Lewis and I have both posted recently on the possibilities of reintroducing an Upper House in New Zealand, mainly to slow down the pace of legislation. Unfortunately we both agree that such an event is extremely unlikely, as neither National nor Labour are likely to favour the idea (as it would significantly reduce their power while they were in government).
However, one way to slow down the pace of Parliament would be to change the rules around urgency. Currently, a motion for urgency can be moved without notice by a Minister at any time after general business (i.e. question time), and is carried by a simple majority. Urgency changes the sitting hours to 9am to 12pm, 1pm - 6pm, and 7pm - 12am. Technically urgency means that Parliament is still on the same sitting day - this means that there is no general business, and no question time, until after urgency has completed.
Basically it is a way for the government to get extra sitting hours, wear down the Opposition, prevent question time from occurring, and speed up the passage of legislation.
It also tends to make bad law - there have been a number of examples of the law having to be changed again, as it was done badly under urgency.
When the Standing Orders were reviewed back in 2003, the Clerk of the House, David McGee, noted that the total sitting hours had been dropping over a number of years. He proposed a number of solutions to increase the sitting hours available, and so reduce the need of urgency for the government.
A couple of the proposed changes I think are very good. He proposed introducing 'Select Committee Orders of the Day' for 1.5 hours every week, that could debate motions raised by Select Committees, and their reports. Currently these reports are in general, never debaated. The other suggestion was an evening session be introduced on Thursdays, from 7:30pm to 10pm, for non-contraversial business. This session could debate any orders of the day considered non-contraversial by the Business Committee (which operates on a consensus basis), and would operate under relaxed proxy rules (so very few members of each party would need to be present).
This would provide longer sitting hours to the government (as around 50% of the bills passed are not very contraversial), and reduce the need for urgency.
However, that in itself is not enough. It must become more difficult for the Government to force the House into urgency.
I would suggest the following changes be made to Standing Orders:
I think that further changes are required to make the Office of the Speaker more independent, but we'll leave that for another time.
However, one way to slow down the pace of Parliament would be to change the rules around urgency. Currently, a motion for urgency can be moved without notice by a Minister at any time after general business (i.e. question time), and is carried by a simple majority. Urgency changes the sitting hours to 9am to 12pm, 1pm - 6pm, and 7pm - 12am. Technically urgency means that Parliament is still on the same sitting day - this means that there is no general business, and no question time, until after urgency has completed.
Basically it is a way for the government to get extra sitting hours, wear down the Opposition, prevent question time from occurring, and speed up the passage of legislation.
It also tends to make bad law - there have been a number of examples of the law having to be changed again, as it was done badly under urgency.
When the Standing Orders were reviewed back in 2003, the Clerk of the House, David McGee, noted that the total sitting hours had been dropping over a number of years. He proposed a number of solutions to increase the sitting hours available, and so reduce the need of urgency for the government.
A couple of the proposed changes I think are very good. He proposed introducing 'Select Committee Orders of the Day' for 1.5 hours every week, that could debate motions raised by Select Committees, and their reports. Currently these reports are in general, never debaated. The other suggestion was an evening session be introduced on Thursdays, from 7:30pm to 10pm, for non-contraversial business. This session could debate any orders of the day considered non-contraversial by the Business Committee (which operates on a consensus basis), and would operate under relaxed proxy rules (so very few members of each party would need to be present).
This would provide longer sitting hours to the government (as around 50% of the bills passed are not very contraversial), and reduce the need for urgency.
However, that in itself is not enough. It must become more difficult for the Government to force the House into urgency.
I would suggest the following changes be made to Standing Orders:
- Thursday evening sittings reintroduced to consider any items of business approved by the Business Committee. 100% proxy rules would apply.
- Select Committee Orders of the Day introduced for 1.5 hours per week (probably Thursday afternoons after general business).
- Question Time to occur every sitting day, even when the House is sitting under urgency (but not extraordinary urgency).
- A motion for urgency must be carried by a 60% super-majority (of total members, not just members present).
- A motion for extraordinary urgency must be carried by a 60% super-majority, and the Speaker must agree that extraordinary urgency (rather than normal urgency) is required.
- A motion to change or suspend Standing Orders can only be moved with notice, and requires a 66% super-majority.
I think that further changes are required to make the Office of the Speaker more independent, but we'll leave that for another time.
Comments
Here, here! I would add that altering the rules of urgency is only part of my case against the Upper House, although it does form an important part of it. The use of urgency in a unicameral system should be very restricted