Sittings of the House

I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 and that the sitting days in 2004 be as follows:

February 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26;

March 2, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31;

April 1, 6, 7, and 8;

May 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, Monday 24 May 2-5 p.m. for 150th anniversary of Parliament sitting, 25, 26, and 27;

June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30;

July 1, 27, 28, and 29;

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

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

October 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21;

November 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18;

and that the House do, at its rising on Thursday, 18 November 2004, adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 November 2004.

The purport of this motion is to adjourn the House until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 February and to set the sitting days for next year.

💬 Dail Jones: What a bunch of pikers!

“What a bunch of pikers!” the member says. Goodness me! One of the things I look forward to tonight is the ritual whereby the Opposition will move an amendment to bring the House back on something like Tuesday, 27 January. Those are still pretty much gentlemen’s hours, from their perspective, because Cabinet will have started on 20 January. Opposition members will sit there hoping like hell that the Government votes against it, and that they do not have to come back earlier. Their theme song this year has definitely been: “I really want to get out of this place if it is the last thing I ever do.” They are The Animals over there, singing that old song.

This is an Opposition that has shown no appetite for Parliament for months and months, and no appetite even for politics. This has been a disastrous year for them. Before I get on to that a little bit further, let me do the honours, as is appropriate for me as Leader of the House. I begin by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for your enormous goodwill, humour, and tolerance—particularly of the Opposition—during this year. You have had to put up with some pretty extraordinary attacks from people like Mr McCully, who is an expert in the ethics of parliamentary politics, as we all know, and a man who keeps a solid supply of daggers in the cupboard, ready to stick into the back of any National Party leader who shows any sign of hesitating along the way.

To the Clerk of the House and his staff; to the select committee staff; to the messengers, none of whom have been shot so far this year; to the security officers; to the telephone operators; to the Bellamy’s staff; to the secretaries; to the ministerial staff, including the one in my office who released the notice of the meeting tomorrow at 2 o’clock; to the researchers; to the Fletcher Construction staff; to the Travel Office and staff, who have been kept particularly busy all year by a number of members opposite who have been travelling the country to no purpose at all; to the VIP Office and staff, who kept Ministers moving to a great deal of purpose; to the Bills Office staff, who kept the bills going this year; to the Cabinet Office and staff; to the Hansard staff; to the minutes staff; to the police at the gate, who have had to deal with rather stupid tractor drivers; to the whips offices, including the musterer’s office amongst the Greens—I am not quite sure what they have in favour of sheep, which are an important species; that has never been quite clear to me in that respect, but never mind—to all those people, I give my heartfelt thanks if they have made this place work during the year.

We passed during this year the second largest number of bills passed under an MMP Parliament—some 127, I think it is. Indeed, I think what has happened this year is that we are spending less time debating things on which we actually agree and more time debating things on which we do not agree, which is a sensible allocation of parliamentary time, and probably necessary under MMP. I do not know what this year will have been for the National Party in terms of the Chinese calendar—probably the year of the rat or something like that.

💬 Hon Member: Going to the dogs!

Yes—the year of going to the dogs. [Interruption] The year of the what? I defer to Pansy Wong.

💬 Pansy Wong: The goat.

Yes, it has been, has it not? It has been the year of the goat. I thank Pansy Wong for that very helpful comment, because this is the year in which the National Party made a generational change—upwards. For the first time in our history its members decided to bypass the generation in its 40s and go to those in their 60s. No wonder Dr Brash holds as his primary policy that the age for New Zealand superannuation should be raised. He wants no suggestion that he should be retiring from this place; instead, he wants to carry on as leader despite his advancing years. That is an Opposition that has sat there glumly day by day. That is a Leader of the Opposition who cannot look the Prime Minister in the eyes when he asks a question; a deputy leader of the National Party whose only contribution now is to raise points of order that are nearly always declined; and a front bench that is there largely either because its members voted for the coup or because they are seen as young and, hopefully, will emerge as future leaders some time in the next decade or two.

That is a National Party that has not come up with a single policy statement during the entire year. [Interruption] The member came out with a sort of exhausted movement towards a policy statement at one point, but apart from that, there has not been a single policy statement. What is the National Party policy on the beaches—the foreshore and seabed? It does not have a clue. Tomorrow, if we agree, of course, we are releasing screeds of it—so fast, indeed, that Gerry Brownlee will need a speed reader to finish it by midnight tomorrow night—in terms of policy. What was the National Party’s response to today’s transport package? Mr what’s-his-name Ryall, known as “Mrs Mac” on this side of the House, said he was against it, and Mr Williamson, who is still in the phase of naive honesty—from having been on the outer for a period—said he was for it. There we have the National Party policy for today on that. Tomorrow, on the foreshore and seabed issue, we will have Georgina te Heuheu saying that the Government is taking rights away from Māori, and we will have Dr Brash saying that the Government is giving far too much to Māori and that they should not be getting anything, at all.

All National Party members have been able to do all year is make a lot of noise, which is why Gerry Brownlee is No. 2 in the National Party. He can make more noise with less content than any other member of the House, except, maybe, Rodney Hide on a very, very bad day. I am told that Bill English is studying closely the life of John Howard. Bill English has discovered that John Howard was the leader of the Liberal Party in Australia in his 40s, and he got shoved aside and replaced by a show pony - type in Andrew Peacock, who was thought to appeal to the business community rather better than John Howard did. Then Andrew Peacock got shoved aside by someone else called John Hewson. Then, funnily enough, after about 10 years, John Howard, in his 50s, came back to be leader of the Liberal Party. Bill English is sitting there saying: “This time I will bide my time. This time I won’t go when Tony Ryall tells me it’s the time to move. This time I’m going to wait until it’s appropriate.” Meanwhile, Lockwood Smith—[Interruption] The gallery? They are all out getting tanked in the marquee, as most members opposite were until a few minutes ago. That is where they were.

We know that Dr Brash is a leader of the National Party whose term in office will be somewhere between 0-2 years. He is aiming for that—0-2—again in his life. He may stagger through to the election. If he does, the National Party will get done like a bunch of turkeys in the next election. If he does not, somebody else will take over in the meantime. The National Party will look for somebody very young, like Simon Power, or even Katherine Rich, who forgot to ask about Dunstan Hospital before it got its grant. Then, having done that, it will move back to Bill English, who will take over again as leader at some point in the future. That party opposite is in terminal decline. Meanwhile, the ACT party is working out who will be next to get into legal trouble. Donna Awatere Huata has already got into it with them. Deborah Coddington has that slight problem about debts in the family. There are one or two others we have our sights on, with some interesting facts that may come up in the new year. That is a very interesting party over there. New Zealand First has one person who stands out but unfortunately—[Interruption] Ron Mark! We must pass on that news to Winston Peters. Ron Mark thinks he is the one outstanding member of New Zealand First. The problem with New Zealand First members is that they only come alive at 10 o’clock at night, and by 7 o’clock in the morning their peak has passed. Nobody has told Winston Peters yet that politics occurs during daylight hours in New Zealand, by and large. If one is to succeed, one has to get up at 7 o’clock in the morning and go to bed at 10 or 11 o’clock, or midnight.

