The following op ed was published in today’s Dominion Post.
In New Zealand Parliament’s committees can and have played an important part in shaping legislation. Their current form has mixed ancestry, a bit of Westminster, a healthy dose of Geoffrey Palmer idealism, and some influence of MMP tempered by the current lack of truly independent backbenchers in our House.
Committees get the business done. More bills go to them than in any comparable overseas jurisdiction. The public, informed and not, make submissions. They are heard, amendments are made and bills are sent back to the House. Occasionally it becomes clear legislation is unworkable and it goes to the bottom of the order paper and is later dropped.
My first committee, still using the Muldoon system, was statutes revision. Ministers, including Mr Palmer, sat on it. It was chaired by Labour’s Trevor de Cleene, while a parliamentary under secretary, but we regarded it as a creature of Parliament not the Government. That was formalised with the 1986 reforms which further separated Parliament from the executive. Committees got smaller and ministers got the boot.
I served on a variety of committees and chaired some before becoming a minister in the Clark government. Since 2008, I’ve mainly been a member of the education and science committee, chaired by the late Allan Peachey, with whom I shared a love of education, albeit with quite different approaches to, and definitions of, success.
Mr Peachey was a champion of letting people have their say. He was interested. Submissions were not a nuisance to be heard in a pro forma manner but an opportunity to learn. Sometimes just a nugget of gold within an argument that all the committee disagreed with could result in an improvement to a bill. He didn’t care too much what the minister or officials thought of proposed changes. If something needed fixing, it got fixed.
More recently, I’ve spent a couple of years on government administration, chaired by David Parker and now Ruth Dyson – both Labour colleagues. The committee has a National Party majority, but I can’t remember the last time we voted on party lines on legislation. There are often odd alliances where placement on the political spectrum gives way to ideas, logic and experience.
Submitters to both committees were invariably treated politely, even when major issues were at stake and cross- examination was intense. They had often put in days preparing for the committee, taken time from paid employment and travelled without reimbursement. They deserved and got respect, and good chairing, taking care of process, is an important part of that.
Recently, however, I had what was almost certainly the worst experience I have had as a committee member. I was a substitute member on the finance and expenditure committee as it heard submissions on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, the legislation to facilitate the partial privatisation of the state-owned energy companies.
The bill was obviously controversial. The submissions I read before attending the committee (something I saw no sign of from some members) were all opposed and in some cases used substantive and original research.
I was appalled to discover submissions were allocated only five or 10 minutes, depending on whether they were from an individual or a group. That included time for questioning from the committee. In most cases that meant one question per submission.
It was absolutely impossible to pursue a line of questioning. At the time, the committee had more than two months to consider the bill. I asked what the need for the speed was. It was clear the chairman, Todd McClay, a relatively inexperienced member from Rotorua, saw the hearings as a duty, something to be got through as quickly as possible, and with no potential to usefully amend or enhance the legislation. As it turned out, the bill returned to the House five weeks ahead of schedule.
This shambles has caused me to ponder what can be done to improve the process. Finance and expenditure is Parliament’s most important committee. It considers the most significant legislation and has the power to direct some of the work of other select committees. It should not be a political plaything.
I think the answer is remarkably simple – give the responsibility for chairing the committee to a senior Opposition member. I’m not suggesting the numbers on the finance and expenditure committee should favour the Opposition, but that someone who is not beholden to, or trying to impress, ministers should ensure that the public get a chance to have their say in circumstances that are seen to be professional.
The concept is not original – the public accounts committee, the most powerful in the British parliament, is chaired by Margaret Hodge, a Labour former senior minister.
The suggestion is not Labour Party policy. I have received reasonable reactions from colleagues. If there is public support I will put it into our policy system. If it is going to happen then we must decide before the next general election, and if it works, maybe we will develop a new tradition.
It would have to be in tandem with reform on Parliamentary urgency, otherwise governments would be even more eager to sidestep the select committee process on controversial issues.
How about have proportional representation for chairs? ie a party with 50% of the vote, chairs half of the committees, 10% chairs 10% of the committees.
For a list as large as for the MOM Bill how long would you suggest for each submission? And how long do you think that would make the committee stage?
Yee haa!
Trevor post! 
Agreed!
!
Well worth considering seriously Trevor. What other changes to Standing Orders do you support?
James – this is not a change to Standing Orders, which are silent on who chairs a committee. Rather the evolution of a convention.
I will have to check the records of the MMP era, but from memory the Regulations Review Committee has always been chaired by an opposition MP, and Privileges often has been. Not sure about other committees. I think Trevor’s idea would be useful.
Pete – it is not just about so many minutes per person for oral submissions. For example, Wellington City Council in their recent hearings on the long term plan allocated more time to (my term) ‘major groups’ and for various individuals with common interests brought a number of people to the table together.
Good chairing often involves a little flexibility.
And yes, more time may have been taken in hours listening to submitters, but this might not have added a lot to the overall elapsed time.
I commend you to take a second look at what Trevor said about a “nugget of gold”.
Pete (the first one)
There is a current evolution re urgency. That is the change adopted at the end of the 2008-11 Parliament to allow ‘extended hours.’
That has been used in Feb, Mar, and June, and will be used in two sitting weeks this month. Do read up on that.
What a thoughtful post from you, Trevor. I’ve missed your blogging so it’s nice to see you back.
Please remind me because you were a minister back then and should know, when Meridian sold Southern Hydro for $1.5 billion, how much time did submitters have in the finance and expenditure committee to speak to the Committee on the legislation?
whoodunnit ‘forgot’ to mention Southern Hydro was an Australian company which was in Meridian ownership for about 5 years. Does he know exactly how their electricity could end up in NZ homes ?
Ghost, you mean the way the last government allowed the sale of Vector’s electricity network to a Chinese company for $785 million? Is an electricity network not a strategic asset? Makes the Crafar sale seem tiny by comparison doesn’t it.
WD, the Wellington network was all ready in foreign hands, when Vector bought the owner and they werent interested in keeping it.
Weather it is strategic or not is a matter for others, but it wasn’t government ownership.
The actual land transferred was tiny , as we all know power poles use mostly public land and the road reserve wasnt part of the sale.
Perhaps you could answer why the government needs to be milking cows for a Chinese construction company. And is that related to a surge in big donations to the National Party .
Phil – yeah I understand it’s not mandated in Standing Orders.
But I’d assume that Trevor would want it reflected in Standing Order 198 in order to ensure the outcome sought sticks.
Ghost, Clayton declared three big donations from Auckland Chinese people. I don’t think you really want to go into donations when things are swirling around his donations do you.
All of the talk from Labour has been how it’s silly economic sense to sell cash cow assets. Meridian made a lot of money out of Southern Hydro. Labour ministers were happy to sell it off to the highest bidder, a foreign bidder, even though Southern Hydro was making a lot of money for the taxpayer. You can split hairs all you like. $1.5 billion sell-off of a money-making state asset without a single select committee submission.
@whodunnit
None of that matters, at all.
Fact is every single issue poll shows overwhelming support against this governments asset stripping, right now, not in previous administrations, but right now.
Obviously doesn’t bother poll respondants who sold what, where and when in history.
It doesn’t change this toad of a policy into a princess
I think most rational people accept that.
aliens the difference is Key went to the electorate and told them he was going to partially sell some assets and won the election, Labour didn’t tell the electorate that they were going to sell assets and did it sneakily so voters didn’t have a choice.
Every single issue poll, mate.
That’s all there is to it.
The only way out of the hole National has dug for itself, is to sell assets, Key unfortunately is a one trick pony and does not appear to understand that these are strategic assets with strong dividend streams and cash flow which an indebted country like NZ needs.
Roger Douglas’s sale of NZ Assets was a disaster and Key is heading down the same path.
Jack if they are strategic assets and it makes economic sense to own them, as Davids Cunliffe and Parker have said, and if their returns are better than the cost of borrowing, as the Three Davids have said, then why don’t they promise to buy them back?
WD – It does not make sense either to start negotiation with a seller knowing you must have (at any price) the shares because of political pressures. ie the value you place on the asset is higher than the financial value.
and – we do not know the future state of the company or whether there will be asset stripping, debt increases, excess dividends or if the state would be better to start from scratch such as kiwi bank.
and we do not know the state of govt finances after all the gifts from National to their large contributors.
Jeremy, there won’t be asset stripping, because the majority of shares and directors will still be appointed by the Government. If Labour is serious they can announce that they will buy back the shares at the same price that they were sold for, less any assets sold. Surely if the assets are a great investment and their returns really are better than the cost of borrowing, as Labour has said, then it should have no problem with borrowing to buy them back. Why doesn’t Labour promise this?
All irrelevant to the 55, 60 and 65% of people who said no, in asset sales polls.
As you well know.
Hi Al1ens
!
Hello Spud
Enjoying the winter of discontent much?
No,
Oh, their winter of discontent is very good!
!!!!!
Keep Our Assets! Select Committees that listen to da peeps!
“Every single issue poll, mate.
That’s all there is to it.”
Looking forward to the binding polls on:
Antismacking
Minimum non parole periods
Corporal punishment
Capital punishment
Tax rates
Anti-nuclear legislation
Removing the Maori electorates
Disestablishing Waitangi Tribunal
Key is the figurehead for the policies of the BRT and the ambitions of his relatives in New York to get a strategic stake in NZ’s energy assets either them or the Chinese Government.
Stuff the Maori’s and the average New Zealander.
The Tory’s will leave a mess for the Labour Party & their coalition partners to tidy up as they usually do.
Asset stripping to pay for consumption and wealth transfers to their followers.
Sometimes government knows best, sometimes they don’t.
Five of your list define NZ as the unique, special little nation it is, including the founding doccument.
A couple on there are nothing but self interest groups lobbying to keep themselves in business and in the public arena. Any right minded person for example, would surely allow parents and relatives to grieve rather than exploit for a quote on tv.
Not in the same league as climbing a tower on a oil ship.
Anti smacking? You mean reasonable force not allowed as a defence in child abuse cases, right?
Votes on tax rates
The TOW was signed as partnership agreement between the British and a number of Maori Chiefs, not all Iwi or Hapu signed the document and not all Chiefs signed the document.
The problem is one of the parties has not adherred to the principles of the document and the Settlor Governments totally ignored it, including the Maori Land Court which was used as an instrument to procure Maori Land for the settlors.
New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that has a founding document with it’s native people, however with Maori losing control of their land by fair means or foul, they lost their economic lifeblood and were disenfranchised despite what the pakeha history books tell you.
However now we have the corporatisation of our state assets by Government which reduces the country’s ability to stand on it’s own two feet and is a lazy man’s way of raising cash to pay for future consumption. It’s like killing the cow that provides the milk.
Wrong, Jack, Labour isn’t even promising to buy back the shares, this tells you how hollow their calls that it makes economic sense to own them are.
I find this an interesting post – and an area of which I have very little knowledge. However I find it most interesting that You Trev – a person known for being so blunt and tribal should now be pushing this line. The background information about select committees is very interesting.
But coming from a Labour MP that served under the Clark / Cullen Government, i actually find this post hypocritical. The reason is the disgusting way the Labour Party and especially Benson-Pope treated the submitters on the Electoral Finance Act where he bullied them, limited their time, and generally treated them with utter contempt. Until Labour apologise firstly for that piece of legislation and also all the Labour members of that Select Committee apologise for the way the submitters were treated, it is hard to take a post like this seriously.
@whondunnit – does Jack say that Labour has made such a promise?
The issue of a nationalisation of the shares that were alienated by the previous National government will presumably place NZ in breach of various international economic regulations. All of the institutional investors who are currently rubbing their hands together (mums and dads bedamned!) would jump to litigate, like those same self-interested MNC’s currently challenging the plain packaging on tobacco in Australia.
One can imagine that such a move could come at huge expense to the tax-payer and have a detrimental effect on foreign relations with countries (e.g., the US) whose institutional investors have snapped up the shares.
If Labour say that they will buy them back at market rate, the value of the shares once sold will soar (easy profit).
So it is not so difficult to see why Labour is not promoting such a policy. They are a centre-left party after all.
But if they are asset-stripped as some commentators here predict they will be then Labour will be able to buy them back cheap, just as they bought Kiwirail back so cheaply. Oh that’s right they paid a fortune for them!
The Cullen Fund will buy a decent size of the shares offered. It won’t be hard for the Government to stand in the market, buy up enough to meet takeover threshholds and buy back all the rest of the shares. Companies use takeover provisions to do this all the time. You seem to not know this.
Face it, Labour won’t commit to buying them back because they know it doesn’t make economic sense to own them. They were quite happy to sell of assets when they were last in Government without telling the people, but as soon as the Nats campaign to do so, and actually do it, they complain. That is just so dishonest.
“But if they are asset-stripped as some commentators here predict they will be then Labour will be able to buy them back cheap”
You need to slow down with your reading. No wonder you keep making mistakes.
The act of selling the current crop of state assets by Key is the asset stripping of NZ. True to his merchant banker mindset.
Post sale gutting wasn’t mentioned.
“it doesn’t make economic sense to own them”
Like you’ve even got a chance of winning that argument with economic fact, especially in a falling market, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order the rush the cash cow to market.
Just looks as if John Key is packaging up New Zealand For Sale which is what a Merchant Bankers job basically is.
Merchant Bankers act as the middle man and take a product to the marketplace to sell making a margin however this way the Government actually gets the cash and Key can then spend it on his pet projects.
He needs to sort out the Water Rights Issues otherwise it is going to come back and bite the NZ Taxpayers in the arse, which it normally does, ie Think Big Muldoon, BNZ Douglas and SCF Bill English.
Looks like the Government has not done their homework on Water Rights, however Merchant Bankers probably do not actually understand the environment and Watershed Management.
I have heard the rivers on the Canterbury Plains are a mess because of the intensification of dairying and poor watershed management.
Looks like the Maori’s and the Treaty Of Waitangi will save NZ from the sale of these cash cow assets to overseas investors.
Key and his advisors are not doing their homework properly and are rushing to get the cash into the Bank without considering all the parties involved inclusing the Tangata Whenua. However this is the way a Currency Trader thinks, unfortunately he does not consider the wider community.
@Jack Ramaka
Currency Trader?… Doesn`t ‘Rogue Trader’ fit better. After all, he is selling our best and essential stuff, to his friends, for their profit, and most certainly our long term disadvantage…BUT ALSO he ‘trades it’ against the very clear wishes of most of us!
‘Rogue’ fits!!
@ Monty
Yes – but all governments have abused their power, BUT isn`t that the reason for the very sensible suggestion by Trevor Mallard that as the government in power will stack a committee with its supporters there should be a brake on ‘steamrollering’ by requiring a ‘ questioning’ chair. The majority still ‘rules though of course!
I believe I struck this when I attempted to present a verbal submission to the original MMP Review committee. The chair and deputy chair effectively prevented me from speaking by just asking irrelevant questions and then dismissing me. I was,unlike other submitters ,simply not invited to speak on my concerns!
The reason may have been that my written submission was very critical of the practise being employed whereby major parties could often easily engineer the presence of a minor party – a la the recent ‘Teacup Farce’. It may have been of interest that the deputy chair (Peter Dunne) was helped into the house by National withdrawing its candidate altogether!! (Ohariu) I wrote protesting my treatment, and that was accepted as a second very late written submission; Nos 239 & 239A.
Note; although at that time I was also of the opinion that any threshold compromised democracy – and though I still feel that, I wonder if parties with perhaps less than 4% should be represented, but, not permitted to vote on confidence and supply. Opinions of minorities could always be heard, but they could not bring down a govt. Some constitutional questions arise??
While raving on… should future list members be required to first obtain a significant qualification on NZ political history & ‘science’, and ethics etc…and tasteful dress… Nar – too far.
There is a lot of nonsense spoken by the ignorant(?) of back door entry etc by list members. Would a significant qualification allay some of this?
Back to the issue – Select committes should be an open, very questioning forum NOT a controlled environment. It could help immensely if the chairman was not of the government.
Jack – National’s policy is one of asset divestiture/partial privatisation not corporatisation because they are already corporatised. Corporatisation of the state assets in question happened long ago. In fact the process of corporatisation of electricity generators begun under the fourth Labour government. It was a wise decision. One that is still wisely supported by Labour MPs such Trevor Mallard (I don’t know what the views of more radical Labour MPs like David Cunliffe are) See Trevor’s comment here. This is because Trevor understands the enormous efficiency gains of corporatisation and hopefully understands the importance of the profit-loss mechanism to economic coordination.
Sorry Quoth The Raven should read Privatisation, my mistake.