PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Select Committees’

My day with Tony

Posted by Grant Robertson on June 22nd, 2011

This morning the Health Select Committee held its annual estimates hearing. This is the opportunity for MPs to quiz the Minister and officials on the Budget and plans for the coming year(s). Gerry Brownlee was next door talking Canterbury issues, and so the media (ex NZPA) were not present to cover what happened.

I wish they had been. It is clearly a planned strategy this year for Minister’s to do ’show and tell presentations’ as part of their appearances, to give a nice soft story and also to waste a bit of time. I was present for Judith Collins doing this with Police, and today Tony showed off some drugs and the new throat swabs.

Having got past that, my first question to Mr Ryall was to get him to be more specific about some of the health cuts in the Budget. The Ministry had provided a table (which will become public when the estimates are reported back) of the cuts, and it included an item “Public Health- Reprioritisations”. This is $60 million over four years, no small amount. After repeated attempts to find out what was actually been cut, it became clear the Minister had no idea. He started reading some names of programmes off a sheet, but he did not have a clue.

Even if you think its great that $60 million was cut from public health (which I don’t) you would at least expect that the Minister would know what it was he was cutting. The same thing applied when Iain Lees-Galloway asked him about mental health. No idea.

I then tried to see if he felt any need to intervene in another example of a community who’s after hours service is in danger, this time in Temuka and Geraldine. Again, he was not interested in answering on a specific issue.

As readers might have gathered by the time I got to the House for question I was pretty frustrated. I wont bore you with the details- but here is the link. The bottom line is that the Minister continues to pretend he is putting more real spending power into health, but the agencies who are actually delivering the services, such as the mental health and addicition services in the Northern Region, are getting nothing to help with increased cost pressures, and that can mean only one thing. A reduction in services. And that is the one thing Tony Ryall told us would not happen.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: health
3 Comments

Urgency- Some real information

Posted by Grant Robertson on April 12th, 2011

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.

Tags: ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament, urgency
22 Comments

Abuse of the parliamentary process

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 16th, 2010

An important part of our legislative process is the select committee. Almost all of the laws that come before the House are referred to a select committee for detailed consideration. The public are normally given an opportunity to make submissions, and membership of the committees is shared amongst all of the parties in the House.

Under the Standing Orders, a select committee can’t normally meet while the House is sitting. This ensures that MPs can fully participate in parliamentary debate. It also ensures that when select committees are meeting, members aren’t distracted by the need to follow what is happening in the debating chamber.

Unfortunately, the National government have taken to routinely using their majority in the House to short-circuit the process by moving referral motions to select committees such as this one:

“I move that the State Sector Management Bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 24 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).”

Why should we care? We should care because they’re watering down the strength of our democratic institutions. We should care because having select committees meeting at the same time as the House sits will prevent small parties from fully participating in the select committee process (perhaps that’s why the Maori Party regularly let National MPs take their place?). We should care because it will prevent MPs being able to give select committee (or House) work the attention that it deserves.

Where a piece of legislation requires a tight timeframe, an abridged process might be justified. But the born-to-rule tories are now using this referral motion for every piece of legislation that comes before the House. It’s an abuse of parliament and it should stop.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament, select committee
35 Comments

Effective select committee submissions

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 19th, 2010

Today I’m in Auckland all day with the Local Government and Environment Select Committee. We’re hearing submissions on Rodney Hide’s latest attack on local democracy. We’ve got a bit of a marathon session today, running pretty much non-stop from 9am to 9pm. Even then each submitter only gets 15 minutes to highlight their key points and engage with MPs on the committee.

Reading through the papers last night it struck me how some people or groups are far better than others at getting their points across in a conscise manner. There are literally thousands of pages of submissions for us to work through. I’ve made an effort to look through all of them and I have to say I read some 2 page submissions that were far more comprehensive and valuable than others that were 40 odd pages or more.

I also appreciate those submitters who come well prepared, highlight the 2-3 points that are most important to them and then spend the rest of their allotted time discussing issues with the committee. I’ll never understand why people feel the need to spend their whole 15 minutes reading their submissions aloud leaving no time for real discussion.

I now sit on several select committees and I find the work involved really satisfying and interesting. I admire people and groups who take time to submit and appear before select committees, but I do wonder how we can encourage them to be more effective in the way they do it?

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament, select committee
10 Comments

A bit of a stretch

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 17th, 2010

I sat through all of the hearings on Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill. A lot of submitters questioned his plan to take Tekapo A and B power stations off Meridian Energy and give them to Genesis Energy (both state-owned SOEs). The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that it could lead to less efficient use of water as competing generators tried to maximise their competitive positions against each other. The Treasury argued in a written submission to the Minister that there wasn’t a robust business case / analysis. Unfortunately the National MPs chose to block Treasury from appearing before the Select Committee to explain their concerns.

This morning Gerry Brownlee appeared before the Commerce Select Committee to discuss the estimates for Vote Energy. I took the opportunity to ask him what his basis was for concluding that the asset swap was a good idea. He claimed that because there had been several dry years in the past decade there was evidence that Meridian hadn’t been managing the Waitaki water catchment efficiently. Basically he tried to blame the lack of rain in the South Island on Meridian. I know they are the biggest generator, but I don’t think their market power extends to controlling the weather.

