The House

After years of suggestions for constitutional reform, the Parliament Bill has been introduced. In a rare occurrence at Parliament, a special committee has been set up to examine the bill. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Opposition MPs have rediscovered an old filibustering tactic and are using it to protest the Government's scanty use of Parliament's select committees. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament was buzzing with te reo this week. With many members using it in Question Time, the translation team certainly would have been busy.Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Opposition MPs appear to have rediscovered an old filibustering tactic and are using it to protest the Government's liking for sending bills to select committees for very short periods. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Government's first budget is finally reaching the end of its long approval process, and it's going to be just in time. You might have thought it was all done and dusted months ago, but Parliament is pretty careful with giving away pocket money.Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Chris Hipkins discusses his formal parliamentary title: Leader of the Opposition, and the very different job of leading in opposition.Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Question Time is the political equivalent of managers being grilled in front of the board, even when the Prime Minister is being quizzed by the opposition. Imagining it as literally that gives a different slant to teasing out the answers, the deflections and obfuscations. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parliament adjourned early today in respect for Kiingi Tuheitia, the late leader of the Māori Kingitanga. Before they adjourned there were speeches.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

This week New Zealand’s Parliament hosted the Commonwealth Youth Parliament, bringing youth leaders together from Fiji to the Falklands.Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Climate Change Commission told members this week that climate adaptation is the "most difficult challenge this country faces over the next century."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

Petitions often touch on very human stories, or on tricky philosophical issues. This week, one threw explosive new information into an already contentious debate.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

Parliament's Question Time is a slow-moving boxing match with many rounds. This week one boxer's second stepped into the ring to help. They didn't throw in the towel, but they did try to stop the bout. 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

The House hears from two MPs, usually foes, who have spent a week together stateside, like a political odd couple. 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

A dispute during Question Time this week was packed with lessons on asking questions in Parliament, and especially how not to answer them. 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 questionA 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

It's not uncommon for a Committee of the Whole House to need several sittings to consider a bill. With three government bills under consideration by the Committee this week, most of Parliament's sitting time will be devoted to this process.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 weekFirst 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

The House began a new sitting block sharing a little love over the Paris Olympics results, but the sudden outbreak of amity didn't last.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

New Zealand's Parliament House is a strikingly colonial edifice. So how does it feel to be Māori in that space? 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 FerrisAs 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 MacleodTe 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 think MPs never lie, so why are they seldom punished? We investigate Parliament's rules on mistakes, fibs, and perfidious calumny.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 behaviourLet'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

From birthday messages, to lamenting New Zealand cultural icons, the General Debate enables MPs to climb onto the soapbox and yarn about whatever's on their mind.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

The censure of an MP this week came with a message about how to handle provocation - keep it vocal. 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 backdropIn 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 walkingThe 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

Behind many MP interviews is an incessant ringing. It's like parliament itself has tinnitus, or is trying to drown out its inhabitants. What is that noise?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

This week in Parliament the Government's coalition partner antics upended National's plans and illustrated how not to create message discipline.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 agendaMessage 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 messageThe 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

Like an uncooperative student flat Parliament relies on rosters to organise who gets to speak when. Lots of rosters. And like that flat it probably stops squabbles.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

The Social Services and Community Committee has been told by state owned media this week that despite fears and perceptions, they're still alive and well.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

The House looks at two of the major bills this week: one walking back law on Maori wards, and one seeking new ways to show 'tough on gangs'.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

The moment the Abuse in Care Report was tabled in Parliament MPs began debating what it means and how to respond. 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 SiteThe 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 resourcesThe debate on the report can be watched hereThe Hansard transcription of the debate on the report can be read here.News StoriesA 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

An adult entertainment activism group who are dancing through Parliament's petition process discuss issues, solutions and the experience of political engagement.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 at least, how it is meant to work.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 ActionThe 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

The House chats with Kieran McAnulty about a recent trip which included visits with the Clerks of the Scottish and Uk Parliaments.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

Ever wanted a job that combines a very public tight-rope walk with solving fiendish puzzles? Helping The Leader of the House wrangle Parliament's Order Paper is just the thing. 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 manyThe 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

Lobbyists are often portrayed as political bogeymen (or women). But what do they actually do and how? The House chats with two of them. 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

There is new research on how Parliament's rules change, and the researcher gets to observe that change very closely - Parlament's Clerk of the House.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 changeMost 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 tussled through another long week of urgency, and more besides. The House weekend edition has a stormy debate on ferries, five new bills for comment, and submissions on restoring Samoan citizenship rights.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 HouseNew bills wanting feedbackOnce 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 rightsWhile 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

Parliament had another week of urgency and a new list of bills. Five now need public feedback on things ranging from charter schools, and medicine regulations, to three strikes sentencing.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 stagesThe following two bills were debated through all stages, without pause (or opportunity for public feedback):Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment BillAllows 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 BillRemoves the obligation for forestry advisors and log traders to be registered.Five new bills now open for submissionsFive 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 BillReintroduces the possibility of charter schools. (Submission deadline 17 July).Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment BillBrings back a rejigged version of three-strikes sentencing. (Submission deadline 23 July).Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment BillRemoves agriculture from its carbon trading obligations. (Submission deadline 28 July).Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment BillChanges 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 BillRepealing 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

Parliament is hearing submissions on a bill that would create a route to restore NZ citizenship for those Samoans who had that right removed in 1982. 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

Parliament's urgent debate on the recent ferry grounding was a rollicking ride, and you might say the Speaker was to blame.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

The House covers the beginning of Scrutiny Week - when Parliament makes the Government really work to get its budget approved.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

Despite Parliament having supremacy, governments often play the boss. This week the tables will turn as ministers face up to backbenchers for Parliament's first Scrutiny Week.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 approachParliament 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. One solution is a new independent role to hear complaints.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 fixesEach 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

Budget Day in photos: Facts, attacks, stories, protests, pantomime and proclamations.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 captionInside 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 captionAs 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 captionInside 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 captionEach 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 WillisCue 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 captionThe 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 the Budget Debate begins, it's usual to go into urgency to progress some government bills quickly through the House, or as is the case so far this year - not so quickly.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) Billthe introduction and passing through all stages of:the Taxation (Budget Measures) Billthe Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs-Budget Measures) Amendment Billthe Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Billthe Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Billthe introduction, first reading, and referral to a select committee of:the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Billthe Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Billthe introduction and passing through all stages of:the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Billthe 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

Once the Budget Statement is delivered, what happens next? The House looks beyond the initial announcement to the three different processes that follow it, sometimes concurrently.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 ScrutinySlightly 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 BillsIn 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

Like the calm before a storm, Wednesday evening at Parliament was not about the budget. It was a Members' Day including a bill on cellar door tastings. We sip it with its sponsor Stuart Smith.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's budget week at Parliament, but Thursday's announcement is just the beginning of a long process of the Government convincing Parliament to fund its ideas. 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

Parliament begins its election inquiry with a double-header and finds that blame is something of a boomerang. 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-UpThe 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

The Justice Committee has begun its inquiry into last year's election. It got some pretty solid and very polite suggestions right up front.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

Changes to tenancy laws and the removal of Treaty obligations from Oranga Tamariki - two proposed new laws ask for public feedback.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 ParliamentThe 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 linksMore information about the bills is available here:The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment BillThe Residential Tenancies Amendment BillThe 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 has been hearing submissions on the Fast-Track Approvals Bill. The House outlines the Bill and a variety of submissions.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 BillThe 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 billParliament'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

We talk with the Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, about Question Time, MP porkies, and stepping above the fray after 27 years or partisan politics, to instead become 'Parliament's man'. 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 teamThe 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

Before each budget comes a political vanguard of announcements and trailers. Parliament has its own, less political signs that a budget is about to arrive.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