Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This episode has audio from the third reading of Taranaki's collective redress bill. For a look at the Bill itself, particularly the history, acknowledgments and apologies within it, read this article.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This Sunday show from The House comprises material from the weekday shows from Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This is the Friday 13th show from The House - an extra programme because Parliament sat beyond its usual week.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The matching article for this story, with photos from a vetting session, can be found at The House's news page here.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

When Parliament began its September sitting block on Tuesday, MPs met only to acknowledge a death and agree to return the following day.

The shortened day was to show respect after the unexpected death last week of the Māori King, Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero.

Such an early adjournment is unusual, but not unprecedented. Typically this sort of thing is reserved for the death of a former Prime Minister, and is a significant honour.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

When New Zealand's colonial founders built our cities and towns, they clearly lacked flooding and coastal erosion modelling in their town planning.

It is true that coastal and river-based settlements are inherently desirable in the way of accessibility for trade, fertile soil, and mahinga kai.

Moreover, there probably wasn't a large pool of climate scientists and environmental engineers to consult at the time. But still, our early settlers' addiction to building on flood plains and swamps has made our country's effort to adapt to a changing climate a monumental one.

Listen to Sunday's episode of The House, including the radio version of this story.

Climate change is a pretty ubiquitous topic in Parliament. It's the subject of so many debates and conversations in the House, which tend to get pretty heated at the best of times.

Two decades or so ago, those debates may have contained arguments like "climate change exists and we need to stop it."

That's definitely still the underlying utterance or default position for so many of our MPs, but for a while now, there's been a noticeable shift in dialogue from how we can stop the climate from changing, to how on earth we can adapt to it changing.

Recent extreme weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle, and the Auckland Anniversary floods are jarring reminders that inaction would be chaotic, and adaptation is critical.

Invariably, this is an issue that transcends generations, and indeed governments. Hence the need for bi-partisan collaboration and consensus on lawmaking in this area.

Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee (FEC) is currently leading the charge on this, with an inquiry into climate adaptation.

This picks up on the Environment Committee's inquiry on the same subject last Parliament (the term finished before the committee had the chance to report back), and is intended to be a key consideration in the development of adaptation legislation.

Accordingly, submissions are being sought from far and wide. Among them are insurance companies, regional councils, advisory bodies, and individual New Zealanders who are experiencing adaptation as an immediate issue rather than a future one. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week at Parliament, a petitioner revealed to the Petitions Committee the existence of a draft fast track bill, which predates government formation.

The petition was calling for the government to reveal which projects were to be included in the government's fast track legislation.

The evidence of a pre-coalition bill, that it originated with Shane Jones, and that it already contained projects threatened to overshadow the petition's focus on the actual bill.

The petitioner, Richard Capie representing Forest and Bird, gained the evidence via an Official Information Act response from National MP Chris Bishop. Bishop's OIA response included a draft fast track bill that he had received from New Zealand First's Shane Jones during the coalition negotiations at the end of last year.

In section 14 of the draft bill given to Bishop, titled the 'Nationally and Regionally Significant Projects and Other Matters Bill', there is reference to an 'expert consenting panel' which 'considers listed projects'. These listed projects, section 14 says, are described in Schedule 1 of the bill.

After flicking over the pages of the draft bill to the bit with Schedule 1 on it, you're met with a large grey box, covering up half the page. In other words, in the copy that Capie received, the list of projects in Schedule 1 had been redacted. The redaction was explained by the legal privilege held by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (which presumably did not draft the Shane Jones bill).

The OIA revelation suggests a number of things. That a list of possible fast track projects has existed since late last year. That the list was created by New Zealand First before they were part of the government, and possibly prior to the election. Consequently, it's possible that the inclusion of potential projects could have been part of New Zealand First's coalition negotiations with National and ACT.

Reporting from The Newsroom suggests that this list includes two gold mines and two coal mines.

Comparing the redacted project list from Shane Jones's bill to the list that Chris Bishop has declined to add to the Fast Track Approval Bill would be interesting (if those lists were public). Capie suggested to the Petitions Committee that Parliament should be investigating this.

"I think the New Zealand Parliament should see that list of projects, should be able to see the list of projects that were put forward in this draft bill, and see what overlap there is; and ask good questions about probity involving that."…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Shane Jones intervenes with a point of order during questions to Casey Costello (seen behind him).

Parliament's Question Time is a lot like a boxing ring that sits at the centre of our system of responsible government. Every sitting day in the debating chamber, pugilists from a variety of weight classes face up against one another. In the blue corner is a government minister, in the red corner is an opposition MP seeking to bring them down, or at least keep them chastened.

The metaphor might sound brutal, but that's Parliamentary democracy; keeping governments honest and in hand. Not letting them step outside the ring of influence that Parliament, as their master, has allowed them.

It's never an easy fight and in many ways Parliament's rules and precedents favour government ministers. There are so many rules about what can be asked and how; so many ways to slip away, to fend, or to counterpunch.

These bouts might be daily, but there are many rounds, lasting months. But as each match develops, opposition MPs who can find the right jabbing questions, can sometimes release a slow trickle of information that forces a minister against the ropes.

And when that happens sometimes a boxer's second gets involved. They might help set up a few counterpunches from their own corner, or start complaining to the referee that the match is unfair.

On Tuesday, that was Shane Jones, who is a boxer from a heavier weight class. He is Deputy Leader of New Zealand First and a long time MP and political brawler,

His intervention was the Parliamentary equivalent of complaining about the other guy's gloves, the size of the ring, the lights and the presence of camera flashes.

The intervention was evident prior to Question Time, when the Speaker rose to give a ruling.

"Members, I've had a question raised to me today about the admissibility of question No. 10, which I want to take the opportunity to clarify. Speaker's ruling 230/4 by Speakers Wall and Smith: once a member has made a complaint to the Speaker about a matter of privilege, it is not appropriate to raise that complaint in the House by way of notice of motion, nor should the member seek to litigate the veracity through House proceedings. It is not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of the complaint, to prohibit that would unreasonably constrain Parliament's privilege of free speech. The question is in order."…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

You might think that travelling around the United States with another MP from a rival party would be a bit like going on holiday with your in-laws. In reality though, it's not like that at all.

Earlier this month, National MP for Southland Joseph Mooney, and Labour list MP Glen Bennett travelled to the United States together under the auspices of Inter-Parliamentary Relations.

Far from a jaunt

Parliamentary diplomacy, which is distinct from government-led foreign affairs, is something that New Zealand's Parliament values highly. Connecting with counterparts both in the context of both inward and outward engagements gives members a uniquely parliamentary platform to foster bilateral and multilateral relationships and exchange knowledge.

Such knowledge exchange often comes in the form of attendance at a number of multilateral conferences and meetings. Your mind probably goes to New York, Geneva, Brussels, and the like. For Mooney and Bennett though, this time it was Louisville, Kentucky.

The two MPs, after a series of meetings in Washington D.C., headed across the Appalachians and into the 'Bluegrass State' for the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). This is, as the name suggests, an annual event that gathers state and local legislators from across the US for seminars, networking, and discussions on a variety of topics. You'll notice I said state legislators, not global or national legislators, so what were Mooney and Bennett doing there?

Bennett described it in a nutshell as "observing."

"There was, I think it was about 5,000 people, and even that was a small conference. So they do actually have an international contingency that always goes. And Joseph and I were the first New Zealand MPs to actually attend. For me, I guess an observation was that we were actually sort of hanging out with 50 different countries, almost because each legislator, each state had their representation. And it makes you realise how small we are as a country, and how slimline and simple our politics is."

Mooney noted that other international delegates said their countries often work on trade relationships with individual American states rather than the US as a whole. The negotiation is less complex and the economies are similar. It apparently works well.

"The Irish had a contingent there, and one of the senators was making the point that they do a lot of work building relationships with states rather than federally, because they get more value out of that."…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

National MP Tama Potaka answering media questions on 'the tiles'.

During Question Time on Wednesday, MPs in the House argued at length about something usually hidden from view.

The to-and-fro was pretty fascinating for political geeks, but it was also full of lessons. It illustrated aspects of how Question Time is prepared, how it works, the political considerations that can feed into that - and showed how not to answer a question.

How not to answer a question

A question began all of this. It was not in the House. It was from Stuff reporter Glenn McConnell on Parliament's Tiles on Tuesday. He was asking National's Tama Potaka (Associate Minister Housing - Social Housing) about homelessness. Specifically, about data suggesting no one knew the housing status of one in five children previously in emergency housing.

The crucial section was this:

McConnell - "Are you worried that some are now homeless?"

Potaka - "No, no, I'm not worried that some are now homeless... ."

Potaka's answer was much longer but he had already lost control of the narrative, which was now 'minister not worried that children are homeless'.

This is one reason politicians seldom answer the question they are asked, but instead ignore its premise and offer their own. It stops them accidentally creating a horrible soundbyte.

It wasn't surprising that, on Wednesday, opposition parties were keen to ask questions on the topic. Both Labour and Green parties had questions scheduled.

Unwrecking a train

For the Greens, Tamatha Paul addressed Potaka's poor choice of words.

"Does he stand by his statement relating to the drop in children living in emergency accommodation, "I'm not worried that some are now homeless", and, if so, is that why funding for community housing providers has reduced to only 750 new places a year, under his Government?"

This time the Minister was ready. He began by trying to clear the previous day's trainwreck from the tracks, before having a better crack at replacing it with his own narrative.

"In the context in which the question was asked, and in relation to Priority One, I am absolutely confident that those 1,110 children have been placed out of emergency housing and into a warm, safe, dry home between April and July. I am confident and very aware that they are no longer homeless ... ."

He repeated the words 'warm, dry, and safe' multiple times across his answers - working to reinforce his own chosen message.

Negotiating Question Time…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Committee of the Whole House (CWH) provides members with the opportunity to delve into the finer details of a proposed bill. Members can examine the nitty gritty details, ask questions of the minister in charge, and suggest further amendments.

This committee is different to the Select Committees that also look at the details of bills. Those committees are specialist topic subcommittees, while the CWH can include every MP and takes place in the debating chamber.

While CWH speeches are limited in time, there is no overall limit for the duration of the committee stage. It can take minutes or days. As long as fresh ideas and arguments are being offered, the committee can continue. This relative flexibility can lend well to opposition tactics of delaying a bill's passing. If you follow American politics, you may have heard variations on this strategy referred to as filibustering.

The presiding officer in the chamber, who (during this stage) is always a Deputy or Assistant Speaker, will be looking out for this. They even have special forms to help them keep track of the progress of questions and topics.

Bills going through committee this week

First up, the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. This is part two of the three pronged legislative water reforms dubbed "Local Water Done Well" - which is the Government's replacement for the previous government's three waters approach to easing local infrastructure costs.

The second bill is the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, which has particularly rustled feathers among ecologists and māori. As the name suggests, aquaculture projects (like mussel and oyster farms), will receive extensions on their permits to operate, up to the year 2050.

And finally, the Corrections Amendment Bill, which was first introduced by the previous Labour Government. In a nutshell, it gives corrections staff more power to keep themselves and prisoners safe. You couldn't be blamed for assuming that given the cross-party collaboration on this bill, the committee session would be pretty straightforward. Alas, the government chose to exclude Section 6A, which related to the Treaty of Waitangi. This became a focus of opposition attack during Wednesday's committee sitting.

To hear more about the bills going through committee this week, and what was said in the House, listen to the audio above…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

On Tuesday, after a week off, and after a number of politically contentious and combative weeks, Parliament began with something that presumably everyone could agree on; a motion to congratulate New Zealand's Olympic athletes. This kind of motion, where every party gives a speech brimming with heartfelt superlatives, is not rare in Parliament, but not enormously common either.

They are (and this will probably not surprise you), almost always about a sporting outcome. I say almost, but I can't actually remember a motion of this kind for anything other than sport in the seven years I have been here. A little research revealed an equivalent round of speeches when The Lord of the Rings won a clutch of Academy Awards twenty years ago.

Listen to the radio version of this story with audio from Parliament.

There were some genuinely accolade-worthy outcomes though. Dame Lisa Carrington alone was worthy of the speeches - now being just one gold back from the most medalled female Olympian ever, from anywhere - out-medalling American gymnast Simone Biles.

The way these things go, the person initiating the motion - almost always a government MP - gets an initial speech, and then the other parties chip in as well. Often it would be the Minister for Sport kicking it off (and Chris Bishop visited Paris in that capacity), but he was gazumped by his boss. Politically, it's hard to pass up an opportunity to connect yourself with the happy buzz of success.

There was a speaker brimming with praise from every party except, for some reason, New Zealand First. These kinds of speeches always threaten to become a list of names and medals and can end up sounding like everyone cribbed from the same Wikipedia article.

To avoid that, the follow-up speakers usually look for some unique angle to add to accolades.

Labour's Peeni Henare looked forward to the next event - the Paralympics, Green MP Scott Willis noted that women were particularly successful and credited Grant Robertson's "strategy to address the inequities women and girls experience in sport and recreation -the Women and Girls in Sport initiative" for that. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

On Parliament's black and white tiles sits one of the building's many pieces of art. The bust of Āpirana Ngata, commissioned in 1942, watches over the day-to-day frenzy of bridge runs and general parliamentary busyness.

The bust, like so many pieces in Parliament's collection, pays tribute to the work of a highly eulogised individual who once walked the halls of power.

What makes it especially unique though, is that it's one of the few visual signs of te ao Māori at Parliament - albeit a more diverse and representative parliament than existed in the days of Ngata. Yet the edifice is still strikingly colonial.

This week on The House, we kōrero with three first-term Māori MPs who share their personal experiences of navigating Parliament and being Māori. To listen, click the link below.

"A shrine to colonialism": Te Pāti Māori's Tākuta Ferris

As we stood outside the marble Edwardian baroque facade of Parliament House, MP for Te Tai Tonga, Tākuta Ferris forthrightly described the building as, "a shrine to colonialism."

Ferris is unflinching in the furtherance of Te ao Māori, something Te Pāti Māori have become well known for this term in Parliament.

The MP attributes the unprecedented engagement levels that Te Pāti Māori have received to the hard work of previous generations of Te iwi Māori, and a deep understanding of history. "We arrive here fully equipped with all of that. The constitutional foundation that sets this whole parliament up, allows this parliament to be here, is a two-party agreement. It's a two-party relationship."

Ferris envisions Parliament one day being a lot more representative of this relationship, both structurally, and aesthetically.

The former, he says, "can be in the model that Whatarangi Winiata and many others of Te iwi Māori proposed through the through the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, which is the two House model; where, in effect, you have a House that represents the Crown (and the government is just the executive administrator of the crown)."

The latter he says, somewhat flippantly, "would look a lot flasher."

David Macleod was elected in 2023.

The Politics of Māori Identity: David Macleod

Te Pati Māori (and opposition Māori MPs more generally), have been vocal in their opposition to the coalition government's policies. This has manifested as hostility in the House, protests outside it, and a steady stream of news headlines.

The House was curious to hear from a Māori governing-party MP about what it's like being on the other side of the House during all this…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Few people would believe that politicians never lie. But it is incredibly rare for an MP to be disciplined in the House for lying, or made to explain themselves before the Privileges Committee. Why? What exactly are Parliament's rules around lying?

MPs refer to lying as deliberately misleading Parliament. They also have a related no-no referred to as misrepresenting, which is lying about what another MP has said or done.

These are topics that come up in Parliament frequently. Just this week an MP accused another of misrepresenting, more than one corrected a mistake that might come to be seen as a lie, and another was censured for responding badly to another MP's claim.

Listen to the radio version of this story from The House.

David Wilson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, giving evidence to a select committee.

To assist in traversing Parliament's quirks I spoke with two experts: David Wilson and Duncan Webb.

David Wilson is the Clerk of House of Representatives. Parliament's rules are his metier, and among his many roles, the Clerk advises Parliament's Speakers on its rules. Labour MP Duncan Webb is deputy chair of the Privileges Committee, which investigates MP misbehaviour.

Free speech and honourable behaviour

Let's start with an important fundamental about Parliament from Webb. "It's the freest place in terms of speech and expression in the country." He's talking about the fact that MPs are privileged - just not in the way you think.

"The absolute privilege that Members of Parliament have to say anything. And that's part of the kind of values system, that means we don't intervene lightly. We let people say stuff, because that's the right they the English Civil War for."

Under absolute privilege, parliamentary speech comes with no legal repercussions. Balancing that kind of power is a tricky thing. Webb says that this freedom is balanced by a social compact in which everyone agrees to abide by a set standard of behaviour. For historical reasons that standard is based on the conduct expected of a mid-sixteenth century Italian courtier. Anyone who thinks that Renaissance Italians were an ideal of good behaviour never met Lucrecia Borgia, or most renaissance popes.

Honourable = honest…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Every sitting Wednesday after Question Time, Parliament holds the General Debate. The terminology Parliament uses for the debate's subject, is 'miscellaneous business'.

This roughly translates to... whatever is on a member's mind - within reason. Obviously it's inferred that kōrero should be relevant to the role of being an MP, though on occasion this inference is questionable.

The core purpose of the General Debate is to allow members to discuss issues that fall outside the more defined parameters of legislative debate.

This could take the form of a reflection on a recent event in the news, expressing condolences, celebrating successes, replies to earlier questions, discussion of committee reports, and sometimes just waffling on about any old thing.

This week's General Debate had a typically diverse medley of themes across each of the twelve speeches. You can read the full Hansard transcript here.

Labour's Phil Twyford used his time to suggest the Government take a firmer stance on issues relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Foreign policy was also the topic of NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft's kōrero, in which the House was given a 'show and tell'; she even had props. Her "helper" (Mark Patterson seated next to her), provided her with a map of the Pacific, which she then used to demonstrate where in the region Shane Jones and Winston Peters had gone or given money to.

For an electorate MP, the General Debate is a useful platform to raise issues from your constituency. MPs often take this opportunity to boast about their electorate too. There was a lot of this on Wednesday.

It's also an effective way of conveying the impact of recent government policy on the communities the MP represents. If you're an opposition MP, you might offer your observations from somewhere back-home where government policy is generally unpopular. Meanwhile, a government MP may share an anecdote from Joe Bloggs who says life has gotten easier under the current administration.

Having a bit more wriggle room to talk about anything, means the General Debate tends to invoke some of parliament's more peculiar nuggets of oratory too. And bring out the human in the politician.

This week, that took the forms of a birthday message, and a touching tribute to New Zealand Music Legend, Martin Phillips. Listen to the audio above for more.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

One of the first things that MPs did in Parliament this week was something unusual - censure an MP.

There is always a lot of build-up to this kind of event, with public hearings of the Privileges Committee and corresponding media coverage, but its finale in the House came without much ceremony or politics (at least on this occasion).

Privileges Committee Chair Judith Collins outlined the case and the finding. Julie Anne Genter had infringed and should apologise. Committee Deputy Duncan Webb made a few comments, the Speaker did the formalities and it was over.

The apology had happened earlier.

The backdrop

In our Sunday story we will be looking at some tricksy aspects of Parliament's rules that, while being pretty unavoidable, might form a back-drop to this censure.

In brief, while it is considered a breach of privilege to tell porkies in the chamber it isn't always very easy to do anything about it, or to differentiate between a lie and an opinion. Even when the infringement is obvious, the bar for action is high.

This can lead to frustration if either your performance or your record of achievement is the subject of incorrect claims.

Julie Anne Genter's infringement was that she had walked across the chamber after an interjection got her goat. She stood at National MP Matt Doocey's desk (he was seated), waved some evidence in his face and loudly demanded he read it.

In a fractious debate on transport, he had shouted (referring to a period when she was Associate Minister of Transport), "because you cancelled all the roads for six years". It was a pretty bizarre claim and easily disproved.

Rather than taking a call in the debate (as it was a committee stage this was an option), Genter let her legs get involved in the argument.

Let your vocal chords do the walking

The Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, had summed up the problem when he ruled on it back when it occurred (May 1st), and outlined the boundary.

"...the privilege of the House, which is to speak freely and to speak in an environment where you're unintimidated by anybody else and in an environment where your views are challenged only from the speaking position of the person who might like to challenge them-that is debate. Beyond that, it becomes, potentially, something else."

This week, when outlining the report of the Privileges Committee, Labour MP Duncan Webb spoke similarly, but from a different angle…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

If you watch television news, you've probably seen a fair share of interviews with MPs from 'the tiles' of Parliament.

You know the drill - members scurry, parade, or swagger over the bridge into Parliament, and are met by a melee of cameras and microphones, belonging to a jamboree of interrogative journos.

A MP submerged under a media scrum on parliament's 'tiles'.

The "explain what you meant by / do you stand by what you said..." questions are recited and the answers end up as soundbytes on the news.

In the background of all of those soundbytes, you will have noticed a constant ringing sound - it's pretty hard to ignore. Like so many things at Parliament, there is method in the madness - which in this case manifests as the routine ringing of a bell that sounds a bit like an ailing fire alarm.

The bells, officially known as the division bells, ring out across the precinct shortly before 2pm on sitting days. Traditionally, they were used to summon MPs to the chamber to conduct a vote - or division. They still ring for that purpose on conscience issues, but these days, they operate more generally to tell MPs "hey, get down to the chamber, the sitting is commencing."

They don't just ring out in members offices though, oh no. The division bells are played electronically in every corner of the parliamentary precinct. That includes the Beehive, Parliament House, the Library, the Parliamentary Service offices 500 metres down the road, and yes, even in the toilets around parliament.

Maintenance of the bells is one of the many responsibilities of parliament's audio visual services team. Every so often, the team audits the roughly 400 bells around the buildings to ensure they're all still loud enough.

You'd hope an MP would know when they need to be in the chamber, but the bells are a sort of insurance in case they forget. Interestingly, the bells failing to ring in any part of the precinct is not an excuse for invalidating a vote.

A few weeks ago, on a chilly Sunday morning at 6am, The House tagged along with Cameron and Sam from AV services as they embarked on a bell-quest, seeking out bells from the rafters to sub-basements across the precinct. You can listen to audio from that at the top of this page.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

They say that learning is easier when watching the mistakes of others. If that is true, Parliament provided plenty of learning opportunities this week.

Something that failed repeatedly was something called 'message discipline', and that failure was often caused by ACT's repeated distractions.

National's leader Christopher Luxon and his partners at the signing of their coalition deal. Message discipline was not in the fine print.

