zealanders around the country for supporting our Government and for giving us the absolute privilege to be here. As we have come through this recession it is very easy for the Government to stand up and take the plaudits and the accolades. But actually the hard-working New Zealanders of this country—the businessmen and businesswomen and the employees in those companies—have got us through this recession. I think we need to thank them for all the hard work they have done throughout the year. 
I acknowledge that but in doing so I also acknowledge all the people who have lost their jobs. The thing that often grates on me in this House particularly when we are going through a recession is that we forget the businesses that fell over throughout the recession and how tough it is for people to stand up and lay someone off. I have been a businessman for most of my life and laying someone off is the toughest thing you have to do. I acknowledge the businesspeople who have tightened their belts and have got on with the job even though it is tough. I acknowledge the employees who also acknowledged that we were in a recessionary time and did not push for the wage rises that they perhaps deserved this year. In particular I acknowledge those employees out there who lost their jobs. It is tough but I want them to know that this Government has supported them through this recession. 
In my speech today I want to look at some of the things we as a Government have done this year to support the country and to take it forward. If we think about those employees who have lost their jobs we should ask what we as a Government have done that we can reflect on. We lifted the minimum wage from $12 to $12.50 an hour in a recession when it would have been very easy not to. We held benefits and entitlements at a level throughout that recession when we were facing down the barrel of 10 years of deficit. We looked at that recession and said that we needed to provide a safety net for employees who got themselves into difficulty and we retained those entitlements. We were still able to deliver $1 billion in tax cuts. We protected savings in the wholesale and retail bank markets. We assisted thousands of workers in the Job Support Scheme. We provided 16900— 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —16900 opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds. I acknowledge the rise in unemployment among young people in my own electorate of Napier. It is a real concern so I am proud of what Paula Bennett has done. I am proud of what the Prime Minister did in putting those schemes together for 16900 people. I acknowledge that this scheme will not solve the problems of every unemployed person out there but it is a hang of a lot it is a great start and it shows that we are out there trying to do the best we can. In that regard we made a good start with home insulation. We have a goal of getting 180000 homes insulated and that is no mean feat. We have already got out this year and delivered on that goal and it has provided jobs for people and warmer homes. It is absolutely superb. 
In going forward this country has set a platform that will provide a pathway to grow as a country. In that regard we have done something that I also think we should reflect on: we have capped the numbers in the core bureaucracy. It needed to be done as that number grew exponentially over the last 9 years. We have put $7.5 billion into infrastructure expenditure and we keep rolling out the announcements on that infrastructure. This week Steven Joyce was out there announcing Transmission Gully and the whole route from Wellington up to Otaki something that has been on the books for 20-odd years. We want to reflect on the fact that this Government has got out there and made decisions and tough calls. Even when lobbies have not supported where we have gone we have gone out there and done the hard yards. I am particularly proud of that. 
On top of that we have had a $500 million relief package for small businesses we have simplified the Resource Management Act to make it easier we have undertaken some major structural reform reviews and this week Gerry Brownlee was out there with a review of the entire energy system. Once again we are setting a platform for growth and are trying to introduce more competition in the sector. We cannot guarantee we will stop price rises but we can aim to keep them low which is good. 
In health we have done some wonderful things. We said at the election that we would increase the amount of elective surgery. It had been increasing at about 1500 a year. We said we would lift that increase to 4500 a year and what did we do? We lifted it to 11000 this year. That was a pretty good effort. Some smaller but very important things include our commitment to Herceptin which we delivered on. We provide a 12-month programme of Herceptin. PlunketLine is another. For people like me who have a young family it was a particularly important initiative that we rolled out. Another thing which I know my good colleague Katrina Shanks supported throughout the election was maternity care. We listened to the New Zealand public who told us that maternity care was important and I know that as I had three babies at that time. It was not good enough for mothers to be rolled out of maternity care when they did not feel it was time to go so we put another $104 million into maternity care. That $104 million gives mothers and fathers more choice in maternity care and I think that is absolutely fantastic. 
I reflect on where we have got to in law and order. There has been a clamp down on gangs and P. The police have new powers which has been absolutely fantastic and tougher penalties can now be imposed. The whole P initiative led by the Prime Minister is just a sample of things to come. Our Prime Minister got multiple departments to put their heads together and they have delivered results. We are already seeing the results roll out around the country with less P being taken and more P penalties. 
I will finish by talking about education because for me that is a critical area going forward. I show my support for Anne Tolley and the wonderful way in which she is dealing with national standards. For me it is one of the most important things going forward next year and I think the country will definitely get in behind it. At this point in time 20 percent of our children are leaving high school unable to read write or do maths to a level that will get them by in a modern economy—20 percent! We can do a couple of things. We can wring our hands and say that it is too hard so we will just continue with 20 percent being in that position or we can get out there and say that we will do something about it. We can say that we are going to do something for those kids and for the parents of New Zealand. Anne Tolley has bravely gone against the teacher unions and against some of the principals and some teachers and said that we actually care for parents and for children that we are out there and that we are going to introduce national standards. Those standards are coming in next year and I am looking forward to that roll-out. I accept there is a dual responsibility for parents to work with the schools. I think we need to bring the pendulum of responsibility in education back towards parents as well. The responsibility does not rest just with teachers; it rests with the families and they need to understand that as well. So I am excited about that. I am excited about national standards and I am very positive about this Government and next year. 
It has been a great year and one in which I have been proud to be part of this John Key - led Government. It has been a privilege to be in this House and to be the member of Parliament for Napier. Thank you very much and merry Christmas to everybody in the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow on from my friend the chief Government whip who in his maiden speech admitted that he had been an active member of Toastmasters. After that performance I hope he does that for free. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Keep taking the lessons. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Hipkins suggests that he keeps taking the lessons. He is a good man he is good to work with but he always reminds me of a character from the TV programme  
The Office 
 for some reason I am not quite sure why. But I am looking forward to working with him next year. 
I join the Leader of the Opposition in thanking all the agencies of Parliament that we work with every day starting with the Clerk’s Office and all the organisations that come down from that organisation; the travel office member and staff services in particular those who work with the Government and Opposition whips the receptionists and telephonists the buildings people finance people and messengers; the Chamber and gallery staff who are our social workers and carers inside this building and this Chamber the visitors officers library staff security the executive assistants from all the parties who work so hard and of course Bellamy’s. Also on behalf of the Labour Party I acknowledge our staff in Fraser House who worked to support us so much during the year. 
I pay tribute to you Mr Speaker and congratulate you on a very fine year as the Speaker of the House. You are very much enjoying the job and it is a pleasure for us as an Opposition to work with you. You have set out some pretty clear rules as to the way you like things to be followed and the expectations the Opposition can have if we comply with that. I think there is a little bit too much pressure on you Mr Speaker. The tributes to you today have been almost funereal in their praise. In fact one media commentator gave you 10 out of 10. I think that elevating you to perfection at this stage is a little tough on you. It is almost the Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize for Speakership. You are doing a great job Mr Speaker but we do not expect perfection from you. But it is certainly good to work with you. We acknowledge your deputy the honourable Lindsay Tisch and the Hon Rick Barker and Eric Roy who serve you as Assistant Speakers. I also make special mention of Beryl Bright Trish Wanden and Roland Todd in your office who really are a great help to all parties in Parliament and deserve to be mentioned. 
It has been an extraordinary year for the country. We have been told that we have to tighten our belts and that the way to do this is to get rid of Moroccan cooking classes and if we do this everything will be fine in our country. I am really concerned about the condescending attitude towards adult and community education because if there is anybody who needs a chance in our country in the workforce it can be found through adult and community education. But if there is any member of Parliament who could do with a night course it would be Gerry Brownlee on House management. I think it is really wrong that Anne Tolley wants to lord it over her other front-bench colleagues by that approach. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Bill English has a house management problem too. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: There are many house management problems on the Government side some of them with a capital “H” and others more residential in their nature. But we do need a change in the way in which Parliament is managed. Thirty-eight percent of parliamentary sitting time in the last 12 months has been under urgency. In fact we have had urgency so often since the change of Government happened that Grant Robertson said we should stop calling it urgency and start calling it “normalcy” because it seems to be part of our everyday programme. It has been hard to see what has been so urgent. 
Louise Upston 
: It’s a hard-working Government. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I hear Government backbenchers interjecting procedural experts that they are. I am sure they could advise the House that one-quarter of all bills passed into law this year were Labour Government bills. That was how urgent it was for Parliament to meet in order to progress legislation because it was so important to continue and pass into law those 9 terrible years of a Labour Government. So we had urgency on those matters. 
To be fair to the Government the National Party introduced 59 of its own bills but 60 percent of them had a truncated select committee process. They either did not go to a select committee for the full length of time or the select committee had to meet at the same time as the House was meeting. I say that from a parliamentary point of view that has not been helpful for our Parliament at all. 
Of course those were the bills we got to see. One of the innovations this year was to debate bills no one had ever seen before apart from the Government. That was a very unusual practice that the Government adopted and thankfully it was one that as the year came to an end was not being repeated. Despite the enormous cooperation the Opposition has tried to give the Government—we have tried to help it out along the way—some of the issues to do with constant urgency and bills not being given a fair shake at a select committee are not good for Parliament and I hope that will change next year. We would certainly be in support of that. 
Flags have been in the news a lot this week and it has been a year in which a lot of ideas have been run up the flagpole only to be run back down it again or left at half mast as the political winds have changed constantly around the Government. We saw the Prime Minister in his first full year as Prime Minister achieving his boyhood dream to be Prime Minister of New Zealand. Quite what comes next we are not sure but he will keep on smiling. 
Hon Member 
: Nor is he. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Nor is he but he is relaxed and comfortable about everything. It does not matter what happens: “I’m relaxed about it” he says “I’m comfortable about it.” The only time we consider that he might not be so sure about an issue is when the gasp happens. That is when he says: “I’m relaxed about that I’m comfortable about that—gasp gasp!”. When the gasp is on we know that the Prime Minister has decided there is something that might be a little bit more urgent and which might require his attention. But we are treated to  
The Late Show with David Letterman 
 every day at question time without the applause the humour the comedy or the intellect. Other than that it is exactly like the David Letterman show when the Prime Minister is speaking. 
Then of course we have Bill English. As Phil Goff said Bill English is kind of like the gift that keeps on giving—or in his case the gift that keeps on taking as Mr Goff said—all through the year. All through the year Bill English was a reminder of how good he had been in 2002 when we on this side of the House used to call him “Secret Agent Bill English” who was sent by the Labour Party into the National Party to destroy it from within. In the 2002 election he showed his political expertise in that particular regard. We thought he had finished with that but this year he was back doing as much possible damage to himself and to the Government as he possibly could. He ends the year as a shadow of himself but we are so glad about one thing: he is still in his job. 
The worst thing that could have happened for the Opposition would be if Steven Joyce had taken over as Minister of Finance. We are so glad that Bill English is clinging on connecting the seatbelt in the self-drive ministerial car as tight as it will go to make sure that he cannot be moved out of it. An interesting point about his speech this afternoon was how proud Government members are that the lobbyists like them. Can anyone be more poll-driven than that? He said that it was a Government for corporate lobbyists and that the lobbyists loved it when they came to see the Government because they got treated with respect and the Government did everything they said. It is apparently an enormous honour for the Government that whenever a lobbyist comes in it happens to roll over. 
Did members note the bitterness as Bill English recounted his own time in Opposition? Those memories are seared on his mind. They drive what he does every day and it is no wonder that every day at question time we watch him more than anyone else because when the Prime Minister is answering questions he is busy whispering him the information and when the Minister of Education is not so much answering a question as attempting to make a contribution to the House he is whispering the answers into her ear as well. I should say about the Hon Anne Tolley that we think she is the best Minister in the Government. We hope she becomes Prime Minister and National Party leader. We think that would be a very good thing indeed! She has our full support in that. 
The limited vision with which Bill English has addressed the House this year as Minister of Finance has been shameful. He has tried to misrepresent and distort the record of the previous Labour Government. The truth is that man inherited a strong economy. He inherited low debt he inherited low unemployment and he inherited a set of accounts that were better than any other country all around the world. This party opposite campaigned on closing the gap with Australia. It has certainly made a difference to the gap with Australia. There are more people in work in Australia and fewer unemployed in that country than there are in our country now and that is the record that that National Government has. 
