logo
Can parliamentary urgency and public accountability peacefully coexist?

Can parliamentary urgency and public accountability peacefully coexist?

The Spinoff6 days ago

The coalition has been setting records with the amount of bills passed under urgency. Now a 'people's select committee' wants to hear from submitters shut out of the process, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin.
Late-night bill passed under urgency
After a punishing budget week, the last place most MPs wanted to find themselves in the early hours of Saturday morning was still in the debating chamber. But there they were, locked in a drawn-out battle over accommodation subsidies, reports RNZ's Soumya Bhamidipati. After the Social Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill was called around 11.30pm, opposition MPs filed dozens of amendments in a failed attempt to slow the legislation, which tightens the rules on how boarders are counted when calculating the accommodation supplement.
The bill passed under urgency – an increasingly common tactic for the coalition. The government set a record in its first 100 days for the most bills passed under urgency in the MMP era, a pace that's continued with controversial measures like the pay equity law change earlier this month. That, too, bypassed the select committee process, prompting critics to accuse the government of undermining public accountability in the name of speed.
What is urgency – and why is it so easy to use?
Urgency allows parliament to fast-track legislation, sometimes skipping key stages like select committee scrutiny. While often used for budget-related bills or emergencies, there are few formal checks on its application. A minister (usually leader of the House Chris Bishop) simply moves a motion to commence urgency, and the government's MPs pass the motion with a majority vote.
While urgency is extremely useful for the government, it has plenty of downsides. 'Passing legislation more quickly risks the legal equivalent of the old 'marry in haste, repent at leisure maxim,'' writes The Spinoff's Shanti Mathias. 'The public has less chance to be informed about the law, there is reduced transparency, and legislation might simply be less good – imprecise wording or unintended effects can slip through.'
The most contentious use of urgency is passing a bill into law, but that's not its only application. The Regulatory Standards Bill is an example: because of the budget, the House was still sitting under urgency when it passed its first reading on Friday. The controversial bill, which has attracted more than 22,000 submissions, will now be put before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where there will be a chance for public feedback.
A committee of the people steps in
In response to the pay equity legislation being pushed through without public input, former National MP Dame Marilyn Waring has convened a 'people's select committee' to gather evidence the government did not. The hastily assembled group of former MPs from across the political spectrum will hear public submissions starting on August 11, RNZ's Russell Palmer reports. Waring said the hearings would be an 'evidence-gathering mission' with a 'really sound report' at the end. 'The government says that it wants to progress pay equity claims, the opposition is saying that it will rescind this and again address the legislation. So we're doing them all a good turn.'
While the initiative lacks any formal powers, groups whose pay equity claims were halted by the new law are being invited to share their experiences. Asked to respond, minister Brooke van Velden said there'd be no changes to the law, but 'members of the public, including former MPs, are welcome to hold their own meetings'.
A broader reckoning on accountability
The controversy is feeding into a wider conversation about how parliament functions. As Politik's Richard Harman writes (paywalled), the select committee on David Seymour's four-year term bill has unexpectedly turned into a mini-referendum on parliamentary accountability. While a number of submitters have used the opportunity to call for a reinstatement of a second chamber of the House, others have taken aim at how select committees themselves operate. Among them was Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who said the current system is encouraging 'sloppy lawmaking' driven by overworked MPs and overloaded agendas.
Regardless of whether the bill passes, the process has surfaced 'widespread disillusionment with the failure of select committees to scrutinise legislation,' Harman observed – a feeling only sharpened by the coalition's aggressive use of urgency over the course of its term so far.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Stormy seas ahead for new skipper
Stormy seas ahead for new skipper

Otago Daily Times

timean hour ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Stormy seas ahead for new skipper

