Sir Geoffrey Palmer gives evidence to the Parliament Bill Select Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Parliament is currently considering a bill about itself, and this week heard the first public submissions on it.
The Parliament Bill consolidates existing parliamentary legislation, somewhat isolates funding decisions from the executive, provides Parliamentary security with statutory powers, and other changes.
The first day of public hearings for the Parliament Bill delivered a number of thematically recurrent suggestions from experts and the public, especially on parliamentary privilege (which we will look at separately), on security, and on the funding of parliament's agencies.
The House For Sun 10 Nov 2024
These first oral submissions followed earlier written submissions from: the New Zealand Law Society, the Public Service Association, former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, lawyer Graeme Edgeler, and a 16-year-old student from Onslow College, Ezra Shaw.
Public submissions are crucial to improving bills before they become law, preventing accidental mistakes and unintended consequences.
For example, Shaw pointed out that the bill currently appears to unintentionally disempower the waka-jumping provisions of the Electoral Act.
Ezra Shaw makes his submission, while behind him the former prime minister, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, awaits his turn. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
On Parliament's security
The background:
The Parliament Service includes a security team which manages security for both the precinct and electorate offices, however those staff have no special legislated authority. They cannot arrest, detain, search or seize. If a situation warrants getting 'hands-on' they need to call the police.
Parliament often has police present, but they are usually not there to secure Parliament - they are members of the Dignitary Protection Service who offer security for the prime minister and governor-general (and others as needed).
The bill proposes:
The Parliament Bill would give Parliament's security personnel some limited authority, similar to that held by court security personnel. This includes statutory powers of search, seizure, and detention, and immunities arising from appropriate execution of their duty for parliamentary security officers.
Submitters suggest:
- That parliament's current security officers were not employed with this level of authority (or potential physicality) in mind and so might need to be rethought.
- That actual police would be more appropriate for this kind of work.
- That Parliament's security cannot be based on that of courts, which seldom have thousands of protesters arrive at their doorstep.
- Whether Parliament even should have the ability to directly fine or detain people.
- Whether actual police might be more appropriate than a security team with semi-police powers.
Sir Geoffrey noted that the bill appeared to have been completed prior to the 2022 occupation of Parliament. He boggled that the security aspects of the Parliament Bill had not been rethought and reworked since that incident.
"That was a disgraceful thing that the Parliament should not have tolerated ... if it recurred - and we live in uncertain times - then you really have to have nailed it. And I don't think this bill does that."
Sir Geoffrey Palmer gives evidence to the Parliament Bill Select Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
On funding Parliament
The background:
The current funding levels for Parliament's secretariat (the Office of the Clerk) and administration (the Parliamentary Service) are determined by the government as part of the annual Budget process.
This is inconsistent with the idea of parliamentary supremacy, and Parliament's responsibility to hold governments to account. Governments can currently strangle Parliament's capacity to carry out oversight, and funding has been measly under successive governments (though not with any obvious intent).
"It is quite inappropriate for the executive branch of government to exert control over the legislative branch of government. It is wrong," Sir Geoffrey said.
The bill proposes:
Budgets for Parliamentary agencies would be determined by a cross-party committee of MPs and approved by the wider House (similar to the funding of the officers of Parliament).
Submitters propose:
Some submitters pointed out that governments would still have majority control of both that committee and the House, so the bill does not really fix the problem, it only appears to.
Submitters suggested an entirely independent body, similar to the Higher Remuneration Authority, should set the funding for Parliament's agencies.
As it happens, the Remuneration Authority has also submitted, though not on this issue. I expect it might be asked about this proposal regardless.
Notable quote:
"When I came to this Parliament and became the deputy Leader of the Opposition, there was a minister in charge of the legislative department, and that minister decreed that I should not be having any furniture in my office that the Clerk of the House had recommended, and he wouldn't approve it. There is no minister of the legislative department now, and that is why." - Sir Geoffrey Palmer. (That minister was Robert Muldoon, in case you were wondering).
Sir Geoffrey Palmer gives evidence to the Parliament Bill Select Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
On staffing Parliament to cope
Sir Geoffrey took the opportunity to exhort the MPs to think more widely about Parliament's structure and function, especially how understaffed Parliament is.
"MPs are drastically overworked. They do not have time to carry out all the manifold duties they have. We've already had discussion here today about the pressures on them, especially with young families, it is acute, and you do need more support. And the way to fix it is to have a lot more MPs than we've got."
A greater number of MPs would help with a second issue he identified with Parliament's functioning, he said.
"The auditor general said as recently as June of this year that the executive is loading far too much legislation up onto the Parliament, and it cannot cope with it. Now, you may find this contrary to the range of what the bill is about. But I am saying to you, if you want a permanent ability to have good legislation, think it through and get the Parliament to work as well as it can. And it has got quite a way to go in that respect, in my opinion."
He is not wrong. MPs are pushed incredibly hard, and there are simply not enough of them to do their jobs effectively (especially in effectively holding governments to account). However, collectively they seem terrified of fixing that problem, for fear that trying to run the country is something the public will hold against them. They may be right.
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.