National cut KiwiSaver and cut the Superannuation Fund this year. Those members are only interested in a 3-year electoral cycle; they are not interested in the long-term future of this country. That National Government asked us to believe that Jonathan Coleman Wayne Mapp Pansy Wong Phil Heatley and Kate Wilkinson are among the top 20 politicians in New Zealand. We are asked to believe that they are the brains trust in the Cabinet who are able to drive our country. The only expression I have seen on Kate Wilkinson’s face this week has been one of pained inquisition. She cannot decide whether to put folate into the Christmas cakes. We look forward to finding out about that. Tony Ryall of course has entertained us with his shirt and tie combo. No wonder he needed the Diplomatic Protection Squad to look after him when he was Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand. Goodness knows how much it is costing to follow acting Prime Ministers around New Zealand! I do not know how dangerous this country is but for all those years Michael Cullen never needed the Diplomatic Protection Squad behind him but when No. 5 is the Acting Prime Minister half the police squad flies to Tauranga to look after him. 
We are looking forward to hearing what Maurice Williamson has got to do. Maurice is used to talking in capital letters all the time. Now he only has one little letter an “h” to worry about before Christmas. I hope the Maori Party read the Foreshore and Seabed Act  
Hansard 
 over Christmas. I hope those members read the third reading speeches. The problem with the Foreshore and Seabed Act is that it was opposed by the Maori Party because it did not think it gave Maori enough rights and it was opposed by National because it thought it gave Maori too many rights. So with all the great aroha that is going on between the two parties I wonder whether they will resolve that issue next year. I think it will be very difficult for them to do that. I hope the Maori Party take cognisance of this particular point. Dr Sharples mentioned unity and also Hone Harawira. It is not so much kotahitanga as “koruatanga” I would have thought in that particular respect with that particular party. 
I have to mention the Opposition’s gratefulness that we have had the chance to meet Aaron Gilmore this year. We are just absolutely amazed at the brilliance of the man. He has a 28-page CV and he is suing Al Gore because Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. The only question on our mind is how that man got beaten by Paul Quinn for a higher list space. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 It is that time again when we all look back on the year that has passed and make wishes and predictions for the year ahead. I will spend a few minutes sharing my New Year wishes. 
My first wish is that we stop endlessly boringly comparing ourselves with Australia. It is obvious that the purpose of the Government’s endless tedious comparisons with Australia is to make us all feel so inadequate and so poor compared with our Australian cousins that we will somehow buy the idea that we need some radical right-wing surgery in the form of “Rogernomics Part 2”. But the truth is that in terms of our equality of life Australia does not begin to compare with New Zealand. Australia is so short of water that many Australians are able to shower only once a week in the middle of the night and wash their clothes about once a month. They are in the process of banning open-plan offices as a result of that. When Australians are not fleeing from snakes droughts or raging bushfires they risk being killed by jellyfish—if they are brave enough to go swimming—and that is if sharks have not eaten them first. Let us stop drooling with envy about Australia and acknowledge that our quality of life is far superior to that of Australians. Our magnificent landscapes pristine national parks and native forests are the envy of the entire world not just Australia. At least they would be if we can keep the bulldozers away from our national parks and stop the Government’s insane plan to mine some of the most treasured parts of New Zealand that make us unique. 
My second wish is that the Government will announce on Christmas Day that the minimum wage is increased to $15 an hour. People cannot live decently on $12.50 an hour; everyone knows that. Thousands of New Zealand families cannot afford food for their children. They cannot pay their bills they are staving off their creditors and in the meantime we have chief executives of Government entities like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) earning more than $800000 a year. It is obscene. 
My third wish is that we are spared by some Christmas miracle from “Rogernomics Part 2” and that it turns out that Roger Douglas wasted his time coming back to this Parliament and that Rodney Hide’s plans to corporatise the Auckland Council and start selling off its $28 billion worth of assets are somehow thwarted and stopped in their tracks by some sort of divine intervention or maybe a popular uprising. 