Depending on your political alignment, the swearing in of David Seymour as deputy prime minister on Saturday was either a glorious achievement or the stuff of nightmares. For most though, it will be business as usual. Deputy prime minister is an important role, but not one of grave constitutional importance. It being shared is a novel situation born of this government being a three-way coalition, but it was an eminently practical solution to what might have been a problem if the role had been the sole province of one person for three years. Those who doubt whether Mr Seymour has what it takes to assume command when Christopher Luxon is not about are, presumably, unaware that Mr Seymour has been acting prime minister on several occasions when both Mr Luxon and former deputy prime minister Winston Peters were out of the country. The ship of state was safely kept off the rocks then, as it will no doubt be again when Mr Seymour temporarily assumes the helm: he is a more than capable man, with a firmly ingrained sense of personal responsibility. There are others who believe that the stability of the government will be weakened by a tyro deputy prime minister taking charge, especially one who is given to speaking his mind — and who unapologetically has said that he has no intention of changing that. Those people also forget that Mr Peters is hardly a shrinking violet, and that the coalition remained stable despite some choice outbursts in the past 18 months from the elder statesman of New Zealand politics. Having said all that, much of Mr Seymour's time in the next few months will be spent trying to shepherd through his Regulatory Standards Bill, the second highly controversial piece of legislation he has sought to enact this term. The first was, of course, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Despite the inevitability of it being voted down it still attracted enormous opprobrium and inspired the largest protest march seen in Wellington in many years. Its fallout is still glowing bright, as Parliament considers what to do with the three Te Pati Maori MPs who disrupted the voting on the doomed Bill. Many of those opposed to the Regulatory Standards Bill are the same people, and for many of the same reasons. The Bill is intended to clarify and improve New Zealand's law-making process, and many of the checks and balances which it proposes are not unknown in other countries. However, in this country the Treaty of Waitangi exists as safeguard of the legal rights of Maori, and any attempt to circumvent the Treaty was always going to cause controversy. The Bill itself is largely silent on the Treaty, and its proponent did not mention it at all in his first reading speech. The Opposition surely mentioned it though and spared no punches: "an absolutely vile piece of legislation" was one of the milder condemnations, while Te Pati Maori called on people to mobilise to stop the Bill in its tracks. For Mr Seymour. the Bill is an exercise in cutting the red tape which he claims is holding New Zealand back. He is no doubt right that there are examples of overregulation, and that it can be obstructive to people's individual or corporate endeavours. But some regulations, such as environmental and health standards, exist for good reason and any effort to weaken those protections warrants intense scrutiny. Likewise, so does any attempt to diminish the guarantees afforded by the Treaty of Waitangi, which for all some may wish otherwise remains the foundation stone of New Zealand's existence. The Bill, unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, enjoys the support of both governing parties, albeit that New Zealand First has suggested that it needs improvements. That obviously enhances its chances of becoming law but equally amplifies the opposition to it. Parliament's computer system, which collapsed under the weight of submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill, has staggered again under the welter of opinion on this Bill — almost certainly negative opinion. A full and rigorous select committee process is going to be critical to public acceptance of this proposed law change: it is unfortunate that the committee chose not to extend the public submission period. Mr Seymour's leadership will now be under the spotlight. He will need to exercise Solomonic wisdom, given that battle lines are firmly drawn.

Four strikes and not out — the Regulatory Standards Bill
Four strikes and not out — the Regulatory Standards Bill

Otago Daily Times

timean hour ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Four strikes and not out — the Regulatory Standards Bill

The Regulatory Standards Bill — Government Bill 155-1 under the name of the Minister for Regulation — was introduced to Parliament on May 19. It received its first reading on May 23 and has been referred to the finance and expenditure select committee. As alluded to previously in this publication (ODT 4.1.25), earlier attempts to introduce this legislation failed in 2006, 2009 and 2011. In 2021, with the support of the National Party, a Bill to this effect was introduced by the (now) minister, but did not get off the ground. It was condemned as a dangerous constitutional shift undermining public and collective rights and threatening parliamentary sovereignty. Nothing about this Bill has changed except that the National-Act New Zealand coalition agreement provides for support of the Act policy programme by National. In this regard, the situation is different from that of the failed Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, which National and New Zealand First supported only to the select committee stage, then voted it down. Why is this Bill of such concern? The reasons are the same as they were two decades ago, being: — That the proposal represents a constitutional entrenchment of neo-political principles with an accumulation of power in the hands of the minister of regulation; — Tying principles of good regulation to property rights as a fundamental of good lawmaking overlooks entirely the ancillary fundamental of good lawmaking being strengthening communities, enhancement of environmental standards and protection of vulnerable groups. The proposed primacy of free market and individual rights is false as both are reliant on law and order and inherent obligations to protect the vulnerable (persons or environment) and maintain a reasonable balance where equity and justice is accorded the same value. Existing legislative guidelines from 2021 provide that "legislation should be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and should reflect the fundamental values and principles of a democratic society". This Bill does neither. Current guidelines identify the principle that "everyone is subject to the law". This Bill changes that to "every person is equal before the law" which reflects the Act party's policy to eradicate equity-based programmes which seek to redress systemic inequality. Equality in this sense is a procedural right, free of class or status. It is not, and never has been, the right to be treated the same. Equating property rights with personal liberty creates dangerous territory, the focus on which will obliterate the duty to preserve the environment and address substantive inequality issues. Going down this path will open the door to compensation claims in the event of any actions impacting adversely on property rights. There are already in place substantive regulatory controls. The advice to the minister in this instance is, in essence, that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. The extent of powers placed in the hands of the minister, the proponent of the Bill, is excessive. The objective of the Bill is to encapsulate more than 20 years of neo-liberal, libertarian dogma, designed to elevate and protect the interest of property above all else. Successive parliaments have soundly rejected this legislation in the past. The prime minister must ensure that the Bill is amended to recognise all of its defects or simply decline to support it on the basis that it is not good law. Act NZ leader David Seymour would be unlikely to surrender his upcoming deputy prime ministership given the patience shown to date in getting this hobby horse across the line. — Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer and past president of the Otago District Law Society.

