Sittings of the House

I move, That the sitting days for the remainder of 2005 and for 2006 up to Thursday 14 December be as follows:

2005

November 17, 22, 23, and 24;

December 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15;

2006

February 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 28;

March 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30;

April 4, 5, and 6;

May 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 25;

June 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29;

July 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27;

August 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, and 31;

September 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14;

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

November 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23;

December 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14.

💬 Hon Members: Holidays!

I actually thought it was holiday time in question time, myself, too; I would not have expected the Opposition to say that. [Interruption] The one thing that the Treasury papers did not state is that there is room for large tax cuts now. They stated that we should be maintaining the current surpluses. I suggest that the National Party actually reads to the end of the document and not just the first bit that it likes.

💬 Simon Power: No!

Exactly! Mr Simon Power, one of the rising, aspiring members for the leadership of the National Party, says “No”.

I will get back to the motion. It states that after this week we will sit for one further week, have a 1-week adjournment, then come back for 2 weeks, finishing on 15 December. In 2006 we will resume on 14 February, although, looking at the Opposition, I wonder why we bother coming back at all. Unfortunately, we have to have Parliament, although it is true that we can manage without the National Party being here, for all the use that it is in terms of contributing to this place. We certainly get far better opposition from the Māori Party on occasions, from New Zealand First on occasions, from United Future on occasions, from the Greens on occasions, from ACT on occasions, and even, about once every 3 years, the Progressive party puts on a better show than the National Party does in that respect. But, never mind, no doubt sometime soon the National Party will change leaders again and we will go through the whole process one more time.

💬 Darren Hughes: And Bill English is trying out the seat!

I notice that Bill English is smiling at the thought of that, but it is John Key who is the happiest-looking man in Parliament these days, which tells us something.

So we will come back on 14 February and we will go through a process of 3 or 4 week sessions for the remainder of the year. At the moment the timetable is set down to 14 December 2006. That provides for 29 sitting weeks next year, or 87 sitting days, with the potential for 1 more sitting week at the end, making 90 sitting days. Standing Order 78(3) provides that the sitting year should be approximately 90 days. Last year and the year before we went rather over that. I think that one year we went for 34 sitting weeks and 33 sitting weeks. We are now basically forecasting a sitting year next year that is much more in line with the norm outlined within the Standing Orders. So it is certain that there will be 87 sitting days, with a possibility of 90 sitting days if we proceed through to 21 December. I must say, from long experience, I notice that when we get into the week before Christmas there is a sudden accelerated desire on the part of an extraordinarily wide range of members of Parliament to call it—

💬 Simon Power: Not true. We never cave on those urgency motions.

I am sorely tempted to comment on the truth of the situation, but the nature of agreements between whips and the Leader of the House prevents me from going into the sordid details of what has occasionally happened in recent years in terms of ensuring that Government business has finished, not merely in time to ensure that the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt got his plane to go overseas, but also that colleagues on the opposite side of the House got home at the time that they were promised they were going to, to see their families and to deal with other things that are going on.

So that is what we have set down. This will, I think, provide very early notice. Most important, it means that members can plan, and parties can plan for activities during the adjournment periods. But I would issue just one note of warning. I think it is very important that people understand that when we have a 2 and 3-week adjournment there is select committee work to go on during that period, as well, and it is not all other things—

💬 Hon Bill English: The select committees haven’t got any work.

I am surprised that the member says that. I have seen the number of bills in front of select committees. I have two that have just gone off to a committee and I think there are another four down for first reading. There will be plenty of work to keep most parties going, and enough to reduce the National Party to its usual state of exhaustion over the next year.

The National Party in Opposition will be opposing this motion, because what it tells the New Zealand public and the rest of the members of this Parliament is that this is a do-nothing Government. Dr Cullen has just indicated that if this motion is passed, the House is to sit for 87 days in the entire 2006 year. The question that we on the Opposition side of the House ask is: what does the Government intend to do for the other 9 months of the year, when it is required to be here for only 87 days during that time?

This is a soft programme. It is a soft programme because this Government has run out of legislative ideas. It has no programme. It is just reheating the corned beef, as it were. This Government knows that its time is limited. It does not want to be subjected to question time. It does not want its legislative programme to be subjected to debate. It does not want any aspect of its programme questioned or queried by the large number of National MPs sitting on the Opposition side of the House. I say to the new National MPs from the last intake that this is the shortest sitting programme we have seen in the years I have been here.