My fourth wish is that we will not allow a factory farm for 18000 cattle to be built on the pristine Mackenzie Basin or anywhere else in New Zealand and that we will finally put an end to the hideously cruel practice of keeping animals in cages. But I am not holding my breath. I predicted that the pig code would not be released for consultation this year and sadly I have been proven right. The pig-headed Pork Industry Board is holding a gun to the Minister of Agriculture’s head endlessly delaying the release of the code by the threat of legal injunction. This is pork-barrel politics at its worst. 
My fifth wish is that the Government will stop using failed 1970s roading policies and stop its plans for a four-lane motorway from Levin to Wellington airport which will sever entire communities increase congestion undermine public transport and encourage more and more cars into Wellington’s already narrow and congested streets and ruin the Basin Reserve. It is ironic that on the day the Prime Minister leaves for Copenhagen to hobnob with world leaders and try to explain why we intend to do nothing—absolutely nothing—to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions the Government announces a huge new motorway that will vastly increase our carbon emissions as well as our dependence on oil. If the International Energy Agency is right oil prices will be so high in 10 years’ time that when the motorway comes on stream few people will be able to afford to travel on it anyway. 
I have many many more Christmas wishes. I wish that we will stick with MMP and that we do not go back to the elected dictatorships of first-past-the-post politics. I wish that we would finally begin to regulate the financial sector. Finally since I have run out of time I wish all of my colleagues a very merry Christmas and give my thanks to the Green Party staff to the Green Party supporters to all of the people who work in this House and to you Mr Speaker for your fantastic chairmanship of this House over the past year. Thank you very much. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I also would like to acknowledge all those who have made a contribution to the successful running of this House over the past 12 months. I wish them all the best for the festive season. 
I do not have the humour of Darren Hughes but I want to use this opportunity to discuss a very serious matter. Sadly however many thousands of New Zealanders will not enjoy the Christmas they might otherwise have had—those who have lost heavily in finance company collapses. In particular I think of those mainly elderly investors in Strategic Finance who in the last 2 days have received letters advising them that they cannot rely on the undertakings that were made in the moratorium document and in particular they cannot rely on receiving a payment on 7 January. 
What concerns me however is that I believe that the accounts that were presented to the moratorium showed a misleading position and did not properly disclose the true quality of the company’s securities. The 2008 accounts clearly showed securities as being either first or second mortgages. Those are the accounts on which investors based their decision to vote in the moratorium. However the most recent accounts of Strategic Finance to 30 June 2009 introduced a third category of security. In addition to first and second mortgages we have a thing called a second mortgage with subordinated position. That is defined to be a second mortgage where the company participates with other lenders/investors but the company’s position is subordinated to those lenders/investors. 
The effect of this is real and substantial. Although the mortgage on the face of it may be a second mortgage the substance is that the transaction is now a third-ranking security. And it is a substance that matters. I do not believe that the investors who voted in that moratorium last December knew that a significant number of strategic assets were third-ranking securities. To give members an example of such a transaction I understand that in respect of the Denarau Fiji project on which Strategic Finance has lent approximately $30 million worth of priority investors in the second mortgage will need to be paid before the debenture-holders. 
In disclosing this new third category of securities the accounts go back and restate what the figures actually were at June 2008. The accounts show for the first time the true picture as it was at 30 June 2008 and they show that some $68 million of mortgages that had previously been classified as second mortgages were indeed this third-ranking security. 
I believe that those mainly elderly investors who voted at the moratorium would not have been aware that there was some $68 million in third-ranking securities. The directors have already written off $28 million of this figure and I would not be surprised if the remaining balance the full $68 million was written off. What I see as just as bad is that no attempt has been made by Strategic Finance to comment on this reclassification of its accounts. There has been no attempt to comment on and inform investors that in actual fact $68 million of those securities at 30 June 2008 were indeed third-ranking rather than second-ranking as they were purported to be. 
I rang the auditors KPMG this morning and inquired as to why they did not require disclosure of this information at 30 June 2008. I am yet to hear back from them. I would be interested to know also why they did not comment on it in their auditors’ report. 
I accept that the directors are fully entitled to enter into securities that are effectively third-ranking; I only say that that information should have been properly disclosed to those investors before they voted on it in the moratorium. I believe that it was misinformation and I believe that the time has now come for the Government to appoint a statutory manager. The Government needs to take control of this company so that investors can have confidence in the information they are given about these securities. 
With that I wish all members the best of the festive season. I am sorry that I have taken this opportunity to raise such a serious but I think very important matter. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tihei mauri ora! Whakataka te hau ki te uru whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia makinakina ki uta kia mataratara ki tai. Kia hi ake ana te atakura. He tio he huka he hauhu. Tihei mauri ora! E te Mana Whakawa tena koe. Te Kaihautu o te Whare Paremata ka nui te mihi ki a koe ki o waewae ki o ringaringa ko te hunga e awhina nei i a koe ki te kawe haere i nga tikanga o te Whare nei. Ka mihi ki te Whare hei whaiwhai haere i te ahuatanga o nga korero i runga i te marae. 
E hia ke nei nga mate kua pa mai ki te Ao Maori otira ki te motu i tenei tau. He awangawanga noku kei whakahuatia ake etahi ka mahue ake etahi ki waho. Engari i a au e tu ake nei ka hoki nga mahara ki te hunga kua ngaro ko Jane Marsden tera o roto o Ngai Takoto; ko Hawea Vercoe tera o roto i a Ngati Awa o roto i a au i a Te Arawa; ko Arapeta Tahana; ko Ta Hauata Morrison ko ratau katoa o roto i a au i a Te Arawa; ko Tikirau Stevens o Ngai Tuhoe; ko Arthur Te Takinga Smallman o Tuwharetoa; ko Eru Potaka Dewes o Ngati Porou o Ngati Uepohatu o Te Whanau-o-Pokai; ko Diggeress Te Kanawa o roto o Ngati Maniapoto; ko Merito o Ngati Awa o Ngai Tuhoe; tera o nga pou o roto o Tumatauenga a Jim Takarangi o Whanganui; ko te kuia ra a Utauta Hau o roto o Ngati Toa o Ngati Koata o Ngati Raukawa; ko Patariki Ngata o roto o Ngati Porou a o roto o Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti o Ngati Ira; tae atu ki a Tui Adams—tera kahui kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi i tenei tau kua hipa ake. Ka tangi ka tangi ka tangi ki a ratau kua ngaro atu ki te po te po uriuri te po tangotango. E kui ma e koro ma e tama ma e hine ma i te po moe mai moe mai moe mai ra. 
Ka hoki mai ano ki a tatau e te Whare. Kua tae ki te wa o te Kirihimete me harikoa ka tika. Ko te mate ke ara ano etahi hunga i tu ki te mura o te ahi. Ko Len Snee tera uri o roto o Ngati Kahungunu o te papakainga o Takapau i rongo nei te ngau o mate. Ko ratau te hunga i tu ki mua i te pakanga. Ehara i te mea he mataku kao he toa. He toa. I tu ki te mura o te ahi. No reira ko taku i te wa poto nei te wahi kua tukuna mai ki a au. Ko te ki atu ki a tatau kia kaua tatau e mataku ki te tu ki mua o te ahi ki te mura o te ahi me ki. He aha i pera ai taku korero? I te roanga o tenei tau no na tata tonu nei ko te Tiriti o Waitangi tetahi kaupapa i korerohia. Ko te haki Maori tetahi take i korerohia. Ko etahi ko ta ratau mahi he whakawehewehe i a tatau. Ko taku ki a tatau kaua e mataku ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. E kore a ia e ngau i a koe.Kaua tatau e mataku ki te haki tino rangatiranga. E kore ia e ngau i a koe. E kore ia e pana i to tou. E kore ia e whakamataku e whakamate i a koe kao. Ko tana mahi ko te haki ko te Tiriti o Waitangi he kaupapa hei whakakotahi i a tatou. No reira kaua e whakahe i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tana kaupapa he whakakotahi nei i a tatau koinei taku e ki nei mo te Kirihimete ata wananga i te korero nei. Haunga te korero mo te moni haunga te korero ngahau kei te pai era pai tonu te korero. Engari ko taku noa ake ki a tatau a - Pati Maori nei ata wananga ake i te mea e whakakotahi nei i a tatau kaua ko nga mea e whakawehe nei i a tatau. 