We look forward to the reaction of members opposite to the seabed and foreshore announcement. It will be another disaster for the National Party. Nobody will believe a word of what National members say. National is a party headed for oblivion—and it is a question of who replaces it: New Zealand First or United Future. My money is on United Future. If one has God and the hunters and shooters on one’s side—a private army and the intervention of the Almighty—one cannot possibly go wrong.

I intend to move an amendment to the motion, because adjourning the House at this point is an utter disgrace. It is totally deplorable. One of the most important announcements in this Government’s history—indeed, in the country in the last decade—will be made by this Government after the House adjourns so that Parliament is denied the opportunity of debating it. I move, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Tuesday, 10 February 2004” and substituting the words “Thursday 18 December 2003 for the purpose of debating Government decisions relating to the seabed and foreshore.” Let us have the announcement tomorrow, and let us come back into the House on Thursday and debate it. This is a very important issue.

Mr Speaker, I echo the thanks to you for your hard work this year. It has not been an easy year for you, for the Deputy Speaker, or for the Assistant Speakers, including my good colleague Mr Clem Simich. Like Dr Cullen, I would like to thank the messengers, the catering staff, the security staff, the construction staff, the telephonists, the staff of the Parliamentary Library, and all the others around here who make this place tick. Let me thank the parliamentary staff of the National Party, and let me thank also my caucus colleagues. This has not been an easy year. Why? Because, for three reasons, the economy has actually been quite buoyant. The first reason is the great reforms of the 1990s. The OECD report published just a week ago stated that New Zealand was the seventh fastest growing economy in the OECD over the last decade. Why? Because of the reforms of the last 10 or 15 years. It is nothing to do with this Government; it is to do with the 1990s. Secondly, we have had the lowest exchange rate in New Zealand’s history through 1999, 2000, and 2001. That is nothing to do with the Government, at all. As Dr Cullen referred to my previous history, the other thing worth recalling is that monetary policy works with about an 18-month lag. What we are enjoying right now is also partly the result of outstandingly good monetary policy until 18 months ago.

Let me also thank colleagues in other parties that detest this Government—New Zealand First and ACT. We have some differences with New Zealand First and ACT, but, like National, they detest most of what this Government is doing. Let me also refer to United Future. I greatly regret that it continues to support this Labour-Progressive Government, because in many respects the family values espoused by United Future are very close to those espoused by the National Party and fundamentally different from those espoused by the Labour Party. As for the Greens, I say that National does not have much in common with that party, apart from the fact that we both have a respect for the environment. The problem is that the Greens seem blind to the fact that it is wealthy societies who can, and do, look after the environment—not poor societies. The Greens have not yet realised that. The National Party is committed to individual responsibility, private enterprise, and reward for individual effort. The National Party wants a society where there is self-reliance, not dependence; competition, not State monopoly; choice, not compulsion; plain honest speech, not political correctness; and one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders, not preferences based on race. There should be one standard of citizenship, ideally, for all members of Cabinet, too.

What of Labour? It talks of growth and prosperity at every opportunity, but almost every policy it puts in place erects more obstacles to growth. Let us take the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision we have just passed. How can Labour members pretend that that will help New Zealand workers? Dr Cullen and Helen Clark, like Father Christmas distributing lollies, are pretending it is a free good. It has to be paid for by the workers of this country, and those members know it. It is deceitful, it is disgraceful, and it is telling something a good deal less than the truth. The amendment to the Employment Relations Act will reduce wages and employment opportunities. Anything that makes it more difficult to hire staff will make it more difficult for employers to pay staff what they are worth—and key members of Cabinet know it. Despite that fact, they proceed in that disgraceful way.

New Zealanders are a tolerant people, but enough is enough. Since this Government came to office, a net 30,000 New Zealanders have left this country every year. There have been 50,000 out and 20,000 back—a net loss of 30,000 New Zealanders every single year since this Government came to office. That is, a net figure of 145,000 New Zealanders have left. That is what we risk—a gradual erosion of our country’s future—and this Government does absolutely nothing about it.

In closing, let me ask the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as they enjoy their own Christmas, to think of those who, as a direct result of this Government’s policies, will not be enjoying their Christmas. They should think of parents with their children and grandchildren overseas. They have left New Zealand because this country has gradually declined in relation to the rest of the world. Our standard of living is now 30 percent below that of Australia, and below that of Singapore, the UK, and the US. I refer also to victims of crime—the crime this Government has allowed to take place by being soft on criminals. I refer to all the people who are afraid to let their children walk to school unsupervised or to play outside the house unsupervised, to all the people who cannot get hospital care when they need it, and to all those affected by the accelerating deterioration in race relations in this country. They will not be enjoying Christmas. In spite of all that, I have to say that I wish the Prime Minister and her Cabinet a very merry Christmas, but I do not wish them a happy New Year, because we will ensure that their new year is a miserable one.

It is obvious from the early closing of Parliament that for this Government the wheels are coming off.

💬 Edwin Perry: Haven’t got a spare, either.

No, it has not got a spare, either. Today will be remembered, because in all my experience I have never seen a Parliament rise so early—and, on a Tuesday. It has never risen on a Tuesday, and never on a Tuesday night. Today will be remembered as the day when this Labour-led Government ran up the white flag and ran for cover, rather than debate the pressing issues of our time. Like Saddam Hussein, Helen Clark is heading for an underground bunker, so she can escape not only the Māori MPs but the people of New Zealand who expected leadership and got a loser. Members know how Saddam always said his troops would die for their country; well, she expects her troops to die—but she is never here. Any time there is trouble, she is gone. We cannot see her for dust and small pebbles. That is Helen Clark—this person beloved of the media who keep on saying that she is more in the Holyoake mould. I have never heard such a joke in all my life. She is never here to confront the campaign, never here to confront the issues in Parliament, and always running for cover. On election days, election weeks, and election months, she comes out for one meeting a day and runs back home for a rest. The meeting is usually with schoolchildren, not adults. It is all time and motion, spin and propaganda.

She loves letting other people do her fighting for her. She wins all her fights by a hundred yards. She is gone—never here. Why is this House rising so early when there is so much more we should be doing? I ask: what about petrol price rises? Up goes the currency, but there is no fall in petrol prices. Worse still, the Government is slamming on a tax, to finance Auckland’s roads, it says, when it knows full well that that is an exercise in deception. For every $2 collected it is spending $1 on the roads; the Government is robbing people blind. I ask members about the 300 schools the Government is going to close—300 schools. Can we imagine Trevor Mallard if this side of the House were doing that? Can we imagine Trevor Mallard, with his cleft-palate sound, if we were doing that? Then there is the rising currency that is paralysing exporters. What is the now new prisoner—the man guilty of the Stockholm syndrome, Michael Cullen—doing about that?

💬 Ron Mark: Nothing.

He cannot do a thing. He says there are no instruments that can be used to give exporters a fair go in this country, even though they are the most critical people in New Zealand. He will not move a muscle and nor will Helen Clark, because they are too scared of being perceived as being anti-business. But it is damaging all of New Zealand now, and they have no answers for it. Why will we face interest rises next year? What is their answer? Out there, ordinary New Zealanders know that this Government has just seen its best time and is starting to fall.

It is no use Damien O’Connor shaking his head, or Darren Hughes shaking his head. I know he is new, but since February his glorious leader has lost 25 percent of her vote, and as soon as she tumbles under 30 percent, it will be a case of: “Goodbye Helen.” Looking around for the lad, I say that maybe Darren Hughes’ chance will come, but Helen Clark is on a slide and she will not win the next election. Do members know why she is running? Because she has got the Māori members upset. The Māori members are upset.

💬 Opposition Members: Where are they?

I cannot answer that question. I cannot say where they are, but they must be off with Snow White, because there is only one here. There she is on TV and radio today, trying to explain away Tariana Turia’s words. We all know what Tariana Turia meant—everybody knows. Why should Tariana Turia not say it, as that is precisely what the Labour party members promised in 1999 to deliver to the Māori people? The Labour Party were so besieged in the Māori seats that they promised Māoridom anything and everything. The only thing is Tariana Turia is lining up and saying that it is payback time.

💬 David Benson-Pope: What you want is a big scam.

Well, if that member wants to look at a big scab, he should look in the mirror. I should not have said that, but it is Christmas, and nor should that member have said it. I want to give this Government a warning that the people of this country will not tolerate any more separatist government or separatist policies. They have had a gutsful of weirdo policies emanating from the back bench, when it comes to prostitution and all sorts of weirdos’ rights. A back-bench member believes that P should be legalised. Where does this guy come from, on the Government’s back bench, that this Government is supporting? I have never seen such a weird, liberal bunch in this Parliament in all my life, and that is saying something, because there have been some past times when there have been some weirdos here. But this bunch takes the credit. All the time, whilst the major economic and social issues go untreated, they proselytise their own peculiar, narrow, shallow, weird, odd points of view.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Delamare’s telling the whole country what he thinks of this man.

Oh, I see. Delamare is now Lianne Dalziel’s adviser. The man she called a liar, a fraudster, and corrupt is now her adviser. Mind you, as damaging as Delamare is, given her performance, he cannot be the only one. There has to be somebody else out there who is advising her, as well. [Interruption] He cannot be as incompetent as that. This is a Minister of Immigration who cannot explain why in New Zealand today there are 300,000 people who cannot speak English—300,000 in this First World democracy—at a time when the great Labour Party and National Party prided themselves on getting rid of illiteracy.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Read the statistics.

Well, they are all there. They are all in the briefing paper to the Minister, except she does not read them. Poor Lianne Dalziel! She knows she is on a hiding to nothing. She knows she cannot win. She knows that every day in this House, it is like taking candy from a baby. I know it is not fair. Frankly, my colleagues say to me: “Winston, you’ve got to find a new job. That one’s far too easy.” But in the interests of the nation I keep on doing it, hoping upon hope that more New Zealanders will hear the truth, and one day they will rise. They will rise up and throw this useless Labour Government out. [Interruption] There you go! Is she speaking in this debate? No. Her debate is always by way of interjection. Now, I have to ask members this.

💬 Darren Hughes: Give us your foreshore policy.

It is on the Internet. It was there on day one. That member should go and read it. Let me tell members this, though. Out in Māoridom, they are rising in their tens of thousands behind New Zealand First, and the Government will not stop them. Do they know why? Because we say what we mean and we mean what we say. We promise Māoridom progress for sacrifice, not tears. We focus on health, welfare, education, First World jobs, and above all, a place in one’s own country. Māoridom knows that we will not sell out to the foreigner. Māoridom knows that Asia will not run New Zealand—and nor will the United States or the UK. Māoridom knows when they vote for New Zealand First they get New Zealand for New Zealanders, run by New Zealanders, and they get fair policy.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: They get it now.

No, I want to tell the Labour Prime Minister that an immigrant is someone living legally in a country not of his or her birth, and that does not include those of us who go back 1,000 years, 50 years, or, for that matter, 100 years. I have never heard so much bunkum. “We’re all immigrants.”—rubbish! We are not all immigrants. Those who arrived here and settled here from another country are immigrants. The rest of us are indigenous, whether we are white or we are brown. That is our policy.

I want to say this. The Prime Minister has become a victim of her own success, and pride goeth before a fall. New Zealand First is on the rise. The Government will not stop us now—nor will its friends in the media stop us now. Very shortly those members will find out, by the end of next year, what that all means, for the early election they will be forced to hold.

On behalf of the Green Party, I would, first, like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the impartiality and fairness that you have always displayed in the House, even when you are under intense pressure from the shouting match that often characterises this House. I would like to thank the largely invisible army of people who support MPs, who oil the wheels of Parliament—the security staff, the messengers, the people who take care of our travel, who feed us, and so forth. I would like to express a debt of gratitude to the Green Party staff, inside and outside Parliament, who do an outstanding job, often under considerable pressure, and to Green Party members all around the country for their commitment and support.

I pay tribute to my Green colleagues for their passion, commitment, and courage. The Green Party brings a new perspective, a new vision, a new set of agendas into this House. Indeed, we bring ideas that many would regard as radical, right into the heart of this political establishment. So it is hardly surprising that some of our colleagues find some of our ideas a little unsettling.

When my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons put genetic engineering on the political agenda 6 years ago it was alternatively ridiculed or ignored in this House. Now it is a passionate, mainstream concern of New Zealanders, which the Government and this Parliament have chosen to ignore at their peril. It has been sad to see that the Labour Party—a party that in the past was praised worldwide for its courageous opposition to evils such as apartheid and the nuclear arms race—is now so freely embracing the perils and dangers of irreversibly releasing genetically engineered organisms into our precious environment.