This is a soft programme from a soft Government that has run out of ideas and cannot confidently—and this is the crucial point—pass legislation through the House. The easiest way to deal with that is not to have the House meet, because every time Government members will have to crawl on their bellies to New Zealand First or United Future. Every piece of legislation will be up for negotiation and debate, and the Government knows that will not suit its programme, at all. Dr Cullen has been on National Radio and said that most of the major changes will be done by way of regulation or policy change, and that the Government envisages a very light legislative programme during 2006. That is because the deal has not been stitched up properly. It is because the New Zealand First arrangement is brittle at best.

We now have so many foreign Ministers we do not know who will stand up to answer a question in question time. We do not know whether Dr Cullen will be answering on behalf of Mr Peters or Mr Goff, who is sort of the Minister of Trade but is really doing foreign affairs. We have an Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs who is not answering on behalf of the other Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the meantime that does not matter, because Mr Peters is busy wandering around the world and saying he is not bound by collective ministerial responsibility. This Government knows that it cannot get its programme through in any reliable way, so it has produced the softest sitting programme for next year that we have seen in this Parliament in the last 7 years.

Even tonight, at 5 o’clock, the New Zealand Press Association is reporting just how brittle the nature of the relationship between Labour and New Zealand First is. According to the New Zealand Press Association, Phil Goff has chosen tonight to “take a side swipe at Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his comments on Chinese students in relation to New Zealand’s trade deficit with China.” It is reported that Mr Peters did not raise his concerns about the deficit with the Chinese when he met with them yesterday. They were not raised, and let us assume for one moment that he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs for that short space in time, and that it was not someone else on the Government side of the House at that particular moment in time. It was interesting because Mr Goff also said: “It was also not right for a Foreign Minister to ‘browbeat’ another country about a trade deficit.”

Whilst Mr Peters is out there representing the Government on all issues, except those he disagrees with—which is everything except the portfolio he holds, so he has no collective responsibility for anything other than that—

💬 Hon Bill English: I bet he disagrees with it on that.

Mr English’s point is right, because now there is a disagreement in the area where he does have collective ministerial responsibility. That is so much so that the New Zealand Press Association reported at 5 o’clock tonight: “In another meeting Mr Goff was asked by the Australian Government for an explanation of Mr Peters’ role in Government.” Well, we would quite like to know the answer to that, too. We are very confused about that at the moment. In fact, Mr Goff goes on to say this—and it is not a bad line, actually—“Alexander Downer was very keen to know what the new Government arrangement meant.” So are we. We would like to know what the new Government arrangement means, as well. So would Darren Hughes and Ruth Dyson; they do not have a clue. I noticed the look of surprise when Dr Cullen rose today in question time and said that he would not be answering on behalf of Mr Peters, and that he was in fact the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Labour back-benchers all looked at each other and said: “Gosh, that’s interesting. When did that happen?”. That is exactly what is going on. Mr Peters is operating in a little world of his own, while all the conventions around collective ministerial responsibility are left behind.

But, better still, Mr Goff has explained: “The situation can be made to work and will work. I think Winston Peters will want to make his third endeavour of performing the role of a Cabinet Minister a success.” So another Minister is saying that Winston Peters’ first two times as a Minister were not a success and he is sure he would like to make his third crack at it a success. So we have a former foreign Minister, now a trade Minister, overseas with Mr Peters, mopping up the mess and bagging him at the same time.

This Government is brittle. This Government has no confidence in the arrangements it has made with New Zealand First. It will not test a wider legislative agenda in this House, and for that reason we are seeing the softest sitting schedule for 2006 in the last 6 or 7 years. This is a do-nothing Government that is not prepared to front in this House and answer the hard questions. It is not prepared to front for more than 87 days in the entire 2006 calendar year—[Interruption] Darren Hughes is chipping in. That is a surprise. What is the definition of a marginal seat? A safe seat held by Darren Hughes. So let us just remember that this is a soft programme from a do-nothing Government that does not have the courage of its convictions, or the belief that its arrangement with New Zealand First will be able to take the legislative test that this House offers. We will be voting against a Government that has decided in this term to do very little in this Chamber.

On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the recommended sitting programme for the remainder of 2005 and for 2006. The recommended sitting dates are very similar to those of the previous Parliament, and the total number of sitting days will also be very similar. We believe that the programme as outlined will be sufficient to give effect to those policies that are important to New Zealand First and the New Zealand people. So New Zealand First will be supporting the programme as outlined.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rose to my feet before my colleague. [Interruption] That is a debatable point. As I read the Standing Orders, they state that the first person to get up on his or her feet to seek the call gets the call.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that. It is possible that the colours she is wearing are more easily seen. I call Heather Roy.

I would have deferred to my colleague Mr Henare, who is obviously very keen to get back into the cut and thrust. Unfortunately, he will have only 87 days next year to do that. I will take my time first, but I will be brief.

I agree entirely with what Mr Simon Power had to say about this soft programme. It is indeed a very light legislative programme. Dr Cullen said—in what I expect he thought we would consider to be a very reasonable manner—that it takes us back to what the House should be doing. ACT New Zealand will—to some people’s surprise, I am sure—be supporting this motion, because 87 days is infinitely better than having more days when the Government can do damage. It is much better to have less Government. Less Government, as we know, is good Government. So although I agree entirely with the National Party’s arguments for denying this Government motion, ACT New Zealand will be supporting it. We think less damage can be done in the fewer days that we will sitting than could be done if we had the number of days that we had in the last two Parliaments.

This is a Government with no ideas and no vision, and that was blatantly evident in the Speech from the Throne. This soft programme does, in fact, highlight the brittle nature of this minority Government’s standing. We think New Zealand First will not be able to be relied upon to support the Government. [Interruption] Well, that party has supported the Government and has an agreement with it. In fact, it is agreeing with the proposed number of days the House should sit. That is entirely because that party knows that it will be opposing the Government, and that the Government will not be able to rely on that party’s support for many things.

Dr Cullen also cast what I felt was a terrible slur on select committees. He said that members should be well aware that, despite the fact there would be a lighter legislative programme, select committees should expect to work through adjournments. Well, what exactly does he think those select committees will be doing? There will not be any legislation to go before the select committees.

💬 Simon Power: They are going to be doing inquiries.

That is right. The enthusiastic Opposition in this Parliament will be beavering away on inquiries, because there will not be anything much in the way of legislation coming before the select committees. What exactly will there be to be supported by New Zealand First, or United Future, which has said that it will support the Government?

Less government is good government, and for that reason ACT New Zealand will support the lighter number of days. Of course, it is an indictment on this Government that it will not be able to get through the House the legislation that it would like to get through. It begs the question as to quite why Labour fought so hard to be in Government in the first place. So this soft programme is something that New Zealanders should watch out for; they should watch out for the light legislative programme that we will have, not just for the rest of this year and next year—we are debating here the dates for 2005 and 2006—but for the rest of this term, if this Government manages to reach as far as that. To have only 87 days in 2006 is shameful, but it may be that it is for the good of the country that that is all we have.

I come back to my comment on select committees. The chair of the Health Committee in the last Parliament is here and she will be able to verify for me that the Health Committee worked extraordinarily hard in the last term. We sat in most adjournments. Unfortunately, I am not on the Health Committee this time; I am on the Social Services Committee. But this time the Health Committee can rest assured that it will not have to sit in adjournments like we did, unless—

💬 Steve Chadwick: We’ll work hard in Social Services.

The members of the Social Services Committee will be working hard; the member for Rotorua is quite correct. I guess that the committees that do have a majority of Opposition members on them will be working hard in the adjournments, I am sure, hearing those inquiries that Mr Power has pointed out.

First, I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your position, although personally I believe that you would have been a helluva great Speaker.

Democracy in this country is absolutely under threat from this poor excuse for a Government. I have just made a quick calculation of all the bills before this House and found that the sitting programme has only 87 days to deal with 35 Government bills. The Government has not left enough time to deal with even half of those bills. Eighty-seven sitting days is a threat to democracy. Robert Mugabe would have been proud of the Clark-Peters Government for its lack of interest in democracy. We hear every day this Government go on about how it prides itself on the democratic process and on people being part of a Western democracy. This Helen Clark - Winston Peters Government is nothing more than the equivalent of a Robert Mugabe Government. It does not believe in democracy. It does not want a bar of democracy and I shall tell members why.