Listen to the Radio version of this story with excerpts from Parliament.

Message discipline and setting the agenda

Message discipline is a tool of political communication. It happens all the time but if it is done well you may not notice. It is a technique for managing the news agenda by trying to ensure that your chosen message is either the strongest, or only one available to the media.

By making your message the only thing you talk about you limit choice. It is reinforced with strong soundbytes, appealing visuals, emotional angles, and stirring rhetoric.

The media picking up your message may also force your opposition to respond to your topic, rather than focus on their own. This is often referred to as 'setting the agenda'.

Crucially, every member of the party or government must stick to the agreed 'talking points' and not get distracted. This is one reason why, when MPs or journalists ask a question on topic A, they get answers on topic B - the chosen talking point.

The planned message

The message the government was most focused on this week was the promised adjustment in tax brackets. Some MPs described this as 'tax cuts' but it appears the preferred descriptor was 'tax relief'.

Politically speaking, tax relief is a well-chosen phrase. Political word choices are often heavily freighted. They are chosen to carry secondary meanings, emotional weight or negate their opposition. For example, National MPs say 'restore law and order' (rather than 'reduce crime'). The word 'restore' presupposes a country out of police control and also prompts a nostalgic desire to return to an imagined idyllic past. Such phrases are harder to argue against than cold language. A politician can hardly say 'we are against tax relief'.

Suffice it to say, the National party had obviously put some thought and work into the message and they devoted time and effort to it in parliament's debating chamber. There were patsy questions in Question Time, and then afterwards; when National had five slots in the General Debate, every National MP gave speeches on tax relief…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

As the nation's ultimate debaters, parliamentarians unsurprisingly, are focused on contest, one-upmanship, and often just getting a word in. Given the often quarrelsome environment, parliament operates very carefully, and its rules have to be especially even-handed.

You can see how crucial they are to maintaining order every day during Question Time, as they are pushed to their limits. To prevent more unnecessary squabbling than there already is, Question Time relies on rosters to organise who gets to speak when - so do debates. A bit like a student flat's cleaning roster, though this one tends to actually work most of the time.

During Question Time on Wednesday, instead of being the guiding schedule for interrogation, the roster suddenly became the subject of it.

During a series of questions to the Prime Minister from Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi, an MP popped up with a supplementary question. It came from the very back corner of the chamber - from a corner sometimes referred to as 'the naughty seat.' Specifically, it came from the very recently independent MP Darlene Tana.

Following Tana's seemingly routine exchange, Winston Peters popped up, as he tends to do, with a point of order. Peters queried Tana's question entitlement. "If somebody's been away from this House for 110 days, how did they get back into the cycle of being entitled to a question that passed, in the way that Darleen Tana just did?", to which the Speaker quipped back, "Well, that is the way in which Parliament operates. There's nothing unusual here. There is a process and there is a roster."

Brownlee suggested Peters ask his party whip to explain it to him. It seemed Peters wasn't alone in his confusion. Leader of the House and National MP Chris Bishop got up to give his two cents. "It is a bit odd that very soon after expulsion she's entitled to two supplementary questions almost immediately. I think it does strike many of us as slightly strange."

Gerry Brownlee was not gentle.

"I'll tell you what strikes me as strange: it strikes me as particularly peculiar and very odd that the Leader of the House, who is a major player in the Business Committee, does not remember that the Business Committee approved the roster that gives these questions.

Parliament's traffic controllers…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Over the last decade, the prophecies foretelling the death of the country's legacy media have become louder and louder.

This week at Parliament, the Social Services and Community Committee heard from the heads of Radio New Zealand, TVNZ, and The New Zealand Film Commission at a committee briefing.

The whole thing had a bit of a "hey, are you still with us?" mood to it, but the three major state owned media entities were steadfast in their assurance that, despite the cries of doomsayers, they didn't plan on going anywhere.

The briefing focused on the most recent annual reviews of each entity, giving the Government and the public a lay of the land in terms of their productivity, engagement, finances, and the like.

Both Radio New Zealand and TVNZ underscored the importance of adaptation and innovation in the face of a rapidly changing industry.

"We're not abandoning generations, we're actually helping everybody to move into the future. And what's been so significant about the growth of our platform is that all generations are there," mused TVNZ Chair of the Board Alastair Carruthers. "Our challenge, actually, is to make sure that the advertisers go there too, because that's a premium place where we can identify with data tools precisely who's watching. So public broadcasting is front and centre. But it can only happen if we have the revenue."

Carruthers' counterpart at Radio New Zealand, Dr Jim Mather similarly eulogised his entity's performance at the briefing. "The need for an outstanding public media entity is stronger today than ever before. RNZ serves the needs of New Zealand audiences and our audience figures have been encouraging and growing, both online and on air.

"We serve underserved audiences, we have a commitment to quality content. We support the national debate with our news and current affairs. We provide a local utility service to our AM network, and we offer a vital service to our arts and culture community."

What is the purpose of a briefing?

On this programme, we often harp on about the important function of Parliament's Select Committee's. These are cross-party groups of MPs who put proposed legislation under the microscope. To do this effectively, they often hear submissions from the public, and recommend amendments to the House.

Also in their remit, is the examination of petitions, financial scrutiny, holding inquiries, and perhaps the least talked about - initiating briefings…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week, Parliament is debating a smorgasbord of bills, most of which are on their 2nd and 3rd readings (the third reading being their final approval by Parliament). Expect to see plenty of debate referencing what was said in the select committee (for second readings) and committee of the whole house stages (for third readings).

Gang members protesting outside parliament in 2021.

On Tuesday, RNZ's The House focused on two of these bills - a third reading and a second. Both were strongly contested.

The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill passed its third reading on Tuesday, which (pending its inevitable royal assent), makes it a law.

This bill has the Government clicking the undo button on changes made under the previous administration, specifically changes that made it possible for local councils to decide to include Māori wards or Māori constituencies in their electoral framework.

"We are doing nothing more than restoring it to the status quo," was how National MP James Meager described it. Opposition MPs' opinions on what was happening and why diverged strongly from Meagers' characterisation.

The other highly contentious bill up for debate on Tuesday (and possibly again on Thursday) was the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, which is seeking to put some flesh on the National Party's 'tough on gangs' election promises.

In the audio above you can hear excerpts from the bill's debates with some analysis.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Every week Parliament is a smorgasbord of stories and issues, many of them interesting and most of them impactful, but sometimes one event or issue in the week dwarfs every other. This week that issue was the tabling of, and initial debate over the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.

The report is nearly three thousands pages, spread across 16 volumes. Crucially it includes 138 recommendations. The speeches on the report in the House took an hour and three quarters and were compelling.

A number were particularly thoughtful and honest and ideally should be heard in their entirety. See the link to the Parliament video or Hansard transcription below if you wish to take in the entire debate, or follow the link immediately below for some moments from the debate.

Listen to the report from The House on the Abuse in Care report debate.

You can read the report, about the report, Parliament's coverage of the debate, or media stories relating to the report at the links below.

Pages at The Royal Commission of Inquiry Site

The home page for the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The main report broken into sections and themes.

The Report's Recommendations.

Entry pages to specific case studies dealt with by the Inquiry, including Lake Alice; Kimberley; two schools for the deaf; a previous boot camp programme; the way state care led to gangs; St. John of God Catholic schools, and the Jehova's Witnesses.

Useful summaries and guides.

Parliament resources

The debate on the report can be watched here

The Hansard transcription of the debate on the report can be read here.

News Stories

A homepage for a wide range of RNZ stories relating to the Inquiry.

Spinoff coverage can be read here, here, here and here.

Very good coverage from Newsroom including an excellent piece from Aaron Smale.

Stuff stories can be read here, here, and here.

TVNZ coverage seems scattered between politics, health, news and Māori. Stories can be seen or read here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The ODT coverage seems to be RNZ reporting.

The NZ Herald is paywalled and stories are scattered between politics, Māori, news and justice but subscribers can view stories here, here, here, here, here and here.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Given their broad scope of responsibility, Parliament's Education and Workforce Committee hears submissions from all sorts of individuals and groups.

Builders to bus drivers, teachers to travel agents, basically anyone with a job is by default, a stakeholder of much of the business that goes through the committee.

This week, one of those items of business was a submission hearing, regarding a petition from a group of workers that want better employment regulations for their industry.

That group, is called Fired Up Stilettos. On Wednesday, their towering heels treaded not the stage, but the corridors of Parliament, where two of their board members argued their case and answered questions from committee members.

In case you weren't up to scratch with the employment conditions of workers in the adult entertainment industry in New Zealand, strip clubs hire their dancers as independent contractors.

Given the sexual nature of the work, dancers say it wouldn't be ethically viable for them to be employees.

"Imagine a big part of your work being that you are commodifying your body and sexuality. Do you want to have a higher up person who's never worked in your industry, telling you how you can and cannot do that, that does not give you the autonomy that we in this industry are seeking," submitter Vixen Temple explained to the committee.

While in theory, this gives dancers more autonomy, in practice, workers in the industry have been subject to unfair working conditions, where pay is often docked with little or subjective justification given.

In this circumstance an employee might go to HR, or get in touch with their union; but current legislation dictates that independent contractors don't really have the ability to collectively bargain.

At the same session, MBIE officials also presented to the committee, and deciphered some of the legislative and policy conditions that would need to be considered should the petition be actioned by Parliament.

You may remember a bill going through Parliament a few years ago that allowed a collective bargaining exemption for workers in Aotearoa's film industry. The Screen Industry Workers Act 2022 gave New Zealand's movie makers, most of whom are independent contractors, industry specific protections.

Adult entertainment industry workers are asking Parliament to consider a similar, industry specific exemption under the Commerce Act, after what they say have been inefficacious attempts at engaging with the relevant bureaucratic frameworks. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

An embarrassing kerfuffle in Parliament's debating chamber on Wednesday provided fun lessons on how the House works; or is meant to.

It began with a surprising and unusual period of silence in the House during Wednesday's extra morning sitting. Debate on a bill had ended slightly early (for the lack of an MP to speak for Te Pāti Māori), and the House moved to the next item on the order paper.

The new bill to be debated wasn't inspiring or even controversial; it was a 'regulatory systems' bill, updating various small things in Social Security. The problem was no one stood up to speak on it. Cue uncomfortable silence - something pretty rare in the chamber.

Every bill that goes through Parliament has an MP in charge of it. Government bills are only shepherded by ministers.. When a government bill is announced in the House, the minister in charge of it stands up to 'take a call' (i.e. speak) and formally proposes that the bill be read, in this case for the first time.

The Action

The minister in charge of the bill up for debate was National's Louise Upston, but she was missing from the chamber.

Her office later revealed that she had been in a Cabinet Committee meeting. She had, as she put it to RNZ, "stuffed up" by not having her speech sitting ready in the House in case someone else had to speak on her behalf. She wasn't alone in the screw-up, or the worst offender.

It is not rare for ministers to be unavailable to speak on a bill. It can happen for various reasons. Any other minister can speak on their behalf, just as any other minister can answer questions on their behalf - it's one of the advantages of the executive being envisaged as a collective.

In the House, the silence was broken by Labour Whip Arena Williams, who jumped to her feet to prompt the assistant speaker in the Chair to make the necessary call. As you would expect from a Whip, Williams knew Parliament's rules well enough to realise the implication of there being no minister rising to take the first call.

On the governing side of the debating chamber they seemed slower on the uptake. None of National's official whips were in the House, but they were being covered by Tim Van de Molen and Dana Kirkpatrick, both of whom seemed caught out by the silence.

After a few seconds, Kirkpatrick moved down to the Table (in the centre of the debating chamber), where she took a copy of the Bill (that no-one was yet talking about), and passed it back to Melissa Lee, who did nothing with it (which was very odd), but more on that in a moment…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Kieran McAnulty, Labour's Shadow Leader of the House, chats with Phil Smith about a recent trip to the UK, where he met with the Clerks of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments. Listen at the link below.

The trip's primary objective was an investigation of UK housing policy (in light of the NZ Government looking toward recent UK housing ideas), but McAnulty also took the chance to share knowledge of Parliamentary rules and operations with the parliamentary clerks who run Westminster and Holyrood. Meetings he found both valuable and fascinating.

McAnulty also returned with parliamentary tools: approaches to continuing MPs' education in parliamentary practice, and hot-off-the-press induction materials for Westminster's new MPs. After the UK's July 4th election there are an extraordinary 335 MPs new to Westminster - more than half of the Parliament's total 650.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

On The House we often refer to a government minister titled Leader of the House. Currently that minister is Chris Bishop. In the previous administration it was Chris Hipkins and later Grant Robertson. As you can tell, it's a role typically held by a senior minister.

Listen to The House's interview with House Advisor Louis Donovan (and his predecessor, Peter Hoare).

One impossible job among many

The Leader of the House is responsible for managing a government's entire legislative agenda, including what is debated and passed by the House and when.

They coordinate with the Parliamentary Counsel Office (legislative drafters), and chair the Cabinet Legislation Committee (quality control). It's a job that necessitates 'managing' ministerial colleagues, so seniority helps. This all may sound difficult, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. With politics as its oil, parliament seldom runs smoothly. Any plan will be quickly upset: by a crisis, a political consideration, a late amendment, or even a tricksy coalition partner.

Being Leader of the House is a full-time job, but no senior minister has only one portfolio. Chris Bishop is also Minister for RMA Reform, of Housing, of Infrastructure, of Sports and Recreation, and an Associate Minister of Finance.

There are entire ministries to keep on top of those other roles, but only a solitary staffer assists with the Leader of the House role - the House Advisor, Louis Donovan.

The House chatted with Louis Donovan recently. You can listen to that chat (and a little from his predesessor at the link above).

Donovan points out that it is Chris Bishop, as Leader of the House, who makes the ultimate calls; but this underplays the three-dimensional sudoku that is Donovan's job.

It's not a job for someone who likes certainty. Anytime you think you have all the ducks lined up, one will fly away or get shot by circumstance.

"That's one of the fun challenges of this job, I guess," says Louis Donovan, "I've got quite a few spreadsheets that get changed every day, multiple times a day, but, yeah, it's my job."

There are endless pitfalls.

"My plans have to be able to adapt to everything... I don't think there's been a single sitting week yet where the plan that I wrote has been the plan that has ended up happening, but that's normal, and that's to be expected."

The Parliament's calendar and it's hazards …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The term 'lobbyist' derives from the Ayes and Noes lobbies that wrap around Parliament's debating chamber. Historically, they were places insiders could catch the ear of politicians.

When the term lobbyist is used in political reporting it is usually negative. You might even get the idea that the parliamentary precinct is awash with them, greasing the wheels for their clients and whispering sweet nothings in the ears of ministers.

I was keen to find out what they do, so I met with two; both former ministerial staffers and arguably from the 'modernising' end of approaches to lobbying.

Holly Bennett is the founder of Awhi, which she describes as a kaupapa Māori lobbying firm. You might have noticed her in the media calling for lobbyists to have a code of conduct, a public register and an oversight body.

Talani Meikle is a director at GRC Partners and Porter Novelli. Their website describes a wide array of services, but rather than the term lobbying opts for descriptors like government relations and public policy advice.

Do you call yourself lobbyists?

Talani Meikle

"There are various names and titles for what we do. We would describe ourselves at GRC/PN as an integrated consultancy firm. So we do government relations, we do PR, we do media relations."

Holly Bennett

"I would say I'm a lobbyist first and foremost... When I think about the term lobbyist, I made a distinct decision to lean into the word lobbyist, because it's just a word. We shouldn't be afraid of it. It's actually about what you do and how you do it."

Why does lobbying exist anyway?

Holly Bennett

"It just means that I translate all of the stuff that happens in Parliament, in and around politics and media for people who don't really live in the world that I do... The level of civics and understanding of people's own democracy in this country is wildly below where it should be."

Talani Meikle

"A lot of our clients, quite frankly, are just absolutely mystified about Wellington. When they try to navigate Wellington and its various layers, they just get very confused. So our role, similar to what Holly has described, is to translate the complexities of Wellington for our clients."

What does that mean, practically?

Holly Bennett…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

For any political geek, a new PhD thesis focused on the rules of Parliament is catnip; even more so if the researcher happens to run the Parliament's secretariat.

Surely they know where the metaphorical institutional bodies are buried and which cupboard holds the spades.

David Wilson had a PhD conferred this year with a thesis titled Influences on parliamentary procedure in New Zealand 1935 ‐ 2015. His formal title is Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives. He manages the team of experts who make the legislative side of Parliament tick. His clerks manage the various select committees and the House itself. They are also the acknowledged experts on Parliament's rules, acting as advisors to speakers and chairs.

The thesis offers a vast array of possible topics to discuss and dissect, but this article will focus briefly on three things: the central idea of the thesis, what it highlighted about how our parliament operates, and our history of relentless change.

Listen to a radio interview with David Wilson about his thesis.

Categorising change

Most rules that govern parliaments change over time. This is true whether they are written down or are simply conventions. But they don't all change the same way, and the rules for the different aspects of Parliament seem to exhibit different kinds of change.

The framework for David Wilson's research is work by political scientists James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, who, Wilson says, created "a model for understanding institutional change in any kind of institution, but particularly political ones. It looks at a couple of variables; one is the discretion to interpret the rules, and the other one is the possibility of vetoing changes to rules."

"The interplay between those two things brings up four different kinds of change, so institutions can change their rules and ways of operating through Displacement, where one rule actually just replaces another one - it's written over the top of it. Layering, where additional rules are added on top of existing ones. Conversion, where the rules actually stay the same but they're interpreted in a different way; and Drift, where the rules remain the same but their effect is altered, often by situations outside of the institution."

(Note: Unless noted, the quotes in this article are from our interview, and not the research.)

A Parliament that embraces both change and rules…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's week began with an urgent (i.e. unplanned) debate into the recent stranding of an Interislander ferry (and the demise of the ferry replacement contract). You can read and listen to our report on that debate debate here.

The debate was unusually and (sometimes unintentionally) entertaining. The best accidental fun arose from ACT MP Cameron Luxton's complaint that there are not nearly enough back-office public servants - quite the opposite to ACT's usual line. He even backed that claim up with numbers.

The debate quality was raised by the Speaker's use of a new rule that meant MPs had an extra hour of preparation for their speeches.

Listen to the weekend edition of The House

New bills wanting feedback

Once Parliament's week began in earnest, ten different bills were debated under urgency through one or more stages. Two bills were debated from start to finish: the Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill, and the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill.

Five new bills received only first readings during the urgency. All of them will now be opened up for public feedback. The new bills would: remove agriculture from the carbon trading, bring back charter schools, bring back three strikes sentencing, allow overseas investors to buy land for housing developments, and repeal the recently passed regulatory framework for medicines, alt health products and medical devices.

For more details on all those bills read the story here.

Returning Samoan citizenship rights

While the House spent the week debating under urgency, the Governance and Administration Committee found moments around the extended sittings to hear submissions on a member's bill about Samoan citizenship.

The Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill is in the name of Green MP Teanau Tuiono. It seeks to correct what all parties seem to agree is an historical wrong - committed by the Muldoon government in 1982.

In 1982, Robert Muldoon's National government passed a bill expressly to ignore and outflank a finding of the Privy Council (then New Zealand's highest court). The Privy Council had ruled that a generation of Samoans, born when Samoa was under New Zealand control, were in fact New Zealand citizens (Falema'i Lesa v Attorney General NZ).

The 1982 law stripped them of that right. There are only an estimated 5,000 of that generation still alive. They were born between early 1924 and the end of 1948…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

After an urgent debate about the Interislander ferry stranding, and another instalment of argument over the budget, the bulk of Parliament's week was spent under urgency.

The urgency motion covered ten bills. Their individual progress varied, ranging from a single stage of debate, to completing all stages and approval as law (pending royal assent).

Two bills debated through all stages

The following two bills were debated through all stages, without pause (or opportunity for public feedback):

Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill

Allows the Minister of transport to set an allowable average level of emissions across for vehicle imports - importers will be able to balance polluting vehicles with cleaner ones.

There has been no indication yet what average emission level settings might be.

Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill

Removes the obligation for forestry advisors and log traders to be registered.

Five new bills now open for submissions

Five of the bills were receiving a first reading and will now go to various select committees. Those committees will call for public submissions. Some of the bills are contentious, so get your pencils ready.

Education and Training Amendment Bill

Reintroduces the possibility of charter schools.

(Submission deadline 17 July).

Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill

Brings back a rejigged version of three-strikes sentencing.

(Submission deadline 23 July).

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill

Removes agriculture from its carbon trading obligations.

(Submission deadline 28 July).

Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill

Changes the Overseas Investment Acts rules to allow the foreign purchase of land for the purpose of building or converting buildings into 20 or more dwellings, such as an apartment block or a retirement village.

(Submission deadline 28 July).

Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill

Repealing a bill passed last year that reworked the regulatory framework for medicines, natural health products, Maori traditional therapies, dietary supplements and medical devices.

The complex outgoing law had been in development for more than a decade under successive governments - a replacement has not been outlined.

(Submission deadline unknown at time of publishing, but presumably late July).

Useful Links…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

While the House spent the week debating under urgency, the Governance and Administration Committee found moments around the extended sittings to hear submissions on a member's bill about Samoan citizenship.

The Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill is in the name of Green MP Teanau Tuiono. It seeks to correct what all parties seem to agree is an historical wrong - committed by the Muldoon government in 1982.

In 1982, Robert Muldoon's National government passed a bill expressly to ignore and outflank a finding of the Privy Council (then New Zealand's highest court). The Privy Council had ruled that a generation of Samoans, born when Samoa was under New Zealand control, were in fact New Zealand citizens (Falema'i Lesa v Attorney General NZ).

The 1982 law stripped them of that right. There are only an estimated 5,000 of that generation still alive. They were born between early 1924 and the end of 1948.

The current bill would create a means for them to gain that citizenship. It doesn't include any reparations, or an automatic right for their descendants to acquire the same right.

Submissions on the Bill have ranged from the personal story to the historical or constitutional treatise. Many are on behalf of extended families, churches or professional organisations.

In the audio above you can hear moments from a few of the submissions.

Video of the oral submissions can be watched here.

Written submissions can be read here.

Ultimate success for this bill seems possible. At the first reading it received support from every party in Parliament except for National. A second reading of the bill might be expected in October or November.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

One of the many rule changes that came into effect with last year's birth of New Zealand's current Parliament involved urgent debates. It allows the Speaker to announce prior to Question Time that there will be an Urgent Debate, rather than after it (and immediately before the debate). On Tuesday he did exactly that.

The topic was the recent stranding of the Interislander ferry Aratere. Both Green and Labour MPs had requested the debate, but first dibs and the opening speech went to Labour's Chief Whip Tangi Utikere.

Plan B anyone?

He outlined the recent event and went on to talk about the current government's cancellation of a 2021 contract to have brand new ferries constructed in Korea and delivered and operating by February 2026. The ferry contract, he noted, had been cancelled in the face of increasing ferry failures but without any alternative plan.

"The situation is this: what occurred on Friday evening was in the context of having no plan B-no plan B. We are still waiting to hear what their plan is going to be."

Earlier, during Question Time, Chris Hipkins had repeatedly asked the Prime Minister about the status of the shipbuilding contract. Was it cancelled? If so, at what cost?

The answers were grudging and not filled with detail. Possibly the most detailed response from Christopher Luxon was that "KiwiRail have repudiated the contract, but there's ongoing commercial conversations."

The Government's lack of detail on responding to this issue was a recurring theme of the later debate. Certainly not much is known as yet.

"We don't know the full wind-down costs of that particular exercise. It could be $200 million; it could be 300 million. We don't know what the actual break penalty clause is as a result of cancelling these two ferries. It could be $100 million; it could be $200 million. That is on top of the wind-down costs. And then, of course, we have the shipyards that may still very well be building these ships..." - Tangi Utikere.

"...what we've just heard there from one of the shareholding Ministers for KiwiRail ...is that despite all of this bluster and approximately 10 minutes in a speech, we have no meaningful plans whatsoever for what is to happen in 2026 and beyond. - Chloe Swarbrick…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It's Scrutiny Week at Parliament - a week when the House doesn't meet, and instead the twelve subject Select Committees spend the week grilling government ministers about their budget plans.

You may have thought the budget was all sewn up, but that's far from true. So far, the Government has proposed a budget, and Parliament is considering it, before eventually (presumably), approving, it later this year.

Parliament's budget consideration is pretty involved, but as it involves billions of dollars that is understandable.

This week - Scrutiny Week - is when the ministers and their various entity bosses come to Parliament and answer questions about it. Because, when it comes down to it - Parliament is the Government's boss.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week Parliament is undertaking 12 concurrent inquiries into government spending plans, in a rejigged post-Budget process being called Scrutiny Week. It is hoped this will improve on recent Parliaments' lacklustre scrutiny of governments.

During Question Time you often see ministers dodge questions from opposition MPs - sometimes batting them away as pesky or irrelevant. Watching this, it would be easy to assume that governments are in charge. Most governments seem to agree, but that's not how New Zealand's constitution works.

Despite appearances, Parliament is the boss, but seldom gets to show its dominance and properly inquire into what its subordinate governments are up to.

The big brother, Parliament House, wraps itself around its minor sibling, the executive qing (aka. the Beehive).

Question Times are often a dead loss for getting answers. Written questions are more effective at gaining information, but the results can be lost in the deluge of tens of thousands of questions.

The best means for drilling deeper into governments' plans, actions and spending is in public select committee inquiries. Select committees review the executive twice a year, but for a long time these inquiries have lacked real teeth.

Getting ministers to turn up, or to devote more than half-an-hour to being questioned has sometimes been an effort. Upon turning up, some ministers have shown skill in wasting time with long introductions, or wandering bloviate answers, leaving little time for real scrutiny of their plans or performance.

Scrutiny week - now with added scrutiny

This year, fingers crossed, that will change. The new rules for Scrutiny Week may actually involve solid scrutiny.

National MP and chair of the Justice Committee James Meager describes Scrutiny Week as "when the government comes to Parliament and tries to justify its spending".

His description accurately describes the power-relationship between the institutions. Spending may be planned by governments, but it only occurs at the allowance of Parliaments.

A new approach

Parliament has new rules and guidelines for scrutiny (from the 2023 Standing Orders Review). Some of the changes and implications are:

Normal sittings of the House are on hold so select committees can devote the whole day and whole Parliamentary week to scrutiny. (Each committee normally only sits one morning per week).

Despite the House not sitting, Scrutiny Week is still a sitting week so all MPs are expected to be at Parliament. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament has a long-held reputation for bad bosses and even worse behaviour. The former Speaker Trevor Mallard commissioned outside advice on how to fix the problem.

One of the many recommendations of that advice - the Debbie Francis Report - was the creation of a new role; the Independent Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. The Commissioner is Lyn Provost, who was previously Auditor General and Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Lyn Provost describes the Independent Commissioner role as a reserve power. "If people have got a problem that they can't get satisfaction , they can come to me."

Her role exists as an opportunity for appeal if the usual complaint processes don't solve the issue.

"In order to get to me, the person has to have exhausted all employment or other disciplinary processes, they have to have either gone to their employer, or, in the case of MPs who do not have an employer, the whips disciplinary system has to have been invoked and gone through... The complainant would come to me and say, 'I've done this, and I still have a problem with it'."

She doesn't cover everything in Parliament though. The most public behaviour - from MPs in the debating chamber - is not within her jurisdiction. That is the Speaker's purview.

Provost's role is particularly focussed on MPs and the people that work around them (whether in electorate offices or at parliament). There haven't always been great processes around MPs because they don't really have normal employers and cannot easily be fired.

Parliamentary problems...

"It is difficult for people in this place to make those kind of complaints, because there is a massive power imbalance between a staff member in an office and a Member of Parliament. Making a complaint against your boss is hard, making a complaint against a Member of Parliament is really hard. It's also often very public. It is challenging, but we should do our best to try and make this place the best place to work that we possibly can."

One possible reason MPs have a poor track record as bosses is a lack of experience in having staff. MPs come from a wider range of experience, but many have never had to manage staff. Add to that the stress of politics, and possibly sometimes a misguided sense of power or authority.

...and some fixes

Each intake of new MPs receive an induction and training from Parliament and their party, now including tips from Lyn Provost…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Sunday radio feature from The House surveyed the party leaders' speeches in the Budget Debate - the facts and attacks, the stories, the pantomime and proclamations. You can listen to that audio at the link below.

But rather than a written version of the radio show, here is a photo essay of Budget Day at Parliament.

no caption

Inside Parliament it's an unusually quiet day. The parliamentary press gallery (political journalists) are all 'locked away' being briefed on the numbers before the Budget announcement. But just outside there is a huge Budget Day hīkoi protest initiated by Te Pāti Māori, against government policies affecting Māori.

no caption

As 2pm nears, the government's main players cross the bridge from the Executive Wing (the Beehive) to Parliament House. Staking out that arrival are a few press photographers and, above them, staffers (mostly from the governing side) who ring the lower atria for a view.

no caption

Inside the debating chamber, before the minister of finance can give the Budget Statement, the Budget documents need to be tabled, including the volumes of appropriations estimates that are details of the Budget. The introduction of the documents is made by Nicola Willis, but it is House and chamber staff who must lug and organise the piles of tomes on the table.

no caption

Each party leader and the speaker each get copies of the Budget Statement about to be read. This year, the on-duty Hansard reporter and the clerk of the House of Representatives missed out on copies for some reason.

no caption

"For the first time in 14 years, hard-working New Zealanders will get to keep more of their own money through our government's tax relief." - Nicola Willis

Cue 42 minutes of almost uninterrupted speechifying. That's got to be tiring. Ministers of finance seldom make mistakes despite all the taxing detail, so I presume there's a fair bit of practice beforehand.

no caption

The debating chamber seen from the press gallery. Few journalists are in physical attendance. They've been locked away since morning tea, being briefed and pre-writing embargoed content. Now most are downstairs in their offices creating an avalanche of content, coverage, and commentary. The public turnout is also noticeably poor and possibly affected by the protest outside.

By the way, that glorious glass roof topping the chamber's multi-layered wedding cake is false. It's a glass ceiling with lights above. The actual chamber roof is much more prosaic. The huge white tubes hanging between the lights are massive multidirectional speakers.

no caption…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

After Ministers of Finance have delivered a Budget Statement and the party leaders have each had a crack at it, the House typically adjourns the debate over the wider budget and instead gets into some policy specifics.

It's usual to take the House into urgency on the afternoon of budget day, to progress some Government bills quickly through the House, or as was the case this year - not so quickly.

Listen to the House's report on the very slow progress under urgency to Friday evening.

The Government announced it wanted to move nine bills through a combined 27 debating stages. Some to just have first readings, and others to be passed through all stages (just awaiting the Royal assent to become law).

But 27 stages is a lot of debating to fit in between Thursday afternoon and Saturday night, when urgency must end at midnight. By Friday evening they had managed just six stages, with 21 to go. On Saturday evening they reached the last bill, with just four stages left to debate. They had however apparently skipped a bill originally listed as being debated through all stages - the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill.

It's worth noting that the pace of debating through days of urgency often speeds up, and not every bill is usually as contentious as the early ones. The least contentious or least urgent bills usually go last and sometimes pass more smoothly.

The bills agreed as being debated under urgency are:

the first reading of the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

the introduction and passing through all stages of:

the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill

the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs-Budget Measures) Amendment Bill

the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill

the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill

the introduction, first reading, and referral to a select committee of:

the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill

the introduction and passing through all stages of:

the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill

the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The focus of budget coverage is, of course, all about the numbers. Hundreds and thousands of numbers. Enough numbers to last a month, or as a budget speech would describe a month... a generous 120 days across the four year spending period.

Instead of talking numbers, let's focus on the process. What happens next for Parliament? There are three parallel lines of action that begin after the Budget Statement. Here they are:

The second reading of the Estimates legislation (a.k.a. The Budget Debate)

The first is the continuing process of passing the legislation which contains the budget - known as the Appropriations. The Minister of Finance's speech is an intro to the Second Reading of that bill (note: there is no first reading debate because the question 'should we have a budget bill' is taken as a given).

The second reading debate is also the eight-hour long Budget Debate which began on Thursday with 20 minute long speeches from the party leaders.

At that point it was paused until the next sitting week (Tuesday June 25th), and the third parallel line of action kicked into gear.

Select Committee Scrutiny

Slightly earlier than that (on paper at least), the second line of action is taken by the Finance and Expenditure Committee which divides up the various sections (votes) within the budget and allocates them between the twelve Subject Select Committees.

The committees are already preparing for their examinations of their own areas of expertise, in a week-long in-depth inquisition of ministers called Scrutiny Week (June 17-21). The results of that committee scrutiny will return to the House as part of its continuing consideration of the budget.

And, yes, the Budget Debate and the committee scrutiny are two different parts of the process for the estimates legislation - occurring concurrently.

Urgent Bills

In the House, the second reading debate is interrupted by the desire to begin debating the specifics. This is the third line of action that occurs - moving the House into urgency in order to debate a list of bills that the Government would like progressed, or even passed entirely.

Post-budget urgency is (at least initially), focused on bills that enable key and urgent aspects of the budget, like tax changes; but to varying degrees governments also use this opportunity to debate other, wider policies.

For more on the urgency debate see our Friday story, and for more about the Budget Debate, see our Sunday story.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

During budget week most arguments and debates in the House relate to the budget (or unusually this week, to some trouble caused by a failure to spot the difference between a karanga and a speech), but within that maelstrom Wednesday was a small eddy spinning its own path.

Wednesday evening's debates were about neither tikanga nor budgets. This year's budget week is also a Member's Week, when the Wednesday sitting is devoted to debating bills put forward by backbench MPs from any party (member's, local or private bills).

On Wednesday one private bill and three members bills were debated, two bills from Labour MPs and two from National MPs.

Before the sitting, The House talked with National backbench MP Stuart Smith, who has a members bill under consideration that would ease wineries' ability to charge customers for cellar-door wine tastings. Because it is about alcohol it is also a bill with that less common flavour, a conscience-issue (with a blackberry note).

For the record, the Bill was reported back from the Committee of the Whole House without amendment, although there was some kerfuffle over whether or not a final personal vote had been called for.

The Bill will be set down for a third reading debate next Members' Day (likely on July 24th).

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It is budget week this week. I am sure you know that already. There are probably hermit monks, hidden in remote mountains, who are not only aware of budget week, but already tired of hearing about it.

But few people realise that Thursday's announcement is not the end of the matter. It is barely the beginning. They also don't realise that the Budget Statement is not the Government announcing determinations, but the Government making a plea, seeking permission.

Listen to the radio version of this preview from The House of the week and the budget.

Immediately after the Budget Statement is read by the Minister of Finance (and barely past the entrée of the budget), is the Budget Debate, which involves 8 hours of speeches from MPs (including longer speeches from the party leaders). That debate can only adjourn once, so it should conclude by the end of the next sitting week (Thursday 27th June).

The main course of the budget process is the examination of the Appropriation Estimates (how much each government agency plans to spend, and on what). That work is undertaken by all twelve subject specialist select committees. It involves detailed written questionnaires, in-depth documentation, and follow-up verbal cross-examinations by committee MPs of the various ministers and agency/ministry bosses.

The third course is when the House gets to debate the results of all of those investigations, which it will do in a few months time. It is not until then that it will vote finally on the Government's financial plans.

Until that is all complete and signed off, the budget is still (at least on paper), no more than a plan.

Chris Bishop, the Leader of the House, explains the process in constitutional terms.

"They get in the departments, and the relevant ministers, and they have to account to Parliament for the money they are seeking from Parliament. Fundamentally, it's a matter of constitutional process. The Government can only govern with the permission of Parliament, and the Government can only spend money with the permission of Parliament. So the the actual budget is essentially the Government seeking from the Parliament, the ability to spend money on things that it wants to spend money on."

In short, the budget is far from finished. It's not budget week, it's budget months. So tuck in your napkin and prepare to discover whether the chef is bringing out a degustation, or diet.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Chief Electoral Officer Karl Le Quesne at Parliament's Justice Committee.

In each new Parliament, the Justice Committee has a recurring job. It holds an extensive inquiry into the election just gone, looking for ways to improve and update New Zealand's electoral law.

That inquiry has now begun.

Listen to the radio version of this story, as well as two other Sunday stories - on controversial bills, and the maiden statement of Francisco Hernandez.

The Warm-Up

The Justice Committee warmed up for its inquiry with a briefing from the Office of the Controller and Auditor General (OAG), which had recently completed an inquiry into vote counting errors. The OAG had some pretty interesting things to say up front.

"Many aspects of the election process are set by legislation, and the commission, we saw, has limited flexibility and options about how it goes about doing the election because of those settings. For example, there's a very prescriptive way about how votes are counted, and that's in the legislation."

David Lemmon who heads the inquiries team at the OAG, noted that it was not their role to comment on the policy of those settings or how they might be changed, "but that might be something the committee could consider".

This felt like a very polite way of telling MPs that if they wanted to look for blame in election processes they should not look to the commission, but to the law.

In fact, the overarching message from the inquiry seemed to be that the commission is pretty boxed into archaic practices with over-prescriptive legislation.

For example, take this comment from the OAG's Helen Colebrook - another great example of polite language that speaks volumes.

"It is very prescriptive around how the votes must be counted, including a manual vote-counting process that's largely similar to the 1956 Act that preceded it. There may be some opportunities there to look at whether or not that could be updated to bring it into the century that we're living in".

For a public servant that is quite an intense burn.

It was not the only criticism either. The Office of the Auditor General also had some thoughts about the funding for the Electoral Commission.

It seems the commission did not know what its election budget was until too late, and it did not get as much as it thought it needed. That led to "difficult trade-offs about what it could do with the resources that it had".

In another 'helpful suggestion', the OAG observed an international trend towards independent funding for bodies like the Electoral Commission…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This page hosts the audio from Thursday's episode of The House, focussing on the opening stanzas of Parliament's inquiry into the 2023 election.

The written version of this story will be published as the Sunday (26 May) edition of The House.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Two bills considered for the first time this week were highly contentious. Having had a first reading, both bills will go to select committee - the chance for public feedback.

Listen to The House's outline of the bills in case you want to pitch in.

The entrance to Parliament

The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill proposes to remove section 7AA from the law that governs Oranga Tamariki (the Ministry for Children, a government agency that looks after vulnerable children). That section says a few things, but most crucially it says that: 1) the agency must have regard to the fact that vulnerable Māori children in its care are Māori, and 2) should develop partnerships with Māori groups to improve Māori children's outcomes.

In the current bill, those cultural obligations are subsidiary to the overriding obligations for care and protection. Some, however, see those extra culturally-oriented instructions as confusing, even damaging, and want them gone.

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill includes a lot of new rules around tenants' pets, smoking, and family violence provisions. It also brings back 90-day no-cause terminations, allows termination notices and reduces the notice a tenant needs to give for periodic tenancies, and allows notices to end fixed-term tenancies at the end of the term.

Further information & submission links

More information about the bills is available here:

The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

The above links are to each bill's Parliamentary page which includes links to the actual bill, Hansard reports of debates, as well as the ability to submit directly to the Social Services Select Committee.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's Environment Committee has been hearing submissions on the Fast-Track Approvals Bill over the last three weeks. The oral submissions are a balloted selection from the many seeking to appear, and from the tens of thousands of written submissions received.

Some are very specific, some very broad. They are typically well researched, thoughtful and have ranged across the dozens of angles a submitter might take on such powerful and wide-ranging legislation.

While many submissions oppose the Bill, or aspects of it; some support the Bill's intent but would take it further, enabling wider or different changes to planning and consenting law, for example at the local government level.

Listen to an audio version of this story, including examples from the oral submissions.

A brief outline of the Bill

The Fast-Track Approvals Bill describes itself as providing a "streamlined decision-making process to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits".

The fast track intent would be achieved via an alternative path to the various consenting processes that might be required under a range of laws regarding fisheries, wildlife, heritage, conservation, crown minerals and the RMA itself.

The alternative approvals process is truncated, those involved are fewer.

A core group of three ministers (sometimes with additions according to the project), will refer potential projects to a small expert panel to consider. The panel can consult a range of stakeholders but not the general public.

After the panel makes recommendations, final decisions on projects are made by the same ministerial group.

Legal appeals about decisions are restricted to points of law, restricted regarding who has standing to sue, and to whom they can appeal.

Every aspect of the process includes tight time limits (for example a ten day allowance for getting advice to the expert panel).

There is, of course, a lot more complexity, but that is the basic framework. Listen to the audio story for examples of submissions on the Bill.

The Environment committee is due to report back to the House on the Fast Track Approvals Bill in early September.

Links for the bill

Parliament's page for the Bill is at the link.

The Fast-Track Approvals Bill can be read in full at the link.

Submissions received on it can be browsed at the link.

Video of recent Oral Submissions can be viewed at the link.

The Legislative Statement on the Bill can be downloaded via the link…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The role of Parliament's Speaker is ranked fourth in the nation's Order of Precedence, comes with the title 'Right Honourable' (if you like that sort of thing), and shepherds the crucial institution of Parliament. But it seldom seems to be the first choice for MPs chosen for it.

Most speakers seem to have other plans. Adrian Rurawhe said he was looking forward to being a Whip when Chris Hipkins (then Leader of the House), "played the Jacinda Card" and elbowed him into being Deputy Speaker.

John Key gave David Carter a week to think about it, but as David Carter said, "it's not career enhancing to actually say no". In a barbed response to carping from Winston Peters, the current speaker Gerry Brownlee offered his job to the foreign minister. "You seem to know more about my job and I certainly know a lot more about yours. Do you wanna swap?"

Gerry Brownlee being formally sworn in as Speaker by the Governor General, Dame Cindy Kiro.

Eventually though, all speakers seem to settle into the unusual and multi-layered role. It goes far beyond wrangling testy MPs. Brownlee estimates that aspect is only about 20 percent of the role. The Speaker is also Parliament's figurehead, its landlord, the minister responsible for Parliament's three Officers (the Ombudsman, Auditor General and Commissioner for the Environment); as well as minister or nominal minister for the agencies that actually run the institution of Parliament.

It's no small role.

Stepping aside from the partisan and the team

The current speaker is longstanding National MP from Christchurch, and the current 'Father of the House', Gerry Brownlee.

When I sat down with him, I began by asking whether he is "enjoying" it so far. He instead outlined the importance of the role in ensuring good law-making, and fairness to all parties in all aspects of Parliament's business.

"That can be challenging, because you know, you're coming off 27 years of partisan politics to suddenly be 'Parliament's man'. But I think, probably because of those 27 years, you do have a greater appreciation of the importance of that fairness and the delivery of Parliamentary procedure."

One of the downsides that David Carter identified was having to remain at arms length from one's long-time party colleagues, so no longer feeling like part of the team.

Brownlee agrees…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It is hard not to notice when governments get close to revealing a new budget. As they near, there is always a vanguard of political announcements and policy trailers.

Alongside this political crescendo walks a quieter parliamentary parade. Annual pre-budget events in the House and Committees that act as less political signs of the budget to come.

Dr Rebekah Graham from Parents of Vision Impaired New Zealand gives evidence to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in response to the Budget Policy Statement. Her focus was on the failure to properly provide for the education of visually impaired and disabled children.

The Sunday Feature from The House notes three parliamentary budget precursors, in a compilation of this week's weeknight editions:

On Tuesday we noted that as the budget nears Parliament flexes some muscle, going over the head of the Government to add into the budget a soupcon of funding for its own three watchdogs.

On Wednesday we noted that a committee inquiry into the Government's budget strategy also acts as an early (and lone) opportunity for public feedback on those ideas.

And on Thursday (as if you weren't already sick of all things budget), we looked at the main event inside the debating chamber over the last two weeks - something that needs tidying up before a new budget arrives. But this year, the tidy-up got messy when the governing side, defending the old count, lost count.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

For the past two weeks the main event in Parliament's debating chamber has been the Annual Review Debate. This ten-hour-long debate happens every year in the run-up to a new budget.

Formally, it is the Committee of the Whole House stage for the bill that confirms the government's books for the period initiated two budgets ago. The Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

In the House, the debate is introduced to the MPs like this: "The annual review debate is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees."

The build up to Annual Review Debate is a series of inquiries by the select committees. Each subject specialist committee selects a range of government organisations within their purview to investigate, with written questions and public hearings, including grilling the ministers responsible.

The results of all of those investigations are collected in a huge and fascinating report (see volume 1 here and volume 2 here). It is that report that is being debated in The Annual Review Debate.

The debate is a committee stage, but with many more ministers appearing than usual. The ministers turn up in the House one at a time, and answer questions mostly from opposition MPs, about the performance of their own parts of the government.

Keeping an eye on the clocks

The Annual Review Debate is ten hours long, and each party is allocated a portion of that time according to their size. The debate is not all nicely timed-out speeches though, it is questions and answers. Sometimes lots of questions and few answers and sometimes a few questions and really long answers, depending on which minister is at the Table.

At the front of the debating chamber a member of parliament's staff sits with seven timers; one for each party. Every time an MP or a minister gets up and speaks that time is knocked off their party's total.

It is a count-down to zero for each party, and each party is responsible for managing its own time-resource to make sure that they have enough for:

The apolitical introductory speeches to be made on behalf of a select committee for each subject section of the debate (a mix of parties, but most committee chairs are from governing parties).

All the questions they want to ask (mostly from opposition parties).

All the answers to those questions (entirely from governing parties)…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

There have always been a lot of rules that guide the way that governments plan and report their proposed and actual spending.

The current approach possibly dates back to 1989, with the instigation of Labour's Public Finance Act (PFA), and then especially National's slightly more recent Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994. The highlights of those two Acts now exist together, and tinkering continues.

Two of the overarching themes of that law are: declare a plan, and avoid surprises. Both messages are satisfied in the annual Budget Policy Statement (required by the PFA), which the Government released in late March, outlining the Government's goals, objectives and strategies. Since then the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been examining it.

The Budget Policy Statement achieves something else as well - an opportunity for budget feedback from the public.

Unless the House is sitting under urgency, proposed new laws usually spend time being examined by a select committee. At that point the public is usually given a chance to weigh in on the plan.

But this is not true of budgets. Appropriations bills do go to Select Committee, but not for public input. Instead, there are extensive hearings when the committees themselves question the ministers about their plans.

The main chance the public gets to input into the strategic direction of a new budget is at the hearings held into the Budget Policy Statement, and yes, that's prior to the budget's release.

That timing means it's more of an opportunity for the public to pitch their own ideas for a budget, and respond to the broad budget objectives outlined in the Budget Policy Statement, rather than budget specifics.

I've listened to some of the submissions this year. There have been a wide range of both submitters and topics. The budget covers pretty much everything under the sun and therefore so too does the advice. Some submitters have come from organisations and lobby groups from across the political spectrum; others were from private individuals.

I'm pretty sure that all the submitters are aware that, disasters notwithstanding, the budget is already set in stone, and so their submissions won't effect change - but regardless of that, this is not just an exercise in shouting at clouds.

It is a chance to raise issues, voice opinions and engage MPs in debate about different approaches and ideas. As well as being a key aspect of New Zealand democracy, that kind of personal input into the halls of power is always a worthy undertaking.

The budget itself will be revealed in three weeks on May 30th.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Government's budget is decided by cabinet, after many months of work from the Minister of Finance, Treasury and individual ministries and agencies.

But they don't get to make all the decisions. Before the budget gets presented Parliament gets the chance to add a few items itself, by-passing the Government (kind-of) to fund its own watch-dogs.

Ultimately, it is Parliament that has the power to approve or reject the entire budget, but that decision is over something designed and proposed by government. This bit is different.

These extra Appropriations are voted on by Parliament and presented separately. In fact they are made in the form of an Address to the Governor General, with details of funding for the Officers, to be added to the budget.

(Fun fact, that address is a physical thing, not an email. It is printed on 'Goat Skin', which these days is just a high quality parchment rather than the former skin of a goat.)

On Monday, the Leader of the House (who is the Government's senior representative in the debating chamber), moved that the House recommend two things to the Governor General.

Both to do with three Parliamentary watch-dogs who keep an eye on government: The three Officers of Parliament are the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. They all report to Parliament as a whole (through Parliament's Speaker and the Officers of Parliament Committee) rather than to a particular minister or cabinet like other government entities.

The first was updates to last year's Estimates for those watch dogs; i.e. their actual spend rather than their estimated spend. The second was their estimated spend for the coming year.

This is all separate from the Government's own budget development process because these entities are designed to apply independent scrutiny to the Government's actions including use of public funds, legal accountability and environmental stewardship.

Government's might feasibly find them to be a thorn in their side and desired to defund them. Or at the least the Officers could hold their punches in case that happened.

The level of funding is determined (with input from Treasury) by by the Officers of Parliament Committee, a cross-party committee of MPs. That committee is chaired by the Speaker who is the nominal 'minister in charge' of the Officers. So today's motion doesn't come as a complete surprise to MPs.

The Three Officers of Parliament

Who are these three entities known as Officers of Parliament?…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In the last year or so Parliament has heard some unusually good valedictory speeches from a variety of outgoing MPs. Just a few weeks ago from Labour's Grant Robertson for example, or late last year from National's Todd Muller.

This week it was former Green leader James Shaw. So on the Sunday edition of The House we featured highlights of James Shaw's farewell statement.

The radio broadcast of audio highlights can be heard here.

The full speech can be read below, and at the bottom of this article is an embedded video of the event.

Hansard's record of the valedictory:

Thank you - you haven't heard what I've got to say yet! Thank you, Speaker. E mihi ana ki ngā mana whenua ki tēnei rohe, a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, Tēnā koutou katoa. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Nga mihi nui kia koutou katoa.

One night, during the course of the 2017 election campaign, I was so exhausted that I swallowed my tongue in my sleep, and I woke up- It didn't feel funny at the time. I woke up on the floor on my hands and knees, choking it back up.

That was a difficult campaign. When Parliament rose for the six-week election period, I delivered the adjournment debate speech for the Green Party, and 10 minutes before I was due to speak, I got the news that the Colmar Brunton poll that night had us down 11 points. We were on 4 percent. It seemed likely at that point that I was about to become the last leader of the Green Party and to deliver the last speech by a Green Party MP in Parliament.

Well, 12 weeks later, I was the Minister of Climate Change. I was on my way to Germany to the United Nations annual climate summit, but first I had to stop over in Rome to meet the Pope.

Now, there isn't a roller coaster on this planet that comes close to the white-knuckle ride that is politics, and I am simultaneously saddened and elated to be leaving it. Actually, I am mostly elated to be leaving it. I've been in Parliament for 10 years, Green Party co-leader for nine, six as a Minister of the Crown, and I have to say it has not been easy to work out what it is that I want to say, here at the end of it all.

There are a great many people to whom I owe a profound debt of gratitude. Sometimes, in these speeches, the acknowledgments come at the end, but I'm going to start with them, because if there is one thing that I want to express, it is gratitude…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It's always news when the Prime Minister heads overseas, or a foreign leader arrives here. But prime ministers are comparative home-bodies. It's much more common for other ministers to travel. Collectively, even backbench MPs travel more than Prime Ministers.

The backbenchers travel for many reasons, but most equate to either visiting other Parliaments or meeting groups of other countries' MPs.

The reverse is even more common. Parliament hosts many MPs and politicians from other countries as guests. Most sitting weeks there are groups visiting from somewhere.

This week, for example, a group of young American politicians from various institutions have been in town, and a delegation from the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada.

A delegation of Ukrainian MPs brief the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. (Left to right) Olga Koval, Galyna Mykhailiuk and Laroslav Zhelezniak.

The Ukrainian delegation has been a little different, with one of them being a Parliamentary representative of their President, and the Ambassador accompanying them as well. This has meant that while it has been a Parliamentary visit it has also had tones of a ministerial one. Certainly the MPs had messages to share from the wider Ukrainian government and people.

Their busy week included meeting various ministers and MP groups, including a formal dinner as guests of the New Zealand Speaker. They also visited New Zealand Military trainers at Linton Camp (who have been training Ukrainian forces in the UK), and the Royal New Zealand Police College to learn from their training approach.

I caught up with the delegation leader Galyna Mykhailiuk after they had briefed the Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee on Ukraine's current and future needs, and how New Zealand can contribute.

You can listen to our chat at the link above or watch that select committee briefing here.

https://vimeo.com/showcase/10758106/video/920194696

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

MPs listen to hundreds, even thousands of submissions from the public on bills and petitions, even on Parliament's own rules. It would not be surprising if backbench MPs' dreams featured an endless parade of proffered opinions.

Very occasionally a backbench MP finds themselves on the other side of the table, getting to bend the ears of their colleagues.

This Wednesday morning for example, in the Education and Workforce Committee, Labour Whip Camilla Belich got to be a submitter, the first to speak on a Member's Bill she adopted from former MP Ibrahim Omer.

The Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill seeks to add a new criminal offence for employers who intentionally fail to pay owed wages to employees.

After her 15 minute submission I asked Camilla Belich how it was to be on the other side of the table.

"It is a different experience. I think one thing I would note is that it's quite hard to know how much time you've used. And so I would be probably be a bit kinder now to submitters when they go over because it's really hard to tell - it goes really quickly.

What is an MP's objective in submitting on a bill they are sponsoring?

"I have to convince them to allow the Bill to go forward and convince them that it's a worthy bill to have their support. and also the officials, to try and make sure that they understand the policy intent of the bill."

Camilla Belich is also a member of this committee, and gets to keep on offering advice, staying in the room when they close the door and go into private session. Consideration is when the committee decides whether a bill needs amendments, and if so what.

Ministers sponsor many government bills but never get a view behind the Select Committee curtain on their own work.

"Ministers don't get the opportunity to sit in select committees and be part of the determinations because we do have that separation. So it is a unique experience that a backbench Member of Parliament gets to do when they do have a member's bill.

And often we'll sub someone on to the committee to be on there for the consideration of the bill. So even if it's not your committee, it's usually something that you get to do as part of that process."

Ministers appear before committees to answer questions in Annual Review and Estimates hearings related to their plans and performance. They could also appear before committee to submit on all their own bills. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

One of Parliament's big piece debates begins this week. The Annual Review Debate happens every year as the penultimate stage of a long review of prior government spending and performance (for the financial year ended almost a year previously).

It will stretch across 10 hours and give the opposition a chance to question a line -up of government ministers about their portfolios. This questioning is a follow-up to months of hearings in the subject specialist select committees.

One of the people managing it in the House (from the Opposition point of view), is the Shadow Leader of the House, Labour MP Kieran McAnulty. Phil Smith chats with him about the event.

Labour MP and Shadow Leader of the House, Kieran McAnulty in the debating chamber.

Kieran McAnulty - The Standing Orders give some scope to ask questions about current work programs as well, so it's not entirely looking backwards. But that remains a big part of it.

The annual review debate is interesting, because it's time-limited. And there's a process beforehand where the Opposition registers their interest in certain topics with the Government. And the convention is that the Government will try and accommodate that, but is not really required to fully, but on the whole they do. And so we've gone through that process.

Phil Smith - When you say the topics, you mean, which ministers are going to turn up around?

Yeah, that's right. So the Minister of Finance, Minister of Environment, etc, etc. Associate ministers will be in the house as well during that allocated time period. And if there is a question directed to them, or they are the more appropriate person to answer it, then they can do so from their seat. Whereas the minister, the lead minister, is usually sitting at the Table.

This is the Committee stage debate of the Appropriations (which means budget) Confirmation and Validation Bill, which is the one that sort of ties up all the loose ends on the budget, before the budget. In a committee stage, the Minister responsible for a bill always sits at the table, and is available to answer questions. Well, you know, hopefully answer questions. But then this is like one of those except it's a whole range of ministers.

Yeah, I can understand why it has been set up this way. It's so that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinize the areas that it has expressed an interest in. And then certain time allocations are given to ministers. So that this time limited debate can be efficiently run…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Over the last six years, Parliament's clerks have had to vet about 40,000 written questions each year.

A written question - from an opposition MP to a minister - is a commonly used tool in Parliament, but not well-known outside political circles.

They are not as familiar to the public as the more theatrical and confrontational oral question, as asked during Question Time.

Written questions exist in the shadow of their oral cousins. You can find them published on Parliament's website: both question and - when it is given - the answer alongside it.

So how are written questions used and what are the democratic benefits?

Ginny Andersen

Drilling down

Opposition MP Ginny Andersen of the Labour Party says the written question is a great tool for holding the government to account.

One of the benefits is that there is no limit as to how many questions an MP can lodge. In terms of what they are about, being factual is the key concern.

"You look for a range of different sources: it might be a report in the media; it could be a statement the minister's made; it may be something they've even said in an oral question that you'd like to drill down a bit further and get some additional information.

"It's really important that it's based on fact, and you also need to verify where you've got your source from."

It can be helpful to consider the written question as part of a set of questioning tools used by MPs to keep tabs on the Government.

"So the three main tools would be the Official Information Act and putting our question through that way; and then once you've got a pile of information from the OIA then you would look further with written parliamentary questions. And then when you've got an area you think is of high interest (in the public interest, to hold the government to account), that would be when you put up an oral parliamentary question," Andersen explains.

Browsing through the list of written questions on Parliament's website, you will see groups of questions by an MP to the same minister, a sequence of related interrogations on a common subject (such as a statement, a meeting or a policy). Is the written question format just a fishing expedition?

"It can be. You usually have a general direction that you think you're wanting to head in," Andersen says…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

We all know that Members of Parliament have a job that comes with a great deal of pressure.

Mentally, it can be tough going, and sometimes this results in MPs making mistakes that can unravel not just their career but the work they have done along the way too.

In this piece, The House speaks to several experienced Members of Parliament to gauge what mental health support, pastoral care or mentoring is available to help MPs cope with the strain.

Awareness

Among his portfolios, the National MP Matt Doocey is the Minister for Mental Health, a newly created role. A background of his own journey with mental health issues, as well as having worked in mental health before coming to Parliament, has helped him reach a particular level of awareness about how to recognise and manage issues that crop up.

Not everyone was comfortable talking about it, but awareness of mental health issues in the workplace at Parliament had come a long way in recent years, Doocey suggested.

"In a way we are not too dissimilar to many workplaces that are grappling with the issues around wellbeing and better mental health. I'm of the age that I can remember a time in workplaces where you were probably told to leave your personal issues at the door when you went to work, and people weren't interested in what was happening with your life outside of work.

"But now we see quite the opposite, where it is expected that there is a level of understanding around how we support people's wellbeing at work and maybe the pressures they are facing."

For MPs, their workload can feel overwhelming at times: the long hours spent on the job, the sense of responsibility, and the turmoil of electorate work. Throw in ministerial portfolios and frequent media interactions, then pressures can build substantially.

MPs have some avenues available for help in the system. A first port of call that an MP can go to is usually the party whip (or musterer, as the Green Party calls it). Doocey was a whip for National when it was in opposition last term.

"It's sort of like an operational management job, you work with the individuals and your caucus like a team, and help support them to understand where they need to deliver, but also there's a pastoral care side as well. And quite often either the whip or senior MPs can be supporting other MPs about issues they're facing," he said.

…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Even in a sitting block of only one week a lot goes on in Parliament, this one just finished having its share of surprises, routine stuff and signs of a changing culture around scrutiny at committee level.

So much lawmaking has happened in a short time this year at Parliament that it's possible for us to forget some of the huge amount of legislation passed under urgency in recent months. The four week sitting block across February and March, the first since 2018, may have finally done our heads in. But whether for long or short blocks, The House is here to help. Here's a wrap of our week's episodes in the audio available below:

At Parliament, some of the most interesting and unexpected debates occur on Members' Days. Those alternate Wednesdays when the House debates bills put forward by backbenchers - rather than ministers from the government. There was genuine surprise when the ACT and New Zealand First parties voted for Green Party MP Tuiono's Member's Bill at its first reading. Meanwhile, a fascinating debate illuminating philosphical divides in the Parliament during the first reading of soon-to-retire Green MP James Shaw's Member's Bill seeking to amend the Bill of Rights Act 1990 to provide for the right to a sustainable environment.

Among the list of submitters and subjects for this week's select committee hearings at Parliament, the Auditor-General's office featured often. The Auditor-General is one of the three Officers of Parliament, entities who have a particular job to hold the government to account. The Auditor-General has a busy working relationship with Parliament that is set to deepen with the new provisions for extra scrutiny of government that stem from the last Parliament's Standing Orders review.

The Speaker has begun steering ministerial answers away from outright attacks on the previous government, and towards answers. Of course this is something the previous government also did. The road to positivity for new governments is long and difficult. But this week's Question Time exchanges found Gerry Brownlee inviting MPs asking questions to experience "a think-on-your-feet moment".

Also this week, first readings and referral to the Māori Affairs Committee of Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill, while the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill was read a second time.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Some of the Parliament's most interesting and unexpected debates occur on Members' Days - the alternate Wednesdays when the House debates bills put forward by backbenchers, rather than government ministers.

Members Bills range widely, originating from across the parties, and bringing a wider subject range and a broader scope of political philosophy. They sometimes deal with ideas a government might be nervous to champion, or which are so specific no government would quite get around to them.

Listen to a report on this week's members bills from The House

This week's members day included examples of all the above, some unexpected voting, and an unsuccessful attempt at a final legislative hurrah from former Green Party co-leader James Shaw.

The successful bills

The unexpected voting happened on two bills. The Greens surprised National's Stuart Smith with their support during the second reading debate of his bill easing cellar-door tasting rules. The bill isn't done yet, but is finding pretty wide support. It's an example of a niche issue unlikely to catch a government's attention.

The second unexpected voting was on Green MP Teanau Tuiono's bill which was agreed to by every party except the National Party. It would reinstate the possibility of New Zealand citizenship for some now quite elderly Samoans who had their citizenship unilaterally removed by a law passed back in 1982. Unusually that debate was watched by a visiting delegation of Samoan MPs, including the Speaker of Samoa's parliament. That bill will now go to a select committee for public feedback, which I suspect might be both fascinating and emotional.

There was also a small fixit bill from Labour MP Greg O'Connor, which will add more specificity to the requirements made on child sex offender overseas travel reporting. That had unanimous support.

A parting shot: Environment v Economy

The most divergent debate was on James Shaw's bill, which was attempting a first reading. James Shaw had delayed his political retirement to be able to speak on it.

It would add another right to those guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights (an aspect of New Zealand's constitution). That "everyone has the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment." James Shaw said that around "about 80 percent of countries around the world already recognise this right in their domestic legal systems" …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Among the list of submitters and subjects for this week's select committee hearings at Parliament, the Auditor-General's office features often.

The Auditor-General is one of the three Officers of Parliament, entities who have a particular job to hold the government to account. As this week's committee action shows, the Auditor-General has a busy working relationship with Parliament that is set to deepen with the new provisions for extra scrutiny of government that stem from the last Parliament's Standing Orders review.

The Auditor-General's work provides Parliament with an independent view of how public organisations are operating. And there are a lot of them to keep an eye on: every single public service entity.

Watchdog

"There are about four-thousand, and a good two and a half of those are schools. So that's a very wide range, says Mark Evans, the Auditor-General's Director Sector Engagement, Parliamentary Group.

"From small entities like schools and cemetery boards to the very large departments like MBIE and MPI and other large crown entities."

What the Auditor-General's office looks at is not simply the financial information.

"So the financial statements, assurance that money is being spent as it should be, but also what's being achieved with that money. So how do we know if it's being spent as it was supposed to, but also what's the result."

In order to gauge the effectiveness of public organisations, the Auditor-General's office has many inquiries and reports on the go at any one time. Often these reports are considered by MPs in relevant select committees, or the Auditor-General's staff come to Parliament to discuss their findings with the committees.

For example, this week, the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been considering an Auditor-General's report titled 'Making infrastructure investment decisions quickly'; the Governance and Administration committee digested the Auditor-General's 'Insights into local government 2021' report as well as its report into the Auckland Council's preparedness for responding to an emergency; meanwhile the Economic Development, Science and Innovation committee is tomorrow due to hear from Auditor-General officers about their General Inquiry into Callaghan Innovation's procurement process.

Enhanced scrutiny…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

When the government changes from one party to another, you might expect that party's refrain would also switch, that the once-opposition, now-government MPs would suddenly go positive - singing of new happy times.

Equally, you'd think was-government, now-opposition MPs would flip into dour mode. But neither happen, at least not for a long while. Both sides tend to stay partially stuck in their prior mode. This behaviour is especially obvious from an incoming government, and in the debating chamber.

For example, on Tuesday the Prime Minister was asked in Question Time whether his government's newly announced truancy policy had been approved by cabinet yet.

He responded: "Well, as I said, we have an ambitious government, and that is fantastic because what we observed over the last six years was a government that spent more, borrowed more, taxed more, and delivered worse outcomes. Your government had six years. You did very little; you failed at it. What we're doing is declaring nine key targets - two in the education space - we're marching hard towards it, and every quarter, we're going to be doing things to make sure we make progress on it."

Not so much an answer as an excoriation with a vaguely relevant affirmation tacked on.

New governments spend months, if not years, largely sticking to their oppositional refrain and attacking the previous crew.

This is not new. You might remember in 2017 (when a Labour-led government took the reins), just how often the 'nine long years' mantra was repeated in reference to their predecessors. The new, National-led government, has also held tightly onto their opposition mindset.

This is evident in various places, but most obviously during Question Time where it serves other purposes as well. The attack-posing-as-an-answer is a common approach in Question Time, but it is obviously beginning to try some MP's patience.

After a number of questions to the Prime Minister where he had received similar replies, the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, complained to the Speaker about this approach…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

A petition can be an effective way for the public to get the attention of Parliament, and it doesn't necessarily need lots of signatures.

It's not often that a petition to Parliament results in a law change, but changes can occur as a result of MPs considering a petition and digesting submissions on the topic. It's a journey that the petitioner invites MPs and the wider community to join them on, and sometimes it can venture quite far into the territory of Parliamentary process.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer alongside other MPs holds the Dawn Raids petition after co-petitioners Josiah Tualamali'i (left) and Benji Timu (behind her) presented it on the steps of Parliament, 21 June 2021.

When it was first established as a specialist committee in the last Parliament, the Petitions Committee considered about 430 petitions in that 53rd Parliament. About half of these resulted in a basic report to Parliament by the committee; roughly a quarter were referred to other committees; and about 20 were referred to a government minister for response. Regarding previous Parliaments, in the 52nd Parliament, 240 petitions were reported back by select committees; in the 51st, 144; and in the 50th, 114.

A select few petitions have resulted in a Special Debate by Parliament. The relatively new provision of Special Debates offers MPs the opportunity to speak about other issues that aren't immediately about legislation, relating for instance to some of the areas that committees have been working on and reported back to the House about, things that otherwise wouldn't be debated.

Mobility Parking

Last month a Special Debate was held on a petition that had been presented two years earlier, requesting that Parliament change the law to substantially increase fines for misuse of mobility parking spaces, including on privately-owned land that is used publicly, and urging the government to run an education campaign to desist able-bodied people from misusing mobility parking spaces for public use.

The petitioner, Claire Dale, faced numerous hurdles in getting traction with her petition, from launching on the day of a Covid-19 lockdown, to pandemic disruptions, to trying to present the petition when Parliament grounds were occupied by anti-vaccine mandate protestors. In the end the petition had a few thousand signatures…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

One of Parliament's natural orators has left the building after nearly 16 years as an MP. A lot of Parliamentary experience and skill has departed with him. So RNZ's parliament show, The House, made an attempt to catch some tips.

On his final day at Parliament, as his office was about to be packed away, Robertson sat with me in Labour's caucus room to talk MP skills. He's a good man to ask. Yes, he's a former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister but he also shone in the House - politics' gladiatorial ring.

After his valedictory the previous evening MPs from across the House were buzzing. "Did you hear that?" one Nat said as I passed him in the hall, "What a great speech." He was right, it was. Funny, touching, thoughtful and punchy. Introducing that final outing, the Speaker, a long time political foe, described Robertson as a 'great parliamentarian'.

"That does mean a lot to me", he says of that descriptor. He also likes that it highlights a key facet of the role, sometimes overlooked.

"Ultimately the job title is Member of Parliament. And the debating chamber is where we do the heavy lifting of that job. That does mean a lot to me. And I've always enjoyed the debating chamber particularly. That might have come through," he adds with a chuckle.

On public speaking

It's clear that Robertson was in his element speaking in the chamber, but he wasn't instantly comfortable.

"It's not like it all clicked into place straight away" he admits. He still remembers the first proper speech he gave (his maiden speech). "I did think I was going to faint".

"I always tell school kids that when I was their age, I either wanted to be a lawyer or an actor, and now I get to be both."

"I've always enjoyed debating and public speaking. And I think they are pretty important skills; and being an MP, if you don't have them, you are going to struggle. But for me, I was fortunate that I had a bit of that coming in, and so felt comfortable talking."

It helped that he'd worked in Parliament before becoming an MP, had been a keen observer of Parliamentary Debate, and had written speeches for other people to deliver in the House.

"And so I guess I had an idea of how that side of the job worked. And I enjoyed it. And I think fundamentally, if you enjoy something, you'll often end up looking like you're quite good at it."

On speech writing …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Question Time is one of the most public (though probably not most effective), ways that Parliament keeps an eye on the actions of its chosen executive.

But watching them try can be both confusing and frustrating as questions are repeated, evaded, avoided and ruled outside the rules.

Questioners tactics vary wildly, but never so much as whether to start wide, or go in narrow and early. In this article (and audio - below) retiring MP Grant Robertson reflects on his approach, what works when, why MPs change their tactics and the impact of the Speaker. We also look at how tactical opinions change when an MP moves across the House, and at the role and approach of the Speaker.

General versus specific primary questions

Discussion of Question Time usually alludes to general or specific primary questions. A primary question is the first of a series of questions that an MP asks - usually of a minister.

A general primary question is usually a version of: "Does he stand by all his statements and actions". They are incredibly common.

Specific primary questions vary enormously, but as an example on Thursday 28th March Priyanca Radhakrishnan asked the minister for Disability Issues the very specific question: "Did the reports she received from Whaikaha that she referred to in her answer to question No. 4 yesterday contain figures of those who used disability support funding for pedicures and massages, or did they just contain anecdotal evidence?"

They can be a lot shorter. For example, while chasing the same issue the previous day, Chris Hipkins asked the Prime Minister: "Does he have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues?"

The ministers answering questions get a few hours warning of what the primary question will be, when the day's primary questions are published here.

Pros and Cons of general versus specific primary questions

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The general opening question approach gives very little warning of what the follow-up questions (supplementaries) will ask about; which makes it much harder to prepare good answers.

But, with less warning and less preparation there is usually more leeway given by the Speaker in deciding whether the answers suffice. General openers may allow much more waffly and unspecific answers (though Speaker's expectations vary enormously).

Specific primaries give prior warning so ministers should come better prepared and MPs would hope, be held to a higher standard of answers. Sometimes they are.

Grant Robertson in full flight during his valedictory speech…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

One of the foundational principles of Parliament is that all MPs are honourable and that they should be taken at their word.

However, the word of MPs has been challenged multiple times this week in the House, and Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee used a flexible approach when issue was raised about it.

During an exchange in Question Time the Opposition's Barbara Edmonds asked Finance Minister Nicola Willis if she agreed with former prime minister John Key that "her commitment to fully fund her tax changes through Public Service cuts is too hard and risks plunging the country into discontent, as reported by the New Zealand Herald?"

In response, Willis said Key would be very unhappy that his comments were being mis-characterised.

"I would put to her that we should have honour in this House with comments that we make and how we represent others," Willis said.

At this, Labour's Kieran McAnulty raised a point of order, reminding the Speaker that MPs take fellow members by their word.

"Barbara Edmonds was quoting John Key. If the minister disagrees with that, she should say so. She should not be questioning the honour of members in this House in order to respond to a fair question," McAnulty said.

Labour MP Barbara Edmonds

It's one thing for an MP to challenge how something is characterised by a fellow MP, but quite another to bring their honour into doubt in the process.

The Speaker agreed that all members elected to this House are considered honourable members, and that Willis' reference was problematic, saying a "withdrawal and apology for the reference to the dishonourable nature of members would be helpful to the whole House". Willis withdrew and apologised.

Unparliamentary language

A presiding officer can direct a member to withdraw and apologise for their comment if it's deemed to be unparliamentary language.

Unparliamentary language can include offensive words or references to a member's private affairs, imputations of improper motives against another MP, accusations of racism or lying.

Implying that an MP is lying is considered one of the worst offences, being an offence not just against the MP it's directed at but the whole House.

Today though, during general debate, opposition MP Duncan Webb raised a point of order when MPs on the government benches interjected, shouting that his fellow Labour MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan was "making it up". Webb said this "must be an unparliamentary remark". Brownlee's response drew laughs…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's sitting calendar sometimes looks a little random, but the calendar can be forced into odd shapes by legislative deadlines. This week's sitting began with two bills with such deadlines attached.

First up was the second reading of the bill that contains the final tally of government spending from the financial year that ended eight months ago (July 2023).

The Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill is one of the harbingers of a new budget about to arrive.

Deadline bill 1: A wrap on past spending

Tuesday saw the second reading (with no debate, as always), of the spending wrap-up. The House keeps its powder dry for the next stage, the committee stage, when it spends 10 hours grilling a roster of ministers over their department's performances in what is called the Annual Review Debate. (Note that the grilling will not necessarily relate to the 2022/23 year, and the ministers under fire won't have been in charge for that spending).

The Annual Review Debate must be completed before the new budget is announced, so it kinda needs to start soon.

Deadline bill 2: Tax law just in time for the year's end

The second bill to begin this week - and this one is always debated - is even more urgent. It needs to pass by the end of the week. Now that's a real deadline.

That is presumably also why Parliament is sitting this week and not the week after Easter. That would be too late.

This bill needs to complete the committee stage and third reading. Committee stages have no fixed time limit so the government has set aside an extra Wednesday morning sitting - just in case. (Just as well, as it turns out - the bill filled out both Tuesday night and Wednesday morning).

The Taxation (Annual Rates... etc) bill is an annual event, and is always left until pretty close to the deadline. It is the setting of the tax rates for the financial year about to end. Which is pretty momentous by itself, but it is also always a huge list of other tweaks and fixes and adjustments to dozens of tax measures.

This year's version of the bill is called the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. It includes measures on flood payouts, on disability beneficiary trusts, on multinationals and on and on. It's an omnibus bill, meaning it will amend more than one existing law. In this case, it's tinkering with eight of them, with over 90 sections of details.

It makes you realise that to be a good tax lawyer must be to live inside an almost permanent professional refresher course, as you try to chase an endlessly moving target. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In this weekly edition of The House, we look at thresholds, or how things make or don't make the cut, in two aspects of the Parliament system.

Urgent debates

Urgent debates are much requested by MPs of the Speaker, but seldom approved. An unsuccessful ruling this week on a request by Labour for an Urgent Debate on disability funding, offered no signal that they won't be even less frequent in future.

Parliament's rules provide that the Speaker can allow for an Urgent Debate to take place if it meets three criteria: It must be a debate on "a particular case of recent occurrence", it must be a matter of administrative or ministerial responsibility, and it must "require the immediate attention of the House and the Government."

Over the previous five parliaments only 17.8% of requests were allowed. So far this Parliament, five urgent debates have been requested - and five have been denied, including one this week.

A full report on this story from earlier in the week can be read here.

List cusp

The other matter about thresholds relates to list MPs trying to make it into Parliament on the cusp of their party's vote result in a fluid post-election configuration, those who become a virtual prisoner to the vagaries of MMP.

Among the new and re-elected MPs who got into Parliament after October's general election, there are at least two who had to first endure a period of waiting and uncertainty.

On election night, Labour MP Tracey McLellan lost her Banks Peninsula electorate seat in a tight race. Initially it seemed she would get in anyway, via the Labour party list; however other results changed as the special votes came in, so she was out. She then teetered on the edge of Parliament for almost three months, until Rino Tirakatene retired and she moved up the list and back into Parliament to replace him.

Celia Wade-Brown of the Green Party knows well about hanging around while waiting for special votes to come. After all, that's how she became Mayor of Wellington in 2010. Although she didn't quite get into Parliament after special votes were processed following October's election, her opportunity came in January, and she found out while mountain-biking on Makara Peak.

A full report on this story from earlier in the week can be read here.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's health select committee has been digesting the auditor-general's report on how well public organisations are working together to meet the mental health needs of young New Zealanders.

The auditor-general's work includes inquiring into how public organisations are operating, and it also watches how public money is spent. Its findings offer an independent view that can inform Parliament and the public.

In its report, 'Meeting the mental health needs of young New Zealanders', the auditor-general concluded that "a more youth-focussed, integrated, and coherent system of care is required to meet young people's mental health needs".

"Mental health is the biggest issue facing young New Zealanders today" - Leanne McAviney

Auditor-General's interest

You may be wondering why the auditor-general probed this area. The assistant auditor-general of sector performance Leanne McAviney, who came to talk to the committee along with a couple of colleagues, gave a helpful answer.

"Mental health is the biggest issue facing young New Zealanders today," she said.

"It affects people's ability to participate in education, work or just to cope with the challenges that come with that transition into adulthood. And the costs of inaction to support youth mental health are high."

McAviney said early and effective intervention was linked to a range of positive outcomes.

Those included improved achievement in education, increased lifelong earnings and greater life expectancy.

"So our office has a deep interest in this matter and has a continuing interest in how well government agencies work together to address some of the country's most complex challenges, and this is one of them. Our work examining the response to family violence and sexual violence is another example."

Report's main findings

Four key findings from the report were shared with the health select committee by the senior performance auditor Dr Rachel Patrick.

"First, many young people in distress can't access the support they need, when and where they need it. So we've seen government investment into new primary level mental health services and that is making a difference in making primary mental health care more available to young people. Yet at the same time, we're seeing growth in waiting lists at the specialists end of the system, so for children and young people in particular," Patrick said…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

If you're familiar with stories from The House you'll know that we regularly mention that, against all appearances, governments in New Zealand are subordinate to parliaments. You might even say we bang on about it.

To recap: Parliament has a variety of jobs. It provides an executive, it passes laws, permits and approves revenue and spending, and generally keeps a close eye on what that executive (the government) gets up to.

Government's in their turn, often seem to struggle with this arrangement. They often forget they're not the boss and regularly resent or avoid scrutiny. It's an eternal tug-of-war.

The Beehive wrapped up by its big brother, Parliament.

There are many ways that Parliament attempts to maintain reasonable scrutiny of the Executive, for example by asking thousands of written questions (which are mostly answered by the government ministries).

Also by asking oral questions, though some executive members have new and creative definitions for 'answer'.

A lot of oversight is done via select committee processes. Particularly the regular Estimates and Annual Reviews processes, which are mammoth undertakings.

There are also the usual debates and discussions in the House, and occasional extras like ministerial statements and urgent debates.

The rare debate

This article is about that last category - the urgent debate. Much requested, seldom approved and given a ruling this week, maybe even less frequent in future.

Parliament's rules especially allow for Urgent Debates to be requested so long as the Speaker agrees the proposal meets three criteria: It must be "a particular case of recent occurrence", it must be a matter of administrative or ministerial responsibility, and it must "require the immediate attention of the House and the Government."

In short, it must be recent, be the government's problem, and be worth the time.

Urgent debates are requested a lot more often than they are allowed. Over the previous five parliaments only 17.8% of requests were allowed. Some Speakers are more generous than others so the per parliament numbers vary quite a lot. The graph below gives numbers by parliament, not by Speaker. The Speakership changed hands mid-parliament in January 2013 (Lockwood Smith replaced by David Carter), and in August 2022 (Trevor Mallard replaced by Adrian Rurawhe). …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Have you ever wondered what it's like to be a List MP sitting and waiting on the cusp of your party's vote result in a fluid post-election configuration? It can be touch and go.

Among the MPs elected to Parliament after October's general election, there are a few list MPs who first endured a period of waiting and uncertainty due to the vagaries of the MMP system.

On election night, Labour MP Tracey McLellan lost her Banks Peninsula electorate seat in a tight race. Initially it seemed she would get in anyway, via the Labour party list; however other results changed as the special votes came in, so she was out. She then teetered on the edge of Parliament for almost three months, until Rino Tirakatene retired and she moved up the list and back into Parliament to replace him.

"I knew I was in a position that was touch and go, and also I had to go through that waiting for specials which took another three weeks. Initially I was elected on the list, so post-election night I was in, and then other results flipped so then I wasn't. So it was quite a roller coaster of in-out-in," McLellan said.

"But that's okay, it's part of democracy, that's what happens and you've got to be prepared to roll with it. We don't have that security, because we're putting ourselves out there. It's a precarious position to be in at the best of times."

Despite mixed emotions after the election, McLellan said it was a chance to take some time to figure out how to feel about things. After the intensity of an election campaign, a few weeks away from politics can be therapeutic, whether resting by the sea or getting back into a rhythm with something else.

"I did go back to work for a bit, but only because there was some tasks that needed to be done and I thought well rather than hang around and wait I can go back and do that," she said.

"The New Zealand Nurses Organisation, which is where I worked beforehand, just so happened, over Christmas period, there were some things that they needed an extra pair of hands, and I said 'well, I've got that'. So it was good to get back into a routine."

Celia Wade-Brown of the Green Party knows well about hanging around while waiting for special votes to come. After all, that's how she became Mayor of Wellington in 2010, although she had a more decisive win in 2013…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament is about to expand, and it's not the number of MPs potentially rising - although that is something that the plan to expand is taking into account.

A big new wooden superstructure is about to be built out the back of the Parliament precinct, and it is projected to be ready to fit dozens of MPs by the 2026 election. The building's completion will also mean various Parliament staff who have been working elsewhere around the Wellington CBD can finally come back to the precinct.

For a few years now, some backbench MPs' offices have been stashed away in virtual cupboards in the attic of the Parliament Library. Such is the lack of room in the main Parliament Building that MPs have had to be accommodated here and there in temporary offices across the complex like a motley jenga construction. It's an inefficient layout, but change is coming.

'Siberia'

Groundworks have just been completed for what will be the first significant new building on the Parliament precinct since 1977 when the Beehive got up and running.

Built to "environmentally conscious design", using New Zealand materials and recycled materials to reduce construction waste, the six-storey wooden building will be located around the back of Parliament House on Museum Street, the little road that juts off Bowen Street at the intersection with The Terrace and runs behind the Beehive.

A little over a quarter of MPs, or around 30, will be accommodated in the building, according to Dave Wills, the manager of the Buildings Project Management Office at Parliament, who spoke to The House about the Future Accommodation Strategy project.

The new building for MPs will stand in what was until recently the rear carpark of Parliament. Wills noted that this carpark space has had many buildings on it over the years, including less than glamorous offices that earned this particular part of the precinct the 'Siberia' tag.

"It was referred to by one of our past Prime Ministers as 'Siberia', out the back there. It was a location for backbenchers at the time. And the new building will very much be focused on backbenchers and the parties that support them as well."

The project, which is to be funded under a $257.5 million budget appropriation, also encompasses a new security building, also to be constructed out the back on the carpark space, where it meets Balantrae Place…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Hutt South MP Chris Bishop is now the National Party's third ranking minister and Leader of the House. Before becoming an MP he was a humble political advisor in the ministerial office of Gerry Brownlee.

At that time, among other roles, Brownlee was Leader of the House. Bishop's job was to help manage that. What 'that' is we'll get to in a moment.

It's "a nice bit of symmetry", Bishop says. He's not alone in that symmetry.

"Interestingly, Chris Hipkins used to do the same job for Michael Cullen, I believe; and then he became Leader of the House under the last Labour Government."

Now, of course, Bishop in turn has a smart young staffer who helps him carry out the role. "I've got great staff in my office. So, very lucky."

Before we get further into this article it might help to provide some context on that Leader of the House role.

New Zealand's cascade of power

Who really runs New Zealand can be confusing, so here's a quick run down through the big-wigs. (Feel free to rewrite the below to be sung to "I know an old lady who swallowed a fly".)

The person who holds the ultimate power in New Zealand is the King,

His stand-in on the ground is the Governor General.

The group that wields that power (on behalf of the King), is the House of Representatives. (We'll call it parliament for ease, but strictly speaking Parliament includes the King.)

Parliament's 'boss' is the Speaker (who actually outranks the Prime Minister).

The leader of the group that holds sway in Parliament is the Prime Minister.

The smaller gang who, with the Prime Minister, decide how to exercise their group's dominance in Parliament, is the Cabinet.

And, finally, the person in charge of turning those decisions and that dominance into law is the Leader of the House.

My apologies to any exacting constitutionalists.

A terrible name, a potent job

As a ministerial title, Leader of the House is a terrible, confusing name. The 'House' part of the title is the House of Representatives (Parliament's House, i.e. the legislature), but the Leader of the House does not lead the House.

A more accurate but tedious title might be Legislative Oversight and Liaison. Or, from Parliament's point of view, 'the annoying person who keeps bringing us extra work'…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Today MPs finished the last week of a rare four-week sitting block at Parliament, during which the government's programme of moving legislation through under urgency continued at breakneck pace.

Here's a little summary of what went down this week:

The Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill was read a first time. The previous government sought to encourage the adoption of electric cars by exempting them from Road User Charges (usually paid by vehicles that don't use petrol and the inherent excise). This bill removes that exemption from fully electric cars and PHEVs (plug-in hybrids). PHEVs will end up paying the excise on their petrol and then also a Road User Charge. Transport Minister Simeon Brown said it was only fair that light electric vehicle owners also pay their fair share for using roads.

Also in the transport space, the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill were passed, removing the 11.5 cent per litre Auckland regional fuel tax imposed by the previous government. The Greens' Julie-Anne Genter was a frequent speaker throughout, warning that without more investment in public transport, the Bill would create more road congestion.

MPs turned to the first reading and referral to select committee of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill under the name of Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee who said the Bill would help public safety by giving police greater search powers to enforce prohibition orders upon gangs. Green MP Tamatha Paul however said the Bill would disproportionately add to the workload of police and was a misguided attempt to curb gang behaviour.

Earlier, the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill passed through all stages, repealing legislation that was due to come into effect this year requiring businesses to disclose the time they take to pay invoices. ACT's Laura Trask spoke in support of the repealing bill, saying the main reason for urgency without repealing it the former legislation means that "3,000-plus businesses would have to upgrade their technology and then the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment would have to spend an enormous amount of money to get the system up and ready to go"…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

MPs' jobs are tough. But probably the toughest regular hour for any MP is presiding over all the other MPs during a rambunctious Question Time. It's akin to a relieving teacher managing a class of manic, grandstanding, fourth-formers on a wet, windy Friday afternoon when everyone just wants to be somewhere else.

Gerry Brownlee has been settling into the role of Speaker of Parliament and finding his rhythm. Every Speaker's approach is different and Brownlee tends towards hands-off, often commenting after questions and answers play out, rather than intervening.

Brownlee does however intervene once a dodgy question becomes a dodgy tactic. This week that was patsy questions from the Government side, plainly arranged as opportunities to attack the opposition (a no-no).

A New Ruling

The week began with the Speaker making a rare set-piece ruling, attempting to reign in another bugbear, the use of Points of Order to make out-of-order points.

"Members-this may be helpful for the member-a number of members have raised with me the issue of too frequent a use of the point of order process to raise trivial points of order. In future, when a member raises a point of order, I expect them to indicate the rule or practice of the House that they think has been breached. Raising a point of order without doing so will be considered disorderly. Of course, members may continue to use points of order to draw my attention to their wish to exercise a right given by Standing Orders, such as to seek leave, to make a personal explanation, or to move a motion."

Points of Order serve many purposes, but most often draw the Speaker's attention to a possible breach of the rules. They are an essential part of the mechanism, but are often misused and can get petty, irrelevant, disruptive, or can forget to mention the rule at issue.

Doffing kid gloves

As the Speaker intimated there have been complaints. In the House those complaints have particularly been about the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters.

He has a reputation for using a pointed point of order to make a sharp point. In this Parliament that reputation hasn't been much added to.

Interpolations from Peters into the flow of debate have been frequent, but less pointed and (as MPs have noted), more often 'out of order' than 'point of order'.

Last week the Speaker acknowledged the House wanted him to doff his kid gloves. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

A select committee has heard that due to the increasing demands on the work of the Office of the Clerk in an environment of funding constraints, the efficiency of some key Parliament functions could suffer.

The bodies that run Parliament have effectively been crying poor for years, but are without a minister in cabinet to argue their case. However their message was clear to Parliament's Governance & Administration Select Committee last night as they discussed the Annual Review of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Annual Review of the Parliamentary Service.

The Clerk of the House, David Wilson appeared before the committee alongside the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service, Rafael Gonzalez-Montero and Parliament's Speaker, Gerry Brownlee.

The staff in the politically-neutral Office of the Clerk perform a range of functions critical to the Parliament system, including facilitating the operations of the House and select committees, providing specialist advice on legislation, and producing Hansard. However cost pressures on the Office are rising. What's more, the Office falls within the Government's wide gamut of government organisations anticipating indicative spending cuts.

Stretched

As a result of recommendations following the regular Standing Orders Review in the last Parliamentary term, new mechanisms for applying scrutiny to the Executive have been introduced for this term, such as mandatory scrutiny weeks, as well as scrutiny plans and review briefings.

This creates an even larger workload for the Office of the Clerk. One of the committee's members, National's Cameron Brewer, asked Wilson how it would affect the Office of the Clerk's budget.

"It does make it challenging. And there was a range of other changes to Parliamentary Process suggested at the last review of Standing Orders where we just had to say to the Committee we couldn't afford to support those," Wilson admitted.

"These ones, the most significant changes made, yeah they do stretch the Office of the Clerk's resources. We'll be alright for this financial year, but it remains to be seen for future ones. We're really in a position where we can't take on additional functions, unless they come with funding."

National MP Cameron Brewer in Parliament's Governance & Administration select committee, 4 March 2024…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

New Zealand's 54th Parliament first met in December last year. Since its first (largely ceremonial) opening week Parliament has sat on 16 days. On 11 of those days 'urgency' has replaced the usual rules.

The five days when urgency wasn't accorded included four Thursdays (which are short days), and one Members' Wednesday. There has been time for just one full Members' Day so far in seven weeks (plus a couple of hours on a Thursday). Members' Days (when non-government bills get debated), usually happen every other week.

'Railroading the House'

If you've been following Parliament you will have noticed that opposition MPs are getting increasingly tetchy about just how much urgency is being used, and for what.

James Shaw on Thursday last week argued that urgency had been used so overwhelmingly that its use needed to be debated in the House.

"By my count, the Government has put 16 bills through urgency and one item of Government business not through urgency. So recognising your point about the accumulation, there has to be a point at which we're able to debate whether it's appropriate for a ratio of 16 urgent items to one to go through the House, because the Government has the majority and is essentially railroading the House. We're at the point now where they can't argue that just because there was an election means that they can overturn parliamentary democracy."

James Shaw's count may well be better than mine. My count is 14 bills passed in 7 weeks using urgency. Most of them passed under urgency through all stages and the rest under urgency except for the third reading. None of those bills have been sent to select committee.

That amount of urgency is not normal.

By comparison - in a study from Victoria University of Wellington of 24 years of New Zealand's parliament (from 1987 until 2010), the average number of bills passed through all stages under urgency was 10. That's 10 per Parliament! So we've roughly hit that average in seven weeks with more than 90 percent of the Parliament yet to go.

James Shaw in the House.

Urgency is not a sin

Urgency isn't always bad. It is not some cosmic sin. It is there as an option in Parliament's rules because there are frequently good reasons for it. Like fixing mistakes in legislation.

It is not unusual for Parliament to quickly pass a bill to fix a newly found flaw in recently passed law. Ironically those mistakes do seem more likely to result from legislation passed under urgency…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The 54th Parliament isn't quite three months old yet, but has already employed unusual levels of parliamentary urgency. On The House we look at what that means, as well as both practical and tactical reasons a government might opt to speed things up.

The audio from this edition of The House is available via the link below. The written article for this story will be published with the Sunday edition of the House.

Winston Peters listens to the ACT leader David Seymour speak at their coalition announcement. Since it roared into gear, the new Parliament has offered few opportunities for anyone to get bored.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This morning's action in the chamber provided multiple examples of how difficult it can be as a presiding officer when contentious bills are going through Parliament under urgency.

One of the big challenges is refereeing debate when it gets fiery, particularly among Opposition MPs who are frustrated and angry that laws they passed are being systematically dismantled. This has become a recurring theme in the months since the 54th Parliament began, during which time there has been an unusually frequent use of urgency.

People watching on Parliament TV today may have noticed perhaps the most fiery speech ever given by Labour leader Chris Hipkins while he was debating the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. Pointing to evidence that the coalition government's move to liberalise tobacco laws will be deadly and costly, he clashed with Assistant Speaker Maureen Pugh who said "do not bring the Speaker into your debate, and do not disrespect the Chair". Hipkins denied he had brought the Speaker into it, and then claimed she'd interrupted his flow in order to do the bidding of the government, who he was also fingering during his speech for doing the bidding of the tobacco industry. He withdrew and apologised before continuing his speech.

Another reason why it's been getting testy for those in the Speaker's chair is because in many cases, these bills are being rushed through all stages without the opportunity for public consultation. So Opposition MPs are naturally eager during the Committee of the Whole House stage of the Bill to ask detailed questions while conveying their concerns with the legislation. It's incumbent on the presiding officer to keep the debate on topic, and this is what Deputy Speaker Barbara Kuriger attempted this morning during the committee stage of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of the Maori health Authority) Bill.

Some MPs were unhappy with Health Minister Shane Reti's answers to their questions on the Pea Ora legislation. Kuriger, finding their questions to be repetitive, sought to offer some direction to MPs by advising that she was "looking for very new questions, not speeches of dissatisfaction" in the Bill. This brought her into an exchange with Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March who asked her to "reflect on why you would come into the Chair to make a reflection and then only allow for one call, rather than in good faith allow the members to scrutinise". It ended up with Kuriger reminding Menendez-March not to argue with the Chair…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, has told a select committee that New Zealand's diplomatic presence overseas must grow, despite government plans to reduce spending in his ministry.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade select committee has been undertaking its annual review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), with the minister appearing to answer questions. Hearings like these are one of the ways that Parliament attempts to supervise the work of the government that it funds.

As he did in his previous two stints as Foreign Minister (2005-2008 and 2017-2020), Peters continues to emphasise the importance of engaging more with the international community, for the sake of New Zealand's long-term security. This includes increasing our representative presence in other countries, particularly where trade opportunities beckon, but also giving a level of Overseas Development Aid that is commensurate with being an OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) member country.

But Peters again warned that New Zealand cannot afford to rest on its reputation of punching above its weight internationally, particularly in a world where geopolitical dynamics have changed dramatically.

"We've got a massive task on our hands. Not only do we have to beef up our engagement and our collectiveness to countries that share our views and share our values, but we've also got to beef up our trade big time. We've got to put more people on the ground," Peters said, adding that New Zealand stacked up unfavourably in this regard compared to the likes of Singapore, Ireland and Nordic countries.

Expansion v Cuts

Labour MP Damien O'Connor was curious to know how Peters could expand New Zealand's diplomatic footprint while his ministry - like dozens of other departments - has been asked by the National-led coalition government to cut spending by at least 6.5 percent.

"Of course we can always find economies, but we've got to start with firstly understanding that there's some things you cannot sacrifice. What I'm talking about is anti-inflationary, because it's not spent inside the New Zealand economy, it's spent offshore," Peters replied.

Another senior Labour MP, David Parker, chipped in with questions around New Zealand's level of Overseas Development Aid (ODA), which currently sits at about $1 billion annually (of which 60 percent goes to the Pacific Islands)…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Mai i ngā hau o Ōtāhuhu-nui-a-Rangi, o Maungarei, o Motukaroa; mai i ngā awa o Hikuwaru, o Tāmaki e rere ki te Waitematā, kei te Mānukanuka-o-Hoturoa, ko Kaiwhare, ko Taramainuku kua tau, kua tau ki ngā whenua o Ngāti Toa Rangatira, o Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o Te Ika. Tēnā anō tatou.

It is an indescribable feeling to stand up and address this House. As a son of Samoan immigrants who made the mighty Ōtara 274-Southside hard-their home, I am well aware of the giants whose shoulders I stand on and the masters whose feet I learnt at. The courage, foresight, entrepreneurial spirit, and hope of our ancestors who journeyed thousands of years ago through the vast waters of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa brings me here today.

My parents arrived in New Zealand in the early 1960s, told that this was the land of milk and honey. Dad started off as a taxi driver with South Auckland Taxis, and mum on the factory floor at New Zealand Forest Products in Penrose. We lived in a four-bedroom State house on Preston Road in Ōtara, and I attended local schools: East Tāmaki Primary, Ferguson Intermediate, and the great Tangaroa College. We're forever grateful for the State house that was our home for around 20 years, and the quality public education we received from our local State schools.

I did try my hand for a short period at a decile 10 school outside of Ōtara, but that experiment lasted only two weeks. It was during the time in the late 1980s, when families from poorer areas were being discouraged from going to local schools because they weren't considered up to scratch. I'm glad we changed course and decided to high school it in Ōtara, where the motto of our school was "Waiho i te tokā tu Moana"-"Steadfast like a rock in the sea".

Later, at university, I went on to write my Master's dissertation on brown flight, critiquing the Picot reforms that have wreaked havoc on our public schooling system. That period was also a challenging time for my family because we were being told by our teachers to stop speaking Samoan at home and only to speak English. My parents didn't want us to fail at school, so we were allowed to speak English at home and over time we stopped speaking Samoan altogether. In the end, I lost my language. I struggled, I was embarrassed, and I felt incomplete. Even speaking to you in Samoan this evening gives me major tremors…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It's been a sad day at Parliament with news of the sudden death of Green Party MP Fa'anānā Efeso Collins in Auckland this morning, barely a week after he gave his maiden speech as a Member of Parliament.

Raised in South Auckland, this New Zealand-born Samoan spent three terms on the Auckland Council serving as chair of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, and councillor for the Manukau ward. He was a leading voice advocating for people living on society's margins.

As mark of respect Parliament adjourned until next week, but not before several party leaders or senior MPs spoke about Efeso Collins.

"One of the first things that you notice about Efeso is his graciousness, his huge smile, and his reassuring voice. He was joyful, he was funny, he was kind, and thoughtful. He conducted himself quietly and kindly and gracefully," said the Green party co-leader, James Shaw.

"He worked to change not by forcing his ideas on others, but by listening and seeking out ideas from others. He was a man full of empathy, a man who knew that the first step towards change is an open heart, a man who embodied the idea that our work here is to serve the communities that we represent; to be their voice for change.

"Efeso Collins was a good man. He was called to come to Parliament because of what he could see of the worsening poverty, the inadequate incomes, the profound inequities that affect and shape Pacific communities that he came from. Aotearoa needed him. We needed him. Every day that Efeso came to work, I know that he carried the expectation of his South Auckland community. It was a responsibility that he wore solemnly, but he also made it look easy-fun, even," Shaw said.

The Prime Minister Christopher Luxon spoke next, acknowledging Collins' deep commitment to public service and advocacy for his Samoan and South Auckland communities in the various leadership roles that he held over the decades. Collins, he said, was just getting started in his promising Parliamentary career.

"I met Efeso almost two years ago, and, in fact, the two of us caught up just a couple of weeks ago and we were talking about balancing family and work life in this place and his hopes for starting out here. In all my interactions with him, Efeso was always so friendly, gracious, generous, kind, positive, and collaborative, with a lovely sense of humour. He certainly lived by the words he uttered in his maiden speech, which was to lead with the spirit of peace and love and service. He was what I would call a true servant leader," the Prime Minister said…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

MPs in Parliament's debating chamber go hard and they go early. Even MPs who would blanche at that phrase would admit some of the most interesting things happen early and quickly.

For example, Tuesday began with fleeting acknowledgement of a visiting US senator, and before beginning debates, MPs agreed which of them will be on The Intelligence and Security Committee and privy to the world of secret squirrels.

But even more interesting was an underwhelming apology.

Listen to the radio version of this story from The House

An ersatz apology

Before Question Time began New Zealand First's Casey Costello (Associate Health Minister - Smokefree Policy), got in early to 'correct' an answer before Question Time compounded her woe.

"I'd like to make a personal statement regarding my answers as Associate Minister of Health to oral questions on 30 January 2024. I'm speaking specifically to the questions that asked if I was being truthful when I denied to the media that I had requested advice on freezing tobacco excise tax. On review of my response, I acknowledge that there is confusion arising from my understanding of the differentiation between seeking specific advice and accepting advice being offered. I had no intention of misleading the House, and I apologise for any confusion."

Quite a few ministers have corrected answers this Parliament. Going hard and early by owning up to a mistake is a wise move. Attempting to brash it out is just asking for trouble. Costello is pretty tardy comparatively, and may have forgotten about the correction part.

The wisest approach is to say 'sorry, I got it wrong', but often ministers veer off dramatically before admitting to an actual error. In Ms Costello's case the heart of the equivocation was...

"I acknowledge that there is confusion arising from my understanding of the differentiation..."

The Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins was not satisfied and raised a point of order.

Hipkins: "Generally speaking, when a Minister is correcting an answer they have given, they state what the incorrect answer was and what the correct answer was. I don't think anyone in this House would be any the wiser as to exactly what it is the Minister's just corrected."

The Speaker, Gerry Brownlee responded. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In this edition of The House we look back at two of the more important subjects MPs were grappling with this week in the debating chamber and select committees.

One is Parliament's repeal of major water reforms passed last term by the previous government, with the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill being passed through all its stages under urgency. The other concerns the existential crisis facing this country's news media in a digital market dominated by tech giants, being relayed to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Select Committee as it heard submissions on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

RNZ Chief Executive Paul Thompson tells MPs in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Select Committee about the challenging media landscape while submitting on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

Meanwhile, in case you missed it, last Sunday's episode of The House looked at Parliament's bible, Parliamentary Practice, which has now been updated in a new 2024 edition, explaining all the many rules, practices and precedents that make Parliament tick. Get stuck in.

On the Sunday prior to that, The House explored a new change at Parliament whereby all public hearings of select committees are being live-streamed to Parliament's own website instead of on Facebook, a move welcomed by advocates of open government.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's Economic Development, Science and Innovation select committee today heard from a range of New Zealand's news media companies about how the changing media environment and the dominance of tech giants are killing them.

The committee has been listening to submissions on a bill that seeks a more level playing field in the digital market that our media industry operates in. They argue that the tech giants whose digital platforms host news content that the media outlets produce are able to generate great revenue from this but share almost none of it with the outlets who do all the work.

Economic Development, Science and Innovation select committee chair Parmjeet Parmar (left) and Willie Jackson listen to submissions on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

This imbalance is something affecting all New Zealand media companies, from the big outlets like RNZ, Stuff or the NZ Herald, to small town newspapers such as the Ashburton Guardian newspaper, whose co-owner and managing editor Daryl Holden was among those submitting to the committee this morning.

"Simply those digital internet companies such as Google, Meta (which runs Facebook and Instagram) and Microsoft are creaming it at the expense of every New Zealand media company who in many ways are slowly but surely bleeding to death. That's because those internet giants are using and sharing news produced by New Zealand media organisations on their mega digital platforms at zero costs to themselves. They are reaping unimaginable wealth and power building their businesses almost entirely off content created by others," Holden said.

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill seeks to create a bargaining system between New Zealand news media entities and operators of digital platforms to support commercial arrangements for news content. It was introduced by the previous Labour government and passed its first reading last August.

Small step

The difficulties facing the Ashburton Guardian, which employs seventeen local people and is considering going digital-only, are not uncommon for media outlets in this country. Holden welcomed the bill as a small step that can be taken to bring tech giants to the negotiating table.

"It's been reported that Google's revenue in New Zealand was 78 million dollars in 2022 but it also paid its parent company in the US a separate service fee of 870 million that year. A small country of 5 million delivers nearly one billion dollars of value to Google. What do New Zealand media companies get out of it? Bugger all," he explained…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

If you've been following the news, you'll know Parliament has repealed water reforms legislation that was passed last year by the previous Labour government.

The coalition government's Water Services Acts Repeal Bill passed through all its stages under urgency, having been introduced in Parliament yesterday and then debated into the night until it its third and final reading this morning.

The audio below features some of the debate's salient points of exchange between the two main interlocutors in the debate, the Minister of Local Government, Simeon Brown of the National Party, and his predecessor in the role, Labour's Kieran McAnulty.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

An unusually long sitting block commences today at Parliament, with the Government resuming its repeals of legislation passed by the previous government.

This week is the start of a four-week sitting block, which is a bit unusual. It's been several years since Parliament has sat for more than the usual chunks of two or three weeks at a time. The Government will go into urgency today to move various bills through, resurfacing for the regular day for Member's Bills on Wednesday, and later in the week a bunch of the remaining maiden speeches for MPs new to Parliament after October's election.

Labour MP Kieran McAnulty, the Shadow Leader of the House

Four-weeker

If the prolonged government coalition negotiations didn't hold things up enough already, Parliament had only resumed for a week at the end of January following the long summer holiday when it subsequently went into recess again, adding to the sense that the start of this Parliamentary term has been fractured. So the shortest of blocks is now followed by the longest, with the Shadow Leader of the House, Labour's Kieran McAnulty, admitting to being surprised that the National-led government has opted for the longer block.

"The whole idea of a four-week block was brought in, I think, when Chris Hipkins was Leader of the House back in 2018, and was quickly got rid of because it's not very popular with MPs. I'm pretty sure the staff don't really like it either, and it's pretty hard for any government to have enough legislation lined up to fill four weeks. So we were surprised that they brought it back, but happy to go along with it. Let's see whether they can fill it in," McAnulty said.

Water works

First up on the Order Paper, after a motion for urgency is moved by the Government, is the debate through all stages of the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill which will dismantle the previous Government's so-called Three Waters legislation that was passed last year.

While the Coalition Government hasn't tabled a replacement regime yet, the Local Government Minister Simeon Brown said the Government is working on this, and that it would recognise "the importance of local decision-making and flexibility for communities and councils to determine how their water services will be delivered in future"…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In Parliament's debating chamber, sitting at a desk in front of the Speaker presiding, there is always a clerk - a member of Parliament's secretariat. They are the team that administer the House and its many committees, the brainy worker elves of democracy's legislature.

They are also the experts on all things Parliament. They attend the chamber to take official note of everything that occurs and is agreed, but also to offer expert advice on the many and complex mysteries of parliamenting.

Listen to the Sunday edition of The House with this story, and a story about MPs' Maiden Speeches.

The Clerk of the House, David Wilson sitting at the Debating Chamber's Table, with reference volumes at hand.

Thankfully this knowledge is not part of a hermetic mystery cult, known only to the initiates. It is freely available.

The Clerk of the House of Representatives and his staff regularly update Parliament's very own bible, explaining all the many rules, practices and precedents, in a volume called Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand (PP). More than 700 pages of information about everything from how MPs are chosen (e.g. did you know the Clerk still has your physical election ballots under lock-and-key); through to how MPs can lose their jobs again (yes, MPs can be sacked for a variety of reasons). And everything in between.

Without Parliamentary Practice and the clerks' help MPs would be lost in the byzantine ways of democracy, doomed to blindly stumble through their parliamentary careers making endless mistakes. You might think some do that regardless.

Parliament's bible, Parliamentary Practice has now been updated, with a new 2024 edition published.

It is available as a physical volume but can also be found on the Parliament website: in its entirety here (good for searching), or by browsing its many sections here.

Last week the new edition had the kind of glitzy launch party that one might only dream about in a cash-crunch - i.e. there was a brief comms email to announce its existence. Heady with imaginary champagne I sat down to chat with its editor, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, David Wilson.

He calls Parliament Practice "a really comprehensive guide to how Parliament works" and it is. It's a weighty tome, but without bumf.

It fills a necessary troika with its sister volumes: Standing Orders (Parliament's procedural rules), and Speakers' Rulings (Parliament's compendium of precedent). …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

From this week, all public hearings of select committees are being live-streamed to Parliament's own website instead of on Facebook, a move welcomed by advocates of open government.

Shifting away from the use of the social media platform for hosting select committee live-streams was something recommended in submissions to Parliament's regular Standing Orders review last term. While still a work in progress in terms of its functionality, the move is a first step in bringing together Parliament's select committee and House-sitting content into the same place.

Each select committee already has its own page on Parliament's website with information on membership and schedules among other things, and now it will also feature the latest live streamed video of public hearings. It's a small breakthrough in the bid to make Parliament more accessible to the public, as Parliament's Digital Lead, Winnie Nadi, explained.

"We want to make it as accessible as possible for people and as enjoyable for people to search for things and be able to filter and really understand what's happening," she said.

"Some of the features in the beginning will be quite basic as we test the live-streaming and make sure that it works. As we move in the next few months, we'll have some filtering and searchable content, and it will be a lot more similar to what you can do with the House sitting stuff on our on-demand platform."

The way Scottish and Welsh parliaments host their select committee content has provided useful models to learn from.

"We have had a lot of conversations with Scotland, with Wales, late at night, just talking about how they use their videos. We've noticed that we have more features in some things, and less in other things. So we're going to continue to talk to them so that we can grab all of the good features and make sure New Zealanders have that," Nadi said.

The current home page of Parliament select committees

Committees and public interest

Select committees do much of the work in terms of applying scrutiny to government actions. So the team that facilitates the committees' activities places much importance on the ability of the public to see and hear the work of select committees and engage with their representatives in committees. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

I suspect opposition MPs and politics watchers sometimes observe government ministers and think - 'well, that looks like a doddle'. From observation, the job mostly involves finding ways of avoiding questions about the role.

But a minister's job is full of fish hooks, made worse because ministers essentially work inside a fish bowl owned by Parliament. And to strain that metaphor to its breaking point, those hooks are hard to remove if you don't remove them quickly.

New and returning ministers have been learning (and remembering) this early on in this government.

Christopher Luxon and Mark Mitchell when they were in opposition. This week both walked back statements made to the House.

Misleading the House

The easiest hook to remove is one barbed with Parliament's dislike of falsehood. The House does not take well to Ministers who mis-speak, offer alternative facts, employ terminological inexactitudes; or just plain get the facts wrong.

A minister misleading the House is considered a breach of privilege, which is very naughty indeed. However, the breach must be intentional and accusations of such intention can be avoided if a minister follows protocol and corrects mistakes 'at the earliest opportunity'.

So three times on Wednesday alone government ministers interrupted business in the House to correct errors.

They do that by asking permission (seeking leave) to make a personal statement.

Minister for Police Mark Mitchell got his mea culpa in early. It was a good tactic to pre-empt impending questions which would have been embarrassing.

He didn't exactly admit an error either. "I should have been clearer" was Mark Mitchell's euphemism for admitting that either he had been wrong, or had changed his mind. It wasn't clear which.

James Shaw caused the Prime Minister difficulties over our genocide responsibilities.

Later on, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon attempted to extricate himself from a tangle James Shaw had left him in over whether the ICJ's opinion of a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza "would trigger New Zealand's obligations under article 1 of the to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs."…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The first piece of legislation that Parliament has been looking at in 2024 is the Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill, which is being debated under urgency. It found some MPs scratching their heads at the end of an independent Crown entity whose work they applaud.

Since its inception in 2011, the Commission has conducted research and inquiries in order to provide recommendations to government on ways to improve productivity - not so much regarding workplace or individual productivity - it has more of a focus on the effectiveness of laws, policies, regulations and institutions.

The Commission, which has around twenty staff, was created as a condition of the ACT Party supporting the National Party government led by John Key on confidence and supply. Now ACT wants to disestablish it, although its leader David Seymour was at pains to point out that "this is not, in any way, an indictment on the quality of the work of the Productivity Commission".

'Tremendous work'

"The Productivity Commission has done some tremendous work over the past decade or so, and that work will remain available as an asset or a taonga for New Zealanders to be a guide for policy formation," Seymour said while introducing the bill last night.

"I just make the case that if you look at the five most prominent inquiries according to Treasury, they are things such as housing affordability. I remember reading that report as a young staffer in a ministerial office here in Parliament when it came out in 2012. It remains very good advice for any Government wishing to improve housing affordability. Another one... regulatory institutions and practices; more effective social services, 2015; new models of tertiary education; New Zealand firms reaching for the frontier.

"If you look at some of these subjects, they are clearly areas where, despite the best advice, Governments over the past decade, including those members opposite who have recently been retired from the Government benches by the voters, have failed to implement the policy process. The case I make is that we are much better at this point in time to retain the assets that the Productivity Commission has generated in its various pieces of policy advice and make sure that we do a better job of implementing them."

New ministry…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Students are back in the classroom, and are matched by MPs, back in Parliament. But doing what exactly?

The election seems like a long while ago but the 54th Parliament is still very new, and still has the initial set-pieces of any new Parliament to sweep through before it can get knee-deep into legislation. There are two new bills this week however (see below).

Listen to Leader of the House Chris Bishop outlining the week on The House

Unboxing MPs

This new Parliament is still fresh enough that the public hasn't met all the new MPs yet. Hearing from more of the recently elected will be a feature of the week. The plan is for six new National Party MPs on Tuesday (from about 4:15pm):

Rima Nakhle, Cameron Brewer, Dana Kirkpatrick, Carl Bates, Carlos Cheung and Miles Anderson.

Another six fresh National Party MPs get unboxed on Wednesday (from roughly 3:30pm):

Mike Butterick, Catherine Wedd, Tom Rutherford, Grant McCallum, Nancy Lu and David MacLeod.

And on Thursday from 4:15-ish, a combination of four ACT MPs (who TBA), and three new Green MPs:

Tamatha Paul, Kahurangi Carter and Scott Willis.

Different days focus on MPs from different parties for logistical reasons. MPs usually invite family and friends to attend their maiden speeches, and the political parties usually host a function afterwards. Clumping the MPs makes organising the post-match events easier. The functions are also why maiden and valedictory speeches are almost always scheduled in the lead-up to when MPs pause debating for dinner.

Other Business

The week began with a motion in memory of the recently deceased former Governor General, Sir Michael Hardy-Boys; and a Ministerial Statement from Judith Collins on a recently announced Defence deployment to the Red Sea Combined Task Force. You can hear Chris Bishop (link above), explain the recent changes to the way Ministerial Statements are managed with more Q&A, and less speechifying.

With the focus on the Address in Reply Debate (including Tuesday and Wednesday's maiden speeches), there is a paucity of debating time for legislation.

The House will consider two bill this week though. One is scheduled for debate through all stages under urgency. The New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill will be introduced and debated under Urgency on Tuesday evening. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

There's no denying it's been a year of great change in Parliament - 2023 began with a brand new Prime Minister, and ended with another new Prime Minister, a new Government and a new Speaker.

So much has happened that it's almost hard to believe there were three months without the house sitting (during the election and subsequent period of government formation). So The House offers a recap by way of this audio compilation below.

Rawiri Waititi about to be sworn in as MP on the opening day of the 54th Parliament, 5 December 2023.

Not everything made it into the audio version, so here we summarise some of the highlights from our coverage. There were estimates hearings broken down, ministerial grillings unpacked, Question Time tactics fleshed out, and select committees dissected. Not only that but The House looked at the ways select committees tweak legislation. There was also an explainer on the very different way that MPs cast a Personal Vote on conscience issues (sex and alcohol-adjacent topics mostly).

The final thing Parliament did before it adjourned for October's general election was agree on some alterations to the rules that will apply in the 54th Parliament. These are changes that the parties and the clerks have been working on since last year. Some of those MPs spoke about the changes, and interestingly about what changes they did not achieve.

We went behind the scenes with the work of people who make parts of this place work - people like Maika Te Amo, the head of Parliament's Māori Language Service whose work is in demand more than ever because of an increased appetite to learn te reo Māori among members and staff from different parts of the Parliamentary system; or Rachel Hayward who holds two official titles simultaneously: Secretary of the Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council - two interlinked and overlapping roles.

Because we look at the ways the public engages with Parliament, The House also offered a look at four activists who have long participated in the Parliament space - in protests, delivering petitions, submitting at select committees and more - from single or multiple issue campaigners to the lifelong activist who became an MP and got out the other side with activism intact.

Efforts are underway to make Parliament more accessible for people who live with disability, and not before time, after the recent creation of a Senior Accessibility Advisor at Parliament…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It's a truism that when governments change, the new bunch want to quickly make a mark.

That can be achieved by passing bills a new government has waiting and ready to go, or by tweaking bills already under consideration. Those things both happened back in 2017, the last time power swapped between the two major parties.

Another tactic is to wind back some of the laws made by the previous lot. That's the initial move this time around, with two weeks of rewinds under urgency to begin the new Parliament.

Urgency is not new, the 2017 coalition also used urgency in its initial weeks to pass the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Act.

Christopher Luzon's new government has passed three policy bills under urgency in each of the first two 'normal' weeks of the 54th Parliament.

New legislation takes months to write. Doing it well can involve years of research, consultation and development. But new governments don't have years to make early impressions. They need laws written fast.

If you have any spare Christmas wishes, feel free to send in them in the direction of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office - the group that draft government legislation. I presume they will not be having a very relaxing summer.

The repeal tactic has one major advantage. A repeal bill is much easier and faster to draft. It gains time to work on the more substantive things.

The simplest of bills

On Thursday Parliament focussed on a bill to repeal the Taxation Principles Reporting Act, which was passed a few months ago. If you ignore titles, headers etcetera, the bill is three lines of text. Not full lines either. The crucial section is just 10 words long.

A bill like that can be produced pretty quickly.

Three weeks down

So far, the 54th Parliament has sat for three weeks. The first week was all ceremony and set pieces. The other two weeks have been largely spent under urgency to effect six repeals and one new piece of legislation. That bill was a reinstatement of a partial repeal made by the previous government.

Three bills were repealed last week and three this week.

This week's bills

The reinstatement bill extends employment trial periods to all employers. Trial periods are currently restricted to employers with fewer than 20 staff. The guts of this bill removes just eight words from the current law, which would have made it an appealing early objective.

The first of the repeals this week repealed two different laws - the two large laws that quite recently replaced the Resource Management Act after years of development. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

There's a look in the eyes of many people who work on precinct that tells you they just want this parliamentary year to finish already. But it's not quite done yet and this morning's grinding committee stage action prolonged the torture.

Parliament's in urgency and running later than it normally does towards year's end, as the coalition government continues dismantling the previous government's legacy laws. Among the repeals being passed through all stages under urgency this week was the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill.

As MPs wearily resumed their seats in the chamber at 9am this morning, they were still grinding through the committee stage of this Bill. It's the stage where MPs debate the details. It can last as long as there are still things to discuss, and is the stage when the Opposition can slow things down with proposed amendments and questions to the minister in charge of the legislation. In this case it was the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, National's Chris Bishop, who was fielding the questions and amendments. Many of them.

Although the MPs have had an arduous year and are desperate to go home, start Christmas shopping or get to their bach in Kinloch, Labour MPs in particular sought to grab their only chance to interrogate the inner details of a bill that's undoing legislation they had passed only a few months ago. They couldn't prevent it being overturned but they could slow it down very slightly. You could say they wanted to make the Government work for it.

As such, the Labour MPs got forensic with their questions and proposed plenty of amendments. And each new amendment proposed gave the MPs something new to discuss, more questions for the minister, a longer debate.

Sometimes amendments are proposed on the go, scribbled on a piece of paper and given to the clerks. Labour's Kieran McAnulty penned one such proposed amendment to this Bill, seen in the picture below. However he pointed out it was incumbent on Bishop to answer a question that McAnulty had been putting to him before the Opposition MP could proceed with the proposed amendment. Bishop then indicated he was happy to look at it, and McAnulty headed off to the printing room. But before he could even leave the chamber, this part of the committee stage was closed off by the presiding officer without McAnulty's amendment getting the chance to be tabled…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Gerry Brownlee has begun Parliament's week by outlining his approach as Speaker to Question Time.

Each Speaker tends to come at their job with slightly different interpretations of Parliament's many rules. Brownlee had promised he would give guidance as to his own approach after a combative first full week of Question Time.

Listen to the radio version of this story with audio from Parliament

Each Speaker's approach has a huge impact on how, and how well, Parliament undertakes its core role of being a check on the Executive.

Here is Gerry Brownlee's ruling (in bold) with with notes and explanations.

"Members, as I suggested last week, I want to set out my approach to the answering of parliamentary questions. It's well established that Ministers are expected to answer questions unless they consider it not in the public interest to do so: Speaker's ruling 199/3. The public interest test is a high one and should be used sparingly: Speaker's ruling 200/1."

Note: Re The Public Interest - There are a few reasons within this 'out' that might lead ministers not to answer a question. They include something that is sub-judice (being considered by a court), not wanting to prejudice a current police operation, privacy, commercial sensitivity, and national security.

Gerry Brownlee continued...

"Ministers are accountable to the House for the public office they hold and should, therefore, endeavour to give informative replies: Speakers' ruling 200/6. That is the cornerstone of responsible Government."

Notes: Re 'Responsible Government' - The phrase 'Responsible Government' does not refer to a government acting responsibly. It seems unlikely that anyone would agree what that might look like. It refers to the fact that every government is responsible to parliament. Parliament is the boss, so answers aren't just ministers being polite to pesky opposition MPs, they are actually responding to someone who is in part - their overseer. The Parliament chooses the Executive from among its members, and can also remove them from office.

"Informative answers" is a very generous description of many ministers' responses.

Gerry Brownlee continued..…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Two weeks in, but really only one full week so far, and already the 54th Parliament feels kind of heavy and intense.

Maybe it's the fiery exchanges in Question Time, or the unique energy that comes from going headlong into repealing laws that the previous parliament deliberated on and passed just a few months back. Maybe it's the end of year grind and pre-Christmas dread kicking in. Or maybe it's simply the usual birthing process a parliament goes through whereby it finds its own shape and mood.

Chris Penk in select committee

So things are dynamic in this freshly minted Parliament, and many MPs are either still finding their feet or feeling out the others to see how they roll. In this Sunday edition of The House, we take a look at the Parliament discovering how the new Speaker Gerry Brownlee will interpret the rules, this week's contention being whether he can force adequate answers from ministers or indeed any answers.

We also sit down for a chat with National's Chris Penk to hear about how he's undergoing the transformation to government minister after being in opposition for six years. Penk of course is freshly sworn in as the Minister for Building and Construction, Minister for Veterans Affairs and Minister Land Information, in addition to Associate Minister of both Defence and Immigration. The member for Kaipara ki Mahurangi is the first to admit being a minister is a different level of responsibility and intensity to being the senior whip in opposition, but he is nothing if not enthusiastic.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's in urgency in this hectic, penultimate week before Christmas, and most MPs are undergoing a kind of crash course of learning and adjustment.

It's a mass challenge of adjustment - not just for those first-time MPs learning on the job and coming to grips with the Parliament environment, but also MPs who are now in an opposite mode to the way they operated here in the last several years.

There's a big difference between being in government and opposition: Third term Labour MP Deborah Russell is discovering what it's like to be in Opposition for the first time.

MPs who have been ensconced in government for up to six years are now discovering the freedoms and limits of being in opposition. And MPs who entered parliament in opposition now find themselves in positions of more responsibility, in the hot seat, as it were.

As such, we've seen an eagerness among Labour's MPs in Opposition to take up the opportunity to speak this morning during the committee stage of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. This includes MPs who just a couple of months ago might have been cabinet ministers defending against the opposition's attacks on government policy, and who are now on the attack themselves.

It also includes backbenchers who until this month have only ever sat in the chamber as a member of the ruling party and as such have rarely had the chance to speak in a committee stage, because usually the committee stage is wall to wall opposition MPs questioning a minister.

New Government ministers are now in a position of power where they can dismiss some of the questions like swatting a fly. It's clear some of the new ministers feel comfortable in the new role and have been telling their nemeses on the other side that they accordingly are a natural fit for being in opposition.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Each new Parliament goes through a birthing process where it finds its own shape and mood. They all tend to end up a little different, or a lot different. A crucial determinant of that shape is how the new speaker will interpret the Parliament's rules.

New parliaments don't create new rules. The Standing Orders (rules) are already agreed. But interpretations of those rules can shift. Alongside the rules are Speaker's Rulings, the accreted rule interpretations of many successive speakers.

Like in scriptures, you can often find a Speaker's Ruling to support widely varying interpretations of a rule's intent.

With each new parliament and speaker, those interpretations tend to shift again. The early Question Times are often long and combative as the new approach is slowly enunciated, and as MPs work to nudge that interpretation in a direction useful to their own team.

On Tuesday the new Speaker's approach began to take shape. For example, Gerry Brownlee ruled like this in Question 5:

1 - Any answer is an answer: Ruling as haiku

Grant Robertson: "Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't believe that question was addressed in that answer. I asked her whether she was ruling it out or not."

Speaker Brownlee: "Well, that's often the case. The question is asked; an answer is given; the question is addressed."

Grant Robertson: "That's very philosophical, Mr Speaker."

Very philosophical, and very nearly a haiku from the new Speaker Gerry Brownlee. The gist appears to be that any answer from a minister is considered to have addressed the question. For years the necessary requirement has been that a question should be, if not answered, at least 'addressed'. Possibly the definition of addressed has shifted?

2 - 'Rhubarb, rhubarb... job done'

This interchange from Question 9 seemed to confirm that.

Speaker Brownlee: "...Now, what I do is irrelevant here. What he says is what the House gets as an answer in addressing a question..."…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The first week of the new Parliament has ended, and thank goodness. It was a whirlwind of state occasions, political minefields and around the edges, a little actual parliamentary business.

Wednesday saw the first debating shots in anger, and it was interesting to watch. Labour's senior MPs seemed to be genuinely enjoying themselves, which was unexpected. National's MPs were mostly still in campaign mode attacking the government-of-yore.

Thursday was when Parliament finally got out of first gear. Thursday included the first debate that wasn't a constitutional set-piece, the first question time, and the first chance for the new Speaker to limber up and show his early stylings.

Chris Hipkins, the new Leader of the Opposition cracks up his caucus during his speech in the Address in Reply Debate.

The first Question Time of the 54th Parliament was always going to be an interesting sortie. Two teams, back on the field after a change of ends, making probing attacks, looking for weak points.

And with a change of ref - the new Speaker Gerry Brownlee. Like referees at a Rugby World Cup Final, speakers can have an enormous influence on the play and the outcome at Parliament. Particularly on a parliament's effectiveness in keeping a watchful eye on government.

It is, of course, very early days and speakers take a while to find their feet and solidify an approach, but it's surely worth poking through the entrails of the first day to see how it went. The first impression of Mr Brownlee was that he was both relaxed and confident, but willing to acknowledge errors and apologise with self-deprecation.

Can a prayer also be an omen?

Any change of speaker can add new rules and also alter their interpretation. They can also facilitate or impede approaches adopted by previous speakers. Will the new speaker be a revolutionary, a reactionary, or will he hold the current line? It will take time to tell - it is possible that the first week included a litmus test.

Every sitting day at Parliament begins with a prayer and has done since its first sittings. The prayer is not set in stone though.

The modern prayer focuses on MPs' ethical approach to their jobs. That they "lay aside personal interests, and work with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand."

You might remember that in early 2018 the then speaker Trevor Mallard secularised the prayer by removing specific reference to one of the Christian trinity. Now it just addresses itself to God in general. The change outraged the conservative end of New Zealand's churches. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The first debate Parliament undertook this term (other than the set-piece response to the Message from the Throne), was about the situation in Gaza.

The topic is tragic, and the emotion was raw.

Ultimately every party voted for a variation on the motion proposed, but there was much strong language and personal attacks as amendments to strengthen the motion were debated, and largely rejected.

Listen to The House's Sunday show from December 7, including the story from this article.

On the whole the governing parties were cautious (National), focused on Israel's need for defence (ACT), or distracted with attacking the opposition (NZ Frist).

The opposition parties were more focused on the extent and legality of Israel's recent use of force and of its decades long occupation or control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

It's a rare thing to hear the foreign affairs spokesperson for a major party (in this case Labour's Damien O'Connor) describe the actions of a western-aligned state like Israel as genocide.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament business is underway after the State Opening of the 54th Parliament.

It began in ceremonial pageantry around the arrival of the Governor General Dame Cindy Kiro.

The State Opening was attended by cohorts of military officers from the Army, Air Force and Navy. Dame Cindy inspected them.

As part of a long-running tradition, Sandra McKie, the Usher of the Black Rod, led the Governor General in to the Parliament building for the State Opening.

Once inside, MPs gathered in the Legislative Council Chamber to hear Dame Cindy read the Speech from the Throne which is prepared by the new government and outlines its priorities and policy direction.

This was followed later in the day by the start of the Address in Reply debate, in which party leaders took first turns at responding to the government's priorities and plans.

The debate will continue in bits and pieces over the coming weeks, with 12 hours and 36 minutes worth of speeches remaining.

RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament's new Speaker has given a heads-up about how he intends to run proceedings in the chamber, with Standing Orders to be a mere guide rather than the strict line to follow.

The election of National's Gerry Brownlee as Speaker was confirmed today by the Governor-General, amid the opening ceremonial stanzas of the 54th Parliament, which also included the swearing in of all MPs-elect.

The swearing in of MPs largely went by its usual conveyer belt routine, but proceedings were enlivened by the six MPs of Te Pati Māori adding their own versions of a second oath before also being sworn in according to Parliament protocol, while performing cultural expressions in between.

It was immediately followed by the main business of the day, which also had its own element of theatre, with Brownlee being "dragged" as per Parliament tradition by a colleague out of his seat towards the big chair to be elected as the legislature's Landlord and referee. Te Pāti Māori had nominated the previous Speaker, Adrian Rurawhe of the Labour Party, for the Speaker's role again, but Rurawhe declined, leaving Brownlee unopposed in being elected.

Brownlee, who also happens to be the longest continuously serving member of the current parliament, offered an insight into what style he will bring to this important role.

"I just want to give some indication of how I might work. Firstly, can I say that our Standing Orders really are just a guide for how this House works. They are important and they give us a framework, but they're not absolute."

He admitted he hadn't got on well with some of the Speakers who served before him, but hoped he would have a better relationship with the House, before conceding his "biggest challenge will probably be keeping myself in order". Brownlee told MPs about valuable advice he'd received as a young MP.

"When I first came to this house I sat through the Address and Reply Debate where the party leaders were all speaking, one after the other," he explained, "but that was, to say the least, a very ferocious debate for someone sitting for the first time in Parliament down the back of the house.

"And after it was over, Doug Kidd, who was a very good Speaker, said to me 'so what did you think of that?' and I said, 'well Doug I don't know how I would ever manage to compete and participate in that environment'…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The final thing Parliament did before it adjourned for the election was agree some alterations to Parliament's rules that will apply to the next Parliament. These are changes that the parties and the clerks have been working on since last year.

They even asked for ideas from the public, and while many suggestions don't come to fruition, there are some quite big shifts - especially around how Parliament keeps an eye on governments.

For some insight into the new rules, I sat down with David Wilson, Clerk of The House of Representatives, (who runs Parliament's Secretariat), and Gabor Hellyer, Principal Committee Clerk, (who administered the special committee that sweated over the new rules).

The Clerk of the House, David Wilson makes his submission to the Standing Orders Committee.

A regular rejig

New Zealand's Parliament considers which of its rules (Standing Orders) could be improved at the end of each three-year term of Parliament. Any changes it agrees apply to the following parliament. David Wilson says that while New Zealand is not the only Parliament that changes its rules, we do it more regularly than many.

"Some do it only when there's a crisis or some obvious problem that needs fixing. Ours is kind of baked into our cycle and it always happens. And it doesn't necessarily indicate anything's wrong, but it is really part of the culture now that they will always be reviewed, and I guess a feeling that can always be improved."

Parliament even asks the public for feedback on its rules. To get some first-hand experience on submitting to a select committee, I made a submission to the standing orders committee. It was surprisingly easy, unexpectedly enjoyable, and actually resulted in some change.

My suggestions were small fry though. Most ideas come from folk with a much better finger on the pulse. The most substantial list of proposed improvements tends to come from the Clerk of the House, whose staff see how things work at the closest quarters (administering the committees, the House and the process of legislation). The various political parties often make submissions, as well as MPs, and Select Committees (which are themselves cross-party groups). Also knowledgeable insiders (e.g. the Parliamentary Counsel's Office), knowledgeable outsiders (e.g. The Law Commission, law professors or retired MPs like Geoffrey Palmer). And of course John Q. Public.

The changes…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Before Parliament adjourned for the election, MPs' final order of business was agreeing to rule changes for the next Parliament. The new rules have been developed over the last year by a committee of senior MPs from every party.

Some of those MPs spoke about the changes, and interestingly about what changes they did not achieve. On Sunday here at The House we will go through the new rules with the Clerk of The House David Wilson and Principal Committee Clerk Gabor Hellyer, but for now let's focus on how MPs imagine Parliament could be.

Possibly most honest were the two departing MPs from the rules committee, Jan Logie (Green) and Michael Woodhouse (National).

Listen to a short radio report related to this story, and including a chat with The Herald of Arms Extraordinary to the King Philip O'Shea who will officially declare Parliament dissolved on Friday September 8th.

Michael Woodhouse - National

Michael Woodhouse referred to himself as one of Parliament's "rules guys", those MPs who take a particular interest in how it works, and how it should and could work. He's taken part in three rules Standing Orders Reviews (rules rewrites), and has come to acknowledge that change does not happen fast. Instead, the approach is "make haste slowly".

He particularly acknowledged the people who always do the lions share of the effort - the clerks. "I think David Wilson and his team, David Bagnall and Gabor Hellyer particularly, have done a gargantuan job of distilling the very, very good submissions that we had, listening carefully to the arguments on both sides of any change, and then coming up with things that I think in their hearts they would agree could've been so much better."

The clerks' team always make a hefty submission themselves to what needs can change, and what needs to. And as always, no-one got everything they desired.

Change is tricky, partly because no party wants to make life too hard for themselves. Woodhouse observed that who might be the next government was never clear during the process, which makes for an unusual dynamic.

"I've been party to conversations not just with my own colleagues but with others where the conversation will go something like this: 'Well, that's great when you're in opposition, but once you get to government you wouldn't like that Standing Order.' I thought, with a 50/50 chance when we started this that either side of the House could lead government, we may have made more progress than we actually have…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

MPs have been debating whether to lower the voting age for local council elections to 16 years of age from the current age of 18.

Debate on lowering the voting age immediately followed debate on a Declaration of Inconsistency. That stems from a Supreme Court ruling nine months ago that voting laws are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act on the basis of age discrimination.

As a response to that court ruling, the Justice Minister Ginny Andersen this week explained why the Government has decided to focus on lowering the voting age for local elections only.

"The bill reflects the differences between how the voting age is set out in legislation. The provisions of the Electoral Act that set the voting age at 18 for parliamentary elections can only be amended if 75 percent of members in the House agree or there is a majority in a referendum."

Andersen said that preparing and progressing a bill that would have no prospect of being passed into law at this point would be a waste of time and money "that would not lead to any practical change".

"In contrast, the voting age for local government elections can be amended by a simple majority. That is why the Government has decided to focus on a bill that lowers the voting age to 16 for local elections only. I hope that members will take a rights and evidence - based approach to the future debate on this bill. We stand here as representatives of all our constituents, not just the ones that are eligible to vote for us," she said.

Simon Court

This was the first time that this Parliament debated a Declaration of Inconsistency between legislation and the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights Act. Last year Parliament unanimously agreed on what should happen when one of the higher courts find legislation to be inconsistent with fundamental rights. They declare an inconsistency - and Parliament and the Government need to go back and discuss that.

Court balance

As the ACT Party's Simon Court pointed out, Parliament makes laws and is sovereign in its decision making. According to him, inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights Act were not uncommon and that "much legislation is introduced to Parliament that is not consistent with the bill of rights".

"Where it is inconsistent, the Ministry of Justice provides a report to Parliament, called a bill of rights assessment. A bill of rights compliance report is often provided where a piece of legislation infringes on rights that are set out, but for good reason, but it's always up to Parliament to balance what that reason is," Court said…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This is the last sitting week of the 53rd Parliament, and fittingly for such a busy term there's a fairly packed schedule of government business for the next few days.

Things will wind up on Thursday with the debate over the adjournment of Parliament, and a look at what changes to Parliament's rules will stem from the regular report of the Standing Orders Committee; but not before the Government first goes into urgency again to progress some bills, and even a last Member's Day of the three-year term.

The House will rise on Thursday to clear the way for the general election which is to be held in just over a month and a half's time. This week is the last of a busy 3-week block in which the House has regularly been taken into urgency as the Government guided a couple of major reform programmes to their final legislative moments, particularly the repeal of the Resource Management Act and its replacement as well as water reform legislation.

"We've still got a range of bills that we want to get either through first reading so that they can head off to Select Committee and that process can begin while politicians are out campaigning, so the work of getting submissions and so on can start - plus a couple of bits of legislation that we want to finish off," the Government's Leader of House, Grant Robertson, explained.

"I'm satisfied with where we've got to. There will still be some bills that ministers had hoped would make more progress that haven't, and that's just the reality of the amount of time we've got. So there will still be bills left on the Order Paper that haven't been finished, but I think we've made pretty good progress."

Voting Age legislation

One of the bills to get a first reading today will be the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. Contrary to what some political figures have claimed, this legislation is not being rushed through by stealth before the general election, and neither is the voting age being considered even about general elections.

"This is a bill about local government elections, and the next local government elections being potentially held with 16-year olds being eligible to vote - just local government not central government elections, not for this election as some people seem to be suggesting," Robertson said…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In terms of the media people who cover Parliament, there's more than enough focus on the reporters and broadcasters that inhabit the Press Gallery.

If there's one group who we don't hear enough about, it's the photographers and visual journalists. That's why the current exhibition at Parliament's Te Papakura Exhibition Space is refreshing and reminds us that the visuals are often an important part of the story of what goes on here.

'Beyond the Tiles: A Press Gallery Photographic Exhibition' features the work of five photographers: Robert Kitchin from Stuff, Mark Mitchell from NZ Herald and NZME, RNZ's Angus Dreaver and Sam Rillstone, plus The House's Phil Smith.

The work in the exhibition is not strictly about Parliament, but for most of this group, catering to the voracious media appetite for news, images and footage from Parliament means busy days during sitting weeks.

"It's full on. It's very hard to try and come up with something new because you're in one building," Kitchin says, noting there are only certain parts of Parliament where photography is allowed.

"You have to try and use those same areas and make them visually appealing, multiple times, over and over again."

Sitting days follow a set routine within which are established times for media opportunities, such as the bridge run or caucus runs in the corridors of the main Parliament building. For photographers like Kitchin, the job is about riding the energy and keeping an eye out for those random moments which can bring a political story to life.

"The random element is the human being in the photo so you're looking for any type of emotion, any type of body language, anything that sort of would actually tell the story about how they are feeling."

Sometimes simply being there to document the random is the important thing. Luckily, Mark Mitchell was on hand with his camera twenty years ago when National MP Shane Ardern drove a tractor up Parliament's front steps during the so-called anti-fart protest by farmers against the government's proposed tax to limit methane emissions…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

After Todd Muller's valedictory in Parliament on Wednesday, the next MP up to the plate was the avuncular National Party MP Ian McKelvie. He listed National Party Leaders he had served under (six of them), and on reaching the short tenure of Muller ad-libbed "we just heard today what might have been".

There was a murmur of concurrence among the many present, and there were quite a few. Even Jim Bolger had popped into the Speaker's gallery briefly for Muller's speech. It had certainly been unusual, and notable. It left folk pondering how a longer tenure might have altered his party, and left me wondering why MPs tend to wait until their very final words to get properly honest. Politic considerations are a too-effective halter.

Like all valedictories he thanked his family, staff and supporters (though unusually he started with the thanks). Like most farewells he threw in a few jokes and self-deprecating stories.

"By my late-teens, I was determined to one day stand in this place-so determined, in fact, that according to Michelle, on our first date, I used that pretty cool pick-up line about how much I wanted to be an MP. Clearly I was a keeper."

But unlike many valedictories there was no long list of accomplishments or aggrandising. He went with "I have done some things well, some less well, but I gave it my best."

Instead, the bulk of his time was spent speaking thoughtfully and powerfully on problems and risks. Each of three issues packed a wallop, and he did not spare his own colleagues.

"I hope political colleagues, the wider House, and media can see these comments for what they are - personal not political, conciliatory not critical, wary but not lacking in hope."

On Climate Change

He began with climate change, about which he spent much time negotiating the Zero Carbon Act with Green co-leader James Shaw. He was bracingly, unusually honest about the climate reality.

"The nations of the world will not keep global warming to below 1.5 degrees, rather they will overshoot 2 degrees by some measure. As the global climate continues to warm, New Zealand will bear significant costs due to the impacts of climate change and attempting to adapt to it over time. These impacts, on our coastal and stretched infrastructure, will dwarf the medium-term challenges and costs of emission reductions."…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

As more valedictory speeches were heard in Parliament's chamber, a warning was sounded from a departing MP about race baiting and dog whistling to extremism.

Labour's Emily Henderson, the MP for Whangārei, and Aupito William Sio the long time MP for Māngere, gave their final statements last night. Henderson in particular picked up from a theme from last week's valedictories in which the adversarial style of politics that has become standard in Parliament was in the firing line.

Noting how the culture has changed, Dr Henderson said the space for constructive debate and the ability to tolerate opposing views outside the caucus and among the public - "especially in the toxic swamp of social media" - that space is significantly altered.

As a "tough old courtroom lawyer", she said there was "danger when adversarial argument stops being about testing and becomes about winning alone. That's the nub of the problem in the courts. In rape cases or cases with vulnerable witnesses, lawyers who think their sole responsibility is to get a win will do virtually anything with any means necessary-even when that drowns out and distorts the evidence".

"Normally, extremism rolls right off New Zealanders, but this is a time of heightened anxiety, when many voters are undeniably on edge, struggling to come to terms with an uncertainty we haven't had to face since the 1930s. Scared people notoriously seek scapegoats, and it's the easiest and oldest trick in the book to tap into that fear and prejudice and drive a wedge into the community," she said.

Scapegoating

"I would not suggest anyone in here is about to jump the conspiracy bandwagon, but, in an election year, there's a temptation to at least try and tap into some of that energy. It's there when politicians start using the language of "taking back our country" from minorities. It's there when politicians ignore the actual facts and, instead, go around telling people that they're unsafe and crime is out of control-and, when confronted, that the facts don't matter as much as the fears. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It is the second to last sitting week for Parliament before it dissolves so that the Governor-General can officially call for an election.

On paper that means just six more sitting days ... but there is still a huge amount of legislation that the government would like to get passed by the House before it rises. That means it is going to be another week under an urgency timetable, and another long, busy week for MPs.

The man who plans Parliament's sitting agenda is the Leader of the House, Grant Robertson. I asked him how common these cram weeks are prior to elections.

Listen to the full episode

"Pretty much the whole time I've been an MP," says Robertson, "governments have used the final few weeks of a period before the election to finish off legislation they want to get done."

He sees both practical and political reasons for that regular last minute rush. The practical reason is that, even if a ruling administration re-gains power there will be months before there is a legislature that can pass new laws. So get it done while you can.

The political reason is about following through.

"It's about being able to say we've done what we promised we would do."

Many people worry that when Parliament operates under urgency that reduces the democratic process by removing the ability for the public to feed back into legislation. It can do that, but this week it won't as the bills being debated under urgency have all already spent time being considered by select committees.

"For me", says Robertson, "there has to be a very high threshold for . For leaving out the bit of the process where the public get to have their say, and where select committees can do the really good work that they do of sharpening up a bill, you want to make sure that happens in 99 percent of cases."

Valedictories

The other thing happening this week is farewell speeches for departing MPs.

"These are important moments for members who are finishing up, and in some cases, members who've been here for some time. ...It's the chance to say, 'well, here's what I did while I was here'. And here are some reflections on the world. I think you do tend to find in valedictories that people carry two or three things through their political career that either they didn't quite get to do or that really annoyed them. And you do hear them coming out. And I think that's good. It's a chance for people to leave those of us who are still here with some thoughts about what happens next."

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

If you're thinking of becoming an MP, there are some things that are ideal in helping you prepare, including experience in the public sector or local government. But once you're in Parliament, the best way to become a better MP is to take time to learn how the system works, ideally from the opposition benches.

These are insights from Aupito William Sio, the Labour MP for Māngere, who is soon to leave Parliament at the end of the term. After almost sixteen years in this place, he knows how the system works as well as anyone, and sat down with The House to reflect on a career in Parliament which has been concurrent with breakthroughs for Pasifika.

Aupito's time in Parliament encompasses a long stint in opposition, which he describes as invaluable to an MP's development, bookended by two spells in government. The Samoa-born MP entered Parliament at the tail end of the Helen Clark-led Labour Government in 2008.

"I spent about six or seven months as a backbencher, observing what they were doing in government. And as they exited, I then spent nine years in opposition - probably the best time of learning, although at times you feel like 'what am I doing here?'. And then having spent five years as a minister, as the Minister for Pacific Peoples, and then honing in on what I wanted to be able to do for Pacific communities across a number of portfolios, I just think that was the absolute privilege."

Learning the ropes

Before Sio entered Parliament, there had only ever been a few Pasifika to be MPs in this country. But now there are over a dozen in the same Parliament. He has taken on a mentor role for younger Pasifika MPs coming through, reaching out across party lines to be supportive in this way.

"It was always important to be able to show the others the ropes, if you like. Local government did help me. Others also took that path. When people are asking me how do you prepare yourself to be a member of Parliament, well I say serve your community but local government does help. Understanding the politics, and understanding what's really important," he explains.

"I think for any person coming through, they should cherish the opportunity of being in opposition, and cherish the opportunity of just taking their time and learning how the system works. It helps if you understand the public sector. I've always said to those who have asked me where can they get the experience before coming here that they can work for an MP, or they can spend some time in local government."

Parliament culture…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This was Parliament's third-to-last sitting week before it adjourns and then dissolves for the election. Yes, dissolves, like an aspirin in water, leaving behind three years of scrutiny-over-government and a slew of new or amended legislation.

But with days to go, it is not done yet. Parliament is still going like the clappers. The reason being, the Government still has a long list of legislation that isn't quite finished yet.

The Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson, and his senior staff wait, bewigged, on the front steps of Parliament to witness the formal dissolution of Parliament in 2017. Behind them are senior chamber attendants.

Almost all of this week's sitting was spent under urgency to try to get through the remaining agenda. And it's not just rats-and-mice. It includes major pieces of reform like the multi-bill rejigs of water governance and resource management. Those are huge (literally and figuratively).

Making completion more difficult is the fact that the last few weeks of any Parliament start to fill up with added extras, like approving the rule changes for the next Parliament, or finalising approval of the budget (which is typically signed-off about now), or the valedictory speeches of MPs that are choosing to retire.

There are seventeen MPs retiring this year. Or at least seventeen retiring on purpose. Their farewells are scattered across this week and next, but added up, they will take most of a day's debating time (you can see a schedule of them all below).

Even employing urgency to gain extra hours the to-do lists are large and ambitious. (Urgency has meant the House spent extra time debating to try and get them completed, and dropped the normal one day pause between the debate stages for each bill. None of this week's bills missed a Select Committee inquiry).

After a three year term of Parliament, you might ask why there are still major bills uncompleted. If you do, you are likely to be told this is not that unusual. The problem is that drafting complex legislation is not a fast process. And the drafting is the quick bit, coming after years of policy development. Basically making law is a long game.

And that takes us back to the valedictories. 'So many bills, so little time' is surely a reason that a common theme most terms and from most parties is this one, as expressed this week by outgoing MP Jaime Strange in his valedictory…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Valedictory speech season has begun at Parliament, and if there's a common theme cropping up already, it's a plea for a less toxic style of politics in the place.

MPs on the way out, giving their final statement in the chamber, have less reason to hold back about their real feelings. Yet you might be surprised to find that their real feelings - in terms of relations with MPs on the other side - are actually quite warm.

Three departing Labour MPs who all entered Parliament in 2017 gave their valedictories last night. Their thoughts turned to the adversarial nature of the political system and the media news cycle that feeds off it.

Marja Lubeck said Parliament could work better if there were fewer de-humanizing forces at play. Speaking about her work with the rainbow community, against discrimination, and towards a ban on conversion practices among other efforts to protect young people, she decried the lack of airtime given to "positive" stories about the work of MPs.

"There are a lot of people in this place who care and are working hard to make things better. They often give until there's nothing left in the tank to give, and that is the story we're telling. But in the era of social media, clickbait, and the 40-minute news cycle; trolling and rampant misinformation, it feels, at times, that it's not the good stories that make the headlines.

"I wish politicians and media could stop their focus on catching people out with perceived or real slip-ups-or 10-year-old tweets for that matter. Feeling powerless witnessing the take-down of some of my colleagues over the years has been the source of my greatest frustration."

Lubeck admitted Parliament is an adversarial environment and that she had done her fair share of heckling.

"Jason Walls (political reporter with Newstalk ZB), you called it: I spoke my mind, because you know what they say: 'many people are too polite to be honest, while the Dutch are too honest to be polite.' But as one of my colleagues said, 'politicians are not prey'. And that is how it feels to me at times, preying on the imperfections. We are not robots; we are humans, good people, doing our best-often to the detriment of our personal lives. If we could just make the political and media culture less toxic, I think we'd make a lot more progress."

Before he finished his valedictory, the Rongotai MP Paul Eagle said he had one wish for Parliament: "to urge our future parliamentarians to rise above petty politics"…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Today is the beginning of the last three sitting weeks of the 53rd Parliament, a busy few weeks as the Government still has a lot that it wants to finish before the House rises.

This week the Government will take Parliament into urgency, during which a veritable potpourri of legislation will be debated, including Three Waters bills and some climate stuff, interspersed with the first batches of valedictory speeches by departing MPs.

But the first thing on the agenda today, post-Question Time, is the final two or three hours of debate on the Appropriations estimates, which is basically the bill that approves the annual budget.

Some time this evening, a motion to take the House into urgency will be moved. Going into urgency at this point has some implications for select committees, who are also trying to tidy up work before the House rises, the shadow leader of the house, National's Michael Woodhouse explained.

"Select committees generally can't meet while the House is sitting. That's been a long-standing convention, without the leave of the members. Generally opposition parties don't provide that leave."

Nonetheless, MPs will be focussed on a big programme of debating work that included the bills to replace the Resource Management Act, and the trio of legislation on Water Services. First up will be the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill which is at its committee stage. Asked whether there would be filibustering on this Bill, Woodhouse underlined how important this stage of the process was.

"We have tried to take what I call a Goldilocks approach to the committee of the whole: not too short, not too long. There's some really important technical elements of that, and some proposals for changes that parties want to make. They were unsuccessful in select committee, and they'll be commending them in the committee of the whole. I don't consider that to be filibustering.

"Indeed, the ministers have actively participated in the examination of the Bill. I think that's taken longer than the Leader of the House would have liked, in respect of the RMA reform bills. And that is - I think - driving his decision to take urgency," Woodhouse said…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Picture this scenario: hundreds of Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian men being escorted around Beijing for meetings with state officials as China hosts a delegation of most of the members of Parliament from countries of the Pacific Islands region.

Imagine the hand-wringing that'd be going on in Canberra, Wellington and probably Washington.

Now flip the idea around and picture this: three dozen Pacific women arriving in Wellington in a mid-winter southerly for a development and connection event at New Zealand's Parliament.

Those women are the majority of all female elected representatives across the Pacific Islands countries. It's a very similar idea, but almost no one noticed.

The Pacific is a region where the vast majority of elected representatives have always been men, where the institutional and social barriers to women standing for parliaments around the region are deeply entrenched.

The struggle to raise women's representation in the Pacific has been a long one, with gains particularly hard to come by in some countries. But the aim is to go higher, much higher. So to have 31 of the women MPs come together this week for a wānanga at the Parliament of a country whose 120-seat legislature is currently evenly split between females and males seemed fitting.

Uneven playing field

Consider for a second how in New Zealand we have an even split between men and women across the 120 MPs in Parliament. Papua New Guinea has pretty much the same amount of seats in their Parliament. But their number of women MPs? Two.

In Fiji and Samoa, over ten percent of their 50-odd Parliament seats are filled by women. And in Niue, the smallest of all the countries, a quarter of the legislature's 20 seats are filled by women.

"The smaller Pacific nations countries are doing better than us," said one of PNG's two women MPs, Kessy Sawang of the Rai Coast, who was among the delegation in Wellington.

She said with PNG's population of about 12 million, there are some 6 million women and girls who need better representation. But in PNG it's not a level playing field, particularly when it comes to elections.

"We face a lot of challenges from cultural barriers, money politics, threats and intimidation. If you look at the history of elections in PNG, every time there's observers and research carried out, a lot of reports come out after every election.

"The issue is we've got to act on those reports to actually make the playing field fairer and more conducive for women." …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week MPs had a special debate about the report of the Regulations Review Committee on Covid-19 Secondary Legislation.

This specialist committee, which is always chaired by an Opposition MP, plays an important role as a constitutional safeguard and a mechanism for providing checks and balance on the executive.

Part 2 of today's edition of The House looks at salient points from that special debate on the committee's report, while Part 1 examines further evidence from the chamber that MPs are getting ever more contrarian as the election looms.

During the special debate, a committee member, Eugenie Sage of the Greens, gave this useful description of the Regulations Review Committee's function:

"In terms of lawmaking, it scrutinises the powers in bills that are proposed to be given to the executive to make secondary legislation," she explained.

"So what's secondary legislation? Law that is made by someone other than Parliament under a power that Parliament has given. It could be regulations, orders, rules, notices, and it's often of the detail of implementation of legislation."

The Government's Leader of the House, Grant Robertson, also gave us this useful explainer of the role of the Regulations Review Committee at the start of the week.

Drafting

During the emergency phase of Covid-19, the Regulations Review Committee was particularly busy doing its job looking at each regulatory change - there were many of them. They also compiled a report looking at that whole Covid period, trying to see what can be learnt from that period for how to deal with emergency situations, pandemics and so on, via a regulatory lens.

Generally, the committee found that there have been appropriate safeguards for the making of Covid-19 secondary legislation.

However the committee chair, Judith Collins of the National Party, said one of the big takeaways of this review was how poorly some government ministries and departments took the role of drafting good secondary legislation.

"Now I understand, and we can all acknowledge, that the Ministry of Health was under an extreme amount of stress, that they were dealing with a situation that they had not seen before, and that they were rushing," she said…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details