In praise of Trevor and Labour
October 14th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarI blogged on 27 September on the review of Parliament’ standing orders. A fuller list is at that post, but some of the changes include:
- The Clerk to record and publish attendance of MPs
- A Bill of Rights analysis to be supplied not just at first reading but also for substantive SOPs amending bills. This is something I have advocated several times.
- Provision for extended sitting hours without going into urgency by sitting on either a Wednesday or Thursday morning, if necessary. Again something I have strongly advocated, as it should reduce the need for urgency so much.
- Also provision for extended sitting hours on a Thursday evening and Friday morning, but only if the Business Committee agrees, which means basically the Opposition consents to it.
- Ministers moving urgency in future will need to state the reason for the urgency. Good.
- Business Committee determinations to be published on the Parliament website. These proposals give a lot more power to the Business Committee, so this is good. The BC needs near-unanimous consent to make decisions, so it is about encouraging parties to work together more.
These changes were passed by the House last week, and will apply to the next Parliament. They were passed on a voice vote with no parties or MPs dissenting. Considerable credit goes to Speaker Lockwood Smith who chaired the Standing Orders Committee.
But I also want to acknowledge the role Labour, and its rep Trevor Mallard, played. Generally changes that make the House more efficient are not necessarily a good thing for the Opposition. Take as an example the new ability to have extended hours without going into urgency. This allows the Government to pass more laws without using urgency, which means the Opposition will lose the opportunity to complain as often about use of urgency.
Labour presumably agreed partly because they plan to be in Government again one day themselves (when they will benefit from it), but partly also I think because they do want the House to operate more effectively. So it is worth acknowledging their constructive role in these changes. I’d like to quote from Trevor Mallard’s speech on the new standing orders:
Although it might cause him some embarrassment, I also acknowledge Rodney Hide and the work he has done within this. I was surprised at the number of occasions when we agreed as we progressed through the Standing Orders, and I think that having someone who has had a period as a poacher, and who, to a certain extent, has turned gamekeeper, was useful. It was useful having his view on the importance of Parliament and where the balances lie. People who look carefully at this report will see that it is one that very slightly tips the running of Parliament in favour of the Government, but provides some safeguards to that. Those of us who have been involved on both sides of the House think that that is something that could be useful going forward.
It does tip the balance a bit but there are stronger incentives now to gain consensus through the Business Committee.
Although I am less comfortable with that change, I am probably more comfortable than many of my colleagues with the set of arrangements around the extra hours—the extended sittings—of the House. I have had a role in Government business before. I know that things do not work neatly, and that therefore it is too easy for Governments to move to urgency in order to get through business that, of itself, is not urgent. Urgency has too often been used as a House management tool rather than as a tool to progress urgent business. I think the extended sittings give the right compromise there: select committees cannot sit at the same time as the House, except with leave; notice is given; bills are not taken through more than one stage at any one time; and the extended sitting occurs only once a week, unless the Business Committee agrees. In my opinion, that will give the Government a bit more power, but will move it back from using urgency in a way that I consider to have been inappropriate of Governments for just about as long as I can remember.
What I am pleased about is that a few months ago I co-operated with Labour MP Grant Robertson to publish an analysis of the use of urgency over the last few terms of Parliament. It didn’t win me a lot of friends in certain quarters, but I felt it was important to highlight the trend. I was nervous that Labour would be all rhetoric on reducing urgency, but not actually agree to changes such as the above, which would allow more business to be conducted without urgency. There had in fact been a sessional order asking for this sitting on the order paper for a couple of years, but which had not progressed due to lack of support.
So I was pleased to see Labour actually agree to changes (and Trevor suggests not all his colleagues were that keen to do so), to make a substantive move to back up the rhetoric. And the changes should mean that any future uses of urgency for non-urgent business will attract sustained criticism (with some limited exceptions such as post-election policy implementation).
There is, I think, quite a lot of extra power going to the Business Committee. Again, I reiterate my surprise at how well that committee is working. Frankly, Mr Brownlee, and especially Mr Power, with whom I have worked more often on that committee recently, have been open with the committee as to their intentions. The meetings have been slightly better planned, maybe, than at some stages in the past. You, Mr Speaker, in the way that you have chaired the committee, have also tried to seek consensus, although there has been an occasion or two where you have been the only person who has had a particular point of view. It is probably fortunate for the other members of the committee that you do not represent a party on that committee.
That’s a nice recognition of Gerry, Simon and Lockwood.
There are times when the House looks very juvenile. General Debate is a typical example. But there are also times when they rise above squabbling, and the review of the standing orders debate was one of those.
October 14th, 2011 at 9:42 am
There can be no doubt at all that the poor behaviour we see in the House, contributes largely to the widely held perception that we (generally) have low calibre MP’s representing us in Parliament.
Indeed, some of the childish antics / interjections / shouting matches / general insults etc we witness in Parliament, would not be tolerated at a properly run primary school. For sure, these are not behaviours that would be tolerated in the Boardroom. Nevertheless, its pleasing to read of examples where MPs from across the political spectrum can actually put their biases / prejudices aside and actually work collaboratively for the common good.
But before we start thinking that, perhaps there is hope after all, we need to remind ourselves that this instance of non-partisan cooperation is very much an exception and that we should not deviate from the priority to rid ourselves of the malaise that is MMP, at the referendum next month.
We sure deserve better.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Elaycee – What a bizarre argument against MMP. It runs like this.
Vote:Politicians don’t co-operate with each other, therefore we should make parliament more partisan by making it a two party system. That is just illogical and stupid.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Sounds like good progress.