It is because of the shonky deal that is being done with the sycophants who will jump into bed with Labour at any cost. We can all laugh about the words “baubles of power”, but it was nothing more, and nothing less, than naked ambition. That is what it was. What do we have? Why does the Government want to meet for only 87 days? It is pretty obvious.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Which party are you from?

That member should pipe down; he is a has-been. He is gone. I say: “Ta-ta! See you later!”.

There are 87 days to protect the so-called leader of New Zealand First. Why do I say “so-called” leader? It is not a horrible jibe; it is because he will not actually be in the country to be the leader of New Zealand First. So we have to ask ourselves who will be the leader of New Zealand First. For obvious reasons it will not be Peter Brown. [Interruption] Absolutely, I was the deputy leader, and I got out. I saw the writing on the wall, and even within 87 days I thought to myself: “If I want to have a career, if I want to look after myself, and if I want my children to get a good education and get ahead in life, I had better join the National Party.” The one lesson that I learnt from New Zealand First was to watch my back, because those members will throw knives—they will throw the kitchen sink at a member. [Interruption] I say to “Andre Agassi” that he should pipe down.

This Government motion is nothing other than a threat to a Western democracy. Not since the days of World War II have we had fewer sitting days in the House. On average, there are 106—[Interruption] That is right, and most of those members opposite were here during the Crimean War, apart from my good whanaunga Shane Jones. He is most probably—and I am hard-pressed to say this—the beautiful light out of the darkness.

There is a word—and I am not sure whether I am allowed to say it—[Interruption] No, it is not the one that starts with an “h”; it starts with a “d”. This Government is nothing more than a dictatorship that Stalin, Mussolini, or even Robert Mugabe would be proud of. It is a complete and utter threat to the democracy that this country has been brought up on. I say shame on the Government, shame on Winston Peters, shame on United Future—I was going to say United First.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Who?

Exactly. Who cares? New Zealand First and the Labour Party have got into bed. I never thought I would see the day when Doug Woolerton got up and supported David Benson-Pope.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He hasn’t done it yet.

He has done it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Well, he doesn’t seem comfortable.

Peter Brown is absolutely comfortable knowing that his leader has the only bauble in town. They are all comfortable in that fact. I saw the leader of New Zealand First on the telly last night. He hopped out of a BMW 7 Series. That is what I call a bauble of power. [Interruption] It was not red; it was silver.

The irony of all of this is that when Governments are formed, and democracies are loved and cherished by the citizens of a nation, the citizens expect their Government to be under scrutiny for longer than 87 days. The rigours of question time have already taken their toll on the Government. How do I know this? All we have to do is look at the number of sitting days that it has planned for 2006. There are 365 days in a year, and all it can do is meet for 87 days. It is no wonder New Zealand First wants to support the motion. It does not want to be here, because every time it is here this great Opposition party will make sure that it asks the hard questions.

As I said, there is nothing more to this Government than its being an anti-democratic dictatorship. But I have heard it before. Several socialist speakers, several communist speakers, have always talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat. They have all talked about it at one stage of their union lives. Well, ladies and gentleman, that is what we have in this House. The Government does not care about the foreshore and seabed. It does not care about the United Nations coming down here to visit us. Eighty-seven days is not long enough for the Government to be under scrutiny. It shirks its responsibilities at its own peril. National members are here doing the job and making sure that this Government is put to the test every single day.

Michael Cullen said that select committees are able to meet during adjournments. Well, today the Māori Affairs Committee, which is ruled by the Labour Party, said: “Oh no, guys and girls. We are not going to meet in the adjournment.” The only person who stood up for democracy was the person on his feet at the moment. It is recorded in the minutes that I said we should meet during the adjournment, because I love democracy, and I am a defender of democracy. That lot opposite are not defenders of what should be held close to somebody’s heart—that is, democracy.

Finally, I say that National members are here, and we are willing to do the job to make sure this country does not slip down that slippery slope.

I am delighted to take a call on this Government motion regarding the sitting hours for next year. The first point I would like to make to the Government is that it has had 6 of the best years, economically, that this country has ever enjoyed—through no benefit or fault of its own, but just because of international commodity prices and conditions. But what do we face now? Everybody, and every economist, knows that times will get tough, and that we are in for quite a bumpy landing, economically.

