Reimagining Parliament

Every four years international athletes meet to answer the call to be “faster, higher, stronger - together” (though Including an aim to be ‘higher’ in a contest with drug testing seems counter-intuitive).

New Zealand’s Parliament strives similarly for improvement, and even more regularly.

Every three years, as the Parliament winds down towards an election, a cross-party group of senior MPs meet to consider how they might change the rules of the House of Representatives to make it better next time.

It is an eternal quest for the political grail: a stronger democracy, a more effective legislature, and a more rigorous oversight of executive government.

Rule changes come into effect for the next Parliament. The idea is that without a clear idea which side of the House might be in government the MPs have less incentive to ‘screw the scrum’ to their own advantage.

This week that group of MPs (the Standing Orders Committee), began public hearings on reviewing Parliament’s rules. First up were two heavyweights of New Zealand’s constitutional and parliamentary arrangements: the Clerk of the House of Representatives, David Wilson (who runs Parliament’s secretariat); and the former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer (who was an architect of the modern New Zealand Parliament). The committee will also hear from more submitters over the next few weeks. 

You can listen to highlights from their evidence and the wide-ranging, fascinating discussion that arose from it at the audio link above. The full hearing can be watched online here. 

A survey of the strands of submissions

This article isn't focussed on this week's evidence. Instead it attempts a quick survey of the breadth of written submissions that have been submitted by MPs, organisations and the public to this review of the rules.

No rule set in stone

It’s worth noting first that New Zealand’s Parliament is unusually adaptive. Our MPs have a long history of trying out new approaches to ‘parliamenting’. Some ideas stick, some fail, but Kiwis are endlessly happy to fiddle with the rules and look for improvements.

Compare us to Westminster (at the other end of the adaptive scale) and you might wonder whether we are from the same parliamentary bloodline. 

Structural ideas

• A bigger House (ie more MPs). Geoffrey Palmer (and others) argue that Parliament requires more MPs to do its job effectively, and his argument is a strong one. A greater number of MPs would solve various issues raised by other submitters - especially around oversight and select committees. 
• The Clerk of the House also noted that the small size of the House causes various flow-on issues.

Better Oversight of the Executive 

Scrutiny of the Executive (government) is a core role of Parliament. Trying to do this well while also providing a government from amongst its members is a constant balancing act. 

• The Clerk of the House’s entire submission focussed on failings and strengths in this area. He especially focussed on the financial scrutiny cycle, the structure and work of select committees and the intersection of ministers with committees. His submission does not suggest specific structural change as a panacea for current weaknesses. I suspect he believes more buy-in comes from ideas generated by the MPs. He does notes though that not all problems can be solved with rules - attitude and culture play a role as well. 
• The Clerk encouraged more committee-initiated inquiries, more use of sub-committees, experts, clear terms of reference, and noted the benefit of televised hearings (he was not alone in this). 
• The Clerk left finding detailed solutions to the MPs proposing only “that the committee discuss its expectations for parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, with a view to making robust scrutiny a deeply embedded expectation that helps to improve governance, and that the committee then develop specific proposals to implement these expectations.” 
• The Labour Party has asked for some method of post-enactment scrutiny of laws that by-pass the Select Committee process. The NZ Law Society concurs (with comprehensive detail), and would add any law passed under urgency to the requirement. 
• Graeme Edgeler suggests that by-passing the Select Committee process should require approval by the Speaker. 
• Everybody seems to agree there should be more attention and resource devoted to select committee scrutiny of the budget and minister’s plans and spending. 
• The Greens would mandate Parliamentary assent to international treaties.

Question Time

• Many people suggest fewer governing-party (patsy) questions.
• The Greens would like more issue-based QTs, akin to the relatively new structure of Ministerial Statements (where a minister gives information to the House and is then quizzed on it in a much more free-flowing way).

Select Committees

• Geoffrey Palmer argues that “the Select Committee system is under strain due to a lack of MPs whose primary interest lies in scrutiny.”
• Select committee proportionality: ACT and the Greens and various MPs and submitters suggest changing the party proportionality on select committees to reduce or eliminate governing-party majorities. 
• Various submitters propose that committee chairs be from non-governing parties.
• David Farrar wants minority MPs submitting a dissenting report on a bill to be able to also provide an alternative mark-up of bill amendments. Cleverly, this would allow a governing-party minority on a committee to still provide a bill version that could be accepted at the second reading. It would require much more resource.
• Geoffery Palmer suggested a new select committee that focuses on Human Rights issues.
• Various submitters feel that the Regulations Review Committee needs more power and a wider remit. 
• Submitters also argue that committees should release all advice received. (That might limit the advice though.)
• Submitters ask that video of all select committee hearings should be archived, accessible and transcriptions available. (Parliament currently uses Facebook because of cost-constraints but it is not  ideal).
• A number of the select committees themselves also added ideas including the Social Services Committee which wanted to make submitting easier on sensitive topics and for different categories of people currently disadvantaged (like school-aged children who are not free when committees currently sit).
• Labour has asked for clearer rules on when select committees can or should make submissions secret or private.  

The When and the Where

• Longer but fewer weeks: An idea from the ACT Party is to introduce four-day sitting weeks but for only 23 weeks of the year. They argue this would reduce carbon emissions, save money and improve MPs work-life balance.
• Two of the assistant speakers Jacqui Dean (National) and Jenny Salesa (Labour) want shorter working days for MPs (currently 13+ hours on Tuesdays and Wednesdays). Also for family-friendly reasons.
• The Greens would also like a rethink of Parliament's hours and days (and more use of remote participation).

Organisational Ideas

• Speakers elections - a number of submitters have suggested that this could be by secret ballot or personal vote (rather than party vote). 
• The Greens want more Special Debates and on a wider array of subjects. 
• One public submitter suggests that party votes should not be used for third readings, and that MPs should be able to anonymously support members bills (to help them bypass the ballot - which happens if they gain support from a majority of non-executive members).

Niggles and fixes

• The ACT and Green parties both suggests removing the title “Leader of the Opposition” currently afforded the leader of the largest party in opposition. They argue it presumes a two-party House.
• The Green Party want the new Code of Conduct for MPs enshrined in the Standing Orders.
• The Greens want more te reo Māori and NZ Sign. Most people would probably agree but good interpreters and translators are a rare and precious breed.
• They also want to replace the current (fire-alarm-like) division bell that calls MPs to the Chamber with bird-song. They reference RNZ's 7am bird call in their submission. It might be less deafening.
• The Greens want an end to the possibility of precinct-wide access cards for lobbyists.
• Graeme Edgeller proposes a clearer mechanism is needed for motions of no-confidence in a Speaker, and equally so for judges and other such officials. Geoffrey Palmer also thought Parliament needed rules on removing its Officers.
• Different submitters suggested that Parliament should adopt more tikanga Māori approaches, and minimum standards of civility. One submission requested the new Code of Conduct for MPs be formalised within Standing Orders.
• Graeme Edgeller suggests a tidy-up of how the House responds to legal suppression orders (and which ones).
• PCO (who draft government bills) want to standardise the name for secondary legislation as exactly that (instead of the confusingly varied range of regulation, delegated legislation etc). Yay.

The unachieveable

Many submissions ask for things that the SO committee cannot possibly provide. Proposals about government policy, the running of elections, the nature of society, or even wider issues.

Many, when boiled right down, could just say ‘wouldn’t it be nice if Parliament had enough money to do everything it does well, even better.’ More TV, more researchers, more clerks, more engagement, more web cleverness, etc. Probably everyone would agree, (well, maybe not the Minister of Finance who has to stump up the cash).

The Standing Orders Committee just makes Parliament's rules. It doesn’t allocate the budgets, and can't provide more hours in the day or change human nature. 

---

RNZ’s The House - parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament.