What to do about Question Time Part II

There is always the Ukrainian solution.

What to do about Question Time

There's no denying that Parliamentary Question Time has become a farce. This is partly a result of the new Speaker, David Carter, not being up to the task. Carter made it clear prior to his appointment that he didn't want the job, but National will be delighted with his performance.

Today in Parliament

David Shearer: Thank you Mr Speaker, my question now to the Minister of State Owned Enterprises: Has the Government met the five criteria the Prime Minister laid out for proceeding with asset sales?

Tony Ryall: Blue cheese.

Why we must have a four-year parliamentary term

Let me put the debate to rest once and for all. Here are four compelling reasons.

Elections slow down decision-making and they tend to have a negative impact on the economy. 

So said John Key, our wise leader. And it's a fact that countries that have four or five year parliamentary terms have better-performing economies. Like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.

Why Does National Hate Our Freedoms?

Last night the National Government pushed through the earthquake recovery legislation under urgency. A large number of last minute amendments were introduced to the bill, and none of these were properly debated. Labour, the most supine of oppositions, whined about the process but voted in favour of the bill anyway.

But this post is not going to explore why we have such a timid opposition, and why the Greens appear to be the only party in Parliament prepared to stand by its principles. That would be a long post indeed.

On Wednesday night National rammed through the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill under urgency. Nobody has adequately explained why there was a need for urgency in the case of this bill. It can only be surmised that National pushed it through because they feel as if they have impunity and can do anything they want.

Even National Party stalwarts are now lamenting the overuse of urgency by this government.

The debates on both lots of Canterbury earthquake legislation (in September 2010 and this week) demonstrate that this government has only contempt for the concept of consultation. Its preferred method of governance is rule by decree. At the heart of this government is a savage disdain towards democracy and the traditions of parliament. Urgency is a way to bypass the select committee process, a process designed to identify the flaws in legislation and to give the public the opportunity to comment on proposed laws. Bills frequently get amended as a result of the select committee process, because it exposes politicians to expert opinion on whether draft legislation is workable or appropriate.

But National doesn’t seem to care what the public think about the laws being passed. Nor does it care for measures designed to restrain the powers of its ministers. The Canterbury earthquake legislation has given ministers enormous powers, although some may argue that the crisis warranted such extraordinary powers. However, some of the checks and balances proposed by opposition parties during debate on the bills and rejected by this government were perfectly reasonable and wouldn’t have impeded the legitimate exercise of power for recovery purposes.

This government is now threatening our right to participate in the legislative process, and its use of urgency and extraordinary measures is increasing. For a democracy to function properly all citizens must have the right to participate in the process of making law, otherwise we are simply living under a three-year dictatorship.

So why does National hate our democratic freedoms? And how is it that we let them get away with this?

And when will the New Zealand Herald commence a "Democracy Under Attack" campaign over this outrage?

Not Petty

The decision by the Greens not to let Julia Gillard address Parliament while it is in session is being treated by the usual blogosphere suspects as an act of pettiness.

It is nothing of the sort. No foreign leader has ever addressed a sitting session of Parliament, and it would be highly unusual for one to do so now. The Greens' Kennedy Graham has explained why the decision not to allow Gillard to speak during session was made.

The NZ House of Representatives, sitting in session with the mace, is the symbol of national sovereignty. No one apart from New Zealand MPs has ever been allowed to address a sitting session of Parliament, not even our own Governor-General. The reason for this is that sitting sessions of Parliaments are for New Zealand law makers to exercise their democratic powers.

The idea that we would only invite our ‘closest friends’ to address Parliament in session is problematic.  Who might they be, and where might the line be drawn?  Australia might be seen as no. 1.  Perhaps the US would be no. 2, and the UK no. 3.  Which other countries might fit in the top ten?  What would be the criteria?  Where could the line be drawn? Such decisions are intrinsically political, and therefore subjectively influenced by the colours of a particular Government of the day – whereas the issue must be seen as having constitutional implications independent of politics.

Nobody is saying Gillard can't speak. And she will speak - just not during session. This is not an issue of freedom of expression, as some have suggested. Nobody is being censored.

Our politicians are often all too eager to break with parliamentary and constitutional traditions (witness the CERRA disgrace of last year). We don't have a written constitution, which makes our parliamentary conventions all the more important. That's why there's nothing petty about the Greens' decision not to allow Gillard to speak during session. Parliamentary traditions should not be broken without good reason. I've not heard a good reason why this one needs to be.

On The Use Of Urgency

If there was any remaining doubt that this Government has only contempt for our democratic institutions, Claire Trevett's article in the Herald ought to remove it:

Since the National Government came into power in December 2008, it has used urgency for 331.5 hours - nearly double the time the former Labour Government sat under urgency in its full first term.

Nearly double, and we're still several months away from an election.

Labour is spitting about the use of urgency this week. The use of urgency prior to Christmas is something most governments resort to, in order to push measures through before the break. But when you look at this Government's record overall it paints a troubling picture.

Trevett does the numbers:

Office of the Clerk figures show that in the two years since National came into Government in December 2008, Parliament has sat under urgency for 331 hours - just over one quarter of the time the House was in session.

By comparison, in its first full term from 1999 to 2002, the former Labour Government used urgency for 192.5 hours - about 13 per cent of the time.

That increased to 385 hours from 2002 to 2005 and dropped again to 149 hours from 2005 to 2008.

The National Government went into urgency 15 times in its first full year in power in 2009 - under Labour, the most times urgency was used was nine in 2000 - its first full year in power after nine years of National.

The excessive use of urgency to pass non-urgent legislation is only one example of the Government's dislike of sensible, steady legislative progress. The Government is also fond of granting wide powers to its ministers to do as they please, with minimum oversight. One needs only to think of the emergency legislation passed in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake, or the extraordinary powers given to the Rugby World Cup minister to grant liquor licences.

John Key may keep smiling, and his outward persona may be one of affability and charm, but it is becoming clearer by the day than neither he nor his government really wants to hear what we think about issues of importance. All of these measures are designed to minimise consultation, oversight, scrutiny and debate.

Coleman Isn't The Only One

It has been reported that Minister of Immigration and Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman last night gave a speech in Parliament yesterday on behalf of the absent Revenue Minister Peter Dunne.

Coleman gave the speech during a debate on the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill.

Unfortunately for Coleman he gave the wrong speech. The speech he gave was originally delivered by Dunne in 2008.

To be fair to Coleman, taxation is clearly not his area of expertise. But if you are going to stand up in the House and talk about something you should at least have a passing understanding of it.

Shockingly, this is not the first time a politician has been caught out discussing something he has no idea about.

Investigations have revealed that since National took office in 2008, Finance Minister Bill English has made a number of speeches to the House about issues he knows nothing about: such as raising productivity, developing a sustainable economy for our nation's future, and economic management.