The Government may be congratulating itself on pushing genetic engineering off the political agenda, but let me assure it that genetic engineering is simmering away just beneath the political radar, and it will not disappear.

The Green Party brings a long-term perspective into this Parliament, which works most of the time to a short-term electoral calendar. Where others focus on a prospective energy crisis next year, we are equally concerned at the depletion of the world’s oil reserves, and the consequences that this will inevitably have for our oil-dependent economy, not just next year but for the next decade and beyond. While others fret about whether we will have a 3 percent or 4 percent growth rate next year and whether Australia or Singapore is growing at a faster rate than us, we are equally concerned, or more concerned, about the long-term impact of unsustainable growth and rampant consumerism on our magnificent environment and our quality of life.

We bring a social agenda, as well as an environmental agenda, into the House. We will continue to push for far-reaching changes to the way in which we treat low-paid workers and beneficiaries, women, and children. We simply do not accept what seems to have become the norm that children must live in poverty indefinitely, and we hope that there will be cross-party support—certainly support from the Government—for my colleague Sue Bradford’s member’s bill to introduce a universal child benefit. We will continue to support workers and unions across the board in their bid to improve our quality of life through such things as 4 weeks’ leave, pay equity, flexible working hours, and greater protections in the workplace.

The Green Party has noticed a disturbing trend during the past year for the Government to put the interests of other countries ahead of the interests of ordinary New Zealanders. Annette King justified—or attempted to justify—her inexcusable decision to ride roughshod over a parliamentary select committee inquiry, by saying that she could not possibly keep the Australian Government waiting for another few weeks. That is astonishing. The democratically elected Algerian politician Ahmed Zaoui has been holed up in prison in solitary confinement for over a year because the Government does not want to offend our overseas intelligence partners, or expose the shallowness and bias of much of their so-called intelligence.

The Labour Government has sent soldiers into the Iraqi war zone to try to curry favour with the Bush administration, and lifted the moratorium on genetic engineering against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders for, presumably, the same reason, because there does not appear to be any other.

As the year draws to a close and we reflect on what we have achieved in this House, I confess to being deeply disappointed by the report of the Standing Orders Committee debated earlier today, into the rules governing behaviour in this House. Is it because the Standing Orders Committee is one of the last all-male bastions in this House that it dismissed in such an offhand manner both Ross Robertson’s excellent submission that the House adopt a code of conduct for MPs, and the submission by Wellington High School students that was made over a year ago that called for an end to the hostile, aggressive, and at times abusive behaviour—the shouting match, in fact—that too often passes for debate in this House?

Just as it took a boy to point out that the emperor had no clothes, so it took a bunch of high school students to point out the obvious truth: that we have come to accept as normal behaviour in this House a level of unpleasantness, aggression, and verbal abuse that would not be tolerated in a classroom, in a playground, in the workplace, or in the home. “Our leaders legislate against violence in the community, yet behave in an aggressive and even violent way themselves.”, the students pointed out in their report. “MPs are supposed to be leaders and good role models; don’t they understand that there are young people and children watching them in the gallery every single day?” The students issued a simple plea: “We ask parents not to hit their children, students not to bully their peers, sportspeople to show sportsmanship, people to respect their work colleagues, and now we are asking a simple plea that our leaders lead by example.”

But what did our all-male Standing Orders Committee do? While insisting on something as deeply and profoundly superficial and offensive as saying that women, as well as men, should dress in business attire—whatever that means—for the decorum of this House, the committee sidelined all the suggestions to the committee for improving behaviour in this House. No wonder MPs are held in such low esteem in the community, as Ross Robertson observed in his submission!

We may be an MMP Parliament, but we continue to operate as if this were a quintessentially male place of old-style, old-fashioned aggression, competition, and point-scoring. Like many MPs I take deep personal offence at the level of abuse and intimidation that so often occurs in this House. On a number of recent occasions, such as when I was interrupted eight times by points of order during a 3-minute speech, I felt as if I were the yard of an all-male boys’ school being intimidated by a gang of playground bullies.

I have tried to cope with this behaviour, as I am sure many other MPs in this House have, by attempting to ignore it. But the truth is that by remaining silent we are tolerating and condoning this unacceptable behaviour. I therefore appeal to colleagues to help change the unnecessarily negative environment in this House by challenging unacceptable behaviour, insisting we adopt a code of conduct, and incorporating that into the Standing Orders of the House.

It is equally unacceptable for MPs to make racist remarks in this House and it is a source of frustration to the Green Party that Speakers’ Rulings prevent us from identifying racist statements in this House, and we hope that this will change, too, for we cannot take leadership on this issue unless we are able to name and identify racism.

I suspect that women MPs will need to take a lead in bringing about a cultural revolution in this House. Many of us had high hopes that with women comprising one-third of the membership of Parliament, a woman Prime Minister, women Ministers, and a woman co-leader of our party, we would be able to create a more cooperative working environment in this House. But the truth is that we and the Standing Orders Committee have abjectly failed thus far to bring about a cultural change in this House. As Indira Gandhi once said, “You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist.” I urge all MPs to reflect on this over the Christmas break. Perhaps in 2004 we can make a difference not only to the life of all New Zealanders but to the life of this House.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the adjournment debate at the end of the 2003 Parliament. We have just listened to the Green MP Sue Kedgley tell us that the Greens want the standard of Parliament to improve. What the Greens really want to be able to do is to have the Standing Orders altered so that they can call people racist. I fail to see why the Green Party thinks naming individuals and calling them racist will improve behaviour here. Then she complained that it was terrible that the Standing Orders Committee was an all-male committee. Well, if that is a problem, why did the Greens send a male? They could have fixed that. Why complain to us just because she could not get on to the committee? Indeed, the other great complaint she made was that people are not taking GE seriously enough. I guess that is the reason the Greens’ bubble seems to have burst.

But let me turn to the matter at hand—that the House should adjourn on 16 December. [Interruption] Sorry? What is the member’s problem?

💬 David Benson-Pope: What about the $35,000 worth of Mainfreight fees?

I earned every dollar of it, too. Members opposite feel absolute envy of anyone who is in business, anyone who is successful. That member has managed to crawl himself on to a trip to Australia that is designed for people who are starting their political careers. Who is the Labour Party sending? It is sending its senior whip—that fine young member whose career is about to start—and Steve Chadwick, another new, budding member. Of course, that is the trouble with the Labour Party—it has no new people.

But let us turn to the motion that the House should adjourn on 16 December. Mr Speaker, you have been here a bit longer than I have, but I cannot remember the House ever adjourning this early. Either we congratulate the Government on solving all the problems that needed to be solved, or we go along with the amendment. Or perhaps there are other reasons why the House wants to adjourn early. [Interruption] Parliament is quite expensive and the member opposite is paid whether or not he is here. Should he be working? I draw to the attention of the House that the biggest political issue this year has been who owns the beaches and the foreshore. Has this House dealt with that matter?

