Category: New Zealand Legislature

Source: New Zealand Parliament

Rt Hon Trevor Mallard

Speaker of the House of Representatives

One of the core roles of a Westminster-based legislature is scrutiny of the Executive. It is a duty of all backbench members and one that has received increasing attention in New Zealand in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns made it necessary to make significant changes to the way that Parliament operated and, particularly, how it scrutinised the executive. The all-party Business Committee played an important role in considering and agreeing ways to continue parliamentary scrutiny of the executive at a time when it would exercise wide-ranging emergency powers. The committee is chaired by the Speaker, attended by senior members of each party and operates on a basis of near-unanimity.

Virtual House & committees – enabling questioning of Ministers even when people are absent

Perhaps the most significant change made in preparation for the lockdown and four-week adjournment of the House was the establishment of an Epidemic Response Committee, chaired by the Leader of the Opposition and with a majority of members drawn from parties not in government. Unusually, it was given the power to send for persons, papers and records. There was general support for the establishment of the committee and wide agreement about its importance. The Shadow Leader of the House commented that:

These are quite uncharted times. This select committee fills a void that would normally be occupied by question time or, perhaps, written questions or something else. It will, in my opinion, be a little stronger than both of those provisions, but with a great deal of cooperation, that’s been talked about by everybody across the House today, it should work in the best interests of all New Zealanders.[1]

The committee met virtually, under new sessional orders permitting such arrangements, usually three times each week on the days that the House would normally sit. It initially focussed on questioning Ministers and senior public servants about the epidemic response. Later sessions included hearings with business and community leaders. The committee invited independent experts to give it advice and to comment on the evidence from Ministers and officials. The questioning of Ministers was notable for the exchanges being significantly longer and more informative than what usually occurred during oral questions in the House.[2] Most New Zealanders were at home during the lockdown and the hearings were seen as usefully providing information on developments as well as holding the executive to account.[3]

Scrutiny of delegated legislation

The Regulations Review Committee has, since 1985, played an important role in scrutinising secondary legislation and in advising other select committees on Parliament’s delegation of law-making power to the executive. Its work became even more important during the pandemic. The government had broad powers to make orders under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. These orders expire if not confirmed by the House. The Standing Orders Committee developed a process for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of these orders.

Under sessional orders made by the House, every order made by the government stands referred to the Regulations Review Committee and a motion to confirm it may not be moved until the committee has reported or a specified time has expired. Between April and August 2020, the committee scrutinised 110 orders made ins response to COVID-19.[4] It continues that work today. The government has generally responded to concerns raised by the committee by amending its orders.

Changes made to financial scrutiny debates – first to sector-focussed (2014-2017) and then to minister-focussed (2020)

The House had experimented with different approaches to financial scrutiny of the government. From 2014 the Business Committee developed new trial approaches to financial debates that focus on 10 major sectors, rather than having a wide-ranging debate on all appropriations and departments. This led to a somewhat more focussed debate, with a greater expectation that Minsters would be able to answer questions, since the areas of interest for the debate were known in advance.

In 2020, when the House returned from lockdown it was required to hold the annual review debate before the Budget. The Business Committee agreed to a shorter debate that would focus on questioning key Ministers only (such as Finance, COVID-19 response, Foreign Affairs and Health). This has remained the preferred approach since then, though it is not the default approach set out in Standing Orders.

A companion change was made to Standing Orders, by a sessional order, intended to encourage better questioning of Ministers. Normally, the committee of the whole House stage of a bill limited members to taking four calls on any provision. This had led to members making set-piece speeches rather than engaging with the Minister in charge of a bill on its detail. The four-call limit sometimes became a target. Proposals to remove the limit on calls to promote a greater interchange between members and Ministers had not been successful until then.[5] With the greater focus on dialogue with Ministers during the COVID-19 outbreak, parties agreed to temporarily suspend the limit on calls in committee of the whole House. The new sessional order was first applied to the committee stage of the annual review debate[6], which was notable for being more interactive and more closely resembling the extended questioning by the Epidemic Response Committee. The new approach was regarded as a successful innovation and continued to be used for the remainder of the parliament. It was adopted as a permanent change to Standing Orders in 2020.[7]

Encouraging of ministers to attend select committees for annual reviews and bills

The success of the Epidemic Response Committee in conducting “more conversational scrutiny” of Ministers led to recommendations to encourage greater engagement with Ministers with committees.[8] The Standing Orders Committee reported:

We strongly encourage committees to invite Ministers to participate in initial briefings on Government bills and to attend to discuss significant policy changes… The legislative process would be enhanced if committees had more opportunity to discuss these matters with responsible Ministers.

