The House: Parliamentary Agency Resources Under Pressure
Wilson, along with Speaker Gerry Brownlee and Parliamentary Service Chief Executive Rafael Gonzalez Montero, joined the Governance and Administration Committee on Wednesday. The event was part two-albeit a month late-of the Estimates hearing for the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service.
Brownlee is not a cabinet minister, but even so, he is the minister responsible (as Speaker) for Parliament's agencies, the Office of the Clerk (OOC), and the Parliamentary Service (PS). He oversees the PS but the OOC is independent.
Much of Wednesday's hearing was focused on a perceived strain on the OOC's staff and resources. The source of that strain has apparently come from the increase of three things: the increased use of urgency, the number of public submissions on bills, and the amount of scrutiny by select committees.
Such technical, behind-the-scenes parliamentary issues are dry but crucial to the effective oversight and transparency of government, and to participation in the law-making process. Both are sacrosanct to a functioning democracy.
Wilson said the Office of the Clerk currently has the resources to cope with the aggregate demand for its services. His concern though, is being able to cope with a potential "new norm" of having unprecedented submissions on bills, which he said they would "really struggle to deal with".
"We can deal with one or two bills that attract a huge amount of public interest [but] we couldn't deal with those simultaneously, though, with current resources," Wilson said.
So would such a shift mean that some public submissions will not be able to be processed because the Office of the Clerk wouldn't have the capacity?
There is potential mitigation on the horizon in the form of the Parliament Bill, which is currently waiting for its second reading.
While not a silver-bullet, the law change would enable Wilson to make a case directly to Parliament for sufficient resourcing to deal with the increased scale of submissions, and not rely on the discretion of the Minister of Finance.
Double the scrutiny, half the resource
The current session of Parliament changed how select committees scrutinised Government spending and performance. This included the introduction of two dedicated scrutiny weeks a year (one for Estimates and one for Annual Review), longer hearings and cross examinations, and more for committees to report.
All that extra scrutiny increases labour and time costs. Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March expressed concern about whether Parliament has the resources to do justice to the new arrangements.
"The feedback we have received [is] that there's a genuine trade-off that happens with increased scrutiny and ability to produce substantive reports," he said.
Wilson said it's a matter of priorities.
"More so than previously, there is the need to weigh up where the energy and attention of the committee and therefore the staff are going to focus... If you're doubling the amount of time spent on scrutiny, there's not double the amount of resource to support that," he said.
Other than hoping for respite from the Parliament Bill's new funding mechanism, MPs could also propose changes to Parliament's rules and processes in the Standing Orders Review, which happens at the end of each Parliamentary term. That would be expected to occur in 2026.
Brownlee, who chairs the Standing Orders Committee, suggested this as a method for countering the increased strain on Parliament's staff and resources. He told MPs on Wednesday the trend is that there are more submissions on all bills at the moment than there has been in the past.
"I think it's for the Standing Orders Committee of Parliament to make some decisions around that, so if you've got some ideas, then feed them in," Brownlee said.
* RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Door closing on chance to post vote
PHOTO: ODT FILES Today is the last day to enrol on the Electoral Register to receive a postal vote in the upcoming local elections. Before the Oamaru Mail went to print this week, statistics on the Electoral Commission website shows 83.94% of eligible voters in Waitaki are enrolled, leaving 3181 people eligible to vote but not enrolled. The most enrolled age-group is the 70 and overs, with 4113 (94.97%) enrolled, just 218 eligible voters in the age group are not enrolled. At the other end of the scale, just 53.83% of 18 to 24-year-olds are enrolled, leaving 789 eligible voters off the electoral register. Of those enrolled in Waitaki, 16,112 are on the General Roll and 516 on the Maori Roll. Nationwide, 88.62% of eligible voters are enrolled for the upcoming Local Body Elections. People enrolling after today will not get voting papers in the post and will need to contact their local council and cast a special vote in-person. Waitaki District Council says it will be letting people know when and where they will be able to do that next week. Today is also the last day for nomination to stand for council, mayor, community boards and local licensing trusts. Before the Oamaru Mail went to print this week, there were three nominations for Waitaki mayor, (David Wilson, Mel Tavendale and Guy Percival). One nomination has been posted for the sole Ahuriri Ward seat (Brent Cowles) and the Waihemo Ward seat (Frans Schlack). Two nominations had been posted for the two available Corriedale Ward seats (John McCone and Sven Thelning). Seven nominations had been posted for the six Oamaru Ward seats (Andy De Boer, Peter De Rues, Jim Hopkins, Ferdie Kruger, Courtney Linwood, Richard Vinbrux and Nathan Barnes). Nominations had also been posted for the five available seats on the Oamaru Licensing Trust and the Ahuriri Community Board. However, before the Oamaru Mail went to print only four nominations had been posted for the five seats available on the Waihemo Community Board.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Wellington's longest-serving city councillor Iona Pannett won't stand in upcoming local body elections
Iona Pannett had the backing of the Green Party for many years. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Wellington's longest-serving city councillor Iona Pannett has announced she will not be standing again in the upcoming local body elections . Representing the Pukehīnau Lambton ward, she was first elected in 2007. For many years she had the backing of the Green Party, but in 2022 she was dropped from the ticket, with her advocacy for preserving heritage and character areas clashing with party values. She said representing her constituents had been "an enormous privilege". But she said it was time for her to explore opportunities in the areas of health, history, the environment and social justice. "I am deeply grateful to the many hundreds of people who have supported me during my time on council - my family, friends, constituents, stakeholders, colleagues and volunteers on my campaigns," she said. "Having this support has been such a gift." "I have been proud to be a strong voice for the environment and climate, for social inclusion and for investing in the city for current and future generations," Pannett said. Among her proudest achievements she listed the declaration of the climate and ecological emergency and plans to reduce emissions, helping to stop the Basin Reserve flyover, advocating for the protection of listed heritage buildings and increasing protection of the Town Belt. With local elections coming up in October, see who's in the running for the Wellington mayoralty here . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
