More open government welcome
THIS Sunday, Parliament should, hopefully, finally be dissolved and the election process will be back on track.
While not as elongated as the 20 years of England’s Long Parliament of the 1600s, the extra month that New Zealand’s 52nd Parliament sat for was well out of the ordinary.
Unlike the Long Parliament, which was at the centre of the strife surrounding the English Civil War, New Zealand’s latest Parliament featured several moments of commendable unanimity, notably when members of all parties united in stirring condemnation of the March 15 terror attack.
During its three years, Parliament sat for 255 calendar days, and of its 1522 hours’ deliberation almost 169 hours were conducted under urgency — a measure used much less often than it once was.
The Government passed 202 Bills with Parliament passing a further 19 pieces of legislation.
More than 2800 oral questions were asked of ministers . . . some of them may even have received an answer.
Although this latest Parliament has yet to officially end, MPs have already devoted considerable thought to how the 53rd Parliament will work.
Every three years, Parliament reviews its standing orders — the rules it operates under — and last week, with little fanfare, it released a 124page report with some farreaching changes in its recommendations.
Assuming Parliament adopts the report, there are a range of changes proposed which if adopted should improve the public’s access to Parliament, ensure ministers and their legislation are placed under greater scrutiny, improve media coverage of politics, and make it easier for southern MPs to do their jobs.
To take the last first, it is proposed that Parliament’s sitting hours are changed once MPs return with the dinner break being shortened on Tuesday and Wednesday and the House rising earlier on Thursday.
For the South’s MPs, some of whom have very few options available on airline schedules to get home after a parliamentary week, knocking off at 6pm should make a real difference, given at present some cannot get home until late on Friday and then have to travel again on Sunday or Monday.
Of great interest to the media and the wider public is a potential relaxation of rules about what can be filmed or photographed in the debating chamber.
At present, apart from the occasional wide shot, cameras must focus on who is speaking — a stricture which means much of the context and colour of Parliament is offlimits.
If approved, activities in the Public Gallery — such as the singing of waiata after the passing of a Treaty of Waitangi settlement Bill — will be able to be shown, but not protests.
MPs other than the one speaking will be allowed to be shown, but the media is to be trusted that such shots will ‘‘present the business of the House and select committees in an engaging manner’’ rather than being used for less commendable purposes.
There may well be some feathers ruffled as this change beds in, but anything which gives people a more rounded view of the Parliament they elect is to be applauded.
Also commendable is the ready acceptance of the fait accompli created by Covid19, that technology could and should be used more often to ensure as many parliamentary proceedings as possible are broadcast to a wider audience, and so that MPs can attend if they are not in the room.
Speaker Trevor Mallard is especially keen that the next Parliament pay greater heed to petitions — in the past three years there have been 395 petitions, 209 of which were reported back to the House.
Mr Mallard wants a special select committee set up to administer the petition process and time allocated in the House to debate them, rather than the perfunctory select committee reports which at present acknowledge Parliament received the report, often to little effect.
Voting is a oneinthreeyear chance to influence politicians but a petition allows people’s views to be known at any time, and anything which allows the people’s voice to be heard in their House is welcome.
Other worthwhile changes mooted include smaller, more active select committees and increased frequency of ministerial appearances before them, and a continuation of a recent trial where ministers are able to be questioned directly in the committee stages of Bills they are trying to pass.
This means ministers must be across their material and have answers at hand, and cannot simply make a fiveminute speech and be done with it; the added rigour should make for better ministers and better legislation.
The nature of Parliament is that noone will ever be completely happy, but this review is one with wellthought out initiatives which should serve both MPs and constituents well.