Scrutinising the quality of legislation

In addition to questioning Ministers on their policies, there has been a growing interest in the quality of legislation. Parties will not always agree on the policy behind legislation but, regardless, the legislation passed by Parliament should be of the highest possible quality. The most effective scrutiny of the quality of legislation can occur at select committees. Since 2021 the Office of the Clerk has scrutinised all bills and provided committees with advice about legislative quality matters, based on the guidelines laid down by the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee.[9] Generally, committees have drawn on this advice to scrutinise government officials about the legislation and the process for developing it. It has become standard practice for select committees to report on their consideration of legislative quality issues.

New format for ministerial statements

During the initial response to the pandemic, there was greater use of ministerial statements to inform the House about government activity. The process for ministerial statements, and comments on statements, provided members with opportunities to make short comments, but not engage in meaningful exchanges with a Minister on what was likely to be a matter of considerable public importance.

The Standing Orders Committee recommended that the responses to such statements be made more flexible to enable questions to be put to Ministers.

Ministers are now required to address questions in much the same way as during oral questions, and questions need to relate to the content of the ministerial statement. After asking questions, members conclude with some short comments. This format has been more informative for the House and more effective in scrutinising the Government. I have used the discretion granted to the speaker to briefly extend the time available to a member questioning the Minister to ensure that the time taken in answering them does not disadvantage the member.

More work to be done

The developments outlined in this paper have generally had a positive impact. However, there is more to be done.

Improving financial scrutiny

Scrutiny of the Estimates and of annual reports of agencies tend to take two approaches:

1. Written questions on the minutiae of spending
2. Questioning of ministers and officials, generally by opposition MPs on headline issues

There is little focus on outcomes of spending, long-term issues or sector-wide responses. This is partly because financial scrutiny has been traditionally based around subject matter committees scrutinising individual appropriations and departments.

The Auditor-General recently expressed the view that agency performance reporting is meeting minimum standards but that it is hard to know whether the outcomes Parliament is investing money in are being achieved successfully. He advocated for changes to the Public Finance Act and for Treasury to be tasked with consolidating and aggregating public sector wide performance reporting to give a better view to committees on whether the outcomes it has invested in (better school, hospitals, transport etc.) are being achieved. The consolidated performance reporting information would provide a system wide view of what outcomes are being achieved, as opposed to just what output have been purchased, and would help committees and MPs scrutinise Government and the public sector on delivery.[10]

The Governance and Administration Committee have invited the Clerk and Auditor-General to do some work on revising the typical financial scrutiny questions to reduce the length of the questionnaire and better focus on getting information about achievement of outcomes. That work should be completed in time for the next round of annual reviews.

Even if we can improve the questions, one of the other challenges is in having ministers attend for extended periods of questioning. They are often shielded from long appearances by their staff or by committee members from the same party voting down such proposals. Some ministers occupy much of the time allocated for questioning by making excessively-long opening statements. There is still work to do in convincing ministers that accounting to the public, through parliament, is a core part of their role. Chairpersons already have the power to cut off long introductory statements but they are frequently unwilling to do so. I have discussed this matter with chairpersons and encouraged them to perform their roles as presiding officers and parliamentarians fearlessly.

Developing the public governance role for the Governance and Administration Committee

The Governance and Administration Committee was given oversight of public governance in the 2020 review of Standing Orders. It is working on how to best carry out this function. Recent public sector reforms offer some opportunities here. The Public Service Act 2020 includes a requirement for departments to prepare long-term insights briefings at least once every three years, and for these briefings to be presented to the House. They must be prepared independently of Ministers and provide information about medium and long-term trends that may affect New Zealand society.[11] Detailed scrutiny of these briefings by select committees could result in long-term issues being brought to the fore during each term of Parliament. The Governance and Administration Committee will lead the first round of this work in 2022. The Public Service Act 2020 also requires the Public Service Commissioner to prepare a three-yearly briefing on the state of the public service, and for it to be presented to the House. The Governance and Administration Committee has been engaging with the Commissioner on the nature of this briefing and considering how to best make use of it.

Proportional allocation of committee chairs

Many elements of New Zealand’s proportionally-elected parliament, including membership of committees, are allocated in accordance with the share of seats held by each party. However, chairs of committees are not. As a result, almost all chairpersons are members of government parties and are less likely to support robust scrutiny of the government. In the 52^nd parliament, the government offered a substantial share of committee chairs to non-government parties. However, this led to deadlocks on committees’ legislative work, with committees unable to agree amendments to bills. In the face of legislative obstruction, the government did not repeat the offer in the 53^rd parliament.