What does one need to do when times get tough? One needs to man the tiller and start doing some things, because the boat sailed so comfortably only when things were going so smoothly. So what would we expect to see out of the sitting hours for next year, if we have a bumpy landing in the economy? We would expect to see a Government that has its nose to the grindstone, shoulders to the wheel, and back to the wall, and is getting on with things that will make the economy function.

But what do we see? We see a schedule of sitting days that is the weakest, limpest, lamest thing that I have ever seen in my 18 years in this Parliament. Why would that be? Because of the deals the Government has done, it has to be a do-nothing Government. David Lange would testify from his grave about what having a cup of tea and a breather does to a Government. Having a cup of tea and a breather finishes it. If a reformist Government wants to do something, it has to keep ahead of the play. But this is not a cup of tea and a breather. For the Labour Government, this is a whole morning tea and afternoon tea shoved together. It is a picnic lunch wrapped into a whole range of other days off, and we will sit for only 87 days. Members of the public would be outraged if any of them were ever listening to this—which I know they are not. But if they were listening, they would be outraged to think that this Parliament will sit for 87 days.

But let us go further and ask why. The reason is simple, and my colleague Tau Henare touched on it: it is the leader of one of the coalition partners. He does not even admit to being a coalition partner, but his name is Winston Peters and he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Government. [Interruption] Oh yes, he is. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Government. Let me tell members what he did as the deal, because this is magic. Members will love this. He went to Rotorua during the election campaign and said: “New Zealand First will stand out from the Government. We will not be a coalition partner for either of the two tired old parties, National or Labour. We will stand out from that.” That seemed a fantastically altruistic view of the world, but obviously Winston Peters had New Zealand’s best interests at heart. It was great stuff. He had something better. Listen to this quote: “It’s a small price that my caucus is prepared to pay.” Listen to those words carefully. He did not say “I and my caucus”, or “me and my caucus”, or “myself”—he just said “a small price that my caucus is prepared to pay.”

Let me give New Zealand First a lesson about business mergers. If a small company and quite a large company merge, the shareholding and board representation should be in proportion to the companies’ size. Labour has 50 members of Parliament and 26 of them got to be Ministers. For those members who are not good at mathematics, 26 out of 50 is more than 50 percent. More than half the Labour members got to be Ministers. So someone in the small company called New Zealand First that was about to go into this merger would have said that its members were in great shape there—at least 50 percent of them would be Ministers. Barbara Stewart would be a Minister; Peter Brown, Ron Mark, and Brian Donnelly would all say: “Hey, this is great. If we do this deal, just on a straight pro rata basis alone, we’ll make it.”

But it gets better. New Zealand First members should listen to this. If a small company is needed to make the merger work, and if it will not happen without that company, the company can negotiate even more. It could actually say: “Without us, you don’t exist, so we’re not going to go for the 52 percent that you guys have got; we’re going to go for more.” I know that some of the members would be worried about the commitment about the baubles. But let me tell members an old adage: It is better to be hanged for a sheep than for a lamb. Well, I tell members it is better to be hanged for a lot of baubles than for just one. They would be much better to be hanged for a whole string of baubles than for one.

What did Winston Peters go in and negotiate for in this coalition? It was just the one bauble. I want to test members of this House. Members should guess who got the bauble. Did Barbara Stewart get the bauble? No, she did not. Did Peter Brown, the deputy leader, get it? No. Winston Peters went in there, and members should remember what he said: “This is a small sacrifice that I know my colleagues are prepared to make.” Did they know that what he meant at Rotorua was that those guys were out of there, but he was it—that he got the first-class travel, the aeroplane, the hotels, and the silver BMW 7 Series taking him around? No, they did not.

It is no wonder Labour comes with a sitting schedule that is the thinnest and weakest I have ever seen in my 18 years here. There are two reasons for this. The Government will have Winston travelling the whole time—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

I mean the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and I can tell members that he is “right honourable”. He is a man who sticks by his word! He told the public he was not in it for the baubles! He told the public he would not be part of a coalition! He was not going to have any bar of that!

