By Louis Collins for The House
The Parliament Bill aims to legislate for more separation of powers between the legislature and the executive Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
If you're one of the few people in this country that admit to being a parliament or constitution nerd, you're probably giddy with excitement this week at the prospect of the Parliament Bill coming to legislative fruition.
Writing that out, I can't help but think they could have come up with a less confusing name, given that technically every bill is a parliament bill. That aside, for some, seeing it appear on the legislation website earlier this month would have been a 'pinch me' moment.
The Bill, or a concept thereof, has floundered around on the drawing boards of constitutional policy drafters for a number of years, with Minister in charge Chris Bishop labelling the wait as a "long gestation period."
If (and good on you) you have no idea what the Parliament Bill is, in a nutshell, it aims to consolidate existing legislation relating to the operation of Parliament. The intention is to allow for greater separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches.
Under the current status quo, the funding of Parliament's two agencies (Parliamentary Service and The Office of the Clerk) is decided with the same budget process that public sector agencies (i.e. Ministry of Justice, MBIE, Ministry for Primary Industries etc.) are subject to.
In other words, despite being entities that serve the legislature (and might displease governments in doing so), the agencies are currently dependent on the executive for financial support. The Bill will take funding decisions further from governments, aligned with the current Officers of Parliament.
Beyond the esoteric constitutional changes, the Bill also sets out to:
- Give Parliament security guards statutory powers, allowing them to consent search, deny entry, confiscate items, and temporarily detain. This would essentially give Parliament security guards similar status to their counterparts at courthouses.
- Change the definitions of things like "dependents" and "family member" in reference to the provision of members' work-related expenses.
- Set out in legislation the functions of the Office of the Clerk, and give its staff "statutory immunity for good faith acts."
Unsurprisingly, with a bill of this nature, there are a whole host of other technical policy changes that it seeks to legislate - removing the upper age limit of 68 for the Clerk being a more notable one.
Constitutional legislation does not come up all that often, nor does a bill that is expected to receive this level of bipartisan support. On Tuesday, the bill had its first reading, where perhaps refreshingly, there was an abundance of consensus throughout the speeches.
If you've got this far and you're still not convinced that this legislation is significant for more than just people like Geoffery Palmer, perhaps Duncan Webb's words yesterday will win you over:
"To those who might be looking on from the galleries or on telly, it appears a very arcane bill - one that is kind of lost in dusty law books - in fact, this is a really important constitutional bill."
Before the first reading though, something notable happened. Something that doesn't happen all that often at Parliament. The Minister in charge of the Bill stood up and said "I move, That the House establish a committee, to be called the Parliament Bill Committee, to consider, and report on, the Parliament Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it."
In making that motion, Bishop established a whole new select committee to consider the Parliament Bill. Why?
Well, Bishop went on to say that given the importance of consensus on the bill, "it would be appropriate to have a special select committee with equal membership from the government and the opposition to make sure that we can work in a bipartisan way."
Ad hoc committees
Ordinarily, after a bill has its first reading, it is sent off to one of Parliament's subject select committees, which broadly reflect ministerial portfolios.
However, special or "ad hoc" select committees can also be set up to carry out a specific task, such as considering a piece of legislation. Once again, they are pretty rare though, with usually about one or two per Parliament. You may recall from recent parliaments, the Abortion Legislation Committee, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Legislation Committee or the Epidemic Response Committee.
James Picker is the Clerk Assistant in the Office of the Clerk, and the senior manager for Parliament's Select Committee Services. The House sat down with him to get some clarification about how these ad hoc committees function and how they are different to regular committees.
Assistant clerk James Picker clerking the Officers of Parliament Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
"We're into the new financial year for example, and committees will be looking at some of the work they're going to be doing later in the year around things like financial scrutiny annual reviews. The Parliament Bill Committee is unlikely to consider some of those other kinds of business that the subject select committees would ordinarily be preparing themselves to do.
"It will have this sort of, not quite singular focus, because obviously there's some other business that could be referred to it if it needed to be - but at the moment, as the bill gets read a first time and is referred to the Parliament Bill committee, the Committee will just have that one item of business to take care of."
Picker also highlighted that if (more likely when) the Parliament Bill becomes the Parliament Act, it will have flow-on effects, even into Parliament's own rules.
"The Parliament Bill doesn't legislate for House procedure, that's a process purely for the House to decide. So if there are changes in the law that necessitate a change to parliamentary standing orders, then that will be something the House will need to [do]."
To listen to The House's full interview with James Picker, along with some analysis of the Parliament Bill, click the link above.
Getting people to care
The Parliament Bill Committee is not expected to report back to the House until the end of March next year. Although the Bill may seem "arcane" as Duncan Webb put it, one wouldn't be surprised if it receives a significant number of submissions. Particularly around the security facet of the Bill, which to those more constitutionally ambivalent is likely to be the most tangible proposed change.
Bishop finished his first reading remarks alluding to this ambivalence: "The question is whether or not we'll get to 10 [submissions], and I hope that we do, because too few people in New Zealand take an interest in our constitutional arrangements, and this is one of those rare occasions when Parliament is considering constitutional legislation, and it's important that we get it right."
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, its legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
