The information above suggests a failure to meet some basic criteria that economists might consider desirable for policy making. However, the parliamentary debates do demonstrate some aspects of political deliberation. Propositions about policy making in a political context were suggested in Section 5.3. While some of these refer to the
media, public opinion, and other organisations rather than parliamentary debate, there are some propositions for which the information presented here is relevant. For these, the evidence is generally supportive of the propositions to the extent that the observed phenomena are consistent with these propositions. Hence:
Proposition 1: There are a limited number of issues with traction at any one time, and
Proposition 8b: Once a law has been passed, it is unlikely to be evaluated or reconsidered for many years.
In the debates it was stated on several occasions196 it was time for the existing law to be reconsidered.
Proposition 2: Parties aim to achieve traction on their issues and prevent traction on others.
One form of agenda setting is to put forward amendments to proposed legislation, and agenda denial can be achieved by not responding in debate and voting the amendment down. The following examples illustrate these behaviours.
An amendment to make the legislation come into effect after a three year delay would have prevented it applying to existing de facto relationships. This amendment was proposed by Anne Tolley MP, with four National MPs197 and Stephen Franks MP speaking in support. With no MPs speaking against the amendment, it was then put to the vote and defeated.
Anne Tolley MP also put forward another amendment such that the legislation would apply to de facto relationships after five years duration rather than three. This was
196 Phil Goff MP:
―Frankly, it is bizarre that these Bills are being introduced into the House today under urgency. Their provisions implement, largely unchanged, the recommendations of the working party set up in 1988, 10 years ago, by the then Labour Minister of Justice. This Minister has had these Bills sitting on his desk, gathering dust for 7 years.‖ [26 March 1998, 567, NZPD, 7919]
Tim Barnett MP: ―This bill is a signal that after 25 years of matrimonial property law, the renewal and extension of that law are needed.‖ [14 November 2000, 588, NZPD, 6523]
197 It was debated on 13 March 2001, and the four National MPs were Wayne Mapp MP, Tony Ryall MP,
argued on the basis of the Australian evidence about the instability of de facto relationships. It could also have been argued on the basis that examples used to justify inclusion of de facto relationships in the legislation refer to longer relationships, sometimes ten to twenty years. There were no speeches in reply, and Stephen Franks MP argued against the rushed process and lack of detailed consideration of issues [13 March 2001, 590, NZPD, 8134].198
Proposition 3: Parties back issues with traction.
Proposition 4a: Parties are more likely to invest in an issue with traction than to generate traction for a new issue.
Both of these propositions are suggested by the widespread focus on the impact of the proposed legislation on women. Government MPs made broad generalisations as if suggested problems for women on average or in particular circumstances applied to all women. Even criticisms by opposition MPs, taking a less aggregated view, still focused on suggested disadvantage for particular groups of women.
Proposition 6a: It is easier to generate traction through celebrity support or framing than through detailed, informed presentation of information.
The lack of research suggests that it is relatively unimportant in the political process.
Proposition 7: The focus in politics is more on the process of policy change than on the determination of desirable policies.
This is suggested by the lack of substance in the debate, rushing the passage of the legislation and operation under urgency, in addition to framing, agenda setting and agenda denial.
198
Opposition MPs objected to the way debate on this legislation was rushed, with important issues not receiving serious consideration. At the time, there was a Labour-led government. In 2009, and with a national-led government, opposition MPs, many of them in the Labour Party, objected in a very similar way to the rushed debate on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill (Moana Mackey MP [24 November 2009, 659, NZPD, 7922]). Rushed passage of legislation may be common. Bill English MP had chaired the committee responsible for the Child Support Act. He referred to rushed debate ―to make sure that we put that legislation through as originally framed by Ministers‖ [21 November 2000, 588, NZPD, 6747], suggesting similar problems with the ―ideologically driven‖ Property Relationships (Amendment) Bill.
Proposition 8a: A government will attempt to limit monitoring so as to minimise attention given to issues that are not on its agenda.
While not directly supported by the information given, it is indicated by the lack of data and research relevant to the policy issues. This suggests that there had been little monitoring of the legislation that was being modified or replaced.199
As shown in this Chapter, the end result would appear to be a law that was not properly researched, that applies a standard approach to a wide range of different circumstances, and for which discretion is offered to judges with little guidance and much scope for unanticipated consequences and changes in interpretation over time. There is potential for major changes in behaviour in terms of relationship formation and dissolution, lifetime planning, earning and saving patterns, and the upbringing of children, but these issues were not investigated in the parliamentary debates. The implications of the law are linked to other laws (such as on care of children and child support), but these relationships were not investigated in the debates. Given the range of issues on which politicians deliberate, it should hardly be surprising if the debate is not of the highest level. However, the resulting legislation may have been improved had there been consideration in the debate of the three criteria (future environment, sub-groups, and behavioural changes) suggested in this thesis.
While this is just one case study, the debate was spread over a long period, with political parties having time both in government, promoting the changes, and in opposition arguing against them. Unlike the position suggested from economics for policy selection, a limited range of options was discussed, and the debate was poorly informed, with much use of rhetoric more closely fitting the propositions of Chapter 5.
Some of the phenomena identified in this Chapter lend themselves to economic analysis. The parallel between price controls and the extension of the legislation to de facto couples is one illustration of this. This suggests that economics can go part of the way towards specifying the effects of alternative policy interventions, although care is
199 Two family law examples (award of custody and penalties for obstructing access) of lack of monitoring are included in Birks and Buurman (1997a, 1997b).
needed to avoid Type-A errors. The three basic criteria proposed in Section 6.2 may serve as a simple basic checklist for avoiding some significant weaknesses in debate.
Once laws are passed, and in relation to common law, the next stage relates to implementation through the actions of lawyers, associated professionals and the courts. It is to this area that we now turn.