"There needs to be greater distinction between when it's a result of the government being frustrated with the pace its legislation is progressing through the House, as opposed to the times when there is a genuine need for something to be fast-trac
Parliament's urgency provision is being abused, a new study has shown.
Researchers at Victoria University's law school examined the use of urgency between 1987 and 2010, a period where more than 1600 bills had urgency accorded to them.
Urgency motions require Parliament to sit longer and, at times, on days it might not normally sit at all. They also allow the government to dictate the business that is dealt with while under urgency.
One of the Victoria University research team, Professor Elizabeth McLeay, said while abuse of urgency has been greater at some times than others, successive New Zealand governments have relied on urgency to pass legislation more quickly.
She said the key area of concern was where major policy pushed through under urgency avoided scrutiny from select committees.
“This stage of the legislative process is especially important in a country without an upper house,” she said.
“We’re not saying urgency should never be used, but there needs to be greater distinction between when it’s a result of the government being frustrated with the pace its legislation is progressing through the House, as opposed to the times when there is a genuine need for something to be fast-tracked.”
Examples of the latter included bills needed because of a civil emergency or to fix a mistake found in earlier legislation, she said.
When MMP produced a minority government, small parties could potentially veto the use of urgency, Prof McLeay said.
However, the study found that although those parties have used that power at times, there was no consistency in its use due to a range of factors, including the personalities of key figures such as the Prime Minister, the philosophies of support parties and the nature of support agreements.
The researchers interviewed 18 current and former MPs, and senior parliamentary officials as part of the study.
Most of those people thought there were not enough scheduled sitting hours to get through government business and the use of urgency was a legitimate tool to get extra time, Prof McLeay said.
That did not alleviate the researchers' concerns about overuse of urgency motions.
“We believe relying on urgency to address the perceived problem of insufficient time to deal with the government’s legislation programme is undesirable, because it comes at a cost to the integrity of the legislative process.
“Even relatively benign uses of urgency contribute to a public perception that Parliament is not following its own rules and the legislation is being rammed through.”
Earlier this year, the researchers made a submission to the three-yearly review of Parliament’s standing orders and Professor McLeay said several of their recommendations were adopted.
“However, the changes don’t go far enough. The biggest concern is that there is nothing new to deal with the troubling use of urgency to bypass the select committee stage of legislative scrutiny.”
