I’ve participated in a few parliamentary debates on important legislation in the last two and a half years.
As a new MP , with little prior experience of parliamentary process, it’s taken a while to get my head around the procedural stuff and some of the seemingly odd rules. Standing orders, conventions etc. Some of them are very odd. Outdated even. Others are grounded in sense and democractic principles.
I believe in the way we run our parliament. That a Bill gets put up by the government, goes to a select committee where the public get the right to submit and comment, it gets thoroughly scrutinised and commented on by officials and the members of the committee from all sides of the House. A revised version goes back to parliament, where it goes through several more stages before becoming law.
But I’m becoming more convinced that much of this process is a farce. Under this government. I don’t know enough about previous governments to comment. But I reckon it can’t have been worse than it is today.
Urgency is used frequently and consistently to push through non-urgent bills and to rush through laws that suit the government’s purpose without the public’s ability to comment. Arrogant disregard for good process and the importance of public scrutiny. And arrogant disregard for the role of Opposition.
Last Thursday an example of this has left me feeling that the concept of actual parliamentary debate is all just a farce.
Steven Joyce is a new Minister. He’s been in parliament as long as me. He’s smart. He’s described as the Minister for everything. He’s completely self assured, arrogant and brushes off public criticism on any issues as being irrelevant.
Humility, the ability to listen and take due regard are qualities I value. Steven Joyce does not posssess these.
The biggest piece of legislative change in the telecommunications sector is currently going through our parliament. Last Thursday saw us make progress in the committee stage through about half of the Bill. It is a very controversial law change. The select committee process was rushed. Labour and the Greens are vehemently opposed to the Bill in its present form. The Act Party members were opposed to it, but appear to have changed their minds. The Maori Party did a deal with the government in order to buy their support.
The Bill structurally separates Telecom into two businesses, one of which; Chorus 2, will be the infrastructure company awarded the bulk of the contract to roll out ultrafast broadband. Strutural separation hasn’t happened like this anywhere in the world. The government’s model has been widely criticised. Some changes have been made, but they’re not enough for the Opposition which believes the Bill cements an anti-competitive monopoly which will be able to make the new network system work to its own advantage for generations to come.
In other words, it will allow the worst practices of the existing Telecom to be replicated in the new company. We believe innovation and affordability have been sacrificed in order to prop up big corporate interests. Putting the interests of foreign investors ahead of those of domestic consumers (sound familiar?)
The Committee stage of a Bill is where the Opposition parties get the chance to ask the Minsiter to clarify issues, to argue a point and to deal with new issues arising.
Labour has put up six serious amendments to the Bill. Four of them were up for discussion during this part of the debate. The Minister took no notice and would not engage despite repeated requests to.
Instead, Steven Joyce sat through the committee stage of the Bill impassively, looking bored, playing on his mobile phone and flicking through papers.
He stood once at the beginning when the critical issue of all reference to the Kiwi Share Obligation (KSO) being removed from the legislation was raised. In his normal style, he brushed aside all concerns as irrelevant. That was the only time he engaged. The KSO gurantees all NZers a standard phone calling service no matter where they live at a standard rental, with emergency services and free local calls. It also prevents more than 10% of Telecom being sold offshore without govt permission. It looks like these provisions, by being taken out of the legislation are being split between the two new companies being formed. There isn’t much information about what this means. This change was made in a last minute amendment. There’s been no opportunity for discussion.
My senior colleagues tell me that in years past, a Minister would respond to questions during the committee stages. Some existing Ministers do. Perhaps they believe that parliament has a purpose. Steven Joyce clearly doesn’t. It’s his way or the highway, and democracy is just an annoying irrelevance to him, but one that lip service must be paid to. Trust me, I know what I’m doing he tells us all. Well we don’t and I question whether he does know what he’s doing.
The committe stage continues this Tuesday. I hope you’ll be watching to see for yourselves.
Yup – from what I’ve seen of parliamentary “debates”, the senior National people appear only to be there to stop any debate from actually happening.
I’d recommend making a youtube hit-list… of examples of elected officials attempting to prevent a sensible debate – to use as ammunition against them in future elections. These people should not be in parliament.
You get the same problems from oppositions:
When in opposition, I recall National speaking about paid parental leave and opposing it because it didn’t provide coverage to the self-employed or stay-at-home mothers etc.
