4 Dec 2018

A week of committee stages will go both fast and slow

From The House , 6:55 pm on 4 December 2018

Every bill goes through four stages in the House. Three of those stages are usually predictable: the first, second and third readings all have a time limit and a set number of speeches. For government bills that's 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each for a tidy two hour time limit.

But the other stage - the committee stage - is incredibly variable. It's when MPs are meant to consider the technical aspects of a bill, the meaning and implication of every word and comma.

Sometimes everyone is happy with a bill, pleased with its drafting and practically salute it as it flies through its inspection. It's easy to forget that most bills are not very contentious.

And then there's the other times, when, if possible, every jot and tittle is discussed in detail, and the debate made to last as long as the opposition can feasibly get away with.

National MPs filibustering during a prior bill's committee stage in an attempt to prevent the Death with Dignity Bill from reaching the floor.

National MPs filibustering during a prior bill's committee stage in an attempt to prevent the Death with Dignity Bill from reaching the floor. Lots of MPs rising for 'the call' to speak at the completion of the previous speech is intended to dissuade the Chair from accepting a closure motion. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith

This week committee stages dominate the order paper. While some of the bills they address are generally agreed across the House, others are highly contentious, so we can probably look forward to both the fast and slow approaches.

For a committee stage the House changes both its form and rules, turning into what it calls The Committee of the Whole House. The Speaker disappears (and so also does the mace), to be replaced by a Chair (the role carried out by the Assistant and Deputy Speakers), and the Minister in Charge of the bill joins them at the Table to be able to answer MP's questions.

Debate becomes filibustering when the opposition's discussion of legislation is aimed entirely at slowing down its passage. Oppositions can't kill legislation with delaying tactics so filibustering can appear to be like Canute banning the tide, but it has purpose in showing willing, in making a government 'work for it' and in demonstrating the strength of an opposition's, well, opposition to a bill.

In New Zealand the committee stage is the only time this can happen in the House. It is done by trying to use of all the time available to speak, and as much as possible on voting as well. MPs are allowed four speeches each of five minutes for each 'part' of a bill, which for a typical opposition totals nealry 40 hours for a two Part bill. In reality it doesn't usually come close to this but it can still take quite a few hours.

This is all above-board and continues as long as MPs stay relevant and don't repeat the same talking points. Then the Chair may approve a 'closure motion' and 'put the question' to a vote. the question is typically whether the Part of a bill being debated should 'stand part' (remain in the bill).

To have more to talk about and to also use up time procedurally (voting mostly) the Opposition will also suggest as many amendments as they can think of and get approved as legitimate.

The rules don't all go the oppositions way though. The Government can limit debate by writing an efficient bill with few parts (often just two), and one not open to further parts or clauses being addended to it. And they get to ask the Chair as often as they like to put the question.

You can read more of the tactics of filibustering, see an example of just how fast Committee Stages can go, or for a discussion of some of those tactics and an outline of this week's plan in the House listen to Chris Hipkins in the audio linked to near the top of this article.