What is the one thing this Government cannot afford to have? It cannot afford to have Winston Peters in the House to answer questions. I predict that the Vote Foreign Affairs overseas travel budget in the next Budget will be huge. It will more than double, so that Mr Peters, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, will be overseas all the time. He will not be representing the Government, because—as members should remember—he does not represent the Government. In fact, if New Zealand First members had had the chance to say where they would sit, they would sit on the Opposition benches.

My final points are made to Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly. I pick those two out because I actually think both are very good members of this House. I think Brian Donnelly’s contribution to education over the years has been stunning. I compare him with the current Minister of Education, Steve Maharey. There is no contest! In fact, John Tamihere’s view about “Smarmy Maharey” says it all. Brian Donnelly knows the education system better than any member of this House and would have been a great Minister. Did they negotiate anything for him? “No, sorry, Brian, you are on your own, pal; you’re out of here.”

💬 Simon Power: Cheers, Brian!

Cheers, Brian! And Ron Mark, who has so desperately craved the honorific—“the Hon Ron Mark”—ain’t gonna get it, and why? Because Winston Peters did not even ask for it. I tell Mrs Stewart that that is the actual issue. She should have a think about it. He did not even ask during the coalition talks. He went in there and said: “What’s in this for me?”. Labour, which was so desperate to get a deal done that it would have sold its soul at the company store, said: “Here’s the deal.”

The next thing one would ask is what Winston has been famous for here?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

What has Mr Peters been famous for? He has been famous for immigration issues; he has fought those long and hard. He has been famous for scandals with regard to transport issues. He remembers when the Cook Strait ferry scraped its bottom when Richard Prebble was Minister of Transport. He has been famous for TVNZ scandals. Has any member of this House ever heard him talk about foreign affairs? Have members heard him talk about it ever? No. So what does one make him?

I tell members why Labour made him Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is the one portfolio that means a Minister is out of the country all the time. “How do we get rid of this guy? How do we keep him out?” asked Helen Clark and her coterie. “We’ll give him the biggest bauble there is. In fact, it will have the bangles and the beads dangling from it as well.” The baubles, bangles, and beads were for Winston Peters to have the overseas travel and the overseas first-class trips. Poor old Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly—about four of New Zealand First members—should have got a position, if anything was in proportion. Would any member tell me that Brian Donnelly does not know more about education than David “Tennis Ball” Benson-Pope knew when he was there?

💬 Darren Hughes: Come on, Maurice.

No, I am deadly serious. If Mr Hughes does not think Brian Donnelly does not know more about education than that man, then he is wrong. But did Mr Donnelly get a role? No, he is out in the cold, and so is Ron Mark. It is an absolute disgrace, and these sitting dates are an absolute sham.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to bring some decorum to this debate and to bring members back to what we are actually debating.

💬 Simon Power: Stand tall!

Stand tall—right. This debate is about the hours that Parliament will sit for the rest of this year and for next year. But do members know of any occupation where one has to ask Parliament the number of hours one will work? Do members know of any occupation where people have to talk about how many hours they will have to work in whatever industry they are in? I bet Mr Clarkson would not say to his staff: “I wonder how many hours we should work to achieve what we want to do.”

💬 Bob Clarkson: We’d go broke!

The member would go broke. But this Government is saying here tonight that it will limit the opportunities to pass some legislation—that it will have to front-foot the hard decisions that have to be made—because things are going to get tough and the economy is going to turn on it.

What do we have? Instead of being here to debate those very issues—the fundamental things that we all came here for—instead of being able to debate what is good for the country and to be able to hold the Government to account, Government members are saying that no, they will limit the number of days that we will have that opportunity. When we look at the programme for the rest of this year that is in the Government motion, we notice only about 55 hours of parliamentary time are left this year. That is time in the Chamber. It is only 55 hours because one of those days will be a members’ day. By the time we take out the Government orders of the day and we look at the members’ days, we see we have only 55 hours left of parliamentary time.

But, mark my words, I bet that on Thursday, 15 December this House will rise early. It will rise early because Government members will want to be home for Christmas. They will want to be home to do the Christmas shopping; they will not be here. I bet that Government members will not be here after about 4 o’clock on Thursday, 15 December; they will have their planes booked. They will be out of here, and everyone should know that there are only 55 hours in total left this year in which the Government should be passing some legislation.

Let us look at next year. Here is the programme, which has 87 days. But we can take out the members’ days. Everyone has talked about there being 29 weeks left, but what about the members’ days that are included in that list? Well, there are about another 10 of those, so we are down to about 77 days. I did some numbers, and do members know that there will be about 500 hours of debating time in this Chamber? That is all. There will be 500 hours of time, yet we all want to be paid for 40 hours a week times 52 weeks of the year, which is 2,080 hours if my maths is right. But we will spend about 500 hours in the House. That cover 29 weeks, but if we divide that 500 hours by 40 hours a week, it is 12 weeks. That is only 12 weeks of House time next year.

This Government is shonky, it is shabby, and it is absolutely lazy. Its legislative programme is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace! I am looking through the Order Paper at some of the bills we should be debating—for example, the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Bill. It is a ripper, that one. We probably will not see the first reading of that bill before Christmas, and it is the sort of legislation that should be in the House before Christmas. But, here we are, with only a few days left, and we know that within those few days there will be an adjournment. We had 6 weeks of parliamentary time from the time that the House started through to 15 December—6 weeks. Out of those 6 weeks, 2 weeks have been taken up with protocol, we have 1 sitting week next week, and then there is an adjournment. I would have thought that we could not afford to have that sort of downtime, and that any business would have thought—Mr Clarkson’s business, for instance—it could not afford such downtime. But, no, we have an adjournment coming up in a week’s time, and then we will have 2 more sitting weeks in the House. Mark my words, we will be out of here on Thursday, 15 December by 4 o’clock.

I would have loved to debate bills like the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Bill. What about the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill? I think it will be a ripper, as well. It is a good one, I know, but when will it come up? It probably will not come up for months, looking at this Order Paper. Then we have the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. Well, I do not know what that one is about. Those are first readings. We cannot progress anything until we get rid of those first readings. Yet there they are, sitting on the Order Paper, and this Government says that it will have a week’s adjournment coming up shortly, and that those bills are not important. If they are not important, why are they on the Order Paper? Why is legislation introduced if it is not important? Is it put there just to fill up the blanks? I do not think so. I think that those bills are important enough to be given serious consideration, and that we should take them seriously.

Looking at No. 12 on the Order Paper, I see it is a classic: the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—the waka-jumping bill. Now, we know what that one is about. My team would love to see that one debated before Christmas. We would love to see it debated before Christmas because it will really ring-fence some of the parties, including a party that now sits on the Government benches. That bill is designed to ring-fence and put in a little catchment because that party’s leader is very scared that someone in that party will walk. That legislation lapsed at election time, but here it is at No. 12 on the Order Paper, solely for New Zealand First’s benefit—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. [Interruption] I know that Barbara Stewart is keen on that one. I know that she will take off. She will get into the debate when it happens, and I look forward to hearing Barbara Stewart make her maiden speech on that point.

I said that I would bring some decorum to this debate, because it is important. At No. 26 on the Order Paper is the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. That will probably be about the Kyoto Protocol, which is the $1 billion blunder this Government has made. I cannot wait for that bill to be here, but where is it sitting? Its second reading is down at No. 26. We know the reason there will be so many adjournments. The new Minister of Energy, David Parker, will need all those adjournments to regain his energy, because he will get a hard time in the House at question time. That is the other reason why there will not be a full programme. With our seven questions—six questions on 2 days and seven on the third day—and a hundred supplementary questions a week, this Government will be under so much pressure that it will wish it was not sitting at all.

This Government is lazy and shonky, and this legislative programme is an absolute disgrace. I do not know of any other occupation that has to come to Parliament to find out how many days and hours it will work. I know what Government members are after. They do not have a full legislative programme, and it is an absolute insult to the integrity of New Zealanders to think that this is a part-time Parliament, because that is what this motion is really about.

A number of bills are worthy of comment. There is the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill, concerning the protection of community standards. It should be debated and it should be out there, but, unfortunately, it is at No. 31—that is not counting members’ orders of the day, and there are certainly a few of those: for example, the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill and the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. Those ones are out there, but, unfortunately, because this Government does not have the capacity or the will to have a full legislative programme, they will be delayed. Members should be here in the House and being paid for what they do—that is what New Zealanders put us here for—but this Government wants to limit those opportunities. It is an absolute disgrace that that should happen, and we will be voting against this motion.

I move, That the question be now put.