I care a lot about democracy. I hope all NZers do. I believe this government is eroding it. Steven Joyce has made a habit of abusing good democratic process. He’s not the only one. But heaven help us if he ever becomes Prime Minister.
This week an important bill that will reshape our telecommunications landscape for many years is being forced though a select committee process with incredible haste, with no reason as to why. The government has forced all public hearings on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill to be held this week, despite increasingly urgent calls from the industry for more time.
Submitters have been given a mere 10 minutes each to put their arguments before the committee, despite the complexity and substance of change contained in the Bill. There’s no reason for this. The government requires the Bill to be reported back to the House by mid May so the legislation can be passed by 30 June. All so it can come into effect and have Telecom have its shareholders approve structural separation. before the election. There’s plenty of time for submissions.
I am the opposition spokesperson for this Bill. It’s no coincidence that the hearings are being forced through while I’m overseas. I know the submitters will get a good hearing from the Labour members of the Finance and Expenditure select committee, which includes the former Communications Minister David Cunliffe.
But what Joyce is doing is wrong. In both substance and process.
Last week I attended a conference in London to better understand the Westminster system, the basis on which our parliament was constructed. It was attended by nearly 70 delegates from 28 commonwealth countries. An enormously disparate group, some with parliamentary systems that can only be described as partial or emerging democracies. The UK, NZ and Canada were the group that should be described as established and sound democracies. Australia wasn’t present.
I’m not so sure about NZ. Several matters I raised during the seminar about NZ current practice raised eyebrows.
The incessant use of urgency by this government as a tool to push legislation that isn’t urgent through the House with no pubIic scrutiny. The disregard for the select committee process.
These tactics aren’t new. But their frequency and blatant disregard for public reaction by this govt is. And whatever past practice has been, I believe it needs a rethink. How can the public trust politicians if we constantly abuse democratic processes? Is this naive?
The increasing back room secret deals and contracting processes used by Steven Joyce in particular, to produce government determined outcomes using public money and commercial confidence as the reason for secrecy is one of the most concerning things.
These are not the hallmarks of good democracy. Steven Joyce is taking us backwards.
This week I’m taking the rare opportunity of being overseas to make visits to a range of bodies representing the telecommunications and media industries in the UK, France and Brussels. On the way home I’ll stop in Singapore. It’s been an invaluable time to assess the state of play overseas with broadband, mobile technologies and new developments in media and broadcasting. The regulatory systems and the issues they’re grappling with. The costs outside of the conference are being met by me.
I’ve written about the appalled reaction overseas by important industry players to Joyce’s proposed broadband scheme. Nowhere in the UK, Europe, the US or the developed world is there a model for what Joyce is proposing with his scheme and his Telco law, which strips away the rights of the independent regulator and hands those powers to a Crown body which will manage the scheme and then determine price.
Essentially he’s handing all powers to himself.
There are similarities in Singapore, Japan and most likely China. These are countries with very different systems of government and regulatory bodies that are NOT separate from government. I think it’s a fundamental principle of a democracy to have an independent regulator.
What road is Joyce taking us down and when will the significance of what he’s doing be realised?
“I care a lot about democracy. I hope all NZers do.”
Clare I am sure most New Zealanders do – that is why they vehemently opposed the EFA rammed through by the last Labour Government, including all but Grant Robertson, of the current Labour front bench and Phil Goff’s great political bedmate Winston Peters.
Perhaps you are in the wrong party.
You are correct that the Teleco Bill is being rushed through. There must be a reason that Steven Joyce wishes it so and in the absence of any open disclosure from the Minister, we can only speculate on what that reason may be.
There can only be two possible reasons and both centre on the government having already decided who will win the UFB.
If they have decided that Telecom will not win the UFB, then due process does not matter because the Telecom separation parts of the Bill will never come in to law. This seems unlikely because all that has to happen is for CFH to announce another winner and the matter is dealt with.
If they have decided that Telecom have won the UFB, then due process does not matter because the Telecom separation parts of the Bill simply have to be enacted. They actually needed to be enacted last year to avoid delays in the UFB (and RBI) build outs. This is my pick as to what will happen with the UFB. I hope I am wrong because, as pragmatic as that decision may seem, there are too many potential down sides to shoring up Telecom as the fibre network builder.
The way this has been handled is a reflection of Steven Joyce’s style. He is intelligent and decisive and once he decides an issue, it must be implemented straight away. This is not about democracy but it is about being pragmatic in getting done, what needs to be done. On other issues, it may be an approach to applaud. On the ICT infrastructure issue, it is quite wrong.
But Stephen Joyce is neither the Chair nor a member of the Select Committee. Surely, your wrath ought to be aimed at the Select Committee not Joyce? I get that he may be pressuring the Committee to act hastely – but the Committee can and should resist. If they’ve failed to push back then it’s the committee who ought to be blamed for mangling democracy. And that’s all members of the Select Committee including David Cunliffe and the other Labour members.
I wasn’t impressed by Phil Goff’s promise not to deal with Hone Harawira.
But I might be at least somewhat impressed if Labour published a pledge about how it would conduct business in Parliament if it ever got back into power. It could talk about appropriate and inappropriate use of urgency, procedures around select committees, and so on. Because, sadly, Labour also has ‘form’ in this area.
It might even be a tactical victory – ask other political parties to sign up to it too, and then use it as a bludgeon to bash National with every time they go against it.
The purpose of NACT, and conservatives in general, is to take us back to the 15th century where rule was by the few for the few and everyone else living in fear and misery. They have no love of democracy as it removes the power from themselves.
and you pdm, were you outraged at the EFA? Are you ok with National having put more through urgency in this term than most previous terms of government?
One of the things opponents of the last PM said they hated was the “I know best” attitude. That’s all we get fromthis govt, and this is another in a long line of exmples of it. Turns out certain NZers dont mind being told whats best, when they agree with the speaker
“five National MPs, four Labour MPs (including finance spokesman David Cunliffe, who joined Ms Curran in railing against the bill today), one Green MP, one Act MP and one Maori MP.
This is where it gets interesting
Excitingly – given National relies on him for a majoriy on the committee – Roger Douglas is the Act MP.
Although Act voted for the first reading of the bill. But Mr Douglas, who spoke for his party in the December 9 debate, said two members – himself and Heather Roy – had severe reservations about the legislation. Mr Douglas said it was an example of “politics being put ahead of markets.”
NBR is inclined to believe that Mr Douglas – assuming he’s present tomorrow – will be in favour of extending the game a little.”
@Draco T Bastard
And the left parties are about bankruptcy and sending us the way of Zimbabwe.
Prickly territory given (especially given the title of this post) given Labour’s last term had that rather prickly S92A thing going on…
Given the practise of the Labour party then, I think the pathos tone of this post was a little… ill-advised.
I agree that this should be fought. It’s becoming a bit like our name suppression laws and what someone said to me about confidential information – it’s confidential because it’s easier to just mark it all as confidential.
It’s easier to pass laws when you don’t have to go through that pesky select committee stuff.
Just as, if you really want to get something done, you chose a dictator. It may be easier but it shouldn’t be done.
“But heaven help us if he ever becomes Prime Minister”
!
GRRR
DeMOCKracy in action! 
GRRR 
Matthew after 9 years of Labour in Government, just how do you consider NZ compared to Zimbabwe?
Value of dollar?
Value on human life?
Unemployment rate?
Indebtedness?
Inflation rate?
Literacy levels?
Health provision?