I heard someone else praising Trevor being true to his word, not sure if it was in [parliament or not. He seems like a genuine bloke with the best of intentions but not always the most thoughtful execution – but it’s far better to see open and honest intent and accept the inevitable missteps.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 10:18 am
@awb – comprehension still not your strong point, huh?
As parliament contains misfits / commercially inept List MPs who would never survive in the real world, the example of cooperation highlighted by DPF should be considered to be the exception rather than the norm. We need to rid ourselves of the dross in Parliament – the first opportunity to commence this process is via the referendum next month.
Under MMP, a fruit loop party who has been rejected by 94% of the electorate, can force the majority party to support some of their policies as part of a coalition deal. So, because of MMP we get force fed policy by a party who has been rejected by 94% of the electorate!
No thanks.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Elaycee – can you list all the examples where fruit loop policies have been force fed as part of a coalition deal?
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Elaycee – Actually the Greens are widely regarded as the best behaved party in Parliament, Labour and National are regarded as the worst behaved. So by your logic we should reward them by entrenching them?
MMP breeds far more co-operation between parties, not less. There would be zero cooperation under a different system because both parties would have no option but to oppose each other. Look at the American system, no bipartisan compromise there.
You can mock me if you like but it doesn’t make your argument any better. It just makes you look like a blowhard who doesn’t understand how government works.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 11:14 am
@awb – “Actually the Greens are widely regarded as the best behaved party in Parliament….”
Comedy comment of the day.
Remember: “Gimme back my flag” ?
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 11:21 am
“Gimme back my flag”
I’d forgotten that Elaycee. Thanks for reminding me.
What a tosser.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Pete George – you’re clearly flying a kite.
Any party that has been rejected by 95% of the vote, should not consider itself entitled to hold the majority parties to ransom as part of their confidence & supply arrangement / co-operation arrangement. But how many times do you hear the words “bottom line” by minority parties – I’ll answer for you: all too often. But I’ll give you just one example – you can research the rest yourself.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/08/winston_says_he_will_force_labour_to_repeal_anti-smacking_law.html
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Elaycee – I’m not flying a kite, it’s a serious question.
The example you give hasn’t happened, it’s a threat by someone unlikely to get into parliament to a party unlikely to get into government so it’s nowhere near a dog’s tail, nothing more than a male dog’s dream.
Winston Peters is responsible for most of the problems we’ve had under MMP, it’s going to be a lot simpler to keep him out this election than risk changing voting systems for the next election.
Any that have actually happened, excluding Peters?
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@Pete George: OK, I’ll give you another one – a little closer to home:
Your own United Future said at the time of the last election that the Family Commission will stay despite National’s preference for it to be merged with the Commission for Children. It is Peter Dunne’s baby and a United Future bottom-line.
Now Dunne was not alone – there were several ‘bottom line’ policies by other parties. No doubt the same line will be trotted out over the next weeks. But IMO, no threshold party should expect a non-negotiable ‘bottom line’ policy to be embraced – after all, the vast majority of the electorate (around 94%) didn’t vote for them. They could try and gain a wider acceptance of the policy, sure. But a ‘bottom line’? Of course not. Its one of the failings of MMP – laws are being modified to accommodate the wishes of 6% of the voting population – often at the expense (and the wishes) of the majority of voters.
What it means is that a desperado like Goff would agree to anything and everything from any minority party – just to try and cobble up a government. In fact, Goff would do a deal with Hone’s mofo party if he thought it would get him elected. And with Winston First. And even the Gweens.
Scary.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Elaycee – I’m not sure if you have the faintest idea about how MMP government works. Minor parties win one or two policies, and then have to agree to pretty much everything the governing party proposes, or thereabouts. Who has the power in that relationship? Look at what has happened to the Maori Party with National. Maori Party managed to get about two policies through, they are unlikely to last the next term and an MP left. That is not the views of a minor party steering the government agenda. Major parties still hold most of the power under MMP, you can only be in government if you are acceptable to a broad enough group of voters.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Elaycee – Your own United Future said at the time of the last election that the Family Commission will stay despite National’s preference for it to be merged with the Commission for Children. It is Peter Dunne’s baby and a United Future bottom-line.
No mention of it being a “bottom line” pre 2008 election, and no mention at all in the Confidence and Supply Agreement with National.
4 May 2011 – UnitedFuture Leader Peter Dunne says it is now time to merge the Children’s Commissioner with the Families Commission.
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/dunne-merge-childrens-commissioner-and-families/
So that looks like UF aligning with National preference and is certainly not dog wagging.
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
RE: fruit loop policies
Perhaps fruit loop isn’t the correct term, but certainly there has been policies put thru by the smaller Party’s that normally wouldn’t have otherwise.
Eg NZF and the Gold Card favouring superannuates only. Didn’t NZF strike some deals over Racing?
Eg The Alliance in Clark’s first administration, pushing Labour to dismantle the Defence Force’s combat roles (and self destructing over Labour deploying Defence to Afghanistan).
Fortunately for NZ the Greens haven’t been part of formal coalitions yet, but if and when they do, expect more millions of dollars to be diverted from health, education & defence (or paying off debt) and into saving more snails ….
Vote:October 14th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Greens have already had policies accepted by the main party but they have less influence outside government.
Labour haven’t treated Greens well in the past, it would be really interesting to see how policies would be negotiated between them if Labour got 20-30% and Greens got 10-15% – and needed Maori and Mana as well. Purely hypothetical of course.
Vote: