Kiwiblog

In my Herald column I look at the first week of question time. I praise Winston first:

Winston is back in Parliament, and had a good first week in the House. His chosen issue of wasteful spending under the whanau ora programme is a good one for him (and one I approve of). Labour and Greens are reluctant to go there, as they worry that they may be seen as being against the aims of whanau ora, which is seeking to improve the lives of whanau.

But also note:

There has been a fascinating series of exchanges between the Speaker and Peters. Peters complains that the PM has not answered his question, and the Speaker points out it is totally unreasonable to expect the PM to be able to answer a supplementary question on details of a small grant, when the primary question did not refer to the grant in question. Despite being told this on Tuesday and Wednesday, Peters persisted with this approach, and again on Thursday got the same reply from the PM. If he is smart, he will take the advice of Mr Speaker, and start providing details of the alleged wasteful spending in the primary question. But maybe secrecy is so ingrained with him, he can’t bear to reveal his target in advance.

I also look at the Greens and Labour.

Former ACT MP Heather Roy used to include in her weekly newsletter a list of upcoming bills likely to be voted on.

Each bill would have a large tick or a cross next to it, to indicate how ACT planned to vote on it, along with a sentence or two explaining why.

It strikes me that this would be a good feature on Red Alert. The Whips could do it after caucus every Tuesday, and it would let people know which bills are non-controversial and which ones are contentious. It would also let Labour indicate briefly why they are voting for or against, and maybe even highlight the aspects they want changed (if appropriate).

Ideally all parties in Parliament should do this – to be open and transparent on which bills they plan to support or oppose, and why. Maybe Frog Blog could do it also?

The quarterly disclosures are out for MPs and Ministers.

Top Ministers in terms of internal costs were:

1. PM $121,884
2. Judith Collins $74,138
3. Pita Sharples $72,473
4. Steven Joyce $62,223
5. Tariana Turia $57,260

Worth remembering that expenses are to some degree a reflection of activity and location. Also affected by whether their ministerial home is owned or rented.

Total ministerial expenses for Q4 2011 were $1.16m plus $0.32m overseas travel for $1.48m. The year before in Q4 2010 it was $1.13m plus $0.86m overseas travel for $1.99m total. Obviously with the election, less travel.

Top MPs were:

1. Hone Harawira $54,961
2. Phil Goff $32,566
3. Rahui Katene $29,436
4. Kevin Hague $28,763
5. David Cunliffe $28,040

The total MPs expenses for the quarter were $3.15m. For Q4 2010, it was $1.80m. I guess the election saw a lot of taxpayer funded travel.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday, in answer to Oral Question No 2, that his Government is selling assets because “New Zealanders want less debt, more productive assets, and an economy that is going to function, not a load more debt”?
2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in implementing its economic growth agenda?
3. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What, according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, was the average total shareholder return of Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now?
5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the grounding of the Rena that “the statute sets down very clearly that I as Minister for the Environment should not be encouraging or discouraging a proper, independent decision by Environment Bay of Plenty as to whether they should or should not take a prosecution”?
7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers?
9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many written comments were received on the draft Recovery Plan for the Christchurch CBD and is it his intention to consider them all before making a decision on the draft Recovery Plan for the CBD, in accordance with the process set out on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s website?
10. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister’s electorate chairman Stephen McElrea to the NZ On Air board that “if you look at the vast array of appointments we make, I think the balance is about right”?
12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury’s advice to increase class sizes in schools?

Address in Reply Debate 3 pm – 6 pm 

Includes NZ First MP maiden speeches

Government Bills 7.30 pm – 10 pm

1. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill Third reading
2. Road User Charges Bill Third reading
3. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill Interrupted debate on second reading
4. Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill First reading
5. Consumer Law Reform Bill First reading

Again nothing terribly exciting. However No 6 on the order paper is the second reading of the Search and Surveillance Bill, which has lots to get excited about. I doubt they will get to it until next week though.

I’ll generally list the next five bills on the order paper. This does not indicate that I think they will get through five bills per day. That would be quite rare. However they did get through three bills yesterday, and part-way through a fourth.

Thanks to the Whips Office for a schedule of maiden speeches. Generally maiden and valedictory speeches are amongst the best in Parliament as you get to hear what motivates MPs, and their backgrounds. One can tune into them on Parliament TV.

The schedule at present is:

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Tracey Martin 4.30 pm
Andrew Williams 4.45 pm
Richard Prosser 5.00 pm
Brendan Horan 5.15 pm
Denis O’Rourke 5.30 pm
Asenati Lole-Taylor 5.45 pm

Thursday, 9 February 2011

Mike Sabin 5.45 pm

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Labour Party members (David Clark, Andrew Little, Rino Tirikatene, Megan Woods) from 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Green Party members (Steffan Browning, Julie Anne Genter, Jan Logie, Mojo Mathers, Denise Roche, Eugenie Sage, Holly Walker) from 4.15 pm to 6.00 pm

Thursday, 16 February 2012

National Party members (Maggie Barry, Ian McKelvie, Mark Mitchell, Simon O’Connor, Scott Simpson, Jian Yang) from 4.00 pm

1. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s priorities for the economy in its second term?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “National will deliver a strong, stable government – and build a stronger economy with less debt and more jobs”?
3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What steps, if any, has he taken to ensure that should the Government sell 49 percent of Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy, “New Zealand investors will be at the front of the queue for shareholding, and that there will be widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership”?
4. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on the 2011 NCEA results?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment:What is the estimated total cost for the clean up after the grounding of the Rena?
7. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has been made on the Government’s Green Paper for vulnerable children?
8. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the decisions of all of his Ministers who were involved in the process for the sale of the Crafar farms?
9. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What is the purpose of the Government’s recently announced proposed changes to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What has the Government publicly said in response to the attack by Syrian forces on its own citizens in Homs, and how does it see the crisis there being resolved?
11. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Has she read the Children’s Commissioner’s newsletter Children and poverty: moving beyond rhetoric?
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received about SmartGate?

So we have five patsies from National.  Labour have four questions – Shearer, Robertson, Parker and Ardern – their “top four”. Shearer focusing on the economy (sensible), Robertson on the Rena, Parker on the Crafar farms and Jacinda on child poverty. The crafar question likely to be the most vigorous.

The Greens have two questions – on SOE part-sales and Syria. God knows why they are wasting a question on Syria (it is an important issue, but our influence is zero on it).

The 12th question is NZ First and of course asked by Winston. His is the general do you have confidence in all your Ministers which can go anywhere. He may have an alleged scandal to drop, but more likely will focus on the Maori Party Ministers and National.

After question time, the address in reply debate continues for another 16 hours. If the House adjourns it, then the the top five bills on the order paper are:

1. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill Committee stage
2. Road User Charges Bill Committee stage
3. Electronic Identity Verification Bill First reading
4. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill Second reading
5. Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill  First Reading

Nothing terribly exciting there off memory.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour is slashing its parliamentary staff numbers, after its poor election result sliced an estimated $700,000 off its funding.

As part of the cost-cutting the number of press secretaries working for the 34 MPs has been cut from five to three; one fewer than the press team that works exclusively for Prime Minister John Key.

There will also be likely job losses in other areas, but these are yet to be finalised, as Labour looks for savings to cover what is understood to be a 20 per cent fall in funding from $3.5m before the election to about $2.8m now.

My sympathies go out to those who lose their jobs. One of the things I hated about working at Parliament was seeing some good friends lose their jobs after elections or leadership changes.

I’ve run the numbers through Excel to calculate funding changes. Each party gets funded a certain amount for its leaders office and research unit. This is based on how many MPs you have, and how many are not Ministers. I call this the central funding.

Also each MP gets individual funding depending on if they are an electorate MP, List MP, or their electorate is over a certain size. The current funding is:

• Leadership – $100,000/party and $64,320/MP
• Party/Research – $22,000/MP not in the Executive
• MP – $105,192/seat over 20k sq kms or if Maori seat over 10k sq kms
• MP – $64,260/other electorate seats
• MP – $40,932/List MP

In theory the MPs funding is for them to spend, but in reality the party leadership can also direct how that is spent, and it can all be pooled together. So for example Trevor Mallard can exceed his $64,260 if the Labour Leadership agree to cover it, but vice versa if Trevor spends say $20,000 under his budget then that Labour Leadership can spend it on say policy brochures or staff.

The total funding per party (including MPs funding) is:

• National $7,166,76o (was $6,957,704)
• Labour $5,103,512 (was 6,061,724)
• Greens $1,881,016 (was $1,245,268)
• NZ First $1,118,016
• Maori $504,965 (was $724,260)
• Mana $291,512
• ACT $186,260 (was $630,948)
• United Future $186,260 (was $186,260)
• Total $16,438,812 (was $16,056,744)

That’s a $950,000 drop for Labour, which does hurt. Greens gain $650,000 and NZ First gains $1.1m.

The average funding per MP can be interesting:

1. Mana $291,512
2. ACT/United $186,260
3. Maori $168,321
4. Labour 150,103
5. NZ First $139,752
6. Greens $134,395
7. National $121,471

National is lower as there is no leadership funding for MPs who are Ministers. Mana does very nicely thank you very much.

Note that while political staff are hired out of the funding, each MP is also entitled to two (list) or three (electorate) executive assistants to work in their parliamentary and out of parliament offices.

Parliament 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.

• Sat 10 Dec – Publication of final results
• Sun 11 Dec – confidence and supply agreement with Maori Party, confirmation of majority
• Mon 12 Dec – PM announces Ministers and portfolios
• Tue 13 Dec – Labour elects Leader and Deputy (and maybe Whips)
• Wed 14 Dec – PM and Ministers sworn in and warranted by Governor-General and 1st Cabinet meeting
• Tue 20 Dec – 50th Parliament convenes for swearing in of MPs and election of Speaker
• Wed 21 Dec – Speech from the Throne

The Herald did a story yesterday based on my analysis, and said it showed there was little diversity in Parliament and the average MP was a straight, European man from the North Island aged in his 50s.

In fact only 10% of MPs are straight, European men from the North Island aged in his 50s. Five average characteristics do not make one overall average.

With the exception of gender, I think Parliament does quite well on the diversity stakes, as is shown above. I have excluded age from this comparison as I don’t think anyone really thinks that Parliament should have 21 MPs aged in their 20s and 20 MPs aged over 65.

Note the comparisons are to the adult (15+ or 18+) population.

On gender, there is a serious imbalance. Later on, we’ll look at the breakdown by party.

Ethnicity is very interesting. Maori are the most over-represented ethnicity followed by European. Pacific are slightly under-repreented and it is Asian New Zealanders who are the most under-represented.

Geographically Auckland and provincial cities are pretty spot on. However Wellington and Christchurch are over-represented at the expense of those who live outside a city.

The North Island v South Island balance is almost spot on.

The number of gay/lesbian MPs is also pretty proportional. There is no definite prevalance rate for gay and lesbian adults, but 5% is generally regarded as in the ballpark. In times past 10% was often cited, but this is now thought to be too high.

So as I said overall, I think Parliament does quite well on the diversity front. Now let us look at the breakdowns for the four main parties.

In terms of gender, the Greens are broadly balanced (their rules require it), Labour and NZ First have a 2:1 ratio for men to women and National a 3:1 ratio. National does need to select more women in winnable seats or in winnable list spots.

13% of the adult population is Maori, and 10% of National’s caucus if of Maori descent, 18% of Labour’s and around a quarter of the Greens and NZ First.

5% of National’s caucus is Asian, as is 3% of Labour’s. No Green or NZ First Asian MPs.

9% of Labour’s caucus are Pacific, 13% of NZ First’s and 3% of National’s.

In terms of geography, NZ First is very Auckland dominated, and the Greens relatively light.

Labour and the Greens both have heavy Wellington biases with three times as many MPs from Wellington, as you would expect from the population. Conversely NZ First has no Wellington MPs and National only 5% from Wellington.

The Greens do badly in provincial cities. In rural areas (outside cities), National is the only party with proportional representation. Labour and NZ First have less than half what the population share is.

Based on island, the Greens are out of kilter with only 62% in the North Island where 74% of the population live.

By sexuality, National’s rainbow representation is just 2%, Labour’s is 12% and the Greens at 15%. NZ First have none (known).

Finally, there are some interesting age patterns. National’s most common age is in the 40s. Labour’s most common is 50s, Greens also 50s and NZ First 60s. Labour have a lot in the 30s also.In terms of median ages it looks like NZ First is the oldest and Greens the youngest.

I’ve done an initial analysis of the demographics of the 50th New Zealand Parliament. This is based on initial results and is assuming Brendon Burns retains Christchurch Central, and hence Raymond Huo is not elected. I can update for final results.

The information is taken from public sources. Sometimes I have had to guess an age, where it is not documented. Happy to update with any corrections, if any details are wrong. Sexuality is of course based purely on public status. Only those who are openly gay or lesbian are classified as such, and all others are classified “straight”.

Gender

• 83 Males, 69%
• 38 Females, 31%

Ethnicity

• 90 European, 74%
• 21 Maori, 17%
• 6 Pacific, 5%
• 4 Asian, 3%

Age

• 2 20s, 2%
• 14 30s, 12%
• 37 40s, 31%
• 48 50s, 40%
• 19 60s, 16%
• 1 70s, 1%

Area

• 41 Auckland, 34%
• 16 Wellington, 13%
• 14 Christchurch, 12%
• 22 Provincial Cities, 18%
• 28 Rural, 23%

Islands

• 90 North Island, 74%
• 31 South Island, 26%

Sexuality

• 114 “Straight”, 94%
• 4 Gay, 3%
• 3 Lesbian, 2%

I was disappointed the number of women in Parliament has dropped. But apart from that, overall Parliament looks pretty diverse and not too distant from what NZ as a whole is.

UPDATE: Two minor errors corrected.

The Standing Orders Committee has just reported back a review of the standing orders that govern Parliament. This are of interest to few people, but are highly important. They are the rules of our Parliament.

The full report is 110 pages. I’ve yet to read it all, but on first browse it looks to include some significant enhancement. I hope the House and the Government adopt the recommendations. A brief summary include:

• The Clerk to record and publish attendance of MPs
• A new form of legislation called a revision bill that has no debate at first and third reading but does have a select committee hearing and a second reading debate
• an inquiry into how Parliament should respond to future national emergencies
• the ability to deduce an MPs pay if they are suspended from the House
• an extension of privilege to include broadcasting of the House etc
• 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.
• Uncorrected transcripts of Parliament to be placed on website within three hours. Excellent initiative.
• Clark’s Office working towards a public fully searchable database of text and video of Parliament. This will replace the printed weekly Hansard.
• An MP not giving the correct oath will be required by standing orders to immediately withdraw from the House. They also note that most of the committee support a review of the oath. I agree with both clamping down on improper oaths, but also changing the oath.
• 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.
• A requirement for an MP intending to talk about an issue before the courts to notify the Speaker in advance
• Proposed members bills will now be recognised before they are drawn from the ballot, and be available of the Parliament website, which may help the MP proposing it to gain support for it. Sensible.

There are some areas where they could have gone further, but overall I think the proposals would make Parliament significantly better, and I hope that they are adopted.

A large number of MPs elected in 2008 are retiring at the 2011 election, or have already retired. By party I make it:

ACT

• David Garrett (left 2010)
• Roger Douglas
• Rodney Hide
• Heather Roy
• Hilary Calvert

Greens

• Jeanette Fitzsimons (left 2010)
• Sue Bradford (left 2009)
• Sue Kedgley
• Keith Locke

Labour

• Helen Clark (left 2009)
• Michael Cullen (left 2009)
• Winnie Laban (left 2010
• Darren Hughes (left 2011)
• Ashraf Choudhary
• George Hawkins
• Pete Hodgson
• Lynne Pillay
• Mita Ririnui

National

• Richard Worth (left 2009)
• Pansy Wong (left 2011)
• John Carter (left 2011)
• Sandra Goudie
• Wayne Mapp
• Simon Power
• Georgina te Heuheu

Progressive

• Jim Anderton

So that is 25 MPs elected at 2008 and one MP who came in in 2010, who will not be standing in the 2011 election.

On top of that a number of incumbent MPs may fail to be re-elected, so the turnover may increase even more.

Can you name this future MP? A hint – the photo is only a few years old!

I blog at Stuff on why I think we need a four year term, and look at what the length of term is in other developed countries. Only one country has a two year term. NZ and Australia are the only ones on a three year term. 29 countries are on a four year term and nine on a five year term.

Just had a quick look through the list of MPs, and worked out who entered Parliament in which prime ministerial era. Didn’t take too long to do. quite a diversity in the House. My calculations are:

1. Holyoake – 1 (1%)
2. Muldoon – 1 (1%)
3. Lange – 9 (8%)
4. Bolger – 18 (14%)
5. Shipley – 1 (1%)
6. Clark – 52 (43%)
7. Key – 40 (33%)

So that is 75% of MPs entered the House when Clark or Key was PM.

Holyoake

DOUGLAS, Roger

Muldoon

GOFF, Phil

Lange

ANDERTON, Jim
CARTER, John
DUNNE, Peter
KING, Annette Faye
MALLARD, Trevor
MCCULLY, Murray
ROBERTSON, Ross
SMITH, Lockwood
WILLIAMSON, Maurice

Bolger

BARKER, Rick
BROWNLEE, Gerry
CARTER, Chris
CARTER, David
DALZIEL, Lianne
DYSON, Ruth
ENGLISH, Bill
HENARE, Tau
HIDE, Rodney
HODGSON, Pete
MAPP, Wayne
O’CONNOR, Damien Peter
ROY, Eric
RYALL, Tony
SMITH, Nick
TE HEUHEU, Georgina
TURIA, Tariana
WONG, Pansy

Shipley

ARDERN, Shane

Clark

AUCHINVOLE, Chris
BENNETT, David
BENNETT, Paula
BLUE, Jackie
BORROWS, Chester
CHADWICK, Stephanie (Steve)
CHAUVEL, Charles
CHOUDHARY, Ashraf
COLEMAN, Jonathan
COLLINS, Judith
COSGROVE, Clayton
CUNLIFFE, David
DEAN, Jacqui
FENTON, Darien Elizabeth
FINLAYSON, Christopher
FLAVELL, Te Ururoa
FOSS, Craig
GOODHEW, Jo
GOUDIE, Sandra
GROSER, Tim
GUY, Nathan
HARAWIRA, Hone Pani Tamati Waka Nene
HAYES, John
HEATLEY, Phil
HOROMIA, Parekura
HUGHES, Darren
HUTCHISON, Paul
JONES, Shane Geoffrey
KEDGLEY, Sue
KEY, John
KING, Colin
LOCKE, Keith
MACKEY, Moana Lynore
MAHUTA, Nanaia
MORONEY, Sue
NORMAN, Russel
PARKER, David
PEACHEY, Allan
PILLAY, Lynne
POWER, Simon
RIRINUI, Mita
ROY, Heather
SHANKS, Katrina
SHARPLES, Pita Russell
STREET, Maryan
TISCH, Lindsay
TOLLEY, Anne
TREMAIN, Chris
TUREI, Metiria
WAGNER, Nicky
WALL, Louisa
WILKINSON, Kate

Key

ADAMS, Amy
ARDERN, Jacinda
BAKSHI Kanwalkit
BEAUMONT, Carol
BOSCAWEN, John
BRIDGES, Simon
BURNS, Brendan
CALDER, Cam
CALVERT, Hilary
CLENDON, David
CURRAN, Clare
DAVIS, Kelvin
DELAHUNTY, Catherine
FAAFOI, Kris
GILMORE, Aaron
GRAHAM, Kennedy
HAGUE, Kevin
HIPKINS, Chris
HUGHES, Gareth
HUO, Raymond
JOYCE, Steven
KATENE, Rahui
KAYE, Nikki
LEE, Melissa
LEES-GALLOWAY, Iain
LOTU-IAGA, Sam
MACINDOE, Tim
MCCLAY, Todd
NASH, Stuart
PARATA, Hekia
PRASAD, Rajan
QUINN, Paul
ROBERTSON, Grant
SEULONI, Carmel
SHEARER, David
SIO, William Su’a
TWYFORD, Phil
UPSTON, Louise
WOODHOUSE, Michael
YOUNG, Jonathan

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

There were dramatic scenes in Parliament today as Speaker Lockwood Smith refused to swear in new Mana Party leader Hone Harawira after he would not deliver his affirmation as dictated by law.

The former Maori Party MP was to be sworn in as MP for Te Tai Tokerau.

As Harawira left the debating chamber, supporters sung from the public galleries in defiance of Smith’s ruling for them to cease.

Harawira had earlier sought to speak in Maori after approaching the Speaker to take the oath.

Smith interrupted him and informed him he must leave the Chamber and “return on a sitting day when he is determined to make the affirmation according to the law of this land”.

There were calls of “shame” and “no respect” as Harawira left.

The Speaker informed MPs that he had advised Harawira prior to his affirmation that the law of New Zealand required the affirmation “to be [delivered] in a certain way”.

The Speaker does not have discretion on this issue. The oath is not a requirement of Standing Orders or the Speaker. It is a legislated requirement of the Constitution Act 1986. S11(1) states:

A member of Parliament shall not be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives until that member has taken the Oath of Allegiance in the form prescribed in section 17 of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957

And S17 says:

One can affirm instead of swear, so cut out the God reference. You can also say it in te reo. But what you can not do is change the wording as it seems Hone tried to do.

The Human Rights Commission has published a discussion paper on ways to strengthen our parliamentary democracy. Some of their proposals are:

1. A minimum 12 week period for submissions to select committees
2. Establishing a dedicated Human Rights Select Committee
3. All international reports and recommendations on human rights be tabled in Parliament and referred to this select committee
4. Standing Orders to forbid major legislative provisions by way of Supplementary Order Paper
5. Amend Standing Order 246 to make it a right for dissenting members to publish a minority report

I broadly support (1) as I think a minimum time for submission to be open would be helpful for the public. You would need some mechanism where this could be shortened when absolutely necessary.

(2) and (3) sort of go together. I’d love a focus on how to better protect our right to free speech.

(4) is well intentioned but probably unworkable. I support the principle but I’m not sure who could decide what is or is not major except the House itself.

(5) is a good idea. Minority reports should not need the permission of the majority.

I’d go further than the HRC in some areas. I would like the Attorney-General’s obligation to report on bills which may breach the Bill of Rights Act to not only apply for introduction/first reading but also to apply at second and third readings so NZers can know if an amended bill is deemed a breach of the Bill of Rights Act.

Kate Chapman at Stuff writes on the rugby jersey issue, and lists her top ten best dressed:

Parliament’s top 10 best dressed

1. JACINDA ARDERN This rising Labour star is consistently the best turned out, with her glossy mane, flawless makeup and designer frocks.

2. SIMON BRIDGES National’s golden boy is a standout for his geek-chic specs and sharp suits.

3. METIRIA TUREI Known as a fan of Wellington designer Starfish, the Greens co-leader has her own funky style.

4. TONY RYALL The health minister leaves the Opposition benches dazzled by his interesting tie and shirt combinations.

5. HEKIA PARATA The well-groomed acting energy minister is a fan of Jackie O sunglasses and has been known to dab on the lip-gloss.

6. ANNETTE KING The polished Labour co-leader loves New Zealand designers and we covet her quirky earrings.

7. JOHN KEY Yesterday’s blancmange-pink tie aside, the prime minister is usually immaculately turned out. A Rugby World Cup lapel pin is de rigueur.

8. SIMON POWER Oozes sophistication in his well-cut suits and carefully matched ties.

9. PAULA BENNETT The Westie social development minister accessorises with outrageous shoes and a leopard print car.

10. DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION SERVICE With their matching dark suits and shades, it’s no wonder Mr Key’s well-turned out team doesn’t come cheap.

I wonder who would be on a worst dressed list?

Stuff reports:

Labour MP Clare Curran has been kicked out of Parliament for wearing a Highlanders Super Rugby jersey.

Curran appeared at Parliamentary questions this afternoon wearing the team’s old blue, gold and maroon kit in protest at the new lime green colour.

Speaker Lockwood Smith declared the jersey violated Parliament’s strict dress codes and ordered Curran to leave.

Labour colleague Trevor Mallard protested the decision.

I would have thought a rugby jersey was a pretty obvious “no” in terms of meeting the House dress code.

Personally I think the dress code should be relaxed so men do not have to have a tie and jacket, but even I would hestitate to suggest that rugby jersies should be acceptable in the House.

Her ejection from Parliament highlighted the lack of rules around what women should wear in the House, she said.

“I certainly never expected to be thrown out of the House for being a woman wearing a football shirt. I think it was an over reaction.”

She said she was surprised and would consider whether she would change and return to Parliament this afternoon.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei left the House with Curran.

Turei later tweeted saying it was an example of sexism in Parliament continuing. “Has Ross Robertson ever been scolded for his sports team scarves let alone kicked out? No”

I hate it when people cry sexism mindlessly.  And this is mindless.

I have absolutely no doubt that a male MP would be kicked out by Lockwood for wearing a rugby jersey in the House.

If anything, the rules are sexist against men. The dress code for men is far more proscriptive than for women MPs.

In 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.

 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

 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. 

 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:

1. The total number of sitting hours in 2009 and 2010 are consistent with 2000 and 2001.
2. 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.
3. The total number of bills being passed is not significantly changing
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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:

1. 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).
2. That standing orders be changed so that question time automatically carries on, even if the House is in urgency
3. 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.
4. 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.

I popped into Parliament yesterday for a farewell for someone retiring from the Parliamentary Library. At the function, one of the Library staff informed me that I was still a signatory for the Parliamentary Ball bank account, which amused me greatly as I left in 2004. Sadly only $60 in the bank account though.

It’s a pity there hasn’t been a parliamentary ball for so long – I used to love them. I recall one ball which had a halloween theme, and I went as Satan – painted red, with a nice red cloak, horns and trident. A few of us met in the National Leader’s Office before we went to the ball, and I recall Bill English walking into the room, seeing me and quipping without hestiation “David, you were meant to come in costume”.

Going out to Courteney Place afterwards was lots of fun also. I found traffic stops to allow you to cross the road far more often, when you look like The Devil.

Just returned from making my third and fourth submission in the last fortnight to the Justice & Electoral Select Committee. As with the previous times, there was good questioning and discussion on the issue. Ths time it was about the name suppression clauses of the Criminal Procedure Bill.

As I was observing other submissions, I reflected it is a pity more people don’t get to see MPs at work like this. Unless the bill is a highly partisan one, they are genuinely engaging with submitters and looking for ways to improve the draft laws, before they are finalised. It’s an important part of our democracry, and one of the parts that works very very well. The absence of an upper house makes their role even more vital.

I hope that someday Parliament will broadcast (even just over the Internet) all public sessions of select committees, as well as the House itself.

Sadly this week we also saw Parliament at its worst. Labour wasted four hours of the House’s time filibustering the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land and Vesting Bill. This is a non controversial bill that is supported by all parties in Parliament and passed its 1st and 2nd readings without dissent.

Now I’m not against the Opposition being able to fillibuster. I blogged in 2009:

I do support the rights of the Opposition to filibuster – within reason. In fact I was the primary staffer who helped National delay the Employment Relations Act by a week in 2000.

But a filbuster is a blunt weapon for an Opposition to use, and if you get it wrong, it can hurt you.

I tend to think an Opposition should do a full filibuster only once per parliamentary term – it should be used against the piece of legislation that you think is most harmful to the country.

This was the test National used in 2000 with the then ERB. It gave all sorts of special favours to unions, and National decided it was the law they were most against.

Now some will say why filibuster at all? Well an Opposition can not defeat a law, so all they can do when it is a really really bad law, is delay it to show how bad they think it is.

But here Labour is filibustering a totally non-controversial bill. They wasted the entire four to four and a half hours allocated to local and private members bills on talking about how they like to go to the park.

Why? Well their real target is the next bill on the order paper – the VSM bill.

It is interesting that Labour have decided that the VSM bill is so bad, thet they are going to try and oppose it with ore vigour than any other issue before Parliament – even more so than tax cuts, privatisation etc.

Why are Labour willing to risk a public backlash with their fillbuster, in the hope they can stop VSM (voluntary membership of student associations) occuring? Someone on Twitter provided the best answer – because there are no limits to what a parent will do to protect their young!

Compulsory membership student associations have been a major source of training and employment for future Labour Party MPs. So there are no big issues of principle involved.

What is even rarer is that Labour is willing to fillibuster private members day. Only one in six sitting days is given over to private member bills. And the vast majority of those sitting in line are from Labour or the Greens. They’re willing to stop all of those being debate, so long as they can delay VSM.

Of course they will fail. Even with fillibusters the VSM bill should pass into law in April or May. And the Government could always adopt it, and pass it as a Government measure. There is no way it won’t pass before the election.

Ironically the longer they delay it, the less time universities will have time to prepare their enrolment software.

It will be interesting to see how many weeks or months of fillibustering will Labour inflict on private members day, in their fight against VSM. It would be good to see on TV some of the inane filibustering speeches that were made yesterday on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land and Vesting Bill.