1. NATHAN GUY to the Prime Minister: What steps has the Government recently taken to help ease the sharpest impacts of the current recession and prepare New Zealand’s economy for future growth?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
3. DAVID GARRETT to the Minister of Corrections: What cost savings can be achieved through building pre-fabricated modular units to house prisoners, and when can we expect to see the first pre-fabricated prison in place and occupied by criminals?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has she received on current and projected unemployment rates in New Zealand?
5. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service: How many current members of Parliament does the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service maintain personal files on?
6. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister of Transport: Does he support the statement in the Speech from the Throne that “of particular focus will be the development of new roading and public transport projects”; if so, why?
7. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What comments has the Minister seen following the Government’s announcement last week to provide assistance to small and medium businesses?
8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Labour: What will be the gain in real income per week, adjusted for inflation since 1 April 2008, of a full-time worker on the minimum wage, as a result of the Government’s decision on the 2009 minimum wage increase?
9. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking before the next general election to improve the law governing campaign finance?
10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister of Justice: What reports, if any, has he received on funding for community law centres?
11. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has the Government made in meeting the confidence and supply agreement that “National and ACT agree to promote investment, jobs, wages, employment and prosperity, as well as environmental improvement, through amendments to the RMA.”?
12. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister of Tourism: Does he agree with the statement that there needs to be “short-term steps” to “reduce the impact of the international credit crunch on the tourism sector so it is strongly placed to achieve growth”, if so, why?

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Questions to Ministers Read the rest of this entry »

From the Parliament TV website: “This morning His Excellency the Governor-General, Hon Anand Satyanand PCNZM, QSO, came to Parliament House to deliver the Speech from the Throne in a ceremony known as the State Opening of Parliament. His Excellency was greeted on the forecourt by the Mana Whenua and a tri-service guard of honour gave the Royal salute. There was also a 21-gun salute from Point Jerningham while the Governor-General inspected the guard of honour. He was then led into Parliament House by the Usher of the Black Rod. After His Excellency took his seat in the Legislative Council Chamber, he sent the Usher of the Black Rod to the Debating Chamber to summon the members of the House of Representatives. The door of the Debating Chamber is traditionally locked on this occasion. This is to prevent interference in House proceedings by the Sovereign. Black Rod knocked on the door before being recognised and admitted. Read the rest of this entry »

“Live coverage of the Commission opening of Parliament. This begins with the arrival of Her Majesty’s Commissioners (three senior judges) to declare Parliament open. Read the rest of this entry »

As predicted here two weeks ago, the prime minister has announced that a constitutional review will begin in early 2010, while a referendum on MMP is expected in 2011. Other constitutional issues also need considering, including the future of the Maori seats and the relationship between parliament and the courts, but this is an appeal for us to consider that most unpopular of proposals: more MPs, in the form of an Upper House. Bear with me.

When New Zealand moved to MMP in 1993, one of the main motivations was to put a brake on the excesses of the mid 1980s and early ’90s. People were dismayed that proposals could be whipped up one week, rushed through Cabinet the next, drafted as legislation in days and then rammed through parliament under urgency before anyone quite knew what was going on. One of the worst offenders was Sir Geoffrey Palmer, but even he came to lament that New Zealand’s parliament had become “the fastest lawmakers in the West”. As well as wanting a more representative parliament, MMP supporters hoped the new system would lead to a more deliberative and reflective style of lawmaking.

Fat chance. While MMP has certainly made our parliament far more representative of contemporary New Zealand, it has failed dismally in improving our lawmaking practices. In fact, things have arguably become even worse, with deal-making among parties leading to new clauses being bashed out, often with errors in them, right to the bitter end.

MMP did nothing to stop the previous government from ramming through outrageous legislation like the pledge-card validation and the Foreshore & Seabed and Electoral Finance acts. With the emissions trading scheme, former climate change minister David Parker had the gall to ram through 1,000 amendments just the day before the bill was passed, making it unsurprising that it must now be fixed.

An Upper House would not necessarily stop such bills from being passed, but the Lower House would know that if it supported rushed or outrageous legislation, it would not quietly be passed into law, but would be subject to further review and criticism by its more distinguished superiors.

A uniquely New Zealand model might be closer to the British House of Lords than the Australian or American senates. Our New Zealand Upper House could have strong Maori representation with iwi-appointed members. Other important institutions in civil society could be granted appointment power, along with the government and opposition. The left-leaning Sir Edmund Hillary would have been a member and the right-leaning Sir Peter Blake. It would be a council of our best, brightest and most admired, and its members could have some type of title, a kiwi version of “sir” and “dame”.

Such an Upper House would not be democratic and so its powers would be limited to asking the Lower House to think again, but that possibility alone would act as a considerable check on abuses of power. For the Lower House to ram through an Electoral Finance Act over the objections of the Upper House would involve an increased political penalty, and encourage the elected politicians to reconsider.

Under such a system, the Maori seats in the Lower House could be retired, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986. At the same time, we could make amendments to MMP, which we could continue to use to elect the Lower House. The one-seat rule, which has put five Act MPs in Parliament but none from New Zealand First, despite the latter winning more votes, could be abolished. We could consider reducing the threshold from the current five percent to the four percent recommended by the Royal Commission, or even lower.

The important thing, as the prime minister considers how to progress his constitutional review, is that we don’t look at MMP, or the Maori seats, or an Upper House, or other important constitutional issues in isolation. They are all interrelated, including the elephant in the room, a possible move to a republic. John Key, opposition leader Phil Goff, and the Maori Party co-leaders who pushed for the constitutional review, would do us all a service if they genuinely committed to a serious debate on the best path forward.

“The most famous and prominent example of TABOR legislation is in the state of Colorado.[1] In 1992, the voters of the state amended Article X of the Colorado Constitution to the effect that any tax increase resulting in the increase of governmental revenues at a rate faster than the combined rate of population increase and inflation as measured by either the cost of living index at the state level, or growth in property values at the local level, would be subjected to a popular vote in a referendum, a process referred to as “de-Brucing” after Douglas Bruce, the author of the amendment. This applies to any cities and counties in Colorado as well as the state itself. Additionally, any “natural growth” in revenues that exceeded this rate was to be either earmarked for educational improvements or rebated to the taxpayers once an adequate reserve (”rainy day”) fund was established. This has led to a decrease in actual tax revenue (relative to population and inflation) for two reasons. Because the law does not adjust for rising productivity, additional income from year to year among the same population can not be effectively taxed. Secondly, the law only looks at the previous year, leading to a “ratchet-effect”, wherein if tax revenue temporarily lowers in a recession, revenue can not rise back to pre-recession levels without a referendum. In Colorado, these factors have led to a decreasing overall tax revenue in the state.” - Wikipedia

“Hide’s bravado disguises a serious point. In reality, Wellington is in need of root-and-branch reform. Any political tourist coming back to the capital after a decade or so away would be astounded at the expansion of officialdom.

The problem is English should have been the one to come up with the bold plan - not Hide.

The behind-scenes tensions at one stage were so bad that National officials were wondering whether the support deal with Act would in fact be inked.” - Fran O’Sullivan