And Labour spoke against three strikes on the basis that it wouldn’t mean very much to most criminals, etc.
That’s what privatisation is all about. Hasn’t change one iota since the privatisations of the 4th Labour government.
He knows what he’s doing – handing the ownership, and thus the ruler-ship, of NZ over to his masters in the private sector.
@Nick Taylor
Typical of authoritarian types – they really don’t like democracy.
yes it is a farce as is question time BUT at least the speaker is a far better, and indeed fairer one than the last two .. in fact any other speaker that I can recall. He does allow a little too much freedom from the Labour opposition which I think is due to the fact he is trying too hard to be seen to be fair.
Regarding Steven Joyce .. he is just too good for you guys, accept it and move on
If Parliamentary procedures and debate are a farce, it’s you MPs who make it so. Australian parliamentary debate is much more constrained, and they operate under the same ground rules as the NZ Parliament. The low standard of debate is the fault of both sides, and not the system.
Nick T, I assume you that you have only been watching Q&A for the last 2 1/2 years
> Urgency is used frequently and consistently to push through non-urgent bills
Clare – as a Labour MP, you should have a pretty good grasp of why this is going on (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5097079/Labour-filibustering-costs-453-000-hr-ACT).
For what it’s worth though, I do agree with your criticism of Steven Joyce. The questions is, will Labour bring a better approach? If the Clark era is anything to go by, the answer is a definite “no”.
@ Dion. Stephen Joyce et al show a loathsome arrogance and a contempt for the people of NZ. To date this arrogance seems to be a distracting cover for sneaky deals that benefit a few but not the rest of the population.
Do you take ‘leading with the chin’ lessons in your spare time?
Of courze parliamentary debate is a farce – for the Labour Party, that is.
You people have the luxury of the most impartial and fair Speaker for maybe thirty years and all you can do is complain. I don’t remember hearing too much complaint from Labour about parliamentary debate when Madame Speaker gave Labour Ministers free reign to evade and avoid any question at all – for nine years.
Do you recall any one of the many lectures the current Speaker has handed down to Labour politicians on how to ask questions? Some of you have been there for over thirty years and still haven’t worked it out. When I see Lockwood -Smith telling you he ‘winces’ as he listens to your questions I know why parliamentary is a farce.
BTW I bet you wish you had just one person on your team with only half the parliamentary and executive ability of one Steven Joyce.
@marsman, yet the majority of the “people” support this Government. In absence of an opposition or an opposition leader, the vacuum they leave gives no alternative view.
@Clare – Governments are elected and as such have a mandate to act, oppositions are defeated in the same vane and have no mandate to change at all, and essentially have no power to do anything. If you wish to effect change, you need to win an election. If you do then good luck to you, but the perceived “arrogance” you see as a very new MP was in equal doses during Labours time over 9 years. Cullen, Clarke and the particularly irritating Mallard would hardly be described as shrinking violets, would they? Just because someone destroys you with prose in Parliament, it’s not arrogance its victory. Perhaps the defeated should lift their game.
@ Dave. The ‘majority’ of the people are hoodwinked by this Administration which exploits its crony media to the fullest.
Marsman, have an original thought for once!
To be fair what else were we meant to expect in this area with Telecom and anti-competitive monopolies involved?
When we passed the Commerce Act is 1986 the debate wasn’t conducted properly and the judiciary didn’t know what it meant.
We later sold Telecom in 1990 in a monopoly form that clearly stifled competition.
In 1995 in the first attempt to sort out a lot of our competition law in the area it was Telecom that brought that case to the courts with its battle to keep Clear out of the market.
It was only last year that a Telecom case messed up our competition law once more ignoring Parliaments amendments to the legislation to capture more monopolies after what was most another poorly conducted Parliamentary debate and rewording of the statute.
The law around monopolies and Telecom seem inextricably linked in a raft of poor decisions made and improperly conducted Parliamentary processes that just keeps repeating.
We need a bit of urgency to get through the Royal Society Bill.
Look at our information networks and technology. Look at how we are developing new technologies to improve our efficiencies. Look at how we apply the sciences to improve our lives, and computing to transform knowledge and communication. In my own lifetime the transformation has been nothing less than astounding.
Now look at our Parliament. Despite the radical changes in our technology; the ability to communicate in ways never imagined by our forefathers, we are stuck with a pre-industrial process of Government.
To present before Parliament I still need to turn up physically. More importantly rather than using a scientific process; one involving actual evidence, critical review by experts of many disciplines, and apolitical evaluation of policy based on merits we instead have a system of elites who decide policy.
Todays democratic processes are little better than choosing our leaders based on the quality of their hair. We could have a process which strongly based in the involvement of many experts skilled in the scientific evaluation of evidence in order to determine the best policy based at an objective level.
OpenLabour showed an initial flowering of what might be a transformation, but I fear that people in the parties misunderstand it. One comment on this board talked about National “stealing” Labour policy. AS IF THE POINT OF POLICY WAS GETTING ELECTED.
The point of getting elected is to implement policy – and if your opposition were to implement you policy – you have won. Anything else is vanity. It is funny how parties – originally a platform to express a value – engender a belief that their survival is an end unto itself.
No – only the values matter. And to me it is the values of freedom, cooperation and reason which matter most. Does our system of Government serve the values most New Zealanders hold dear?
Finally, I note that parties try to split New Zealanders. Most New Zealanders hold common values; but the existing Parliamentary system is based on artificial conflict. Left vs Right. Its a pointless pantomime that gets in the way of rational evidence based policy development.
Thanks Peter, it’s a really considered response. I feel depressed and determined at the same time. OpenLabourNZ was the beginning of something new. It may take time for it to flower, but I hope it will and I’ll do everything I can to make it so.
I agree about the point of being elected. I’m not here to muck about. It’s too hard a life to do so. You have to believe in things and be committed to making them happen.
And yes, it’s only the values that matter really.
I think our system of government needs to change to be more open and democratic and the way we practice politics can change. For the better. But people need to to continue to demand it and not to become more and more apathetic. That’s the bit that frightens me.
@marsman – “The ‘majority’ of the people are hoodwinked by this Administration which exploits its crony media to the fullest.”
Are you suggesting the people of New Zealand are not smart enough so get fooled into thinking Labour are not worthy of their vote? Surely not because that shows “arrogance” on your part, no? In my experience people vote for things they believe in and for values they share. As far as the media goes if Labour produced policy that was worth reporting, I imagine the media would report it in full. If you’re pining for a compliant media, that onnly shows Labour or any other one party in a good light then you have an unusual idea of the job the media are tasked to do.
@lou…. the point marsman alludes to is the fact that most nz’ers rely on tv and newspapers like the herald/dompost for their info. which, of course is why so many kiwis have little, or no idea of this govts real agenda.
attempts to tar both sides of the debate with the same brush are no more than dogwhistling tactics that we as a nation seem to have taken on board as to how politics really work..
hoodwinked is the right term for what has been done to us.
“If Parliamentary procedures and debate are a farce, it’s you MPs who make it so. Australian parliamentary debate is much more constrained, and they operate under the same ground rules as the NZ Parliament. The low standard of debate is the fault of both sides, and not the system.”
Hear, hear!
Change starts with each one of us.
Nelson Mandela said: “Even when a democratic Government is installed, no minority should be disadvantaged.” He went on to say: “There is always a danger that when there is no opposition, the governing party can become too arrogant, too confident.”
I long for the good old days when Parliament was more civilised, e.g.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy-under-attack/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501118&objectid=10481041
Nope, it’s that they’re fed incorrect information via the MSM and thus make incorrect decisions.
The MSM aren’t there to judge but to pass on relevant information. If they’re not reporting on it because it’s not “worth reporting” then they are making a judgement call and denying people a chance to judge for themselves. The bias in NActs favour in the articles that the MSM do publish doesn’t help either.
Not a compliant MSM, we already have one of those, but a competent one that actually does it’s job.
No, as your words here show, it’s you that has “an unusual idea of the job the media are tasked to do.”
As long as we vote for parties and not issues, this will happen. Parties tend to creatively reorganise “support” to suit their agenda rather than what New Zealanders want. To fix this, people need to be brought into the process more now that we have the technology available. In short, we need Open Government – the current lot openly say they are ignoring the public on many issues, despite the fact that the public are supposed to be the ones they’re acting for.