💬 Opposition Members: No.

And when is the Government intending to deal with the matter?

💬 Opposition Members: Tomorrow.

Tomorrow, when the House is not meeting. Is that parliamentary? Would a Government that is prepared to be transparent and accountable, and a Government that believes in Parliament, do that? No, it would not. I believe that this House should sit, so I want to move an amendment to the motion to delete the words “Tuesday, 10 February” and replace them with the words “Thursday, 18 December”. We should give the Government whip 1 day off. The Government can have its public meeting, then it can come back on Thursday and debate the foreshore issue.

💬 David Benson-Pope: It’s already been moved.

It does not matter; I am allowed to move that motion, too.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That amendment has already been moved by Mr Brash.

Well, I am going to support it. I have found Mr Brash to be a leader of some wisdom, and I have great pleasure in supporting him. I ask the member opposite whether he is so confident in his Government’s foreshore policy that he is prepared to vote for this amendment, and to come here and tell the House and the country why we should support it. [Interruption] To be fair to Darren Hughes, he is one of the few people who held a public meeting for ordinary members of the public. Admittedly, only 16 turned up, but he held a meeting, unlike other members opposite. They were prepared to go to hui, at taxpayers’ expense, to talk to Māori, but were they prepared to hold hui for the rest of the New Zealand public? Were they prepared to hold publicly held meetings?

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes.

No, they did not. They held them in their electorate offices for a few pensioners. Well, if they are prepared to hold a meeting, they will vote for the amendment, will they not?

I also tell the House that we have not solved every other problem. I remember that this time last year an individual was sent to jail, he turned up, he was signed into the jail, and an hour later he was put out, under the Government’s Christmas bonus release. The Government told us that would never happen again. [Interruption] The fishwife is shouting out that she remembers that. She is upset too about a criminal getting a 1-hour sentence—[Interruption] Look how upset she is! It was probably one of her relatives! She remembers it well. Well, what is happening this year? This year the Government has decided to release 242 prisoners, and it does not know how many have committed violent offences. It does not know how many rapists are on that list. According to the Minister of Corrections, it has no idea—he just signed the Christmas bonus release. Well, let us come back on Thursday to examine that issue, because we all know that one of the first things that half the prisoners given early release last year did was to go shopping in our place.

💬 Simon Power: What did they get?

They got a lot of videos and TVs, and a few other bits and pieces, which of course they needed. Half of them are back in jail. Some of them are getting released again. I say to members opposite that if they think they have solved every problem, what about the dreadful crime this year—

💬 Jill Pettis: The member is making it up.

Does anyone else remember the name Coral Burrows? That member does not remember Coral Burrows’ name. Does she remember the name Steven Williams? Am I making up the fact that Steven Williams had 88 previous convictions? She is very silent now. He now has 89 convictions and we have a Labour member who is prepared to support Steven Williams. She is prepared to vote for an early adjournment, because she does not care that a person can have 88 convictions and commit a dreadful murder of that sort. If we had any sort of justice system he would have been in jail, but, of course, that Labour member from Whanganui is prepared to support his not having been jailed. She is prepared to support an early adjournment of Parliament, because she thinks it is just that a man like Steven Williams can have a record of 88 previous convictions, many of them for violence, and still be out free and able to commit a murder.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes.

The member says “Yes”. I tell the House that we ought to be re-meeting because we need to look at our justice system. We need to have a system that holds people accountable and tells people like Steven Williams that they will go to jail and stay there and rot, and not be able to kill young girls such as Coral Burrows. For that reason I tell Jill Pettis, who appears to be the only member of Parliament—in fact, the only person in New Zealand—prepared to support Steven Williams that she should rethink, because when she votes for this adjournment she is voting for the Steven Williams’ of this world.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That is disgusting.

I think it is disgusting, too, and that is what I think about the justice system. So I hope that I will hear from the members of the Labour Party, and that they will start to vote for a justice system.

But let me just complete this speech. I wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy Christmas. I wish my own team and all other members of Parliament a happy Christmas. I say to our ACT staff that they have worked hard and they deserve a good Christmas. The people who work in and around this building—the messengers; the staff in the Parliament Library, who, I think, are a tremendous asset; and all the other staff—work hard for us, and I wish them and yourself all the best for the Christmas period. But I hope I will see you next Thursday.

This is supposed to be the time of goodwill for all. I want to begin in that spirit by wishing every member of this House, whatever party they represent, whatever disagreement we have had during the year, the very best for Christmas and the New Year. I also extend that best wish to all the staff in Parliament Buildings—the people whose services we rely on, yet take for granted, and whose job does not end when this House adjourns but who will work on, often over the Christmas break, to ensure the smooth functioning of this organisation and the fact that we can do our job.

I thank, particularly, my own team of members of Parliament—the United Future team who have contributed so much this year—our staff, and all of the people who work with us, and I wish them all the very best for Christmas and the New Year.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, in that same spirit, the best for this coming holiday period, and I place on record our appreciation of the continued strength of leadership that you show this House as our Speaker. You are one of the few Speakers who has carried on that function over successive Parliaments without any loss of your mana or reputation. But having paid you that compliment, can I be allowed a minor quibble—I am sure Mr Prebble would agree with me—that having to always speak after the Greens in the House means that we speak to a nearly empty Chamber. I would like you, in the New Year, to take some steps, if you are able, to rectify that matter.

This has been a momentous year for New Zealand in many respects. I want to say to all members of the House that, as we review it, 2003 has been a time when some significant legislation—of which we might have different views—has been passed. It has been a time when some significant new ground has been set and some significant new directions have been charted. In that context I was intrigued by the speech from the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated that his party shared the same commitment to family values and family policies as my party.

💬 Jill Pettis: He was mistaken.

He was, indeed, mistaken, as the member says, because only last week his party was vehement in its opposition to something that Plunket has described as the best Christmas present New Zealand children could ever have—the establishment of the Families Commission.

Once more I say to Dr Brash and his colleagues, as they contemplate the Christmas that lies ahead, that United Future’s position is absolutely clear. Our commitment to families and the well-being of families is unshakeable. We will not support any party in Government that does not share that commitment and does not share our support of the Families Commission. I made that speech last week. The National Party pooh-poohed it. I repeat it today, and I repeat it in the light of Dr Brash’s pretence that somehow the members of his party and mine have similar views on this subject. By their record they have demonstrated they do not.

