This seems timely as we head into urgency again. Late last year, after the filming of a Backbencher episode in which I had bemoaned what I considered to be the excessive use of urgency by the National led government I was approached by blogger and National Party doyen David Farrar. He, correctly, said it would be good to get some hard information about the use of urgency over recent years so we could make some informed judgements on the issue.
As everyone will know I don’t agree with David about much, but I do know that he has respect for the Parliamentary process. He indicated that overuse of urgency by any party was something that concerned him. Over the next while we discussed what questions we could ask, and the end result was a request from me to the Parliamentary Library. Their full answer can be found here.
David and I are both writing a post on this. It was to be a joint post, but we, of course have some different perspectives. We do have some similar conclusions, but more of that later. David’s post can be found here.
So, the key points
• One statistic stands out for me. While urgency has been used to a greater or lesser degree by all governments, the by-passing of the Select Committee process has exploded under this government. In just over two years 17 bills have been passed without referral to a select committee, compared with five or fewer in the full three years of the three previous Parliaments. Now, there will be reasons to justify this from time to time. For example, in 2010 a bill to ensure Police who had made their oath to become officers under an incorrect procedure were still regarded as sworn officers did not go to a Select Committee. That was the right decision for the integrity of the Police. But where it is, say the bill to introduce National Standards for primary schools, that should go to a select committee. Select Committees are an essential part of ensuring democratic participation in our law-making, and to making sure the law works as well as it possibly can. They should not be by-passed at the rate they have been over the last couple of years.
• Overall for the three Parliaments under the last Labour government the total percentage of time used for urgency was 13% (99-02) 21% (02-05) 10% (05-08). National have not completed their three years but are sitting at 31% after just over two years. Although they have another year to go, I think we can say on balance that National has used urgency more overall particularly because the percentage of time in urgency has remained high (see below)
• Government’s use of urgency tends to peak in the first (or part thereof) and third years of a Parliament. For instance for Labour the percentage of time in urgency in the first year after the 2002 election was 35% and 23% after 2005 election. National had a massive go at that in 2008 with a whopping 83%.
• Under Labour the amount of urgency taken tended to tail off significantly in the middle years. Here National has taken a different tack with 2009 and 2010 having 26% and 22% of the House sitting hours under urgency.
So what conclusions do I draw from this data
1. By-passing the select committee process should be something that is done in only the most exceptional circumstances. It may be that a different kind of urgency motion should be required for that, with perhaps 75% of the House having to agree.
2. We should investigate whether there is a way of extending the sitting hours of the House in a way that does not compromise the integrity or quality of the legislative process. One suggestion that has been floating around is to allow for the Committee of the Whole House to sit on Wednesday and Thursday mornings when the relevant Select Committee is not sitting. I am sure there will be other suggestions.
Next time Labour is going to surprise us that this time they are not going to outspend, out-tax and outborrow National, but focus on some real issues instead of dividing up the cake.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqSfK_y359CbdE03dFdzN2pfc0lsMjVaeEZPWlZOZlE&hl=en
Uploaded to Google Docs for those without Excel 2007.
There is another issue with this, that is that MMP has meant more diversity on views but has also meant more speaking time is taken up expressing these views. Before MMP, 7 speaking slots would go to the Government (that would take up 30 minutes between them) and 5 to the opposition. So a first reading would take 90 mins from start to end. Now with all parties wanting to contribute each reading is taking well over 2 hours.
Also, with Whips now casting votes on behalf you can extend house sitting hours on Tuesday and Wednesday by cutting the dinner break to 60 mins and staying to 11pm. (Or starting at 1pm, or both.)
As for bypassing select committee, it is always a bad idea. I think every bill should be allowed public input and comment even if it has been passed into law under urgency. The bill can then be amended by some sort of motion (i.e. without going through all stages but with the equivilant of one) if change is required.
I’ve been saying for quite some time that some check or balance needs to be in place against the excesses of Parliament. The easiest would be enacting a body of supreme law that the courts can use to strike down parliamentary shenanigans that breach fundamental human rights. The other two are reinstating the upper chamber, or moving to a republican model with a president empowered to veto.
Every other democracy, except New Zealand and Israel, has some checks and balances against the legislative branch of government. Every other democratic government can negotiate its way through its legislative programme with that kind of scrutiny. What’s so special about New Zealand’s parliament that we have to surrender absolute power to it? Constitutional reform is desperately needed in this country.
Actually, I tell a lie about Israel – they have some supreme laws. They are a single-chambered legislature, like us, though.
The other thing about urgency is that it slows the regular select committee process. Tomorrow Rodney was going to talk to the Education select committee about progress on the review of special education. Because of urgency that has now been postponed to some unspecified future date.
[...] « Not priceyUse of Urgency In a first for the blogosphere, Kiwblog and Red Alert have teamed up to do co-ordinated posts on the use of urgency.Both the current and former [...]
DEMOCRACY DENIED BY GOVERNMENT
“Select Committees are an essential part of ensuring democratic participation in our law-making, and to making sure the law works as well as it possibly can. They should not be by-passed at the rate they have been over the last couple of years.
In just over two years 17 bills have been passed without referral to a select committee, compared with five or fewer in the full three years of the three previous Parliaments.”
That’s the guts of it Grant. That is what the Herald lead story should be.
There are lots of possibilities for reform. My opinion is as follows. Urgency, as it currently is, is actually misnamed. It should be called “extended hours” and the main change current urgency rules need is that a bill shouldn’t be able to go through without going to a select Committee, i.e. a limit on the number of stages a bill can go through in “extended hours”. The reason for this is that there are times when Parliament should start at 9am and go late to clear backlogs and there is no reason why a government can’t expect to do that – BUT no need to circumvent the select committee process, because of the direct public input involved at that step.
Then “extraordinary urgency” as it currently is, could be invoked in the rare case where a Bill needs to be pushed through without Select Committee, with one particular amendment to the current provisions. It should require, say, 60% of the House (quite a big number in an MMP Parliament). This is to ensure it really is urgent. The rules could also specify it should only be used for matters of national importance, so that parties are obliged to hang their hat on that wording if they support the extraordinary urgency motion. (Plus the hours should be specified – currently extraordinary urgency allows beyond midnight sitting).
Kia Ora
Why don’t you talk for a very long time when they go into urgency? Get a copy Official History of the 22nd battalion and read that out
I’m sure some of the members across the benches need to be reminded that the men who fought in WW2 fought for democracy, and we like that in New Zealand. Just a thought.
Adam
{ Hey Adam, nice to hear from you. We have done this several times, most notably on the Auckland Super City legislation and the IR changes flowing from the Warner Bros deal. In our system speakers have to talk about the legislation, so reading of long texts is a no no. cheers, Grant}
He, correctly, said it would be good to get some hard information about the use of urgency over recent years so we could make some informed judgements on the issue.
I’m surprised you didn’t just go to the Urgency Project’s submission on the Review of Standing Orders [PDF]. It has full stats back to 1987.
One suggestion that has been floating around is to allow for the Committee of the Whole House to sit on Wednesday and Thursday mornings when the relevant Select Committee is not sitting.
And indeed the government has had this on the Order Paper as a sessional order for well over a year now. They drafted it, but can’t be arsed passing it. The obvious conclusion is that they like the way things are, with its limitation of democracy, just fine thankyou.
Much better post than your last Grant Even concede (if your stats are right & I have no reason to doubt them) that you have a point here. Due process is the right thing in all but truly exceptional circumstances.
One suggestion that has been floating around is to allow for the Committee of the Whole House to sit on Wednesday and Thursday mornings when the relevant Select Committee is not sitting.
The convention is that changes like this are done through the Standing Orders Committee, with ‘near unanimity’ and to take effect after the next election. Gerry Brownlee has tried to treat the convention with disdain.
The convention is that changes like this are done through the Standing Orders Committee, with ‘near unanimity’ and to take effect after the next election. Gerry Brownlee has tried to treat the convention with disdain.
I think the disdain shown for democracy by the constant abuse of urgency is the greater evil here.
Pray tell who has been Nationals leader of the House during this abuse of democracy ?
Would this be the same Hon gentleman who is to be given even more extraordinary powers- a Kiwi enabling law- and rushed through in the next few days without compelling reason, that make him Commissar for Christchurch.
{deleted, offensive, banned, Grant}
[...] Grant Robertson at Red Alert and David Farrar at Kiwiblog have written tandem posts about the government’s misuse of urgency to rush through legislation without proper oversight. I have nothing to add to the substance of their discussion, but since I struggle to comprehend data series like the comparative use of urgency over time without putting them into charts . . . [...]
It’s amazing to me that given the attack on Democracy championed by many over the EFA the same voices have fallen silent on this and other erosions of democracy since Nov 2008
OMG they cant help themselves!
The House is currently in urgency to pass Christchurch earthquake recovery measures. But a spokesman for Simon Power, who sponsors the bill, confirmed other legislation would also be rushed through.-stuff
The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill bans file sharing. It would allow copyright owners to ask for a six-month suspension of the internet accounts of those who repeatedly infringe.
The same old same old. this time rushed under the smokecreen of Christchurch. Throwing away kiwis internet rights to suit the US.
@Pete
The upper chamber causes no end of grief in those parliaments/democracies that have them. Law passes in one house and then gets blocked in the next on partisan lines anyway. The only time that laws get passed without such issues is when both houses are controlled by the same party and when that happens then any point of the second house is gone.
Supreme law is a good idea but it needs to be changeable which brings its own conundrums: if left at the 50%+1 to change it then it gets changed every other government and if set to 75%+ to change it then it never changes.
@mjwkiwi
And have it so that the law will still go to select committee after passage and will make adjustments to it up to and including repeal of the law.
@tracey
Don’t know why you’d be amazed – none of those people are interested in democracy. Their supposed outrage was solely to make the then Labour led government look bad in the public’s eyes.