Comments on: Urgency

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:03:04 +0000

You’ve been taken down, DPF.

First ten months of National-ACT-Maori, compared to the first 3 years of Labour-Alliance.
* Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill
* Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill
* Electoral Amendment Bill
* Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill
* Employment Relations Amendment Bill
* Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill
* Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill
* Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill
* Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill

From grepping Hansard, Labour in its entire first term passed just three:

* Local Government (Prohibition of Liquor in Public Places) Amendment Bill
* Local Government (Rodney District Council) Amendment Bill
* Tariff (Zero Duty Removal) Amendment Bill

Two emergency patches, and one reactionary bill with actual implications.

Meanwhile, your Government rammed through a bill that gives the police* the right to take DNA material from anyone they want for any reason at all. All they have to do is ‘intend’ to charge them (Minister’s scare quotes).

*and possibly Government agencies. Most legislation these days gives the police the power to share such information with other agencies without any safeguards. Nobody has seen the Act yet, so nobody has a clue, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

By: tvb

tvb — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:58:32 +0000

Get rid of the term “urgency” for routine applications to progress bills through the House. Basically the Government cannot pass its legislation unless the house goes into continuous session to pass them. Perhaps the routine urgency motion should be renamed a “continuous sitting” motion and the House is then in a “continuous sitting.” Urgency conveys the wrong message when the Government wants to get legislation passed.

By: Philonz

Philonz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:33:38 +0000

Some advantages of MMP have been to slow down our lawmaking, increase compromise and stop the country swing wildly in the space of a year from left to right or vice versa. As AG points out we had been labelled “The fastest lawmakers in the west” and we seem to still be fighting this urge still. I understand that a new Government will want to move quickly on their agenda but we have seen in the past that rushed, poorly debated legislation (EFA?) only leads to more legislation to fix it up. What’s the rush? You’ve got 3 years, take your time and get it right.

By: Brian Marshall

Brian Marshall — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:04:55 +0000

Berend at 1:28pm, I disagree. We need more hours out of our employees. At present we’re not getting good value from the MPs.
17.5 hours is very little time & Parliment should be operating much longer to make the laws we have, much better.

By: GPT1

GPT1 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:30:59 +0000

In terms of “value for money” (putting to oneside the fact that Parliament should really be finding laws to abolish rather than making new ones) I would have thought urgency with Question Time should be encouraged.

By: berend

berend — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:28:24 +0000

Do we really need to pass more bills???

I’m opposed. We need less hours. I would love to see the day that parliament sits for 0 hours a week for a year. We need less, rather than even more laws.

By: tvb

tvb — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:27:23 +0000

The alternative to the frequent use of urgency is to extend the standard sitting hours of Parliament. On 17.5 standard sitting hours maybe this should be increased.

By: MikeNZ

MikeNZ — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:55:47 +0000

One issue not mentioned is the habit of governments to throw extras into bills at the last minute.
Stephen Franks once remarked that he was a fast reader of law but the government had given him so little time to read through, digest and then debate (both the intended and unintended consequences of the bill and it’s changes) that ACT weren’t going to vote for it on principle.

I had hoped John Key’s National wouldn’t be like Helen Clark’s 9yr parliament, it’s not a good look when they use urgency for non-urgent things.
If we have a major disaster in NZ, then we need urgency but so that a Govt can ram through legislation without proper debate that’s not on.

Sadly key has been a failure to draw a line in the sand to put Parliament right, it seems to be the same old same old.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:43 +0000

and then finishing early so not paying them that overtime…

No. Staff and MPs still get paid for working between 8:05pm and 10:00pm even though no-one was passing laws.

By: PaulL

PaulL — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:51:12 +0000

Dave: it is like asking someone to work some overtime just in case, and then finishing early so not paying them that overtime. Actually, it is a really bad analogy either way. It sounds mostly like a beatup about nothing to me.

By: menace

menace — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:49:32 +0000

ops wrong topic.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:49 +0000

Paul – its a bit like doing overtime at work – and getting paid penal rates – when there’s no work to do. Why would an employer grant overtime if there is no work to do? Similarly why grant urgency when items of business can be done in normal time as was the case in point….

By: david

david — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:39:02 +0000

It is an interesting observation that the amount of time taken to consider any particular piece of Legislation is almost entirely in the hands of the Opposition. The best a Government can do is to a) make provision on the schedule for the maximum number of speaking slots to be used and b) estimate at what point the Speaker will allow the question to be put. We have already seen in the past few months Pete Hodgson babbling on about semantics and taking slot after slot without saying anything meaningful at all.

In general Speakers are generous to the Opposition when the Government stops putting up speakers in a debate so it is a real punt to estimate how much time is needed. Not even his most ardent supporters would credit Gerry Brownlee with having a crystal ball so the law of averages say that sometimes he will get it wrong especially if the Opposition want to prove a point or get home earlier on a Thursday than would otherwise seem likely.

It is all game playing.

By: AG

AG — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:01:17 +0000

Hmmm…

Labour are hypocrites for decrying National’s extensive use of urgency. Probably right. But what, then, to make of comments such as these?

Dr Wayne Map (National)
“I refer Government members back to a former Labour Prime Minister’s book, Unbridled Power—published some 29 years ago, in fact—in which he spoke of these kinds of issues. The way the New Zealand Parliament was characterised back then was that it was the fastest lawmaker in the West. What are the characteristics of being a fast lawmaker? It is actually about the House being in urgency all the time, or at least on a regular basis, in relation to bills.”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/a/8/5/48HansD_20080903_00000196-Employment-Relations-Breaks-Infant-Feeding.htm

David Bennett (National)
“Why are we in urgency? To stay in power. Why are we passing this legislation? To stay in power. Why are we passing the emissions trading scheme legislation? To stay in power.”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/a/8/5/48HansD_20080903_00000196-Employment-Relations-Breaks-Infant-Feeding.htm

Jo Goodhew (National)
“We have considered this bill and have looked into the bill and have many, many questions. The first of those questions must be why this bill is being considered under urgency. What exactly, after 50 years, requires it to be considered this year rather than next February? ”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/d/9/4/48HansD_20071212_00001187-Public-Health-Bill-First-Reading.htm

Tau Henare (National)
“We are here in urgency, and urgency requires that there is something urgent to be brought to the House. The word is “urgency”. I know that the Leader of the House may have had something urgent to bring to the House—or he may not have—but certainly this bill is not urgent.”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/7/a/4/48HansD_20071213_00000539-Mauao-Historic-Reserve-Vesting-Bill-First.htm

Or, for some not-so-left-wing criticism of the practice …

Deborah Coddington:
“Bad things happen late at night when Parliament is in urgency.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10374448

And for why the practice of taking urgency should be restricted, here’s a non-partisan voice:
http://15lambtonquay.blogspot.com/2009/04/urgency-parliament-and-bill-of-rights.html

By: Rob Salmond

Rob Salmond — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:50:14 +0000

DPF says: “Sigh, I did number of declarations as they are easier to find.”

First, I take you at your word. Second, it seems comparing your data with I/S’s that there is little correlation between number of declarations and amount of urgency. That is not especially surprising. Third, given this lack of correlation and given that the amount of urgency is the substantive issue here, I would politely suggest your chosen metric is pretty poor. Which kind of undermines your analysis. So “sigh” away if you like, but it does you no good.

DPF says: “I also note that comparing to the 2005-08 Govt is misleading for two reasons. One is that a brand new Govt almost always has more legislation to pass…”

Well that may true for most new governments, but not for this new government which couldn’t manage to find **one day** worth of legislation to pass after declaring urgency last Wednesday. They ran out of urgent things **on the same day that urgency started**. It was the same day, David! (I’ve always wanted a context to say that here.)

DPF says: “I note Rob ignores what I consider a quite important point – retaining question time voluntarily…”

First, I accept this point and congratulate National on retaining QT. That is a good thing for them to have done. Second, now that I have acknowledged the one issue in National’s favour here that you say I ignored, maybe now it is your turn to acknowledge the multiple issues that I/S, Grant, Trevor, Chippy, Graeme, I, and others have raised on the other side of the ledger which you have thus far ignored.

[DPF: I agree it is stupid to put the House into urgency when there is not much to debate. But sometimes it can be because the Opposition stops debating bills. I have not checked into the actual circumstances of the occasion you refer to. I'm quite happy to say that the House management has not been optimal, and hope it continues to improve.]

By: PaulL

PaulL — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:46 +0000

Again Dave, I don’t understand the argument that finishing early is poor management. Where I work, finishing late or not getting through your work is poor management. Finishing early is good management. Am I missing something?

By: dave

dave — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:40:36 +0000

DPF, How about comment on going into urgency and then finishing early, at a time when parliament normally sits. Did that mean one less members day? ( cant remember) . If you want to suggest changing the hours that parliament sits , there are rules around that. Change the rules, don’t use ” urgency”( whatever of the four definitions) as a means to extend hours to reduce non-government bills because the workload cant be managed in the allocated time.

By: PaulL

PaulL — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:35:22 +0000

Rob, so the complaint is both that National has the house in “urgency” – meaning extended sitting hours – for too many hours. But also complaining that they in fact aren’t using all the hours that they request. So which are you counting – the hours they request, or the hours they use?

In business, it is pretty normal to make provision for more time than you need, and then if you finish early everyone is happy and goes for a beer. Presumably if you make a decent amount of hours available, there is less incentive for the opposition to play silly buggers delaying tactics – you’ve made it clear there is enough time available to pass the law, the only thing playing silly buggers will achieve is everyone going home later. Sounds like wise management to me.

By: Rob Salmond

Rob Salmond — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:24:09 +0000

Graeme – In the sentence before the one you cite, DPF says: “I personally would not call merely extending the sitting hours “urgency” if question time (and members day) is retained.” To me that looks like a name change proposal. I agree there is more to the proposal than that, and I apologize for the simplification. But it was a pretty good gag line I thought. And on the other issue, I think the pertinent issue here is hours of urgency rather than counting the declarations of urgency, because the substance of DPF’s complaint was about the sitting hours available to progress government business. I take the “number of declarations” thing to be DPF again playing silly buggers with the numbers. Nobody really cares how many times you say “I’ll buy us some beer” – the important thing is how much beer you buy.

[DPF: Sigh, I did number of declarations as they are easier to find. Counting up the total hours is a more time consuming process, if comparing the last 12 years.

I also note that comparing to the 2005-08 Govt is misleading for two reasons. One is that a brand new Govt almost always has more legislation to pass. The second is that Labour in its third term struggled to get its Govt partners to agree to urgency.

I note Rob ignores what I consider a quite important point - retaining question time voluntarily, something pretty rare under Labour. Of course one might suggest National likes retaining question time under urgency as Labour are so hopeless in Opposition at using question time]

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:00:21 +0000

I loved your solution to the problem of “too much urgency” by the way, which seems to amount to “call it something else.” That does not solve the problem – it just turns “too much urgency” into “too much something else.”

A number of excellent points, Rob, but this one is off the mark.

DPF’s solution to the problem of “too much urgency” was actually “forbid the government from using urgency to bypass select committees without the Speaker’s agreement”. Basically, DPF doesn’t think urgency is a problem, he mostly considers onlt that urgency that subverts normal Parliamentary processes (select committee consideration, etc.) is a problem.

Edit: it’s also not necessarily three times as often. One of the problems with comparing DPF’s post to others is that he’s looking at the number of times urgency is used while Mallard and I/S are looking at the amount of time (in hours).