By Louis Collins, The House
Photo: VNP/Louis Collins
Some welcome the New Year with fireworks, a toast of champagne, or a kiss.
Parliament ushered in 2025, (albeit about a month late) with a 20-minute speech from the prime minister, followed up by a marathon (but incomplete) 13-hour debate.
The procedure is known as The Debate on the Prime Minister's Statement. It serves a similar function to the Governor-General's Speech from the Throne, and its subsequent 19-hour Address in Reply debate which happens at the beginning of a new Parliament.
Parliament's rules - the Standing Orders, describe it as a "statement reviewing public affairs and outlining the government's legislative and other policy intentions for the next 12 months."
It generally starts with a motion along the lines of "I move, that this House express its confidence in the government and commend its programme for 2025 as set out in the Prime Minister's Statement."
In essence, that word 'confidence' is exactly what this debate is all about. Parliament's first big argument is to determine whether or not the House of Representatives has confidence in (still supports) the government, and its plan for the year ahead.
In politics, you should never say never, but given the government has the numbers to govern, Christopher Luxon won't be too worried about securing the confidence of the House. At the conclusion of the debate, there will be a vote on the matter, and invariably the motion of confidence will pass by majority. This process will be repeated again in May with the Budget Policy Statement and the Budget Debate that follows it.
Before a change to Standing Orders, the actual statement used to be read out in full.
These days though, the document is published under the authority of the House, and distributed around the parties on the morning of the first sitting day. The oral version that the prime minister stands up and gives in the House, is comparable to a General Debate speech, being lighter on the details, with more of a focus on articulating his view of the political mood of the nation. Also interspersed are laudatory remarks about the work of particular ministers, as well as the forecasting of policy intentions for the year.
From what Luxon has said publicly so far, this year's intentions will be heavily focused on economic growth, and "saying yes" to things.
"I recently spoke about the need to end the culture of saying no when it comes to economic growth, because Kiwis want to build and they want to grow and they want to innovate, and all too often they're actually told 'no'," Luxon told Parliament on Tuesday.
Among the key differences between the tabled, written version of the Prime Minister's Statement and the speech he gave in the House, was the addition to the latter, of attacks on the opposition, like these ones.
"Labour - they voted against jobs and housing. The Greens - they voted against wind and solar farms. Te Pāti Māori - they voted against iwi being able to develop their own land. So I've got to say that the members opposite, they remind me of a cat pawing at the ranch slider, yowling away, trying to get in, and then you open the door and they don't move. They refuse to come in. That's what they are-the MPs opposite. I've got to say, we are a coalition on this side; they're a "no-alition" on that side-that's what they're about. They're all about no; we're all about yes, on this side."
Following the prime minister's 20 minute offering, the leader (or one of the leaders) of each party gets to speak, also for 20 minutes, before the floor opens up to every other MP for 10 minute calls (until the 13-hour time limit is reached).
First off the block on Wednesday was Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who offered his party's take on public affairs, and the government's intentions.
Typically, the leader of the opposition will suggest an alternative motion in the form of an amendment. On Tuesday, Hipkins suggested the prime minister ought to consider taking a red pen to his statement.
Chris Hipkins in the House. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
"I move, that all the words after "That" be deleted and replaced with "This House has no confidence in this coalition government because under its incompetent, arrogant, shambolic, and divisive leadership, New Zealand is going backwards, Kiwis are losing their jobs, record numbers are leaving the country, and their priorities are wrong and out of touch."
For a moment, the debate became about which side of the House has a better track record of saying yes, with Hipkins leading a political liturgy call and response.
"Christopher Luxon says the bottom line is that we should say no less and yes a lot more." Hipkins went on, employing his caucus for a call and response of sorts. "What did they say to delivering new inter-island ferries? No! What did they say to delivering a new Dunedin hospital? No! What did they say to delivering affordable water reform? No! What did they say to delivering new state housing? No! What did they say to delivering school classroom upgrades? No! What did they say to delivering improved infrastructure for the country? No!"
Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was next to speak, and began her year in the House with a question of political existentialism.
"The fundamental question in a commencement speech like this should be: what's the point of government? I mean it. What's the point of government? Government is supposed to make the best possible decisions on behalf of the welfare of everybody in the country. It is supposed to be about ensuring that everybody gets access to what they need not only to survive but to thrive."
Rather than beginning with remarks of self-praise, soon to be outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters started his speech with a jab at the opposition, suggesting the fact most of them had already left the chamber was an indication that they weren't tolerant of differing opinions. (In fact every party's MPs will stay only long enough to support their own leader and then depart to do other work.)
"The political year begins with this debate. Now, one can't raise the question of where members of Parliament are or are not, but I can recall at the beginning of this debate that the Labour Party was here, but so was the Green Party and so was Te Pāti Māori. We all sat over here and heard them out. So my next question to those people who are in television land - and I hope they change the screen around to show you just what's happened here and how some people are not prepared to be questioned or challenged."
Whether it was ring rust from being away for the summer, or just a political veteran trying to bend the rules, Peters' jab was very nearly ruled as an illegal blow, with Assistant Speaker Greg O'Connor stopping Peters in his tracks.
"Mr Peters, you've got a bit of leeway in the first minute. As time goes on, there'll be less. Please don't comment on the absence of other members or parties from the House."
This was to be the first of many stoppages by O'Connor during Peters' speech.
Given the mammoth duration of the debate, a significant number of MPs get to have a lash, and make a speech. Although the actual vote of confidence is pretty much a given, the debate on the prime minister's statement is a good opportunity for members, particularly those in opposition, to set the tone for the year in terms of speaking in the House (governing party MPs get many fewer opportunities to speak at length in the House). Because the scope of the debate is so wide, it gives MPs relative free reign to test out some of their more general political oratory.
The Debate on the PM's Statement must begin each day, but will be paused after an hour or so daily to focus on other business. Expect to see it continue into the next sitting week and possibly even beyond, until those 13 hours are clocked up.
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.