State Owned Enterprises aren’t toys. They’re multi-million dollar enterprises. Any changes the government makes need to be based on robust business cases and rigorous analysis. Gerry Brownlee hasn’t done that. Former National Party Minister Max Bradford made a real hash of his power sector reforms of the 1990s – which led to huge increases in prices. Sadly for price-wary Kiwis, Gerry Brownlee and National appear to have learned nothing from their past mistakes.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: Energy, infrastructure, legislation, privatisation, water
20 Comments

Electricity Industry Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 17th, 2010

This morning the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee heard submissions on the Electricity Industry Bill, the National Party’s latest attempt to create more competition in the electricity market (because their earlier attempts were so successful…). Gerry Brownlee seems to be picking up where Max Bradford left off, breaking up the Electricity Commission, re-organising the assets of the electricity generators and allowing lines companies to retail electricity as well as supply it. Quite a few submitters thought the reforms would lead to higher, not lower power prices.

A very good submission from the Institute of Professional Engineers highlighted the folly of taking the Tekapo A and B generators away from Meridian and giving them to Genesis. They argued compellingly that the Waitaki hydro system functions as a coherent system and that removing the two generators at the top end could lead to less efficient use of water. Others also argued that splitting it up could lead to Genesis spilling water in order to maximise prices. So far there doesn’t seem to have been any compelling argument put forward to justify why the potential (minimal) gains in terms of competition offset these considerable risks.

The bulk of submitters argued that the timeframe for the asset reorganisation was too rushed (including privatised Contact Energy). Federated Farmers argued that if the Commerce Commission is to be tasked with approving Transpower grid upgrades they should also have to consider the alternatives of more localised generation. The Electricity Commission currently does that, but under the Bill they’d lose that function to the Commerce Commission. Fed Farmers were also concerned about the “downstream impact” of having competing operators on the Waitaki system.

A very good individual submission by industry expert David Close highlighted how the introduction of retail competition in the mid-1990s has been followed by a fall in commercial electricity prices, a significant increase in residential electricity prices, while prices for industrial users have remained reasonably stable.

Overall my impression so far is that the Bill lacks coherence. The ‘problem definition’ is weak and the proposed solutions seem a real mish-mash lacking any kind of consistency. It’s early days, but as yet I haven’t heard anything to convince me we were wrong in voting against it at the First Reading.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy
7 Comments

Are you listening Nick Smith?

Posted by Carol Beaumont on December 1st, 2009

I know the Minister can hear but I hope that he can listen.

I am a strong supporter of our Select Committee process and have submitted regularly to a range of Select Committees since commencing work for NZUSA (the University Students Association) when I was 23 ( a few years ago).  Since becoming an MP I have been on the receiving end of submissions and I am impressed with how many people take the time to make well thought through submissions.

Last week I was particularly impressed and I have to say moved by a number of submissions. It is fair to say there have been very strong submissions against the ACC Amendment Bill generally (with many more to come) but it is in relation to the 6% threshold on hearing loss that I particularly want to comment. 

Essentially the view of all submitters is that the exclusion of those with less than 6% workplace related  hearing loss is arbitrary, a breach of faith which may well restore the right to sue of those no longer covered, inequitable and will cause a significant reduction in quality of life for those no longer covered. 

They explained that 6% loss is not trivial, it means the inability to hear birds singing or grandchildren speaking and not hearing many consonants especially in places where there is reasonable levels of background noise.  The amont saved is between $3 – 4 million per year.  A voluntary industry accord in this area has saved  $10 million in the last 18 months.  These same industry people were not even consulted about the changes and believe this arrogance will undermine the cooperative approach that has prevailed.  

While there has been an increase in claims academic studies show this is now likely to trend downwards as the consequences of better workplace hearing protection means less and less people will suffer workplace related hearing loss.  It is primarily older New Zealanders who have worked in primary industries and manufacturing who will suffer as a result of this proposal.  These are generally people with low incomes and disproportionately are Maori and Pacific people. 

The submissions from a number of organisations working in the hearing sector, and academics researching this area, had a high degree of commonality and were well presented.  There was also an individual submitter who had suffered workplace hearing loss after a lifetime of hard work in jobs like shearing, who outlined what that meant for his quality of life.  His presentation was very powerful and moving.   It reinforced for me the importance of individuals taking the time to submit to Select Committees.  What we are tasked to consider as Select Committee members is the effect on people. 

I hope this unfair and ineffective proposal is canned.  It should be on the evidence, as should many other elements of this Bill.  Lets hope the Minister is listening.  Unfortunately I feel the Minister along with the Government is hell bent on destroying our world class ACC scheme and replacing it with insurance which costs more and provides less cover.  The provisions in this Bill are just the start.

Tags: ,
Filed under: ACC
5 Comments

Inquiry into banking

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 21st, 2009

The Labour Party, the Greens and the Progressives will work together to hold the equivalent of a parliamentary select committee inquiry into bank profits. It’s pretty outrageous that the National members on the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee blocked that committee’s own inquiry despite the view of Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard that banks have set their interests higher than needed.

The bank inquiry website is at: http://www.bankinquiry.org.nz

Tags: ,
Filed under: democracy, finance
25 Comments