I think that goes to the heart of the role that this party is attempting to play in this Parliament. Dr Brash chided us for not yet having withdrawn our support from the Government. I do not think he actually meant that, because in an MMP system of Government a party like United Future needs to be there to provide support to the public’s choice as the majority Government of the day. Reverse the scene for just a moment. Would Dr Brash be so keen for us to be withdrawing our support from a National-led Government? I do not think so. The fact that he can say that tonight suggests that, actually, he is a fair-weather friend. He knows in his heart of hearts that whatever the numbers stack up to be, if he is going to be in a position to form a Government after the next election, he will need to broaden the base of his support. By then saying to us: “Prove yourselves to be unreliable, prove yourselves to be a party that cannot be trusted, but work with us.”, he is, in effect, destroying his own argument.

I am proud of the contribution my colleagues have made over the last 12 months. Come April of next year, when the confidence and supply arrangement between ourselves and the Labour Government will, I am certain, still be in operation, we will have exceeded in duration the total time of the National – New Zealand First coalition Government. By this time next year we will have exceeded in duration the total time of the Labour-Alliance Government. We will have demonstrated that, for the first time in three Parliaments, MMP can be made to work, because the support party works constructively with the major party of government on the issues it agrees upon but it also reserves the right to oppose them vigorously on those matters that it opposes and disagrees with the Government on. We have demonstrated that throughout this year.

I have been forthright in my criticism of what I regard as an overly politically correct attitude by the Government on a number of issues, and I will continue to take that view, but at the same time we recognise that good government requires a balance. Good government requires a party to be kept on its toes. Good government also requires constructive opposition. That is the one thing we have not had this year. It is the one thing that we have attempted to provide from time to time, as well as our role of support.

I think that this is a time of year when New Zealanders are simply politicked out. Whatever the great issues of the day, New Zealanders are now focusing much more on the time that lies ahead for them and their families over the summer break. As they go away to their barbecues and their baches over the summer, they will want the assurance—which I am confident they will be given tomorrow—that New Zealanders will not be drawing up the barricades behind the barbecues against fellow New Zealanders on the beaches. New Zealanders will recognise that the one thing we all have in common is that we are all in this together. We have no future as a divided society, and in that respect I want to say that I have no truck with those who seek to play immigrant New Zealander against immigrant New Zealander of whatever generation, colour, or calibre. Every single one of us, whatever our length of time in this country, is an immigrant. Every single one of us, by virtue of that fact, brings something to the table that contributes to our unique spirit as New Zealanders.

I go back to the words of Norman Kirk in that respect. He was a truly great New Zealand visionary with a sense of where this country could be—a sense about the contribution that all New Zealanders make to that national ethos of being a Kiwi. What we need to be doing, and what we ought to be thinking about and embarking upon over this summer period, is how we can rekindle that spirit of nationhood, how we can set aside the petty and the puerile divisions that divide us, and how we can come together on the basis of what we show to the world as the unique spirit of our New Zealand nationhood.

If we are able to achieve that, it does not mean that we set aside our political differences or our differences of principle, but it means that we recognise what we have in common. If we are able to achieve that, then, as we approach 2004 and beyond, this country will be more positively focused and will be better able to address some of the great issues with regard to our identity, our future, and our common bond as New Zealanders that we have to confront but are incapable of doing so at the moment.

What this Parliament needs to focus on, next year and the years beyond, are the things that bring us together, rather than for ever dividing itself and tearing itself apart over the things we disagree on. If we do that, then the matters that Sue Kedgley and Ross Robertson, and myself in a previous time, have raised in relation to the behaviour of members of Parliament will be addressed. If we do that, then those issues of principle about what it means to be a Kiwi today and how we contribute to a positive future and to moving forward will be addressed. If we do that, then we will not end up with the sorts of petty divisions that see this Parliament vilified by so many New Zealanders as not representing their aspirations and their hopes.

Finally, I express my hope for 2004—that all of us come back reinvigorated from the challenge of the summer break and committed as never before to working positively in the interests of this country for a better future, rather than simply tearing ourselves apart as I suspect we have done far too much of during 2003. My best wishes to all members as this House adjourns.

Along with other party leaders, I express to you my thanks and congratulations on your work this year, and seasons greetings to all members of Parliament. Seasons greetings also to our staff in Parliament Buildings, and in particular to the VIP drivers who, as anyone who has been a Minister knows, are just about the most exceptional people in terms of service to those who they work for that one could hope for.

When Don Brash and other leaders, including Mr Prebble, suggested that they wanted to come back on Thursday, it made me laugh a bit, because they are relying on the Government to pass the motion so they can actually go. I notice they want to come back on Thursday. They do not want to come back next week, or continue to work—it is just for a day or so. That kind of cant does not have much place at this time of the year.

Winston Peters, of course, berated the Prime Minister for not being here, and for occasionally not being in Parliament. I say to Winston Peters that the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has led this country magnificently over the last 4 years, will lead it equally magnificently for the next 2 years, and, as far as I can see, as far into the future as one would like. Winston Peters might like to recall that he could not even survive for 2 years as Deputy Prime Minister, let alone lead the country. The fact is that Winston Peters will never ever get the chance to run this country, because the people of New Zealand recognise the quality that is required in a Prime Minister, and Winston Peters does not have it.

If Mr Peters and members of New Zealand First want to enter into what is entirely a legitimate debate on population and immigration policies, in my view they should do so in a way that does not do disservice to the proud liberal traditions of New Zealand and New Zealanders. I wish they would do it without damaging the reputation of New Zealand in the rest of the civilised and enlightened world. As Minister of Economic Development, I know the truth about how much damage Winston Peters does to New Zealand’s reputation in other parts of the world.

💬 Jim Peters: No policies!

Well, we asked for at least one of the three different policies on the seabed and foreshore issue that Winston Peters has as he goes around the country. We did not get one of them.

Do we say it again? We are all descendents of immigrants in this country. There are no exceptions, including Winston Peters, myself, and everyone else in this House. I find it incredible that someone like Winston Peters can go around the country making political points at the expense of vulnerable New Zealanders—some of whom come with high qualifications to work in New Zealand, others who come to make their lives here, and they are denigrated day after day by someone who does it for no other reason than to make cheap political capital.

Most New Zealanders know it, and I suspect that Don Brash and others in the National Party know it, too. The idea of being in the Government again with someone like that holding any sort of responsibility must fill them with horror, yet they have to somehow try to accommodate that. It would make me sick to think of doing it as a mature politician.

We come along at Christmas time and get the refuge of the desperate politician. Just before Christmas, Mr Prebble railed against law and order. I suggest to Mr Prebble that he should think about the chickens that have come home to roost in New Zealand over the last few years—the dysfunctional communities and families that we have seen, the drugs and alcohol abuse, and all the rest of it. I suggest that he looks in the mirror sometimes, thinks back to the policies of 20 years ago, and starts to ask himself how many of those policies are now bearing fruit in terms of the legacy that Governments like ours have had to pick up.

I say to Mr Prebble that the legacy this Government will leave to future generations is far better than the one he left to us. I might not be here to actually experience it all, but I am proud now of the legacy we are leaving, because over the last 4 years we have left a better legacy for the next 10 or 20 years than anything that happened during the time that Mr Prebble or Mr Shirley were in Government. I remember those days well.

This has been a great year and a great period for New Zealand. We are one of the fastest-growing economies in the Western World. Members opposite cannot deny that. We have the lowest level of unemployment in 16 years. Would members opposite deny that? Every single region in New Zealand is in positive growth mode. The kids of New Zealand have a positive future not only in their own town or region, but also in their own country. Those who left New Zealand in the last 20 years are coming back in droves, because there is a future for them now in their own country.

But the miserable members opposite will not celebrate that fact. They hope for some kind of failure for New Zealand, so they can enthuse gleefully. Guess what! New Zealand is not failing; New Zealand is succeeding magnificently, so Don Brash, Winston Peters, and Richard Prebble can eat their hearts out. Against a backdrop of the rest of the world, which is not doing particularly well, New Zealand is doing well. In the past, when America, Europe, and Asia caught a cold, we caught pneumonia, but New Zealand has done extremely well in the last 4 years. We as a Parliament should be celebrating that fact. I ask Don Brash why the Opposition will not celebrate that New Zealand has done well. Why does he not say: “Gee, it’s been good. Personally, it would have been better if there had been a failure, but there wasn’t, and I have to give credit to the Government.”? But, no, the Opposition hopes that New Zealand will fail. It is a miserable position.

We have 6,000 to 7,000 young kids who are apprentices. Four years ago, we did not have that. There was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when the word “apprentice” was a dirty word in this country. It is not any longer. There is a future—[Interruption] Oh, well, people who are cynical will laugh, but not out in the regions, where one meets the people who have their kids into apprenticeships and training. Young New Zealanders have a future in their own country, so why not celebrate that? Mr Hide is trying to interject, but he has never been young. I think he was born old, so he has nothing to celebrate. This Government and its members have a lot of celebrate, and I congratulate them.

Today, by a thumping majority, New Zealand First, Labour, the Progressive party, and the Greens passed an extra week’s leave, to take effect in the future. I pay tribute to my colleague Matt Robson for championing that cause. I challenge the members who rail against it to say that if their party were elected to Government, it would wipe out that fourth week of leave. Will they stand and say that they will wipe out that extra week? Every time extra public holidays have been given in this country, the conservative Opposition and conservative employers have opposed them. They warned that the end of the world was nigh when we got a Christmas holiday, an Easter holiday, Waitangi Day, Anzac Day, and every other public holiday in any other week.

If the National Party is serious, it will say that whenever it gets elected—which will be quite a long time away—it will repeal the extra leave. I bet it will not—any more than members opposite are serious about opposing this adjournment of Parliament. They will say they oppose it, but I bet quite a few of them have their holidays and flights booked already. It would come as a terrible shock to them if the adjournment motion were lost and they had to come back, because they have all their holidays booked. Their words are just a sham.

I will finish by saying that the National Party has had a change of leadership, which is a regular occurrence, but I congratulate Don Brash. However, I want to pay my respects—and I mean this seriously—to Bill English for the mature and loyal way he accepted what must have been a very deep disappointment to him. I admire that, and although I cannot mention that he is not here, I think the way Bill English handled that defeat—and it is always disappointing for political leaders to lose their positions—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Ha, ha!

I will say my words with sincerity to those people I respect, so Mr Prebble will not hear much from me—ever.

I rise to support the amendment to the motion moved by Dr Don Brash. I understand that I could well be the last speaker in the debate tonight, although there is potential for one more, and I would expect that that speaker will be Helen Clark herself—the woman who has had a fantastic year as Prime Minister; the woman who has had some fantastic experiences in leading the country. How do I know this? Because she told us. The Prime Minister has told us that she is the victim of her own success. Well, when did we ever have a leader of this country who described himself or herself as a victim of success? I think that is borne of the fact that she is terrified every time she goes through the door of the Labour caucus, because she does not know what Tariana Turia is going to be doing, she does not know what Dover Samuels is up to, she does not know what Steve Maharey is up to, she has no idea whether Ms Mahuta is even going to turn up, and, at all times, there is this huge reliance on the United Future party.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Where is the Māori caucus?

Mr Prebble asks an interesting question. He asks why members of the Māori caucus are not in the House talking tonight. Well, there is a free function on! Does that answer the question? It must be terribly worrying for the Prime Minister to have to rely on United Future. I heard Peter Dunne before giving one of his famously sanctimonious speeches about how sensible his party is, how proud it is to have supported this Government, and how long it has continued in coalition. Well, last Friday I was at a public meeting with one of his members, who described the Labour Government as the most hopeless, most irresponsible, and most reckless in New Zealand’s history, and he looked forward to the day it was out. So there is the sensible United Future party being represented—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Who was that?

—at a public meeting by Mr Alexander. He is the only decent member in that party. We just heard from Mr Anderton, who is suddenly being a doyen of right-wing politics and of right-wing economies. He is the man who stands basking himself in the successes of the Labour Government throughout the 1990s—a man famed throughout the country for turning up with a $2,000 cheque and $20,000 worth of photography gear to make sure the picture gets into the newspaper. I ask Mr Anderton this: if he is so opposed to Winston Peters and his immigration policy—and I certainly do not think the National Party agrees with it—why is it that he has spent so many years in Opposition fighting foreign investment in this country, fighting the scourge of foreign ownership in this country? Now, suddenly, feeling a bit of success he is a doyen of those policies and is out there telling New Zealand how good they are for them. No wonder his party fell apart.

The big issue that needs to be talked about in this debate is the seabed and foreshore. I have heard other speakers talk about it tonight, but I know that there are New Zealanders who, tonight, are wondering whether their camping site, their little slice of New Zealand, is going to be available to them for, perhaps, the last time this Christmas. They are the sorts of people who work hard and save all year to be able to put their gear in a caravan, or pack up the trailer, go to the beach, and have a couple of weeks enjoying the sun and enjoying some of the best things this country can offer, and this Government has put that under threat. It will not matter what is announced tomorrow. There will be no comfort for any New Zealander over the coming months. I bet that because this Government has been so recalcitrant in dealing with this issue, there will be some protest groups up and down this country that do some stupid things that simply set race relations in this country back by decades. The fault for that will lie directly at the door of Helen Clark.

The National Party does want to be back here on Thursday, because we want to be heard on the seabed and foreshore issue. We have no confidence that Helen Clark is going to come up with a solution. We know that that solution will be grossly tempered by the extreme views of Tariana Turia. We know that even though the Minister of Conservation sits there laughing, he must be terrified about what that decision will mean for the coastline in this country in the conservation estate. If anyone thinks that is not a big problem, here is the quantity: 8,700 kilometres is currently being claimed by Māori, with claims lodged in the Māori Land Court. How long is the New Zealand coastline? About 19,000 kilometres. So we have the thick end of 40 or more percent of our coastline now being claimed by Māori, and the Labour Party is saying that it will set up the Mickey Mouse system of—what are they called—cultural-use titles, and allow hapū, iwi, and everyone else to put their annotations on those titles. That will send shivers up the spine of New Zealanders. Talking about spine, I see the member for Otaki, Darren Hughes—the great white hope—laughing at the prospect that New Zealanders will lose their right to go to the beach.

💬 Opposition Member: “Helen’s handbag”!

Yes, “Helen’s handbag”, as he is often called; a young man with a big future. All I can say is that if it were not for his varicose veins, he would be completely translucent.

The issue of 4 weeks’ holiday also came up in the debate tonight. What sort of a Government tells workers in this country that it has a surplus in excess of $7 billion—we know it did some tricky numbers around the accident compensation long-term liability figure—but that it will make them wait 4 years for an extra week’s holiday? Every worker will pay for that with a wage cap for each one of those 4 years. I have to say that the National Party will be on the hustings next year, and, in 2005, mopping up votes, because New Zealanders are just not that silly. When they see a Government that is more interested in telling them how to think than in encouraging them to think for themselves, they will reject it—and the list is very long now. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

It is OK, Mr Speaker; it is only Russell Fairbrother. He is only a short-term member. He is leaving shortly. Everyone knows that. He came into the party with a huge reputation. He has sat in the back corner all year and has been able to ask only three questions in the House since the House began early in the year. That is sad. The Labour Party does not like clever thinkers. The Labour Party does not like free thinkers, and it hates hard workers. The Labour Party cannot stand hard workers. [Interruption] I say to Mr Hughes that our country has the proud boast of having a $17-an-hour economy. That is the average earnings per hour in this country. If we add in Helen Clark’s huge salary, and add in the huge salaries from the private sector and the excessive salaries in the public sector, we end up with an average of only $17 an hour. That tells me that there are people in Mr Hughes’ electorate who cannot afford Christmas this year. We see that member sitting there and smiling as the Government quietly takes from people the opportunity to go to a beach freely and enjoy a bit of the great indoors. He sits there and smiles while the Government cynically tells people that if they behave themselves and do not have a wage round for 4 years, it will give them another week’s holiday. What will they do with that? They cannot afford what they have now.

This Government does not have its eye on the best interests of New Zealanders. How can a Government skite about a $7 billion - plus surplus and not want to have New Zealanders’ incomes rising? Even in safe seats like Otaki, the tide will run out and it will run out fast. Let me tell members about the Wanganui seat. It will be gone—it will be gone for all money. I know of a small clothing firm in Wanganui that employs 45 women, mainly Māori women. This year that clothing company went to Mr Anderton and said that it could expand its business significantly if it went to the United States and was able to sell its product to the likes of Brook Brothers and various other stores. Mr Anderton’s officials said: “That’s looks good, but we’d rather you went to a trade fair, because, then, we can come, too.” They are known of course as “Club MED”, because of the extensive travel undertaken by officials in that department. When we got down to it, no money was available. That member will be out after the next election.

I move, That the question be now put.

Fellow members of Parliament, as the first session of the forty-seventh Parliament comes to a close I pay tribute to all the people who contribute to the efficient functioning of this House.

First, I pay tribute to my colleague and Deputy Speaker Ann Hartley, and to the Assistant Speakers, Clem Simich and Ross Robertson, who as a team have been great to work with. I give my profound thanks to the Clerk of the House, Dave McGee, who is not only respected internationally for his profound knowledge but whose sound advice has been a great support to the House, to me personally, and in particular this year, to all other members of Parliament. Thanks also go to his deputy, Mary Harris, as she completes her first year in that important role. Tribute must go also to the staff of the Clerk’s Office, whose professionalism and administrative services maintain the smooth running of the House. They service the Table of the House, compile the Hansard record, process legislation, questions and petitions, and serve the select committees.

I thank the general manager of the Parliamentary Service, Joel George, for his skills and professional advice. I give my thanks to all Mr George’s senior managers, to members’ support staff, including members’ executive secretaries and the support staff of the parliamentary parties, and to the staff of the Parliamentary Library, the Chamber and gallery officers, the security staff, the building services staff, the telephonists, the travel office staff, and the reception and visitor services staff. I would like to pay a special tribute to the VIP Transport people who drive us. I think that of all the services one gets when one is privileged enough to be a Minister of the Crown, the Leader of the Opposition, or the Speaker, that is probably the best. My thanks go to the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, and to all those who serve with him. They are an essential part of the running of Parliament.

I thank the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, George Tanner, and his staff for their role in the process of legislation. My personal thanks go to all those who have worked to support the committees that I chair: the Business Committee, the Parliamentary Service Commission, the Standing Orders Committee, and the Officers of Parliament Committee. I would like to thank the Controller and Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, and his staff for the highly professional services they provide. I thank also the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, his fellow Ombudsmen Anand Satyanand and Mel Smith, and their staff for the valuable role they play. In addition I thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Morgan Williams. My thanks also go to the research units for their work on behalf of MPs. I think they make some of the MPs’ speeches worth listening to.

To the leaders of parties in this House, the Leader of the House, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, the deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, and the party whips, I give my thanks. I acknowledge the efforts of all members of Parliament who, despite enormous workloads, continue to serve their electorates to the full and to make important contributions to the select committees. My personal thanks go to my own staff: Sean Rota, Pam Reader, and Roland Todd, and to Helen Kennelly in the Deputy Speaker’s office. In particular, I want to thank Debbie Hannan for her very successful service as my press secretary. I am pleased to be able to welcome Bethney McLennan in her stead. My thanks also go to my electorate secretaries in west Auckland, Christine Schuster, Margaret Sutton, and Schibo Zhang, for their important efforts on behalf of constituents. I thank you all once again for your support and work throughout the year, and for the contribution you make not just to this House but to New Zealand and its people. As I draw this session of Parliament to a close and you go to join families and friends for the coming break, I wish you all well until we gather here in February 2004.

I would like to conclude by repeating the comments that all party leaders have made tonight. I wish every member of this House a very, very successful break, a very peaceful break, and a prosperous new year.