Select Committees
August 31st, 2006 at 4:11 pm by David FarrarI had a brief appearance before the Justice & Electoral Select Committee today, advocating that Parliament not reduce from 120 to 100 MPs. The Committee was very polite and receptive with a few targetted questions and a bit of humour. I can’t speak for them, but I would be surprised if the bill is recommended to proceed.
Prior to that the Committee was hearing submission on Sue Bradford’s Section 59 bill and there were some very emotional submitters, talking about personal backgrounds with abuse. It was really good to see the Committee dealing with such a horrible issue in a very sensitive non-partisan way. Sure the MPs on there may disagree on what the law should say, but one could tell they were operating in a genuine way.
My third select committee experience for today is to note (thanks No Right Turn) that the Commerce Committee has reported back the anti-spam legislation and I (and InternetNZ) are delighted that the Committee has taken on board all the submissions and make some really really good improvements to the bill. It’s again excellent to see Select Committees doing such a good job. Too many people think Parliament is only about Question Time.
Ran into Sophia from Red Confectionary and local Act on Campuser Jordan K at the select committee, so we had a quick beer at the Backbencher afterwards. Always good to meet new people.
No tag for this post.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Personally I would prefer 150 MP’s.
100 electorate MP’s (including whatever Maori MP’s).
Less overworked they might not “relax” in the House as if it was their local.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Thanks for the beer David.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 7:55 pm
A select committee is exactly the wrong place to consider the number of MPs. After all, do turkeys get to vote on Christmas ?
A binding referendum is the only reasonable choice, but the chances are less than zilch that MPs would ever let the voters actual decide on such matters.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Referendums are expensive, you sound like one of those nutters from direct democracy…
New Zealand is such a small world huh David
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Oh dear, so bereft of ideas you have to base your entire arguement on an ad hom.
Expensive, so you don’t think democracy is worth the money ?
Actually I don’t believe that referenda are the perfect mechanism for conducting a government, but on matters of import it is best I suggest to remove the self interest. David has been going on about people with a direct interest in matters sitting in judgement on them, and this is just such a case. Make it a referendum, if the case for 120 (or more MPs) is so compelling, it should be easy to make.
What the politicians are more scared about is that the electorate will take a form of revenge on what is perceived to be a bunch of scumbags lining their own pockets with their own special laws (not in the public interest…), and ignore the logic to vote in a punitive fashion. I reckon you could get a proportion right now to vote for a parliament of about 20. But the challenge is, if the idea is good, why can’t the people decide ?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:20 pm
You are on the money Ed Snack.
I hate to say it but if all the MP’s were reality TV stars and/or models a referendum would happily deliver us 300, but who wants any (at all) thieving scumbags who treat us with total contempt.
However I’m taking the unusual step of agreeing with SPC. 120 decent MP’s would shake this country, 150 would make it rock. But sadly SPC it’s been proven that it only takes 61 to make a pudding out of it.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:30 pm
David, I was really interested to read that you found submissions at the Justice Select Committee hearing was non-partisan. I guess its not as a partisan issue as I had thought.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 6:13 am
There was a binding referndum in 1994 to adopt MMP and move to 120 seat Parliament. MMP will not work with 100 MPs (which was the major point of my submission).
PDQ – The issue still is partisan to the degree there are genuine differences of views on how to amend the law and in the House and the public arena these do get championed. But at select committee level they were listening to submitters, not advocating positions.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 8:32 am
“Prior to that the Committee was hearing submission on Sue Bradford’s Section 59 bill and there were some very emotional submitters, talking about personal backgrounds with abuse. It was really good to see the Committee dealing with such a horrible issue in a very sensitive non-partisan way.”
What’s abuse got to do with section 59? The committee should have refused to have heard them.
Vote: