Capital Letter: Parliament's rules dusted off for next three years

With the current “dirty politics” controversy focusing on how some of our elected representatives act behind the scenes, it is a slight relief to turn to the regular three-yearly review of the House of Representative’s standing orders, a process that, in the words of the standing orders committee “involves ‘give and take’ among parties, to ensure that changes do not confer unfair advantage.”

The report, Review of Standing Orders (July 2014), recommends changes to a number of standing orders and discusses issues arising.

Under the heading "communication of proceedings" recommendations are made for changes required by the recently passed Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. These are to recognise the “strong public interest” in advice to select committees being published to enhance “the transparency of select committee decisions” (at present select committee proceedings, other than submissions, are not open to the public and remain strictly confidential until the committee reports); and to require circulation of oral questions once they are accepted.

Following last year’s lapse in registration of the United Future Party and its subsequent re-registration, amendment is recommended to allow temporary recognition for parties with seats in Parliament while their registration application is pending. Such temporary recognition would not, however, be available to parties formed after an election by members defecting or being expelled from other parties. 

A specialist human rights committee sought by a number of submitters as a way to strengthen parliamentary oversight of human rights was seen as having the potential to “marginalise important matters that already seem to be too confined to legal and academic circles.”

The committee referred to its other proposal that papers presented by the Attorney-General about the inconsistency of a provision in a bill with the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 be referred to select committees, to promote better engagement by members. Shutting “NZBORA matters away in a specialist committee … could in fact be counter-productive ... The challenge for the legal community, and for relevant non-governmental organisations, is to express these ideas more accessibly.”

The committee also wishes to see consideration given to revising the subject areas of select committees to “improve the match between sectors, departments and votes.”

With the Office of the Clerk reporting that the pilot for the webcasting of select committee proceedings “does not seem to have had a chilling effect on witnesses as feared, and has helped select committee hearings to flow smoothly,” the committee recommends that financial provision be considered for full implementation of webcasting of these proceedings.

Other matters covered include:

• streamlining of (legislation) revision and confirmation and validation bills;
• rejecting the suggestion for abolition of the financial veto as “highly undesirable”;
• clarifying expectations under the Pecuniary Interests Register;
• and considering how e-petitions might work effectively in a New Zealand context (the committee acknowledging “that tensions between representative democracy and direct democracy have emerged, particularly regarding the considerable potential offered by technology and social media to harness direct popular engagement in public policy”).