No reira na runga i tera whakaaro kia hoki mai tatau anei te mahi anei te mihini. Ko te reo Maori ka korerohia i te Whare nei. Ko tenei mea he mea awhina i a koe kia mohio he aha te putake o te korero. Kaua e mataku ki a ia e kore ia e ngau i a koe. Tapirihia ki te taringa kia paoho to tatau reo ki uta ki tai ki wiwi ki wawa kia taea ai e au te ki atu meri Kirihimete nga mihi o te Tau Hou ki a tatau katoa. Kia kaha kia toa kia manawanui. E ko koia e ara e! 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Behold the breath of life! Cease the winds from the west; cease the winds from the south. Let the breeze blow over the land; let the breeze blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air a touch of frost a promise of a glorious day. Behold the breath of life! Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the great work you have done with the assistance of your staff in upholding House procedures. I acknowledge the House in respect of addressing issues debated in Maoridom. 
Maori and the nation have suffered many deaths this year. My concern is that I may mention some and leave out others. But as I stand before you I am mindful of those who have passed on like Jane Marsden of Ngai Takoto; Hawea Vercoe of Ngati Awa a descendant also of my own tribe of Te Arawa; Arapeta Tahana and Sir Howard Morrison and all those from within me of Te Arawa; Tikirau Stevens of Ngai Tuhoe; Arthur Te Takinga Smallman of Tuwharetoa; Eru Potaka Dewes of Ngati Porou Ngati Uepohatu and the Te Whanau-o-Pokai; Diggeress Te Kanawa of Ngati Maniapoto; Gerry Merito of Ngati Awa and Ngai Tuhoe; Jim Takarangi of Whanganui and pillar of the 28th Maori Battalion; the elderly lady Utauta Hau of Ngati Toa Ngati Koata and Ngati Raukawa; Patariki Ngata of Ngati Porou Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti and Ngati Ira; as well as Tui Adams—that group of people who have passed away this year. I mourn lament and grieve their passing into the night that is dark and to be felt. Rest the elderly womenfolk and menfolk as well as the not so old; sleep on and rest there.  
I come back to us the House. It is Christmas time so it is only appropriate that we be joyful. However there were others who stood at the forefront of the battle like Len Snee a descendant of Ngati Kahungunu from Takapau who died in the line of duty. He was not afraid; he was brave. So I say to us in the short time I have been given that we should not be afraid to stand before the fire so to speak. Why do I say that? During this year and just recently the Treaty of Waitangi was hotly debated. The Maori flag has been a topic of discussion as well. Some people have tried to divide us. My advice is not to fear the Treaty of Waitangi it will not bite you. Do not fear the tino rangatiratanga flag it will not bite or kick you. The flag and the Treaty of Waitangi bring us together. Therefore do not reject the Treaty of Waitangi. Its purpose is to unite us and that is why I ask you to think carefully during the Christmas break about what I am saying. Aside from talking about money or humorous speeches that is fine. But I and the Maori Party urge you to think about what unites us not what divides us.  
So with that thought in mind here are some devices that we will use when we come back to listen to the Maori language being spoken in this House. This will help you understand what is being said. Do not be afraid of it; it will not hurt you. Put it in your ear so that our language can be broadcast far and wide so I can say merry Christmas and a happy New Year to everyone. Be strong be courageous and be brave. Rise up! 
] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract—page 81—from the Strategic Finance financial accounts for June 2008. 
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. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table page 54 of the Strategic Finance financial accounts for June 2009 in which the asset values of 2008 are actually restated. 
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. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table for the benefit of consistency the full accounts for 2008 and 2009 so that those two documents can be read in context. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I thank you all for the kind comments that you have made this evening and thank you also for the way you have acknowledged the hundreds of people who work so hard to make Parliament function. I particularly thank my Deputy Speaker Lindsay Tisch. Lindsay has worked enormous hours in this Chamber and I think he deserves acknowledgment for that. He has done a wonderful job in coordinating the work of the presiding officers’ team here and I just acknowledge the tremendous job he has done. I also thank my Assistant Speakers the Hon Rick Barker and Eric Roy for the way they have maintained the style that I have wanted to see brought to this House. I think the team has done a great job. Thanks so much. 
