I am sure you will all be shocked to learn that I understand we are about to go into urgency, again, for the sixth parliamentary week in a row. As I said in my post on this last week, urgency has been used by all governments, but it certainly feels like it has been far more often. David Farrar has given us his spin, but if we look at the actual percentage of hours spent in urgency, it is revealing as to just how much time has been spent in urgency this term.
|
Parliament |
Years |
Percentage |
|
43rd |
1990-1993 |
30.25 |
|
44th |
1993-1996 |
9.21 |
|
45th |
1996-1999 |
30.73 |
|
46th |
1999-2002 |
13.12 |
|
47th |
2002-2005 |
21.38 |
|
48th |
2005-2008 |
9.9 |
|
49th (to end of 20 October 2009) |
2008- |
33.6 |
In addition what these figures do not show is the percentage of bills that have not been referred to a select committee under National. There has been an excessive use of urgency this term, and a greater use under previous National led governments. Such excessive use is inevitably going to lead to bad law, and it is anti-democratic. The use needs to be reviewed.
Urgency just means you spend more time in Parliament working on the voters behalf. You are starting to sound like a Union Boss less work more money. Just get on with it and do what is required for the good of the country, and stop moaning.
Doug, more than happy for you to spend a day with me and you can see the hours MPs work, regardless of whether there is urgency. My point is not about the hours we have to put in, but whether democracy is being served by the excessive use of urgency.
Aren’t you make making unfair comparisons? Why not compare the first year of Labour’s first term in 2000 with National’s in 2009?
You’re also comparing a few months of National in 2009 with entire three year terms in 1999-2002, 2002-2005, etc. It seems reasonable the use of urgency would go down after this year.
That number could well be conclusive in any argument. If you can have someone look it up that would be great!
As would the numbers of bills passed through all stages under urgency. We pay people to look these things up, right
Get over it. I completely agree with Doug. I dont believe that it is excessive… National campaigned on the changes they are making and they are getting on with it and not arguing about petty rubbish. That is what you don’t seem to understand.
Grant Robertson, labour has got to start criticizing National a bit more, like i said in my post here:
http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/forum/topics/why-isnt-labour-criticizing
I’ll post it here too:
Remember last year when National was criticizing labour over the shower heads and energy efficient lightbulbs being nanny state, well why isn’t Labour criticizing National over banning using a cellphone whilst driving? If i was labour i would say “national is telling you what you can and can’t do inside your own vehicle. they won’t let you use a cellphone but tuning your radio is okay”. Someone already started a petition to encourage the prime minister to remove the cellphone ban:
http://www.petitiononline.com/654f65f6/petition.html
Graeme
Seeing as it was you who asked (and not some near-troll trying to divert attention away from the argument), my pleasure. I only have handy on my sickbed tonight the data for last Parliament 2005-2008 and the current one.
If any mole, potoroo, or other small mammal wants to obtain the Progress of Legislation documents (PDF preferred) as at the end of the five Parliaments 1990 – 2005, I’ll happily go through those too, specifically looking at the first 12 months of Bolger and Clark.
Excluding the various money bills (Estimates, Financial Review, Supplementary Estimates, etc) which have their own process anyway
The following bills were passed under urgency without going to Select Committee:
2005 – 2008
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill
Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill
Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill
(a Budget bill) Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill
(a Budget bill) Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts, Annual Rates, and Remedial Matters)
2008 – 2009
Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill
Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill
Electoral Amendment Bill
Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill
Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill
Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill
Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill
(a Budget bill) Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill
(in effect a Budget bill) Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill
Graeme, we’ve talked about the little job you might do: count that as the ‘payment’ you mentioned.
OK, the detail list of bills passed under urgency without going to Select Committee is awaiting moderation.
In summary: in 3 years from 2005 – 2008, the Labour-led govt passed three such bills and two Budget bills.
In 10 months since December, the National-led govt passed nine such bills and two Budget bills.
If someone can dig up the 1990- 1993 and 1999 – 2002 data, I’ll happily go through.
Doug – more hours does not mean more productivity or quality. In fact, as far as quality is concerned, legislation that is ill thought out often suffers when passed urgently and will cost more time and money when the problems it causes come to light…
Hey, I posted some of this last week:
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/21/a-state-of-urgency/comment-page-1/#comment-14487
It somewhat confirms my suspicions about National led governments.
I had pondered what the fourth labour government numbers are like, but i understand that there was a change to standing orders during that period regarding urgency so a fair comparison is impossible
Regarding a first year analysis, I do not believe that a comparison across governments is that definitive, but I will still bet that National will still be found the abuser. The point that McGee makes assumes confirms my point: that Governments use urgency in a number of circumstances, not just to push an aggressive agenda at the start of their first terms. The 45th and 47th Parliaments demonstrate that.
What I am trying to say is that the data suggests a trend, and it is a partisan one.
So, what are the criteria for doing something under urgency? Does it have to be big and important, or something small that needs to be dispensed with quickly so more important things can be considered?
The US is considering one of the biggest changes in its history in health reform, and hundreds of millions of people are going to be affected. You would think that this is urgent and should be passed quickly because health is at stake. They have been debating it for 6 months.
Perhaps National considers the things it has done under urgency to be small potatoes and wants to give more time to matters it considers more important.
Or, are they rushing through important things and giving lots of leisure time to think about less important things?
Which is it?
They definitely seem to be abusing urgency just so that they can ram through their changes without following the full democratic process.
So, what are the criteria for doing something under urgency?
Whether you can get a majority for the motion.
In previous Parliaments, Labour’s support parties were generally highly suspicious of urgency (and with good reason), and would only allow it in genuine cases (of which there are very few), the Budget (where it is a given), and the regular end-of-year rush (where it dealth with uncontentious technical legislation). ACT and the Maori Party, OTOH, are just rubberstamps for National’s power trip.
Idiot Savant is about right, I looked at McGee on resonas for urgency.
In short there has to be a reason for urgency and it is up to the House to decide in passing the motion whether the reasons are adequate (Standing Order 54(3) does relate to the reason having “some particularity”.
McGee also refers to Hansard (1985, v467 p8181 – could someone find this please?) in that the reason cannot be to make progress.
I’ve heard they plan to use the next two months for urgency. That would push the figure up nearer 40%.
The next two months? What other bills are they ramming through?
What, two more months of urgency. We pay our MPs to produce quality legislation, not quantity.
I have to partially disagree with you Idiot/Savant, I can think of two times that the National Party has been the urgency rubber stamp for ACT, not the other way around. ACC, and the Auckland Super City.
Aren’t you make making unfair comparisons? Why not compare the first year of Labour’s first term in 2000 with National’s in 2009?
Sure. And what we find there is that Labour didn’t use urgency very often, calling it 9 times over the course of the year, starting in May 2000. 3 of those occasions were for urgent legislation, one was budget-related, one was a screw-up (a drafting error meant a bill had to be recommitted before its third reading, urgency was used to permit that), and one was for the end-of-year rush. Urgency was called twice to get extra time for the committee stage of the ERA, which otherwise would have taken months due to National’s filibustering (and even then they forced a Saturday sitting and adjournment debate), and once as a matter of sheer convenience (a bill with one speech left on its second reading going on to committee). Only in four cases (2 of them the ERA) were the bills “policy bills” – stuff the government wanted to do (as opposed to “technical bils” – the routine updating of uncontroversial laws which makes up much of parliament’s work – or financial bills to do with the annual appropriations cycle). And only in a single case (the Tariff (Zero Duty Removal) Amendment Bill) was such a bill run through without an SC hearing (they had a tight timeline, and its arguably financial anyway).
This is a very different pattern from National’s routine use of urgency to introduce major policy without scrutiny and progress it without public debate (and in some cases, SC hearings).
You’re also comparing a few months of National in 2009 with entire three year terms in 1999-2002, 2002-2005, etc. It seems reasonable the use of urgency would go down after this year.
It might. But that wasn’t the pattern in Labour’s first term (8 uses of urgency in 2001, 6 in 2002). But as noted, they had a very different pattern of use from the present National government.
Oh, and partial information on bils passed without SC scrutiny in the 1999 – 2002 term. Its partial because I grepped Hansard to pick up uses of urgency, rather that pull a hardcopy of the Parliamentary Bulletin 2002.13 to examine the end of term “progress of legislation” chart. As a result, it excludes the financial bills, which don’t normally get SC hearings anyway.
In 1999-2002, at least 5 bills were passed without going to select committee:
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 5)
Local Government (Prohibition of Liquor in Public Places) Amendment Bill
Local Government (Rodney District Council) Amendment Bill
Tariff (Zero Duty Removal) Amendment Bill
On all but one of these the government had a strong case for using urgency in this way. The exception is the liquor ban, which was a member’s bill from Winston Peters, run through under government urgency (!) without proper scrutiny in the pre-christmas rush in 2001.
And let’s not forget that that accidentally made it illegal to drive home from the supermarket with a bottle of wine in the boot…
And let’s not forget that that accidentally made it illegal to drive home from the supermarket with a bottle of wine in the boot…
Legislate in haste, repent at leisure…
@Mark – “why isn’t Labour criticizing National over banning using a cellphone whilst driving? ” your comparison with this and light bulbs and shower heads is, I assume, a facetious one. Using Cellphones whilst driving can actually kill people, both the user and innocent victims. I haven’t heard of someone being killed by a shower head or a lightbulb recently, so hardly a worthy comparison. Unless of course you take the contrary view that saving lives is less important?