The House

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

The Annual Review Debate allows Parliament to grill government ministers on performance in their areas, unless someone runs out of time first. They did.For the past two weeks the main event in Parliament's debating chamber has been the Annual Review Debate. This ten-hour-long debate happens every year in the run-up to a new budget.Formally, it is the Committee of the Whole House stage for the bill that confirms the government's books for the period initiated two budgets ago. The Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.In the House, the debate is introduced to the MPs like this: "The annual review debate is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees."The build up to Annual Review Debate is a series of inquiries by the select committees. Each subject specialist committee selects a range of government organisations within their purview to investigate, with written questions and public hearings, including grilling the ministers responsible.The results of all of those investigations are collected in a huge and fascinating report (see volume 1 here and volume 2 here). It is that report that is being debated in The Annual Review Debate. The debate is a committee stage, but with many more ministers appearing than usual. The ministers turn up in the House one at a time, and answer questions mostly from opposition MPs, about the performance of their own parts of the government.Keeping an eye on the clocksThe Annual Review Debate is ten hours long, and each party is allocated a portion of that time according to their size. The debate is not all nicely timed-out speeches though, it is questions and answers. Sometimes lots of questions and few answers and sometimes a few questions and really long answers, depending on which minister is at the Table.At the front of the debating chamber a member of parliament's staff sits with seven timers; one for each party. Every time an MP or a minister gets up and speaks that time is knocked off their party's total.It is a count-down to zero for each party, and each party is responsible for managing its own time-resource to make sure that they have enough for: The apolitical introductory speeches to be made on behalf of a select committee for each subject section of the debate (a mix of parties, but most committee chairs are from governing parties). All the questions they want to ask (mostly from opposition parties). All the answers to those questions (entirely from governing parties)…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Members of the public give some last-minute advice to the Government about its budget plans, via committee hearings into the Budget Policy Statement.There have always been a lot of rules that guide the way that governments plan and report their proposed and actual spending.The current approach possibly dates back to 1989, with the instigation of Labour's Public Finance Act (PFA), and then especially National's slightly more recent Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994. The highlights of those two Acts now exist together, and tinkering continues.Two of the overarching themes of that law are: declare a plan, and avoid surprises. Both messages are satisfied in the annual Budget Policy Statement (required by the PFA), which the Government released in late March, outlining the Government's goals, objectives and strategies. Since then the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been examining it.The Budget Policy Statement achieves something else as well - an opportunity for budget feedback from the public.Unless the House is sitting under urgency, proposed new laws usually spend time being examined by a select committee. At that point the public is usually given a chance to weigh in on the plan.But this is not true of budgets. Appropriations bills do go to Select Committee, but not for public input. Instead, there are extensive hearings when the committees themselves question the ministers about their plans.The main chance the public gets to input into the strategic direction of a new budget is at the hearings held into the Budget Policy Statement, and yes, that's prior to the budget's release. That timing means it's more of an opportunity for the public to pitch their own ideas for a budget, and respond to the broad budget objectives outlined in the Budget Policy Statement, rather than budget specifics.I've listened to some of the submissions this year. There have been a wide range of both submitters and topics. The budget covers pretty much everything under the sun and therefore so too does the advice. Some submitters have come from organisations and lobby groups from across the political spectrum; others were from private individuals.I'm pretty sure that all the submitters are aware that, disasters notwithstanding, the budget is already set in stone, and so their submissions won't effect change - but regardless of that, this is not just an exercise in shouting at clouds.It is a chance to raise issues, voice opinions and engage MPs in debate about different approaches and ideas. As well as being a key aspect of New Zealand democracy, that kind of personal input into the halls of power is always a worthy undertaking.The budget itself will be revealed in three weeks on May 30th.Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In the lead-up to the Budget, Parliament goes over the head of the Government, asking the Governor General to add in some cash for Parliament's three watch-dogs.The Government's budget is decided by cabinet, after many months of work from the Minister of Finance, Treasury and individual ministries and agencies. But they don't get to make all the decisions. Before the budget gets presented Parliament gets the chance to add a few items itself, by-passing the Government (kind-of) to fund its own watch-dogs. Ultimately, it is Parliament that has the power to approve or reject the entire budget, but that decision is over something designed and proposed by government. This bit is different.These extra Appropriations are voted on by Parliament and presented separately. In fact they are made in the form of an Address to the Governor General, with details of funding for the Officers, to be added to the budget. (Fun fact, that address is a physical thing, not an email. It is printed on 'Goat Skin', which these days is just a high quality parchment rather than the former skin of a goat.) On Monday, the Leader of the House (who is the Government's senior representative in the debating chamber), moved that the House recommend two things to the Governor General. Both to do with three Parliamentary watch-dogs who keep an eye on government: The three Officers of Parliament are the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. They all report to Parliament as a whole (through Parliament's Speaker and the Officers of Parliament Committee) rather than to a particular minister or cabinet like other government entities.The first was updates to last year's Estimates for those watch dogs; i.e. their actual spend rather than their estimated spend. The second was their estimated spend for the coming year.This is all separate from the Government's own budget development process because these entities are designed to apply independent scrutiny to the Government's actions including use of public funds, legal accountability and environmental stewardship.Government's might feasibly find them to be a thorn in their side and desired to defund them. Or at the least the Officers could hold their punches in case that happened.The level of funding is determined (with input from Treasury) by by the Officers of Parliament Committee, a cross-party committee of MPs. That committee is chaired by the Speaker who is the nominal 'minister in charge' of the Officers. So today's motion doesn't come as a complete surprise to MPs.The Three Officers of Parliament Who are these three entities known as Officers of Parliament?…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

James Shaw's valedictory statement included thanks, humour, yarns, surprising allies, warnings and advice for MPs on avoiding the endless policy tug-of-war.In the last year or so Parliament has heard some unusually good valedictory speeches from a variety of outgoing MPs. Just a few weeks ago from Labour's Grant Robertson for example, or late last year from National's Todd Muller. This week it was former Green leader James Shaw. So on the Sunday edition of The House we featured highlights of James Shaw's farewell statement. The radio broadcast of audio highlights can be heard here. The full speech can be read below, and at the bottom of this article is an embedded video of the event.Hansard's record of the valedictory:Thank you - you haven't heard what I've got to say yet! Thank you, Speaker. E mihi ana ki ngā mana whenua ki tēnei rohe, a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, Tēnā koutou katoa. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Nga mihi nui kia koutou katoa. One night, during the course of the 2017 election campaign, I was so exhausted that I swallowed my tongue in my sleep, and I woke up- It didn't feel funny at the time. I woke up on the floor on my hands and knees, choking it back up.That was a difficult campaign. When Parliament rose for the six-week election period, I delivered the adjournment debate speech for the Green Party, and 10 minutes before I was due to speak, I got the news that the Colmar Brunton poll that night had us down 11 points. We were on 4 percent. It seemed likely at that point that I was about to become the last leader of the Green Party and to deliver the last speech by a Green Party MP in Parliament.Well, 12 weeks later, I was the Minister of Climate Change. I was on my way to Germany to the United Nations annual climate summit, but first I had to stop over in Rome to meet the Pope.Now, there isn't a roller coaster on this planet that comes close to the white-knuckle ride that is politics, and I am simultaneously saddened and elated to be leaving it. Actually, I am mostly elated to be leaving it. I've been in Parliament for 10 years, Green Party co-leader for nine, six as a Minister of the Crown, and I have to say it has not been easy to work out what it is that I want to say, here at the end of it all.There are a great many people to whom I owe a profound debt of gratitude. Sometimes, in these speeches, the acknowledgments come at the end, but I'm going to start with them, because if there is one thing that I want to express, it is gratitude…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week Parliament hosted both American and Ukrainian delegations. We chat with Galyna Mykhailiuk, who lead the visiting Ukrainian MPs.It's always news when the Prime Minister heads overseas, or a foreign leader arrives here. But prime ministers are comparative home-bodies. It's much more common for other ministers to travel. Collectively, even backbench MPs travel more than Prime Ministers. The backbenchers travel for many reasons, but most equate to either visiting other Parliaments or meeting groups of other countries' MPs.The reverse is even more common. Parliament hosts many MPs and politicians from other countries as guests. Most sitting weeks there are groups visiting from somewhere.This week, for example, a group of young American politicians from various institutions have been in town, and a delegation from the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada. A delegation of Ukrainian MPs brief the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. (Left to right) Olga Koval, Galyna Mykhailiuk and Laroslav Zhelezniak.The Ukrainian delegation has been a little different, with one of them being a Parliamentary representative of their President, and the Ambassador accompanying them as well. This has meant that while it has been a Parliamentary visit it has also had tones of a ministerial one. Certainly the MPs had messages to share from the wider Ukrainian government and people. Their busy week included meeting various ministers and MP groups, including a formal dinner as guests of the New Zealand Speaker. They also visited New Zealand Military trainers at Linton Camp (who have been training Ukrainian forces in the UK), and the Royal New Zealand Police College to learn from their training approach.I caught up with the delegation leader Galyna Mykhailiuk after they had briefed the Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee on Ukraine's current and future needs, and how New Zealand can contribute. You can listen to our chat at the link above or watch that select committee briefing here. https://vimeo.com/showcase/10758106/video/920194696RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

MPs listen to hundreds of Select Committee submissions. But occasionally, like Camilla Belich today, they get to sit on the other side of the table themselves.MPs listen to hundreds, even thousands of submissions from the public on bills and petitions, even on Parliament's own rules. It would not be surprising if backbench MPs' dreams featured an endless parade of proffered opinions.Very occasionally a backbench MP finds themselves on the other side of the table, getting to bend the ears of their colleagues.This Wednesday morning for example, in the Education and Workforce Committee, Labour Whip Camilla Belich got to be a submitter, the first to speak on a Member's Bill she adopted from former MP Ibrahim Omer. The Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill seeks to add a new criminal offence for employers who intentionally fail to pay owed wages to employees. After her 15 minute submission I asked Camilla Belich how it was to be on the other side of the table. "It is a different experience. I think one thing I would note is that it's quite hard to know how much time you've used. And so I would be probably be a bit kinder now to submitters when they go over because it's really hard to tell - it goes really quickly. What is an MP's objective in submitting on a bill they are sponsoring?"I have to convince them to allow the Bill to go forward and convince them that it's a worthy bill to have their support. and also the officials, to try and make sure that they understand the policy intent of the bill."Camilla Belich is also a member of this committee, and gets to keep on offering advice, staying in the room when they close the door and go into private session. Consideration is when the committee decides whether a bill needs amendments, and if so what.Ministers sponsor many government bills but never get a view behind the Select Committee curtain on their own work."Ministers don't get the opportunity to sit in select committees and be part of the determinations because we do have that separation. So it is a unique experience that a backbench Member of Parliament gets to do when they do have a member's bill.And often we'll sub someone on to the committee to be on there for the consideration of the bill. So even if it's not your committee, it's usually something that you get to do as part of that process."Ministers appear before committees to answer questions in Annual Review and Estimates hearings related to their plans and performance. They could also appear before committee to submit on all their own bills. …Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Annual Review Debate begins this week, when Parliament quizzes ministers about past performance. Kieran McAnulty explains...One of Parliament's big piece debates begins this week. The Annual Review Debate happens every year as the penultimate stage of a long review of prior government spending and performance (for the financial year ended almost a year previously). It will stretch across 10 hours and give the opposition a chance to question a line -up of government ministers about their portfolios. This questioning is a follow-up to months of hearings in the subject specialist select committees.One of the people managing it in the House (from the Opposition point of view), is the Shadow Leader of the House, Labour MP Kieran McAnulty. Phil Smith chats with him about the event. Labour MP and Shadow Leader of the House, Kieran McAnulty in the debating chamber.Kieran McAnulty - The Standing Orders give some scope to ask questions about current work programs as well, so it's not entirely looking backwards. But that remains a big part of it. The annual review debate is interesting, because it's time-limited. And there's a process beforehand where the Opposition registers their interest in certain topics with the Government. And the convention is that the Government will try and accommodate that, but is not really required to fully, but on the whole they do. And so we've gone through that process. Phil Smith - When you say the topics, you mean, which ministers are going to turn up around? Yeah, that's right. So the Minister of Finance, Minister of Environment, etc, etc. Associate ministers will be in the house as well during that allocated time period. And if there is a question directed to them, or they are the more appropriate person to answer it, then they can do so from their seat. Whereas the minister, the lead minister, is usually sitting at the Table.This is the Committee stage debate of the Appropriations (which means budget) Confirmation and Validation Bill, which is the one that sort of ties up all the loose ends on the budget, before the budget. In a committee stage, the Minister responsible for a bill always sits at the table, and is available to answer questions. Well, you know, hopefully answer questions. But then this is like one of those except it's a whole range of ministers. Yeah, I can understand why it has been set up this way. It's so that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinize the areas that it has expressed an interest in. And then certain time allocations are given to ministers. So that this time limited debate can be efficiently run…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Over the last six years, parliament's clerks have had to vet about 40,000 written questions each year. So how are written questions used and what are the democratic benefits?Over the last six years, Parliament's clerks have had to vet about 40,000 written questions each year. A written question - from an opposition MP to a minister - is a commonly used tool in Parliament, but not well-known outside political circles.They are not as familiar to the public as the more theatrical and confrontational oral question, as asked during Question Time. Written questions exist in the shadow of their oral cousins. You can find them published on Parliament's website: both question and - when it is given - the answer alongside it. So how are written questions used and what are the democratic benefits? Ginny AndersenDrilling downOpposition MP Ginny Andersen of the Labour Party says the written question is a great tool for holding the government to account. One of the benefits is that there is no limit as to how many questions an MP can lodge. In terms of what they are about, being factual is the key concern."You look for a range of different sources: it might be a report in the media; it could be a statement the minister's made; it may be something they've even said in an oral question that you'd like to drill down a bit further and get some additional information."It's really important that it's based on fact, and you also need to verify where you've got your source from."It can be helpful to consider the written question as part of a set of questioning tools used by MPs to keep tabs on the Government."So the three main tools would be the Official Information Act and putting our question through that way; and then once you've got a pile of information from the OIA then you would look further with written parliamentary questions. And then when you've got an area you think is of high interest (in the public interest, to hold the government to account), that would be when you put up an oral parliamentary question," Andersen explains.Browsing through the list of written questions on Parliament's website, you will see groups of questions by an MP to the same minister, a sequence of related interrogations on a common subject (such as a statement, a meeting or a policy). Is the written question format just a fishing expedition?"It can be. You usually have a general direction that you think you're wanting to head in," Andersen says…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The latest from the House Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

MPs have some of the highest pressure jobs in New Zealand, and the stressors aren't always what you might think. So does anyone help them carry the load, and how do they personally cope?We all know that Members of Parliament have a job that comes with a great deal of pressure. Mentally, it can be tough going, and sometimes this results in MPs making mistakes that can unravel not just their career but the work they have done along the way too.In this piece, The House speaks to several experienced Members of Parliament to gauge what mental health support, pastoral care or mentoring is available to help MPs cope with the strain. AwarenessAmong his portfolios, the National MP Matt Doocey is the Minister for Mental Health, a newly created role. A background of his own journey with mental health issues, as well as having worked in mental health before coming to Parliament, has helped him reach a particular level of awareness about how to recognise and manage issues that crop up.Not everyone was comfortable talking about it, but awareness of mental health issues in the workplace at Parliament had come a long way in recent years, Doocey suggested."In a way we are not too dissimilar to many workplaces that are grappling with the issues around wellbeing and better mental health. I'm of the age that I can remember a time in workplaces where you were probably told to leave your personal issues at the door when you went to work, and people weren't interested in what was happening with your life outside of work. "But now we see quite the opposite, where it is expected that there is a level of understanding around how we support people's wellbeing at work and maybe the pressures they are facing."For MPs, their workload can feel overwhelming at times: the long hours spent on the job, the sense of responsibility, and the turmoil of electorate work. Throw in ministerial portfolios and frequent media interactions, then pressures can build substantially.MPs have some avenues available for help in the system. A first port of call that an MP can go to is usually the party whip (or musterer, as the Green Party calls it). Doocey was a whip for National when it was in opposition last term."It's sort of like an operational management job, you work with the individuals and your caucus like a team, and help support them to understand where they need to deliver, but also there's a pastoral care side as well. And quite often either the whip or senior MPs can be supporting other MPs about issues they're facing," he said. …Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It was a sitting block of just one week but it had its share of surprises, routine stuff and signs of a changing culture around scrutiny at committee level. Even in a sitting block of only one week a lot goes on in Parliament, this one just finished having its share of surprises, routine stuff and signs of a changing culture around scrutiny at committee level. So much lawmaking has happened in a short time this year at Parliament that it's possible for us to forget some of the huge amount of legislation passed under urgency in recent months. The four week sitting block across February and March, the first since 2018, may have finally done our heads in. But whether for long or short blocks, The House is here to help. Here's a wrap of our week's episodes in the audio available below:At Parliament, some of the most interesting and unexpected debates occur on Members' Days. Those alternate Wednesdays when the House debates bills put forward by backbenchers - rather than ministers from the government. There was genuine surprise when the ACT and New Zealand First parties voted for Green Party MP Tuiono's Member's Bill at its first reading. Meanwhile, a fascinating debate illuminating philosphical divides in the Parliament during the first reading of soon-to-retire Green MP James Shaw's Member's Bill seeking to amend the Bill of Rights Act 1990 to provide for the right to a sustainable environment.Among the list of submitters and subjects for this week's select committee hearings at Parliament, the Auditor-General's office featured often. The Auditor-General is one of the three Officers of Parliament, entities who have a particular job to hold the government to account. The Auditor-General has a busy working relationship with Parliament that is set to deepen with the new provisions for extra scrutiny of government that stem from the last Parliament's Standing Orders review. The Speaker has begun steering ministerial answers away from outright attacks on the previous government, and towards answers. Of course this is something the previous government also did. The road to positivity for new governments is long and difficult. But this week's Question Time exchanges found Gerry Brownlee inviting MPs asking questions to experience "a think-on-your-feet moment".Also this week, first readings and referral to the Māori Affairs Committee of Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill, while the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill was read a second time.RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Members Day this week had it all: surprise votes, big and niche issues, success and failure. A bill from a retiring MP led to an environmental rights debate which included gaping philosophical divides and a parting shot.Some of the Parliament's most interesting and unexpected debates occur on Members' Days - the alternate Wednesdays when the House debates bills put forward by backbenchers, rather than government ministers.Members Bills range widely, originating from across the parties, and bringing a wider subject range and a broader scope of political philosophy. They sometimes deal with ideas a government might be nervous to champion, or which are so specific no government would quite get around to them. Listen to a report on this week's members bills from The House This week's members day included examples of all the above, some unexpected voting, and an unsuccessful attempt at a final legislative hurrah from former Green Party co-leader James Shaw. The successful billsThe unexpected voting happened on two bills. The Greens surprised National's Stuart Smith with their support during the second reading debate of his bill easing cellar-door tasting rules. The bill isn't done yet, but is finding pretty wide support. It's an example of a niche issue unlikely to catch a government's attention. The second unexpected voting was on Green MP Teanau Tuiono's bill which was agreed to by every party except the National Party. It would reinstate the possibility of New Zealand citizenship for some now quite elderly Samoans who had their citizenship unilaterally removed by a law passed back in 1982. Unusually that debate was watched by a visiting delegation of Samoan MPs, including the Speaker of Samoa's parliament. That bill will now go to a select committee for public feedback, which I suspect might be both fascinating and emotional. There was also a small fixit bill from Labour MP Greg O'Connor, which will add more specificity to the requirements made on child sex offender overseas travel reporting. That had unanimous support. A parting shot: Environment v EconomyThe most divergent debate was on James Shaw's bill, which was attempting a first reading. James Shaw had delayed his political retirement to be able to speak on it. It would add another right to those guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights (an aspect of New Zealand's constitution). That "everyone has the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment." James Shaw said that around "about 80 percent of countries around the world already recognise this right in their domestic legal systems" …Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The work of the Auditor-General's office features often in this week's select committee hearings at Parliament, and for good reason.Among the list of submitters and subjects for this week's select committee hearings at Parliament, the Auditor-General's office features often.The Auditor-General is one of the three Officers of Parliament, entities who have a particular job to hold the government to account. As this week's committee action shows, the Auditor-General has a busy working relationship with Parliament that is set to deepen with the new provisions for extra scrutiny of government that stem from the last Parliament's Standing Orders review. The Auditor-General's work provides Parliament with an independent view of how public organisations are operating. And there are a lot of them to keep an eye on: every single public service entity.Watchdog"There are about four-thousand, and a good two and a half of those are schools. So that's a very wide range, says Mark Evans, the Auditor-General's Director Sector Engagement, Parliamentary Group."From small entities like schools and cemetery boards to the very large departments like MBIE and MPI and other large crown entities."What the Auditor-General's office looks at is not simply the financial information."So the financial statements, assurance that money is being spent as it should be, but also what's being achieved with that money. So how do we know if it's being spent as it was supposed to, but also what's the result."In order to gauge the effectiveness of public organisations, the Auditor-General's office has many inquiries and reports on the go at any one time. Often these reports are considered by MPs in relevant select committees, or the Auditor-General's staff come to Parliament to discuss their findings with the committees.For example, this week, the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been considering an Auditor-General's report titled 'Making infrastructure investment decisions quickly'; the Governance and Administration committee digested the Auditor-General's 'Insights into local government 2021' report as well as its report into the Auckland Council's preparedness for responding to an emergency; meanwhile the Economic Development, Science and Innovation committee is tomorrow due to hear from Auditor-General officers about their General Inquiry into Callaghan Innovation's procurement process.Enhanced scrutiny…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Speaker has begun steering ministerial answers away from outright attacks on the previous government, and towards answers. The road to positivity for new governments is long and difficult.When the government changes from one party to another, you might expect that party's refrain would also switch, that the once-opposition, now-government MPs would suddenly go positive - singing of new happy times. Equally, you'd think was-government, now-opposition MPs would flip into dour mode. But neither happen, at least not for a long while. Both sides tend to stay partially stuck in their prior mode. This behaviour is especially obvious from an incoming government, and in the debating chamber.For example, on Tuesday the Prime Minister was asked in Question Time whether his government's newly announced truancy policy had been approved by cabinet yet.He responded: "Well, as I said, we have an ambitious government, and that is fantastic because what we observed over the last six years was a government that spent more, borrowed more, taxed more, and delivered worse outcomes. Your government had six years. You did very little; you failed at it. What we're doing is declaring nine key targets - two in the education space - we're marching hard towards it, and every quarter, we're going to be doing things to make sure we make progress on it."Not so much an answer as an excoriation with a vaguely relevant affirmation tacked on.New governments spend months, if not years, largely sticking to their oppositional refrain and attacking the previous crew. This is not new. You might remember in 2017 (when a Labour-led government took the reins), just how often the 'nine long years' mantra was repeated in reference to their predecessors. The new, National-led government, has also held tightly onto their opposition mindset.This is evident in various places, but most obviously during Question Time where it serves other purposes as well. The attack-posing-as-an-answer is a common approach in Question Time, but it is obviously beginning to try some MP's patience. After a number of questions to the Prime Minister where he had received similar replies, the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, complained to the Speaker about this approach…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Petitions to Parliament don't always result in a change to law or policy as intended, but they can be an effective way of the public getting a message to those in power. A petition can be an effective way for the public to get the attention of Parliament, and it doesn't necessarily need lots of signatures. It's not often that a petition to Parliament results in a law change, but changes can occur as a result of MPs considering a petition and digesting submissions on the topic. It's a journey that the petitioner invites MPs and the wider community to join them on, and sometimes it can venture quite far into the territory of Parliamentary process. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer alongside other MPs holds the Dawn Raids petition after co-petitioners Josiah Tualamali'i (left) and Benji Timu (behind her) presented it on the steps of Parliament, 21 June 2021. When it was first established as a specialist committee in the last Parliament, the Petitions Committee considered about 430 petitions in that 53rd Parliament. About half of these resulted in a basic report to Parliament by the committee; roughly a quarter were referred to other committees; and about 20 were referred to a government minister for response. Regarding previous Parliaments, in the 52nd Parliament, 240 petitions were reported back by select committees; in the 51st, 144; and in the 50th, 114.A select few petitions have resulted in a Special Debate by Parliament. The relatively new provision of Special Debates offers MPs the opportunity to speak about other issues that aren't immediately about legislation, relating for instance to some of the areas that committees have been working on and reported back to the House about, things that otherwise wouldn't be debated.Mobility ParkingLast month a Special Debate was held on a petition that had been presented two years earlier, requesting that Parliament change the law to substantially increase fines for misuse of mobility parking spaces, including on privately-owned land that is used publicly, and urging the government to run an education campaign to desist able-bodied people from misusing mobility parking spaces for public use. The petitioner, Claire Dale, faced numerous hurdles in getting traction with her petition, from launching on the day of a Covid-19 lockdown, to pandemic disruptions, to trying to present the petition when Parliament grounds were occupied by anti-vaccine mandate protestors. In the end the petition had a few thousand signatures…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

As he departs from Parliament, Grant Roberson outlines the skills and requirements for being a successful MP, and what he would replace Question Time with.One of Parliament's natural orators has left the building after nearly 16 years as an MP. A lot of Parliamentary experience and skill has departed with him. So RNZ's parliament show, The House, made an attempt to catch some tips. On his final day at Parliament, as his office was about to be packed away, Robertson sat with me in Labour's caucus room to talk MP skills. He's a good man to ask. Yes, he's a former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister but he also shone in the House - politics' gladiatorial ring.After his valedictory the previous evening MPs from across the House were buzzing. "Did you hear that?" one Nat said as I passed him in the hall, "What a great speech." He was right, it was. Funny, touching, thoughtful and punchy. Introducing that final outing, the Speaker, a long time political foe, described Robertson as a 'great parliamentarian'."That does mean a lot to me", he says of that descriptor. He also likes that it highlights a key facet of the role, sometimes overlooked. "Ultimately the job title is Member of Parliament. And the debating chamber is where we do the heavy lifting of that job. That does mean a lot to me. And I've always enjoyed the debating chamber particularly. That might have come through," he adds with a chuckle. On public speakingIt's clear that Robertson was in his element speaking in the chamber, but he wasn't instantly comfortable. "It's not like it all clicked into place straight away" he admits. He still remembers the first proper speech he gave (his maiden speech). "I did think I was going to faint"."I always tell school kids that when I was their age, I either wanted to be a lawyer or an actor, and now I get to be both.""I've always enjoyed debating and public speaking. And I think they are pretty important skills; and being an MP, if you don't have them, you are going to struggle. But for me, I was fortunate that I had a bit of that coming in, and so felt comfortable talking."It helped that he'd worked in Parliament before becoming an MP, had been a keen observer of Parliamentary Debate, and had written speeches for other people to deliver in the House. "And so I guess I had an idea of how that side of the job worked. And I enjoyed it. And I think fundamentally, if you enjoy something, you'll often end up looking like you're quite good at it."On speech writing …Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

A look at the tactics of primary questions during Question Time, with help from Grant Robertson, Judith Collins and Gerry Brownlee.Question Time is one of the most public (though probably not most effective), ways that Parliament keeps an eye on the actions of its chosen executive.But watching them try can be both confusing and frustrating as questions are repeated, evaded, avoided and ruled outside the rules.Questioners tactics vary wildly, but never so much as whether to start wide, or go in narrow and early. In this article (and audio - below) retiring MP Grant Robertson reflects on his approach, what works when, why MPs change their tactics and the impact of the Speaker. We also look at how tactical opinions change when an MP moves across the House, and at the role and approach of the Speaker. General versus specific primary questionsDiscussion of Question Time usually alludes to general or specific primary questions. A primary question is the first of a series of questions that an MP asks - usually of a minister.A general primary question is usually a version of: "Does he stand by all his statements and actions". They are incredibly common.Specific primary questions vary enormously, but as an example on Thursday 28th March Priyanca Radhakrishnan asked the minister for Disability Issues the very specific question: "Did the reports she received from Whaikaha that she referred to in her answer to question No. 4 yesterday contain figures of those who used disability support funding for pedicures and massages, or did they just contain anecdotal evidence?" They can be a lot shorter. For example, while chasing the same issue the previous day, Chris Hipkins asked the Prime Minister: "Does he have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues?"The ministers answering questions get a few hours warning of what the primary question will be, when the day's primary questions are published here. Pros and Cons of general versus specific primary questionsBoth approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The general opening question approach gives very little warning of what the follow-up questions (supplementaries) will ask about; which makes it much harder to prepare good answers. But, with less warning and less preparation there is usually more leeway given by the Speaker in deciding whether the answers suffice. General openers may allow much more waffly and unspecific answers (though Speaker's expectations vary enormously). Specific primaries give prior warning so ministers should come better prepared and MPs would hope, be held to a higher standard of answers. Sometimes they are. Grant Robertson in full flight during his valedictory speech…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The principle that all MPs are honourable and that they should be taken at their word has been tested multiple times this week in Parliament.One of the foundational principles of Parliament is that all MPs are honourable and that they should be taken at their word.However, the word of MPs has been challenged multiple times this week in the House, and Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee used a flexible approach when issue was raised about it.During an exchange in Question Time the Opposition's Barbara Edmonds asked Finance Minister Nicola Willis if she agreed with former prime minister John Key that "her commitment to fully fund her tax changes through Public Service cuts is too hard and risks plunging the country into discontent, as reported by the New Zealand Herald?"In response, Willis said Key would be very unhappy that his comments were being mis-characterised. "I would put to her that we should have honour in this House with comments that we make and how we represent others," Willis said.At this, Labour's Kieran McAnulty raised a point of order, reminding the Speaker that MPs take fellow members by their word. "Barbara Edmonds was quoting John Key. If the minister disagrees with that, she should say so. She should not be questioning the honour of members in this House in order to respond to a fair question," McAnulty said. Labour MP Barbara EdmondsIt's one thing for an MP to challenge how something is characterised by a fellow MP, but quite another to bring their honour into doubt in the process. The Speaker agreed that all members elected to this House are considered honourable members, and that Willis' reference was problematic, saying a "withdrawal and apology for the reference to the dishonourable nature of members would be helpful to the whole House". Willis withdrew and apologised.Unparliamentary languageA presiding officer can direct a member to withdraw and apologise for their comment if it's deemed to be unparliamentary language. Unparliamentary language can include offensive words or references to a member's private affairs, imputations of improper motives against another MP, accusations of racism or lying.Implying that an MP is lying is considered one of the worst offences, being an offence not just against the MP it's directed at but the whole House.Today though, during general debate, opposition MP Duncan Webb raised a point of order when MPs on the government benches interjected, shouting that his fellow Labour MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan was "making it up". Webb said this "must be an unparliamentary remark". Brownlee's response drew laughs…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week's sitting of Parliament began with two finance bills that have deadlines attached.Parliament's sitting calendar sometimes looks a little random, but the calendar can be forced into odd shapes by legislative deadlines. This week's sitting began with two bills with such deadlines attached.First up was the second reading of the bill that contains the final tally of government spending from the financial year that ended eight months ago (July 2023). The Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill is one of the harbingers of a new budget about to arrive. Deadline bill 1: A wrap on past spendingTuesday saw the second reading (with no debate, as always), of the spending wrap-up. The House keeps its powder dry for the next stage, the committee stage, when it spends 10 hours grilling a roster of ministers over their department's performances in what is called the Annual Review Debate. (Note that the grilling will not necessarily relate to the 2022/23 year, and the ministers under fire won't have been in charge for that spending).The Annual Review Debate must be completed before the new budget is announced, so it kinda needs to start soon. Deadline bill 2: Tax law just in time for the year's endThe second bill to begin this week - and this one is always debated - is even more urgent. It needs to pass by the end of the week. Now that's a real deadline. That is presumably also why Parliament is sitting this week and not the week after Easter. That would be too late. This bill needs to complete the committee stage and third reading. Committee stages have no fixed time limit so the government has set aside an extra Wednesday morning sitting - just in case. (Just as well, as it turns out - the bill filled out both Tuesday night and Wednesday morning).The Taxation (Annual Rates... etc) bill is an annual event, and is always left until pretty close to the deadline. It is the setting of the tax rates for the financial year about to end. Which is pretty momentous by itself, but it is also always a huge list of other tweaks and fixes and adjustments to dozens of tax measures. This year's version of the bill is called the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. It includes measures on flood payouts, on disability beneficiary trusts, on multinationals and on and on. It's an omnibus bill, meaning it will amend more than one existing law. In this case, it's tinkering with eight of them, with over 90 sections of details. It makes you realise that to be a good tax lawyer must be to live inside an almost permanent professional refresher course, as you try to chase an endlessly moving target. …Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This weekly edition looks at thresholds: regarding what gets the nod for Urgent Debates, and also what it's like being a List MP on the cusp of Parliament.In this weekly edition of The House, we look at thresholds, or how things make or don't make the cut, in two aspects of the Parliament system.Urgent debatesUrgent debates are much requested by MPs of the Speaker, but seldom approved. An unsuccessful ruling this week on a request by Labour for an Urgent Debate on disability funding, offered no signal that they won't be even less frequent in future.Parliament's rules provide that the Speaker can allow for an Urgent Debate to take place if it meets three criteria: It must be a debate on "a particular case of recent occurrence", it must be a matter of administrative or ministerial responsibility, and it must "require the immediate attention of the House and the Government."Over the previous five parliaments only 17.8% of requests were allowed. So far this Parliament, five urgent debates have been requested - and five have been denied, including one this week.A full report on this story from earlier in the week can be read here.List cuspThe other matter about thresholds relates to list MPs trying to make it into Parliament on the cusp of their party's vote result in a fluid post-election configuration, those who become a virtual prisoner to the vagaries of MMP. Among the new and re-elected MPs who got into Parliament after October's general election, there are at least two who had to first endure a period of waiting and uncertainty.On election night, Labour MP Tracey McLellan lost her Banks Peninsula electorate seat in a tight race. Initially it seemed she would get in anyway, via the Labour party list; however other results changed as the special votes came in, so she was out. She then teetered on the edge of Parliament for almost three months, until Rino Tirakatene retired and she moved up the list and back into Parliament to replace him.Celia Wade-Brown of the Green Party knows well about hanging around while waiting for special votes to come. After all, that's how she became Mayor of Wellington in 2010. Although she didn't quite get into Parliament after special votes were processed following October's election, her opportunity came in January, and she found out while mountain-biking on Makara Peak.A full report on this story from earlier in the week can be read here.RNZ's The House - journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights - is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The Health Select Committee has been digesting the Auditor-General's report on how well public organisations are working to meet the mental health needs of young people.Parliament's health select committee has been digesting the auditor-general's report on how well public organisations are working together to meet the mental health needs of young New Zealanders.The auditor-general's work includes inquiring into how public organisations are operating, and it also watches how public money is spent. Its findings offer an independent view that can inform Parliament and the public.In its report, 'Meeting the mental health needs of young New Zealanders', the auditor-general concluded that "a more youth-focussed, integrated, and coherent system of care is required to meet young people's mental health needs". "Mental health is the biggest issue facing young New Zealanders today" - Leanne McAvineyAuditor-General's interestYou may be wondering why the auditor-general probed this area. The assistant auditor-general of sector performance Leanne McAviney, who came to talk to the committee along with a couple of colleagues, gave a helpful answer."Mental health is the biggest issue facing young New Zealanders today," she said. "It affects people's ability to participate in education, work or just to cope with the challenges that come with that transition into adulthood. And the costs of inaction to support youth mental health are high."McAviney said early and effective intervention was linked to a range of positive outcomes.Those included improved achievement in education, increased lifelong earnings and greater life expectancy."So our office has a deep interest in this matter and has a continuing interest in how well government agencies work together to address some of the country's most complex challenges, and this is one of them. Our work examining the response to family violence and sexual violence is another example."Report's main findingsFour key findings from the report were shared with the health select committee by the senior performance auditor Dr Rachel Patrick."First, many young people in distress can't access the support they need, when and where they need it. So we've seen government investment into new primary level mental health services and that is making a difference in making primary mental health care more available to young people. Yet at the same time, we're seeing growth in waiting lists at the specialists end of the system, so for children and young people in particular," Patrick said…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Urgent Debates are granted or denied by Speakers. Most are denied. This week a Speaker's ruling moved the goal posts for that allowance, a lot.If you're familiar with stories from The House you'll know that we regularly mention that, against all appearances, governments in New Zealand are subordinate to parliaments. You might even say we bang on about it. To recap: Parliament has a variety of jobs. It provides an executive, it passes laws, permits and approves revenue and spending, and generally keeps a close eye on what that executive (the government) gets up to. Government's in their turn, often seem to struggle with this arrangement. They often forget they're not the boss and regularly resent or avoid scrutiny. It's an eternal tug-of-war. The Beehive wrapped up by its big brother, Parliament. There are many ways that Parliament attempts to maintain reasonable scrutiny of the Executive, for example by asking thousands of written questions (which are mostly answered by the government ministries). Also by asking oral questions, though some executive members have new and creative definitions for 'answer'.A lot of oversight is done via select committee processes. Particularly the regular Estimates and Annual Reviews processes, which are mammoth undertakings.There are also the usual debates and discussions in the House, and occasional extras like ministerial statements and urgent debates.The rare debateThis article is about that last category - the urgent debate. Much requested, seldom approved and given a ruling this week, maybe even less frequent in future.Parliament's rules especially allow for Urgent Debates to be requested so long as the Speaker agrees the proposal meets three criteria: It must be "a particular case of recent occurrence", it must be a matter of administrative or ministerial responsibility, and it must "require the immediate attention of the House and the Government."In short, it must be recent, be the government's problem, and be worth the time.Urgent debates are requested a lot more often than they are allowed. Over the previous five parliaments only 17.8% of requests were allowed. Some Speakers are more generous than others so the per parliament numbers vary quite a lot. The graph below gives numbers by parliament, not by Speaker. The Speakership changed hands mid-parliament in January 2013 (Lockwood Smith replaced by David Carter), and in August 2022 (Trevor Mallard replaced by Adrian Rurawhe). …Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Due to vagaries of the MMP system, some list MPs must endure a period of waiting and uncertainty before they can enter Parliament.Have you ever wondered what it's like to be a List MP sitting and waiting on the cusp of your party's vote result in a fluid post-election configuration? It can be touch and go.Among the MPs elected to Parliament after October's general election, there are a few list MPs who first endured a period of waiting and uncertainty due to the vagaries of the MMP system.On election night, Labour MP Tracey McLellan lost her Banks Peninsula electorate seat in a tight race. Initially it seemed she would get in anyway, via the Labour party list; however other results changed as the special votes came in, so she was out. She then teetered on the edge of Parliament for almost three months, until Rino Tirakatene retired and she moved up the list and back into Parliament to replace him."I knew I was in a position that was touch and go, and also I had to go through that waiting for specials which took another three weeks. Initially I was elected on the list, so post-election night I was in, and then other results flipped so then I wasn't. So it was quite a roller coaster of in-out-in," McLellan said."But that's okay, it's part of democracy, that's what happens and you've got to be prepared to roll with it. We don't have that security, because we're putting ourselves out there. It's a precarious position to be in at the best of times."Despite mixed emotions after the election, McLellan said it was a chance to take some time to figure out how to feel about things. After the intensity of an election campaign, a few weeks away from politics can be therapeutic, whether resting by the sea or getting back into a rhythm with something else."I did go back to work for a bit, but only because there was some tasks that needed to be done and I thought well rather than hang around and wait I can go back and do that," she said."The New Zealand Nurses Organisation, which is where I worked beforehand, just so happened, over Christmas period, there were some things that they needed an extra pair of hands, and I said 'well, I've got that'. So it was good to get back into a routine." Celia Wade-Brown of the Green Party knows well about hanging around while waiting for special votes to come. After all, that's how she became Mayor of Wellington in 2010, although she had a more decisive win in 2013…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details