To the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the shadow leader the Hon Darren Hughes can I thank you guys for the constructive approach you take to the work of this place and the whips of all the parties and the other members of the Business Committee. The public does not see that vital work that you people do but I certainly appreciate the way you contribute to the functioning of Parliament and I have to say it is a privilege and a pleasure to work with you. 
I thank very much the Clerk of the House Mary Harris. She does a superb job. She has earned my enormous respect and I think she carries on the outstanding traditions of the Clerks whom I have been privileged to serve with over many years in this place and I just want to thank Mary so much for that. 
To the Clerk’s Office staff: they keep this House functioning and sometimes under quite challenging circumstances. I thank them for that. The select committee clerks the Hansard team the outstanding Parliamentary Library people our loyal Chamber and gallery officers the interpreters the messengers the security staff the reception and visitors people the Travel Office Bellamy’s and behind the scenes Geoff Thorn and the Parliamentary Service team all do so much to make this place work. 
I acknowledge the courtesy with which the press gallery have treated me and thank them very much for that. I also acknowledge the work of the radio and television technicians. It is interesting for the television technicians; the new pace that I have brought to question time as Speaker has been quite a challenge for televising question time for Parliament. They have done a great job and the technical challenges have been quite significant for them. I thank my Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith who has done a wonderful job. My own office staff work so hard to run my office on just half the budget that it ran under previously. So I thank Roland Trish and the incomparable Beryl. Beryl is now in her 24th year working with me and goodness knows why she puts up with me. But she is a living legend in this place and I want to thank her most sincerely for that. 
Members you have worked very hard this year—565 hours and 49 minutes to yesterday. That is 88 hours more than the same year in the previous electoral cycle of 2006. I am advised that 66 Government bills have been passed but interestingly no members’ bills have been passed this year or at least no new members’ bills have been passed. There have been 19822 questions for written answers which is pretty typical. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That was after yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK that was after yesterday. One record that I would not want to see members try to break in future years was the 30046 amendments to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill passed in May under urgency after 33 hours in the Committee stage. Only 16 of those 30046 amendments were agreed to; 29084 of them were ruled out of order; 946 were defeated which meant an awful lot of voting. I have to confess that the public actually thought that our television system had gone on the blink and was just recycling the same vote. They did not realise the date was changing by 1 day. But I am not sure that the outcome was ideal and I think the Standing Orders Committee will be looking at that issue. 
This last year has seen two of our longstanding members retire. The Rt Hon Helen Clark and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen first elected to this place in 1981 both distinguished members of the New Zealand Parliament retired this year. I want to acknowledge their retirement. The previous Controller and Auditor-General Kevin Brady retired after 38 years at the Audit Office 7 years as Controller and Auditor-General. I acknowledge the integrity and professionalism that he brought to that work. In doing so I acknowledge Lyn Provost the new Controller and Auditor-General who took up her position on 5 October. Lyn had a long career in the Audit Office herself and at the State Services Commission and Archives New Zealand before her recent role as Deputy Commissioner of Police. We also of course welcomed this year our new kaumatua Rose White-Tahuparae who handles the Maori protocols of Parliament with enormous integrity warmth and great dignity. 
Finally I thank you all my colleagues here at Parliament. The challenge this year of the release of members’ expenses I realise has put huge pressure on your spouses and on your families. I just promise you that I will continue to work to try to smooth out the wrinkles that are still inherent in that arrangement because I feel very deeply for some of the stresses that I have caused you. You have treated with great good grace my ruling on the new Standing Order 368 covering the tabling of documents. I also acknowledge the constructive way that Ministers have responded to my re-emphasising the requirement in Standing Order 377 for an answer to be given to a question if it can be given consistent with the public interest. You have all made this House and its proceedings more worthwhile better humoured and of greater public interest and for that my thanks to each and every one of you. It is a real privilege to serve as your Speaker. Have a great Christmas enjoy the New Year go safely. I look forward to seeing you all in the new year. Go well! 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 6.09 p.m.