Select Committees
December 22nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm by David FarrarParliament Today reports on the Select Committees established by the House. Always interesting to see which ones have a Government majority.
- Commerce – Nat 5/9 – Nat majority
- Education & Science – Nat 5/10 – tied
- Finance & Expenditure – Nat 6/11 – Nat majority
- Foreign Affairs – Nat 4/7 – Nat majority
- Govt Admin – Nat 3/6 – tied
- Health – Nat 5/10 – tied
- Justice & Electoral – Nat 5/9 – Nat majority
- Law & Order – Nat 5/9 – Nat majority
- Local Govt & Environment – Nat 6/12 – tied
- Maori Affairs – Nat 5/12, Nat+Maori 6/12 – National minority, Govt tied
- Primary Production – Nat 4/7 – Nat majority
- Regulations Review – Nat 3/5 – Nat majority
- Social Services – Nat 6/11 – Nat majority
- Transport & Industrial Relations – Nat 5/9 – Nat majority
From a Government point of view, these are much tidier than in the previous Government. Only one committee can pass things against National’s will, and that is Maori Affairs. Four further committees are tied (if all opposition parties vote together) and nine committees have a clear majority.
December 22nd, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“Only one committee can pass things against National’s will, and that is Maori Affairs.”
What a fucken surprise!!!!!!
Vote:December 22nd, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Why so many National majorities? They didn’t get a majority of votes or a majority of the seats in the House.
Vote:December 22nd, 2011 at 8:01 pm
@Graeme Edgeler 7:53 pm
Yeah, agreed. Actually, I would go further. The role of a Select Committee should be to look at the evidence before it and make recommendations to Parliament accordingly. A Party having a majority on a Select Committee increases the likelihood that an ideologically predetermined position, rather than one reached by analysis of the evidence, holds sway. That leads to poor Parliamentary decision-making that is not evidence-based.
Vote:December 22nd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
for the TLDR version of Toads post try “wah wah wah, the greens don;t get to implement their wacko policies despite not being in govt”
The greens – the least successful party ever in NZ parliament.
Vote:December 22nd, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Poor toady. And if, perchance, pigs fly backwards and we get the greens on 47%, would we hear “that’s no mandate” from you as well? Would you countenance power sharing with National, or Act in those circumstances? Or in fact, ever?
No, thought not. Do shut up.
Vote:December 22nd, 2011 at 10:04 pm
@hmmokrightitis 9:14 pm
I don’t get this “mandate” stuff, where the party that gets the most votes suddenly claims it has overwhelming public support for each and every one of its policies.
Every opinion poll that has been run on state asset sales has shown overwhelming public opposition. The Nats getting a plurality of votes at the election is therefore likely to be despite that policy, not because of it. I suspect the real reasons for the election result are that voters didn’t see either Labour or the Greens as being ready to lead a Government, thought the Nats had muddled through their first term leading a Government okay, and liked the personal affability of John Key. I doubt it had much to do with policy (and in particular the state asset sale policy) at all.
I actually think if the Greens are to ever lead a Government it would be a good idea for them to not have majorities on Select Committees. That way they would have to convince at least some other parties of the merits of their policies to get the Select Committee to recommend supporting them, and risk the likelihood of adverse public reaction if they failed to achieve that but rammed the policy through anyway under a confidence & supply arrangement.
Vote:December 22nd, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Is Trevor Mallard not well? Politics aside, I say this out of genuine concern because he appears to me to have aged 20 years in 12 months.
Vote:December 23rd, 2011 at 12:41 am
National, by far the largest single party got the most votes because most people recognised that although they were not great fans of asset sales, the other options were worse. Doing nothing is not the alternative – the alternative is more taxes and more debt, as proposed by Labour in the form of CGT with it’s delayed results. The reason damn near 1 in every 2 people voted National was because they preferred the sum total of National’s policy than the sum total of any other party’s policy. If you think they voted not on policy, then they voted on how they trusted the party’s MPs and candidates. Which is the same thing, as those people make the policy.
That means they (at the very least) accepted partial privatisation, mixed-ownership, asset sales or whatever you want to call it. Act got one seat, which was not an overhang, and United Future caused a part-seat overhang and those parties campaigned to support National boots-’n'-all. That means that half the house is controlled by parties that support asset sales. To quote Winston Peters, who was quoting Michael Cullen, “We won, you lost, eat that!”.
The fact that most people would say they didn’t support asset sales when asked “Do you support asset sales?” is irrelevant. There has to be context. National wouldn’t be selling assets if they didn’t think it was the best alternative. Doing nothing is not an option.
Vote:December 23rd, 2011 at 9:24 am
If you got it use it I say. I would have made sure I had a clear majority on ALL the SCs. Betcha the Socialists did when they were in power.
Vote:Dont see Dear Leader letting anyone else have a say.