CONTRIBUCIÓN DE LOS ACROCASTELLS AL DESARROLLO DE LAS

Apart from select committee and constituency work the other main area that consumes an MPs time, when in Parliament, is the debating chamber. A former Prime Minister, once famously criticised the New Zealand Parliament as the fastest lawmaker in the West with the Executive so dominating Parliament that legislation was often passed “by exhaustion” (Palmer, 1979, p. 77; 1992, p. 111). The RCES (1986) felt that policy would benefit by increased party consultation and a more consensual process and hoped that MMP would restrict the sudden and drastic policy changes that had happened with changes of government under FPP. More recently, Palmer and Palmer (2004, pp. 185-8) commented that the passage of legislation had slowed based upon a reduced number of acts and regulations passed by Parliament. They argued that the seventeen year average from 1960-1996 was 153 Government Bills per year. An average of 108 Government Bills per year have been passed since 1996 (1997-2002). Yet, the Parliamentary Council Office (2004) calculated that more actual pages of legislation and volumes of statutes and statutory regulations were published in 2003/2004 than in any year of New Zealand’s history. The total of normal sitting hours of the House in 2004 were 444, well up on the year ended 2000 when the House sat for 299 normal hours.24 However, if urgency hours were added, the House sat for only 70 hours under urgency in 2003/04 down from 77.5 hours in 1999/00 (Parliamentary Council Office, 2004).25 Select committees increased their workload from 461 sittings in 2000 to 523 in 2004. If the volume of legislation passed and hours worked was an indicator of the workload of parliamentarians, then MPs were working harder than ever before, but under less

24 _{House sitting hours are calculated for each financial year not calendar year.}

25 _{Urgency hours have decreased since the introduction of MMP as the government finds it harder to}

obtain support for the necessary urgency motions. This situation has eased with the United Future Party seeming more willing to support urgency since 2002 than the Green Party was previously.

urgency. The House’s sitting hours have become less severe for MPs and as Palmer (2004) noted, MMP has provided increased opportunities for legislative scrutiny. However, “the problems of making judgments about the effectiveness of legislation are as difficult as they ever were” (Palmer & Palmer, 2004, p. 188).

A Slower Legislative Process

All interviewees considered that the legislative process had slowed since 1996. However, most considered that this extra time was beneficial, a more deliberative process that helped create robust legislation. The Clerk of the House, David McGee summed it up, “The legislative programme faced greater pressures because of the increased lengths of time taken under MMP. So, there ought to be more opportunities to catch any potential errors in legislation.”

Former Alliance Minister, Matt Robson26 considered that issues were debated more thoroughly and contentious policy no longer pushed under the table. Intensive negotiation and amendments were introduced at all legislative stages and this slowing of the process had not led to policy stagnation. Policy was not rammed through Parliament but it did get passed. There was an increased need for negotiation and discussion leading to policy that had a wider acceptance than solely with the ruling party. The process met with the approval of Former Speaker Hunt27 who had re-evaluated his stance on MMP “policy is more robust, more difficult to manage, but I think in the end you get better performance. I have changed my mind about MMP”.

A government’s need to negotiate with other parties in order to effect legislation was considered, by Labour Minister Rick Barker28, to be one of the overwhelming features of MMP. The increased consultation meant that the smaller parties had a huge input into the legislative process. In turn, this had increased the level of involvement and contributed towards the Legislature gaining increased influence over the Executive. David McGee considered that “governments don't always get their way now.”

26 _{Alliance MP Matt Robson was interviewed for this research on the 29th April 2005. Unless otherwise}

referenced, all quotes or comments attributed to Robson arose from this interview. Refer Appendix A: List of Interviewees.

27 _{Former Speaker Rt. Hon. Jonathan Hunt was interviewed for this research on the 13th October 2004.}

Unless otherwise referenced, all quotes or comments attributed to Hunt arose from this interview. Refer Appendix A: List of Interviewees.

28 _{Former Labour Party Senior Whip Rick Barker MP was interviewed for this research on the 13th}

October 2004. Unless otherwise referenced, all quotes or comments attributed to Barker arose from this interview. Refer Appendix A: List of Interviewees.

101

Baring abstentions, in a 120 seat parliament, governments need to reach a minimum of 61 votes in order to pass any bill. As a result the Government has had to negotiate away aspects of some policy that it would have preferred develop in a different direction. For example, the Leader of the House, Labour’s Michael Cullen29 noted that the Government was reliant on the Greens for passing particular land transport legislation. As a result the Government had to concede some policy points. “There was quite a bit of stuff in there that would have been our preference to not include in the legislation”, admitted Cullen.

However, while people see the items of legislation that are enacted, they are often unaware of proposals that do not get publicised. An example was provided by Rick Barker. Legislation was being drafted that affected lands that had been released for ‘peppercorn rental’ in the Taranaki area. There were two complex arrangements that could be exercised. IRD advised Dr. Michael Cullen, as Minister of Revenue, that there was a huge potential tax loss because of the structure of one of those options. The Minister wanted to pass a Bill through the House under extraordinary urgency to block the loophole. Minister Cullen gave advance warning to the Government’s Senior Whip to be prepared for ‘extraordinary urgency’ (Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, 2005, S.O. 54,55,56, p. 32). Later that night, Cullen advised that the Government might be just using ‘urgency’, instead of ‘extraordinary urgency’ so they had reduced the level of procedure. The Minister, as Leader of the House, had gone to a number of parties and asked them to support the urgent passage of the Bill. The parties, including the Act Party, advised that they would support stopping a leakage of Crown funds but if they supported such an extreme measure without the scrutiny of the Legislature and without the scrutiny of the select committees they would need to be convinced absolutely that the Inland Revenue Department’s (IRD) advice was correct. Even the coalition partners said that they would support the government on taking ‘extraordinary urgency’ but they had to be convinced as to its necessity. Two days later the status of the measure had gone from ‘extraordinary urgency’ to ‘urgency’ to a Bill in the House to no Bill at all because the case for ‘urgency’ could not be proven. Rodney Hide agreed and considered that the Minister’s argument for urgent passage unravelled while going through the process of negotiation.

29 _{The Rt. Hon. Dr. Cullen, Labour Minister, was interviewed for this research on the 5th April 2005.}

Unless otherwise referenced, all quotes or comments attributed to Cullen arose from this interview. Refer Appendix A: List of Interviewees.