Herald on Urgency
April 20th, 2011 at 8:39 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald editorial:
Most importantly, the frequent use of urgency suggests a lack of regard for parliamentary process. And if many governments have been guilty of succumbing to temptation over the years, National’s record this term is particularly poor. In its first two years in power, it used urgency for 331.5 hours, nearly double the time the former Labour Government sat under urgency in its full first term. In that time, it has pushed through 17 laws without allowing select committee examination. Labour’s figure was four or five each term.
As I blogged last week, use to skip sleof urgency just to extend the sitting hours of the House is not that big a deal, especially as National goes out of its way to preserve question time when in urgency.
When it is used to progress a bill through multiple stages at once, or to skip select committee, that it gets more problematic.
Various proposals have been put forward to reduce the use of urgency. Requiring a 75 per cent vote in Parliament before the select committee stage could be omitted for any bill is one of the more valid. Another suggestion is for more sitting weeks each year. But the total number of bills passed by National is little changed from that passed by Labour.
Changes to standing orders need, broadly, both major parties to agree. I’d like to see both National and Labour agree on changes, such as extending the sitting hours so that it reduces the need for urgency. This could be done by having more sitting weeks, by allowing the committee of the whole to meet in mornings, by being able to extend House hours in the evening etc.
Tags: editorials, NZ Herald, urgency
April 20th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Overuse of “urgency” is a symptom of either the arrogance of power or poor organisation and management – or probably a bit of both. National may get away with it this term but if they don’t keep it in check it will bite them on the bum sooner rather than later.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 8:56 am
It is not entirely National’s fault that they learned a heap of bad habits from the 1990′s Helengrad government.
Arguably too, it is a mental health issue – Labour’s current feckless opposition would drive anyone crazy. Hence Health and Safety requirements means the risk must be minimised through reduced sitting hours – hence urgency.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 9:31 am
I don’t think most of us care very much. We elected a government to get on with it and when you look at the empty seats in parliament, frivolous amendments and droning speeches it’s hard to see that much is gained by this expensive, lengthy process.
Vote:Beef up select committees if we need too, though they are mainly talkfests too, but get the laws through and then modify them when needed.
Perhaps it’s time the whole country had a sense of urgency! Especially Labour MPs who seem to think the taxpayer enjoys forking out millions of dollars so they can play silly games in Parliament.
April 20th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Like most of the suggestions, but not sure about that one. Although the tradition of the Muldoon era of MPs getting tanked up over the dinner break is thankfully a thing of the distant past, I still don’t think MPs are going to be at the peak of their performance between 10pm and midnight. There could be a 7.30pm to 10pm sitting on Thursdays though.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 9:36 am
@peterwn 8:56 am
But National are far worse at it. That said, some of the ongoing debate about cut-off points for Working for Families could have been circumvented if Labour had subjected it to Select Committee scrutiny and submissions rather than ramming it through all stages under urgency.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 10:12 am
toad – “Labour had subjected it to Select Committee scrutiny and submissions rather than ramming it through all stages under urgency.”
Vote:Did the Greens oppose the urgency motion?
April 20th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Curtailing or restricting urgency would impact on the legislative agenda of the incumbent government and limit the governments ability to be effective and to act promptly when a situation such as the Christchurch earthquake occurs. Also the heavy legislative workload that the government has to get through restricts the amount of time the government can spend in the debating chamber thereby increasing the need to use urgency to get through the business of the day.
Vote:Urgency has it’s place in New Zealands political landscape and will continue to do so.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Requiring a 75% approval vote before the select committee stage could be bypassed is a good idea. This would limit urgency only to the times it is relevant such as an earthquake or glaring hole in legislation. More sitting hours would just give this current administration greater opportunity to misuse urgency.
peterwn, this government is far worse with urgency than at any time under Labour so stop talking nonsense about bad habits.
KevinH, why has this government been so less able to deal with the heavy legislative workload than previous governments, and how many of the 17 bills rammed through are for prompt action to deal with the Christchurch earthquake
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
The House cut back significantly on its sitting hours but it was always understood the House would have to sit on extended sitting hours to make up the time. They should drop the term urgency except for when extra-ordinary urgency is required. They should simply adopt an extended sitting hours motion on a simple vote without debate. This would allow the current “urgency” sitting hours to apply, and have question time.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Even worse is when bills go to the select committee and submissions are totally ignored. As was the case with the latest foreshore and seabed nonsense when the vast majority of submissions were opposed to Finlaysons (what conflict of interest) effort.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Overuse of urgency is a problem, especially in the most recent case when Labour weren’t even opposing much of the legislation, and weren’t taking calls. Everybody gets tired and crap legislation gets passed – we have certainly seen enough of that over the last 10 years.
Vote:April 20th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
The answer to all of this isthe quality of the Legislation being passed. There are simply too many Bills, Regulations, Rules etc. Most of the stuff passed by Parliament is unnecessay twaddle. I believe before they can have a new law, they should have to abolish an old Law.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 6:50 am
but get the laws through and then modify them when needed.
I’d rather have good laws passed with plenty of scrutiny than mediocre/bad laws which are likely to spring all sorts of surprises down the track because they haven’t been fully and properly considered during the legislative process.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 9:42 am
The way National have been using urgency is simply irresponsible.
“Urgency” should be exactly that. The only bills I can think of this parliamentary term that warranted urgency are the Canterbury earthquake provision bills. While Labour wasn’t perfect either they weren’t as excessive as this.
Haha! “especially as National goes out of its way to preserve question time when in urgency.”- yeah, only when they get wnough pressure from the opposition. It certainly isn’t their preference.
Vote: