Use of Urgency
April 12th, 2011 at 8:00 pm by David FarrarIn a first for the blogosphere, Kiwblog and Red Alert have teamed up to do co-ordinated posts on the use of urgency.
Both the current and former Governments have been criticised for their use or over-use of urgency – which is the provision that allows the House to sit for extended hours, and sometimes bypass the select committee process.
I wanted to do a proper study of the use of urgency since 1999, and Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson kindly agreed to help supply the information (which comes from the Parliamentary Library). We agreed that it would be good to do co-ordinated posts on this issue as we think that both parties should commit to less use of urgency.
It’s important to note that not all urgency is the same. Some uses of urgency (to sit on a Wednesday morning for example) are relatively benign, while other uses (by-passing select committees) are bad and should be done only when strictly necessary.
Hence, this analysis goes well beyond just the headline figures, and examines the use of urgency in depth.
There are effectively four parts to the parliamentary cycle. Year 0 is the brief period after an election and before the calendar year ends. Year 1 is the first full year of Government. Year 2 is the mid year and Year 3 is the portion of the third year that falls before an election. Generally we have compared Year 1s with Year 1s as they have different profiles. The year after an election is often very busy implementing election promises. Year 3 is often not so busy.
| Year 1s | Year 2s | ||||||||
| 2000 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2001 | 2004 | 2007 | 2010 | ||
| Sitting Hours | 624 | 594 | 482 | 576 | 591 | 583 | 529 | 600 | |
| Urgency | 70 | 89 | 19 | 155 | 79 | 117 | 32 | 134 | |
| Ordinary | 554 | 505 | 463 | 421 | 512 | 466 | 497 | 466 | |
| Sitting Weeks | 34 | 33 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 31 | 31 | 31 | |
| Av Hours/Week | 18.4 | 18.0 | 16.6 | 19.2 | 18.5 | 18.8 | 17.1 | 19.4 | |
| Week x 17 hrs | 578 | 561 | 493 | 510 | 544 | 527 | 527 | 527 | |
| Extra hours | 48 | 33 | -11 | 66 | 47 | 56 | 2 | 73 | |
The total number of hours the House sat was a record 624 in 2000 – the first year of a new Government. National’s total number of hours in 2009 was below the average for the former Government. However in 2010 the House sat for 600 hours – a record for Year 2, but only nine hours more than in 2001.
Where there is a difference is the number of hours spent in urgency. National had the most hours in urgency in both 2009 and 2010. However be aware that this includes time which would normally be ordinary sitting hours. For example the House normally sits for 6.5 hours on a Wednesday. Under urgency it sits for 13 hours. All of those 13 hours count as time under urgency, even though 6.5 of them were normally scheduled anyway.
As the sitting week is normally 17 hours, I’ve tried to estimate how many “extra” hours occurred each year due to urgency. They do clearly show that National has been using urgency the most to gain additional hours – 73 hours in 2010 and 66 hours in 2009. That is equal to almost eight additional weeks of sitting time over two years.
The House used to meet for 34 weeks a year, and in recent years has been 29 to 31 weeks. One solution to reducing urgency could be to schedule more sitting weeks.
Now let us look at what was done legislatively during these sessions
| Year 1s | Year 2s | ||||||||
| 2000 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2001 | 2004 | 2007 | 2010 | ||
| Bills passed | 93 | 127 | 91 | 70 | 102 | 111 | 113 | 127 | |
| Bills passed not referred to select cmte | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | |
The number of bills passed is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. If you like the bills it may be good, if you do not like the bills it may be bad. In terms of quality of law making, it is also subjective. If you pass very few laws it may indicate a Government not able to deliver policies, but if you pass too many laws they may not be getting the attention they deserve.
The total number of bills passed averaged 95 for Year 1s, and 113 for Year 2. Not a big difference between Labour and National Governments.
But it is in the area of bills passed without going through a select committee, that National should attract the most criticism. In 2009 and 2010 it passed 10 bills without giving the public the chance to submit on the bills at select committee stage. Sometimes there may be a good reasons to do so (Canterbury Earthquake etc), but the total level is far too high. The power to bypass select committees should happen very very rarely – it was only 1 – 2 times a year under Labour.
People unhappy with the level of bypassing select committees, should let their local National MPs know. Note that in 2008 National also passed seven bills into law without select committee – now again some of these could be justified as implementing clear election promises or a simple repeal – but 17 bills bypassing select committee in just over two years is frankly an outrageous level. National needs to not just look at these bills in isolation, but about the collective total and the message it sends.
| Year 1s | Year 2s | ||||||||
| 2000 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2001 | 2004 | 2007 | 2010 | ||
| Weeks with an urgency motion | 8 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 9 | |
| No of urgency motions | 8 | 4 | 3 | 15 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 7 | |
| No of extraordinary urgency motions | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Friday Sittings | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| Saturday Sittings | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Question Times | 81 | 86 | 87 | 87 | |||||
As I said earlier, not all urgency is the same. Urgency sessions which extend past Thursday into Friday and Saturday are the “worst” as they seriously disrupt MPs scheduled activities in their electorates. The number of urgency sessions in 2010 is slightly more than in 2001 and 2004, but the number of Friday and Saturday sessions is reduced.
This indicates the Government is using urgency to extend sitting hours on Wednesdays and Thursdays, but generally avoiding Friday and Saturday sessions. This puts pressure on select committee attendance and means MPs have to stay at Parliament until midnight instead of 10 pm (or 6 pm on Thursday) but apart from that isn’t too bad.
Extraordinary urgency is very rare, as it needs the permission of the Speaker.
Urgency normally takes precedence over all other business, so it has traditionally meant that question time and/or private members day is cancelled. Indeed, it has sometimes been suggested that Governments go into urgency to avoid question time. But as you can see the number of question times is as high or higher in 2009 and 2010 than it was in 2006 and 2007. This is because the Government has deliberately sought to include provision for question time in urgency sessions. This is commendable, and it would be good to have standing orders change so that question time always occurs, regardless of urgency.
So what’s the overall position in terms of the current Government and urgency:
- The total number of sitting hours in 2009 and 2010 are consistent with 2000 and 2001.
- The number of hours spent in urgency were higher in 2009 and 2010 than any other year, reflecting an increase in the average number of hours the House sits each week, but fewer sitting weeks.
- The total number of bills being passed is not significantly changing
- National has so far passed 17 bills under urgency, bypassing select committees. This is a massive increase on past practice. Labour on average only passed 4 bills per term under urgency bypassing select committees. Such a high level of select committee circumvention undermines good parliamentary practice.
- Thoe House has gone into urgency more often than in the past, but the number of urgency sessions extending beyond midnight Thursday have not increased.
- Despite the increase in the use of urgency, the number of question times has stayed constant, as the Government has generally maintained them during urgency
Some thoughts or recommendations for all parties and/or MPs and to consider for the future:
- That standing orders be changed so that a bill can bypass select committee stage only with approval of the Speaker (as is needed for extraordinary urgency).
- That standing orders be changed so that question time automatically carries on, even if the House is in urgency
- That the number of sitting weeks be increased, hence reducing the need for so much urgency, from 31 to 33 by reducing the number of two week recesses from five to three.
- That standing orders be amended to distinguish between “extended sitting hours” which would merely extend the sitting hours on Wednesday and/or Thursday and full urgency (where you specify particular bills, and the House keeps going until they are disposed of)
I quite like the suggestion Grant has made, that you could have the House sitting as the Committee of the Whole on Wednesday and Thursday mornings. This would free up House time more for first, second and third readings.
Tags: Grant Robertson, Parliament, Red Alert, urgency
April 12th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Urgent or not a quick flick around with the calculator confirms they actually do fuck all
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
They should drop the term urgency and use something like extended sitting hours. Once upon a time the House used to sit on friday mornings and to 10.30pm at night. They have cut all that back especially the friday sittings. This cut back in hours means that the House will have to sit under extended sitting hours from time to time to get its business done.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Seriously they are only in Wellington Tuesday- Wed- Thurs and then they clog up the airport leaving from about 11.00am Friday .
When they are in the house the majority of the time is taken up with infantile howling at each other
Its a disgrace – they must have a bloody good union negotiating their hours
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Suggestion 5.
Pass Rodney Hide’s Regulatory Standards Bill to slow up the lawmaking, improve it and start limiting state power.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Very interesting read DPF. You and Grant Robinson are to be commended for this type of work.
@Gooner: You do know the notable omission from Hide’s Bill that makes it a farce, and means that it can’t possibly have any integrity, don’t you?
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
An excellent piece of research – thanks to all involved.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Excellent evidence-based post David, thanks to both you and Grant for that.
I think the one sentence summary has to be “National’s use of urgency isn’t as bad as some claim it is, but it certainly isn’t as good as it could or should be”.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
I have another suggestion: just have a smaller government, so there’s less to legislate, and they don’t have to be in session for more hours.
Because sure that is NZ’s biggest problem, and biggest differentiator with better performing countries, the size of our government.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
My own analysis of this post suggests DPF that you are about to be quoted in Hansard again
An excellent analysis by yiou and Grant. National does need to take heed of the conclusions.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I agree with berend and gooner: reduce the number of hours and weeks sitting, so that there’s less time for the govt to interfere. And for every law they add, make them repeal another one.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
@ DT – I’m sure you are about to tell me.
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Some thoughts or recommendations for all parties and/or MPs and to consider for the future:
A thought for yourselves.
Hows about going further back to compare this data? The 5th Labour govt’s enthusiastic use of urgency + their prodigious legislative agenda was to my untrained eye, unusual. If I was to postulate, one might say the fact Key appears to have carried it over perhaps reflects nothing more than he has modelled his Prime Minister-ship upon what the previous govt did, since that’s the only training he ever got.
Show me the data…
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
reid: the fifth Labour govt was Helen Clark, or Lange? If Helen, then isn’t that what DPF has already done with comparison to 2000?
Vote:April 12th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Paul, Clark was the 5th Labour govt.
My hypothesis is she was atypical relative to previous govts of either stripe stretching way back and this is for many reasons. This is a hypothesis awaiting data. You don’t get it if you don’t ask.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 6:10 am
Back in 2008 I sent an e-mail to John Key, Peter Dunne, Rodney Hide, Tariana Turia and Peter Sharples (as the principals of the various parties forming the government) complaining about the use of urgency to pass the 90 day employment bill, the education national standards bill, the bail bill and the sentencing bill as I could see no reason why any of these should be passed under urgency.
There weren’t any breaks requiring the clearing of the order paper. They didn’t involve financial/budgetry concerns. They weren’t required to clear legal points highlighted by the courts. At least one of the bills hadn’t even been drafted when it was announced that it was going to be passed under urgency.
I didn’t even receive an acknowledgement from any of them.
I submitted a similar complaint to the Labour Government when they used urgency to pass the “smacking bill”. I received one acknowledgement that time.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 7:32 am
I submitted a similar complaint to the Labour Government when they used urgency to pass the “smacking bill”. I received one acknowledgement that time.
I assume the reply was that urgency was not used to pass the “smacking bill” at any stage. Because it wasn’t.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 7:45 am
I assume the reply was that urgency was not used to pass the “smacking bill” at any stage. Because it wasn’t.
Badly worded comment based on faulty memory. I sent the e-mail prior to the bill being passed when the use of urgency was being considered.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 7:49 am
As expected. They don’t answer minnows.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 7:53 am
As expected. They don’t answer minnows
I generally do receive replies from parliamentarians, even if its only an acknowledgement. Occasionally I get a proper reply actually addressing my concerns.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am
DPF:
You are aware that the NZ Centre for Public Law has been engaged in an independent, indepth longitudinal study of urgency? Some of their data has already been made available. You may want to augment your examination with reference to their analysis?
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 10:31 am
I was aware they were doing a study but thought it wasn’t yet published. Any URLs are welcome.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Thrash-
I think the point of urgency in each case, was to circumvent protest and political awareness by using Key’s media sweetheart period and the short news cycle in the MSM to bury the issues. All pieces of legislation contained potentially very contentious moral issues. Those constitutional changes that were made i.e. pissing all over the bill of rights (bye bye right to stay silent), the Privacy Act (extra voyeuristic state powers) could have been latched on to bye a less sympathetic media. Then there was the 90 day bill, which will cause more abuse of vulnerable workers, because “do it or you’ll lose your job” scenarios are near impossible to redress in practice. Also – bye bye right to freedom of association (the 90 day bill negates the benefits of union membership for many).
Are these predictable and strategically advantageous aspects of urgency’s over-use, not simply evidence of a government that does not hold the democratic process in very high regard, nor civil-liberties? Oh no, it’s all just a coincidence i’m sure.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 11:16 am
DPF:
Some of their data and analysis is available in their submission to the Standing Orders Select Committee:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/988AE9D2-5459-44CB-A9B2-74EFE7EA1ED8/188249/49SCSO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_10324_1_A177554_NewZealandC.pdf
Over the next month or two, I understand they will be discussing their findings in a public lecture, along with publishing a full paper setting out their findings and recommendations.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
So, when people in these comments threads talk about the “do as I say” / “born to rule” attitude of Labour Party MPs, they really mean the “do as I say” / “born to rule” attitude of National Party MPs?
Well I never…
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
and I see some internet bill against something or rather is going thru under urgency today.
Well I never.
Vote:April 13th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill is being slipped under the radar today under urgency too..
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10719055
I’m pretty shocked considering the divisive nature of the legislation…
April 13th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
The ISP disconnection thing is bullshit; I can’t believe they’re trying to sneak it in under the radar. I thought that idea was killed off last year. This government has definitely lost its shine.
Vote:April 19th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
“You do know the notable omission from Hide’s Bill that makes it a farce, and means that it can’t possibly have any integrity, don’t you?”
DT,
Vote:I don’t know anything about the bill myself. What is the omission you refer to?