Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
It is with great pleasure that I move, That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in the First Appendix of the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled Review of Standing Orders , presented on 27 August 2008, be adopted and take effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament. This process today completes the standard triennial review of the Standing Orders. The amendments in this year’s recommendations are largely a collection of technical amendments tidying up, clarifying, and ensuring consistency in the existing Standing Orders. In that context, they are a tribute to the work done in the 1996 review, which was probably the most massive and far-reaching set of changes to the Standing Orders ever made in the history of this Parliament. Those changes were made to prepare the House for an MMP environment. They have stood the test of time remarkably well, and nearly all changes since then have been relatively minor in nature.
I will dwell briefly on two or three issues. The first issue is that my good colleague Mr Ross Robertson has, of course, been a strong proponent of a code of ethics for parliamentarians. A number of members of Parliament, particularly those in the National Party but also, I must say, myself and some others, are somewhat less enthusiastic about that proposal, basically on the ground that the Standing Orders themselves should be providing the fundamental rules of behaviour in the House and behaviour by members of Parliament in that context. If the Standing Orders are defective, then they should be changed, and if members are looking for stricter interpretation and enforcement, then that is a matter to take up with the presiding officers. It is not a matter for some other code of conduct. Indeed, I have some reservations about having two separate sets of documents in that particular case.
The second issue is that the Standing Orders Committee has recommended the introduction of a simultaneous interpretation service, and we looked, in some depth, at how that would be translated into the broadcasting of the House, recognising that there will actually be difficulties. Simultaneous interpretation within the House is relatively simple, but broadcasting in terms of simultaneous interpretation is technically almost impossible, particularly in relation to television broadcasting. One of the issues, which is very simple and practical, concerns where a simultaneous translation booth would be placed in the House, because to cope with the number of MPs under MMP the House is already dreadfully stretched in terms of capacity, and people have difficulty moving around within the House.
The third and, I think, most important change suggested—a very good change, and one the Prime Minister has urged upon me on a number of occasions—concerns the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, which is a rather sterile debate, at least from the perspective of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to read out a speech that has been prepared and circulated, and it has to be read word for word. That makes for a very strange start to the year, as opposed to the new procedure that is suggested, which I think will be much better, whereby the Prime Minister’s statement—a statement, if one likes, of the Government’s priorities—is circulated well in advance, a motion is moved, and the Prime Minister speaks to the motion, followed by the Leader of the Opposition, the other leaders, and so on, in turn, around the House. I think that will give a much more characteristic flavour of the nature of debate.
We looked at the same concept in relation to the Budget. Budgets are much more difficult. The very nature of the Budget is that the documentation is complex and highly detailed, and the speech probably will have to continue to be read by the Minister of Finance. I can assure the House that it is a quite difficult and somewhat tedious business to read a 45-minute speech absolutely word for word, particularly for somebody who is as exceptionally prone to ad libbing as I am. To actually be constrained to read all one’s own words, which one has read many, many times before, begins to pall on the reader, if not on anybody else, at the moment of delivery. Inevitably, that traditional format has to be followed in the Budget debate, but it does not need to be followed in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement.
One final point I would like to raise is that the committee has made some recommendations that are not in relation to actual changes to the Standing Orders but are recommendations to members—and I hope members will take these seriously—and one of those is about the tabling of documents. It is an absurdity that members in this House rise to table questions, answers to written questions, parliamentary papers, Hansard, bills, newspaper articles that are published in New Zealand, and other documents, many of which have already been tabled in any case, or are in the lobbies, and most of the others are relatively reasonably well available.
The Standing Orders Committee is keen to discourage that practice. I think it wastes time, and over the last 20 years the changes to the Standing Orders have been very good at removing time-wasting in Parliament. This practice wastes time and brings us into disrepute. Occasionally I have had to deny leave even to some of my own colleagues who insist on trying to table a newspaper report, because I take the view that those things should not be sought to be tabled.
The tabling mechanism was designed to be used for somewhat more serious purposes than that, in practice. I do not know why people think there is some magnificent achievement in having tabled an answer to a written question. I can assure members, after 27 years in this place, that history has never been changed by somebody tabling an answer to a written question, or—and I say this with some trepidation, given the media’s ability to get their own back—tabling an article from the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald that has already been published.
With those few comments I commend the report to the House. I thank all the members of the Standing Orders Committee—I think I have been on every Standing Orders Committee except one since I have been in this Parliament—for, as always, the assiduous and very, very largely non-partisan way in which they approach their work.
Hon CLEM SIMICH (National) Link to this
I rise to make just a few brief comments on the motion. Firstly, I thank the Leader of the House, the Minister of Finance, for his work on the Standing Orders Committee, and say what a pleasure it is to work with him, because he has a vast knowledge of the issues surrounding the Standing Orders.
I think the decision in regard to the Prime Minister’s statement was the right one, and will be helpful to all members of the House, and, indeed, to the Prime Minister. Members seem to like the way the Minister of Finance has presented his Budgets. His Budgets are both entertaining and informative, and the wish was that he continue to do it that way. These reviews of the Standing Orders are conducted once in each term of Parliament, generally, and this one has been quite extensive.
I mention the matter in regard to the Business Committee. The Business Committee has had restrictions on its membership before in that not all small parties could be represented there. The change made now is that all parties can be represented. It is not really a change in procedure, because it has been the practice of that committee to allow all small parties to be there anyway, but that is now set out in the Standing Orders.
On the matter of television broadcasting from the House, the media raised considerable issues in regard to some matters therein, including in regard to satirical presentations of the Chamber and the proceedings here. That matter has been clarified. Those presentations went way beyond the intent of the original guidelines and directions, but the matter has been clarified so that the provisions apply only to the media organisations themselves, not to the broadcasting that Parliament has in place at the moment.
I commend the motion to the House. These are all sensible changes, and they were all agreed to unanimously. The committee deliberated on them over quite a lengthy period, and it has come up with these amendments. I commend the motion to the House.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. The Māori Party was proud to stand alongside our MMP colleagues in the Greens, United Future, and ACT to support a code of conduct for members of the House, and to reduce the disorderly conduct that diminishes Parliament and all of its members as well. I note that such a call was once made in the 1880s by MP Vincent Pyke, who described members of Parliament like this: “there were the speechless members, who were never heard of except by their votes. Then there were the silly members, who talked nonsense by the yard. And, thirdly, there were the sensible members, who said very little, and said that little to the purpose.” Nearly 130 years later, Parliament still seems to be struggling with the challenges of the speechless, the silly, and the sensible, although the public could be forgiven for thinking that only the silly ones are to be heard.
That is why we called for and supported a code of conduct being instituted in the Standing Orders. The slanging matches, the petty attacks, the snide remarks, and the often mindless attempts at humour that characterise question time in the Chamber create a very poor environment for political debate, and it is no wonder the general public has such little confidence in us as politicians.
The Māori Party looks to kaupapa and tikanga Māori to guide us in our behaviour, and although I personally struggle with them sometimes, I recognise that such principles require us to treat one another with respect and with integrity. I have no doubt that the people of Aotearoa want to see standards of behaviour in this House that acknowledge those values. Indeed, my good friend the Most Rev. Desmond Tutu said it well when he said: “If I diminish you, I diminish myself.” Certainly none of us is perfect, but it is worthwhile that we strive to address the issues at hand rather than the person, so it is disappointing to note that the review made no further commitment about standards of conduct that MPs could follow.
A big part of the report was about the proposal that the Māori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell raised at the very first Standing Orders Committee of the 48th Parliament for simultaneous Māori-English interpretation in the House, so it is with considerable satisfaction that as the current Parliament draws to a close we see that the Standing Orders Committee has agreed that the establishment of such a service is desirable, and that we are finally able to progress the introduction of a simultaneous interpretation service in the Parliament of Aotearoa. We believe that the successful regeneration and revitalisation of te reo Māori relies on promoting its usage as an ordinary, everyday language. In the same way as we want to hear te reo Māori in the shopping malls, the marketplace, and our homes, so too should we aspire to having te reo Māori heard regularly in this House. The Māori Party looks forward to the day when simultaneous interpretations in the House set the scene for what can be done throughout the country.
I also note the proposal for the display of the New Zealand flag in the Chamber and select committee rooms. I wish the House to note a complaint that the Māori Party has laid, which is still in progress, in regard to the double standards of flying the European Union flag from the Auckland Harbour Bridge while denying the flying of the Māori flag. I note, too, that the select committee did not agree to the New Zealand flag being flown in the Chamber and in select committee rooms at this time. I sincerely hope that when the time arises that we can make that decision we also have the courage to fly the Māori flag as recognition of this country’s Treaty partnership.
Finally we come to the issue of proxy voting for smaller parties. I note that in Parliamentary Practice David McGee describes the Standing Orders as representing the political accommodations and allocations amongst the various parties. A specific example of this is the proxy voting provisions that were written into the Standing Orders in 2003 for the Progressive Party. The crux of that change impacts against four-member parties, and works to support three-member parties. In effect, the proxy voting provision means that the only time that the Māori Party can cast four votes in the House is if we have an MP in the House itself and a total of three MPs within the parliamentary complex. To cast our party votes, we can have only one MP away at any time, whereas United Future can cast three votes in the House if it has one MP in the complex—the member need not even be in the Chamber. It can have two MPs away at any time. This issue is a constraint upon our MPs. Although it will not be an issue for us in the next Parliament, when we will have seven members in the House, we are thinking of the natural justice issue in general in relation to such a glaring difference in the voting provisions for parties of three or four members.
Hoi nānō, ka nui tērā māku mō tēnei wā. Tēna koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e te Whare. Kia ora tātou.
[So that is enough from me for now. Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to all of us as well, the House. Thank you all.]
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
I wish to take a call on the review of the Standing Orders, which is Government motion No 4. In particular, I will talk about some of the significant changes that have been made.
The review was very well outlined by Dr Michael Cullen when he spoke earlier. In essence, this review occurs during each parliamentary term. We are in the 48th Parliament now. This process enables the public to have their say as well as enabling the whole of Parliament to have its say. It is very much a fine-tuning process. There are significant changes, but they are being made to try to make this place operate in a smoother fashion than it currently does.
One of the important points I wish to raise, and that Dr Cullen has outlined, is the code of conduct being promoted by one of the Labour MPs and supported by some of the minor parties. National has some real concerns around the code of conduct. In essence, we have the Speakers’ Rulings, and, since 1867, a contribution has been made by Speakers through that document. We also have the Standing Orders—we have 402 of those. We also have the court of public opinion, where ultimately people decide whether MPs get back into Parliament. We in National believe that those two documents are paramount in keeping order in the House, as, ultimately, is the Speaker.
The other significant issue I wish to raise is the provision for emergency situations in relation to the suspension or adjournment of Parliament, which I believe the Speaker now has the right to do. It is quite appropriate today, is it not? It is 11 September. We all need to acknowledge what happened with the twin towers. I am thinking about the flag that I just went past in Parliament House that managed to survive in the wreckage over there. Of course, if we had something happen to us here, then it might be necessary for the Speaker to say that we need to suspend the House and meet somewhere else. So that is an important aspect. We could also have something like the bird flu—although, of course, we hope we never have terrorism, and we hope we never have something like the bird flu. This provision for emergency situations is also a significant change.
The other change Dr Cullen mentioned is around the tabling of documents. We have seen many examples of MPs standing up and seeking leave to table documents, yet I know from experience that sometimes when one goes to look for those documents, they are not actually there. A change is being made with amendment 40, which states the tabling must be “within a reasonable period, as determined by the Speaker.” There are also some rules in amendment 3 on TV coverage, which is also very important.
I conclude by saying thanks very much for the process that the Standing Orders Committee went through. I thought it was extremely thorough. I also thank the officials, who provided us with very, very good advice. National is supporting this motion today.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this
I was not a member of the Standing Orders Committee that produced the report, but I have been on it over the years. Some points have not been raised by previous speakers, and I wish to highlight them.
The first concerns the legislative procedures, which are in chapter 5. Some time ago the Legislation Advisory Committee brought forward a submission about “the current scarcity of available legislative time in the House of Representatives and the impacts that this scarcity is having on the governments’ ability and inclination to progress technical, administrative or uncontroversial Bills through the legislative process.” The proposal submitted by the Legislation Advisory Committee was to amend the Standing Orders to facilitate more use of omnibus bills. The committee decided that that was not a good idea, so we find that in these Standing Order amendments no progress has been made in that respect.
Since that time the Law Commission, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Counsel Office, has commenced an extensive review of the presentation of New Zealand statute law, and in particular has investigated ways of making New Zealand statute law more accessible. I have that document here; it is a very comprehensive document that sets out the sorts of things that a future Parliament will need to consider. In fact, the recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee was that in the next parliamentary term the Standing Orders Committee should consider proposals for the legislative process in the light of the Law Commission’s work. Although that is an ongoing process, the issue has been highlighted, and we look forward to some further discussions on it in that respect.
The second point I wish to bring to the House’s attention relates to delegated legislation and the affirmative resolution procedure. This is found on page 29. I have some interest in this matter, because I was on the Regulations Review Committee that tabled a report in February 2008 that looked specifically at the affirmative resolution procedure. That report came about in response to concerns about the potential proliferation of the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. The committee undertook an inquiry into the procedure, and made an interim report. The first report was done back in 2004, when I was not on the committee. The committee that I was on—the one referred to in this report—resolved in October 2006 to resume the inquiry in the light of subsequent experience.
At that time, we made two recommendations. The first was that Standing Order 317 be amended by substituting a 3-month referral period for the current 28 days. The reason is that, for many bills, the time for select committees to hear submissions is very much truncated. We wanted the time to be extended. The second recommendation was to insert a provision permitting amendments recommended by the select committee to be incorporated in the resolution to be put to the House, without the select committee process being repeated. Once again, if we have agreed to the amendments, there is no need for them to go back to the select committee.
The first point, substituting a 3-month referral period for the current 28 days, was not agreed to by the Standing Orders Committee, but the second point was. No agreement was reached on the first point, but I am sure that when a future Parliament looks at this matter in 3 years’ time, it will become part of the amendments made to the Standing Orders. The Regulations Review Committee looked at it in 2004, we looked at it again in October 2006, and it appears in the report of February of this year.
The final point I wish to bring to members’ attention is on Officers of Parliament. I refer to page 40 of the report. I have been on the Officers of Parliament Committee when it has looked at the role of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ombudsmen, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. What is being suggested here and what has been approved—it is amendment 41—is that after the Officers of Parliament Committee has deliberated, has looked at the budgets, and has made recommendations, those reports can go forward to the committees that handle those particular Officers of Parliament. We are recommending here that a new Standing Order 386A be inserted providing that reports from Officers of Parliament stand referred, as applicable, to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the Government Administration Committee, or the Local Government and Environment Committee, so that those committees can, at least, have an opportunity to have input. At the moment, there is no referral to those committees. The Officers of Parliament Committee is a very powerful committee, and it is able to deliberate, set budgets, and handle all the affairs of those three Officers of Parliament.
The National team that was on the Standing Orders Committee—as I said, I was not part of it but I have an interest in what happened there—is happy to see these amendments progress through the House, and come into effect in the next Parliament.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will be supporting this motion. We are a bit upset that the code of conduct that the four smaller parties—ACT, the Greens, the Māori Party, and United Future—developed has not been adopted. We had a signing ceremony a couple of years ago now, and we have been trying to get the rest of the House to adopt it in order for its members to have higher standards in terms of the way they treat each other. It is a bit unfortunate that the Standing Orders Committee did not adopt it. I think the public is still rather alienated from the political process as a result of the conduct they commonly see in the House, particularly from the two major parties. We in the smaller parties, and I think Hone Harawira will testify to this, are trying to set a higher standard with our code of conduct. Hopefully, in the future we will be able to incorporate a code of conduct into the Standing Orders. Thank you.