Sometimes you can get too smart for your own good. Gerry Brownlee did this week. He put far too much in an urgency motion. He was offered a deal that included questions. He has now revealed that he wanted at least one Select Committee to sit at Parliament by leave at the the time the house was sitting.
Labour said no. Gerry lost his cool rejected the deal and ended up getting much much less through than he would have otherwise.
He found out that if the opposition decides to go into a no co-operation phase hours can be spent with no progress whatsoever.
He also found out that Christopher Finlayson (no QC) notwithstanding his FIGJAM approach doesn’t have the brains to stand and take a call even when he has his instructions wrtitten down for him.
Hope that Brownlee enjoys explaining to the next Cabinet and caucus what happened and that Hone Carter can give advice as what to do next time.
What was missed by Chris Finlayson not taking a call? If the Minister doesn’t take a call in the Committee of the Whole does the bill not advance or something? I can see why that would happen with a first, second or third reading, but what happens (or should happen) in committee that meant there was a stuff-up?
“He found out that if the opposition decides to go into a no co-operation phase hours can be spent with no progress whatsoever.”
I hope that makes you proud that your wasting my money as a taxpayer
@charles, that is how democracy works. If you dont like it move to a country where there is no debate, and the rulers have total control.
How exactly are they wasting tax payers money by the way?
Agreed waterboy. It would be a waste of my taxpayer money if the Labour party did nothing about the abuse of urgency.
That’s good news, Trevor. The less legislation you guys ram through, the less of our freedoms get eroded.
Yeah, I agree with everyone, except Charles, good stuff, Trevor
Trev, be fair. You’re not too good on the following written instructions front either…was it five or six supplementary questions you asked yesterday?
Yep. I got it wrong and I have apologised. Trevor
Could someone who knows how these things work explain exactly what it means that “Christopher Finlayson [failed] to stand and take [the] call”?
Did he miss part of the process detailed in the flowchart below or is it something more arcane?
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/6/1/5/00HOOOCPubResAboutFactSheetsProcess1-Parliament-Brief-The-legislative.htm
Graeme and Richard – House in committee. Finlayson sought leave to move SOP. Leave denied. Went out of committee to return presently. Finlayson meant to move instruction to comittee to consider SOP. Forgot to call. Went on to next order of the day after chair (Eric Roy) gave him long period to get his act together.
Ah. But wouldn’t that have wasted more time, or are instructions to the committee non-debateable? Perhaps they decided it wasn’t worth it, given that, presumably, you’ll give leave next time the House is sitting non-urgently … probably September
I see.
Thanks.
@ Graeme No wasn’t deliberate move – they didn’t have a Minister briefed for student loan legislation. And Finlayson looked like a muppet the way his mouth was flapping and he was complsining about not being able to see the speaker – which of course was nonsense.
LOL
Yes, Charles, we are all just so damn peeved that Labour wasted tax payer money trying to have an open debate on an issue National just didn’t want to discuss. That democracy is such a waste of our precious cash!
National’s wall of silence was an absolute farce. Perhaps I am naive but I was dumbfounded. Pete Hodgson pleaded for National to agree, disagree, just to say anything at all!
At least the performance of Labour’s MPs, especially a few list MPs, has restored some of my faith in the Labour party.