Chris Bishop's Comments During Stan Walker's Performance Have ‘No Place' At Aotearoa Music Awards
Chris Bishop's Comments During Stan Walker's Performance Have ‘No Place' At Aotearoa Music Awards

Scoop

time9 hours ago

  • Scoop

Chris Bishop's Comments During Stan Walker's Performance Have ‘No Place' At Aotearoa Music Awards

Article – RNZ 'The Awards respect and honour te ao Mori and we were proud to support Stan with his vision for his powerful rendition of Mori Ki Te Ao.' The producers of the Aotearoa Music Awards have condemned Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop's comments during Stan Walker's performance, saying his remarks have 'no place' at the awards ceremony. At Auckland's Viaduct Events Centre on Thursday night Bishop was captured on video declaring 'what a load of crap' during Walker's performance, which prominently featured Toitū Te Tiriti banners. Some people in front of him were on their feet dancing and waving tino rangatiratanga flags. In a statement issued on Saturday, the producers said they were committed to creating a 'safe, respectful and inclusive environment' and that these 'expectations were clearly communicated to all who attended the event'. 'The inappropriate comments made by Hon. Chris Bishop during Stan Walker's performance have no place at the Aotearoa Music Awards,' the statement read. 'The Awards respect and honour te ao Māori and we were proud to support Stan with his vision for his powerful rendition of Māori Ki Te Ao.' In a statement to RNZ, Bishop admitted he said 'what a lot of crap' and something about performative acclaim. He said it referred to what he called the overtly political branding on display. Renowned musician Don McGlashan was seen on the video confronting Bishop, but McGlashan said he did not realise at first that it was the minister. 'I could hear an enormous amount of ranting, kind of against the whole thing. I didn't get the full gist of it, but it was basically – 'the hīkoi is ages ago, sit down everybody' – so this geezer was just ranting away and telling everybody to sit down,' McGlashan said. 'After a while, I turned to him and said 'Ah, shut up you dickhead' and I looked at him and I thought, 'Oh, I know that face'. Then he said, 'What did you say to me?''. McGlashan said that he again told Bishop to ''shut up you dickhead', and he said, 'I could say the same to you,' and I said, 'Well, I wasn't talking and you were.' And then I realised I was talking to the leader of the House'. Another witness said the minister appeared to them to be drunk. 'For him to take an instant dis-gratification towards Toitū Te Tiriti and that movement and to say that it's a load of crap is actually highly offensive. I'm very worried for somebody of high power in this country to be making those sorts of remarks in public,' they said. Bishop has since acknowledged his comments were poorly judged, telling RNZ: 'On reflection, I should have kept my thoughts to myself.' However, he has denied making specific remarks about the hīkoi – the protest marches that have taken place across Aotearoa in support of upholding the Treaty of Waitangi – and has suggested the backlash amounts to a 'political smear job'. 'Chris is a long-time supporter of New Zealand music and went to the Awards to celebrate successful Kiwi artists,' a spokesperson said. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has declined to comment further, with his office saying the PM had nothing to add to Bishop's statement. David Seymour defended Bishop shortly after he was sworn in as deputy prime minister on Saturday. 'Just because you become a senior minister, it doesn't mean you should stop having opinions,' Seymour said. 'It might well be that, based on what Chris saw in that moment, he was correct. It may be that people will agree with him.' Seymour said he believed New Zealanders would draw their own conclusions.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store