While governments should have certainty that they can progress their legislative programme, committees have a role in scrutinising the Executive and it is a role that should be played by all members. Having a greater number of committees chaired by non-government members and having committees without a government majority has the potential to enhance scrutiny work, since the committee will be less likely to vote down inquiries or financial scrutiny that might be critical of the government. I have advocated for the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to be drawn from a non-government party, given the role this committee plays in overseeing the government’s finances and in allocating scrutiny work to other committees. I have not been successful to date. The Clerk has suggested the proportional allocation of chairpersonships during reviews of Standing Orders but this has not been supported. It is something that seems attractive when in Opposition but less so when in government.  This is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee will consider again in its next review, which has just commenced.

In my view, we should go one step further. Oral questions are allocated on a proportional basis but the executive is excluded from the allocation, because the questions are intended to hold it to account. The same could be done with the allocation of seats on committees. This would end the domination of committees by parties in government. Committees would still have an incentive work constructively on legislation, since the government would ultimately have the numbers on the House to amend and pass legislation as it wished. Committees constituted this way would be less likely to be perceived as tools of the executive. It is more likely that submissions would be considered on their merits and amendments in the interest of better legislation would be made. In turn, this could increase public engagement with committees. Legislative scrutiny by committees could be further improved by caucuses taking less of a role in shaping their decisions. It would be far preferable that the members of the committee who had heard the submissions and received advice made decisions about bills. If their parties didn’t agree with their conclusion they could lodge amendments during committee of the whole House, which would also improve transparency.

Scrutiny is a core responsibility of the legislature. The testing of government policies and plans should not be feared or avoided. It is a way of making them better. The challenge is not so much in making rule changes – we have been particularly successful in that when there has been the opportunity to test them first. The real challenging is in changing attitudes and behaviour so that:

1. All backbenchers see their role as scrutinising the executive
2. All ministers accept that accounting for the decisions to parliament is not an inconvenience but fundamental to our democracy
3. Members focus on outcomes and important, long-term issues rather than only what is in the headlines.

As I say, there is still plenty of work to do.

[1] Hon Gerry Brownlee, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 25 March 2020, Vol 745, p. 17318.

[2] For more detail on Parliament’s response to the pandemic see D Wilson (2021). How the New Zealand Parliament responded. Parliaments and the Pandemic. Study of Parliament Group, London.

[3] Daniela Maoate-Cox, Powerful or powerless? What can the Epidemic Response Committee do? RNZ, 19 April 2020.

[4] G Hellyer (2021). Assessing Parliament’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Policy Quarterly, 17(1).

[5] Report of the Standing Orders Committee, 2017, I. 18A, p. 30.

[6] The committee of the whole stage of the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

[7] Report of the Standing Orders Committee, 2020, I. 18A, p. 40.

[8] Report of the Standing Orders Committee, 2020, I. 18A, p. 24.

[9] The Legislation Guidelines are available at http://www.ldac.org.nz/assets/documents/LDAC-Legislation-Guidelines-2021-edition.pdf

[10] The Auditor-General’s briefing to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on central government audits can be viewed at https://www.facebook.com/FESCNZ/videos/637088700684055

[11] Public Service Act 2020, Schedule 6, clauses 8 and 9

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

RIGHT HONOURABLE DAVID CARTER
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SPEECH TO GERMAN DELEGATION

Good evening ladies and gentleman,

Please allow me to warmly welcome:
• Professor Dr Norbert Lammert, President of the German Bundestag
• His Excellency, Gerhard Thiedemann, Ambassador to New Zealand
• Dr Johann Wadephul
• Members of the German delegation

This year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of an MMP Parliament, and also the 30th anniversary of the Report of the Royal Commission on our Electoral System, which recommended MMP as an alternative to the previous First Past the Post electoral system.

First Past the Post in New Zealand was a plurality system, where the candidate in each electorate who won the most votes was declared the winner and allotted a seat in Parliament.

In 1993 New Zealanders voted narrowly in a referendum to replace FPP with MMP. This was a reaction to the perceived unfairness of FPP, which often allotted the governing party with more seats in Parliament than its share of the overall votes in an election. On occasion, governments were elected with fewer overall votes than the Opposition.

Between the 1930s to the 1980s, FPP was dominated by the two major parties, National and Labour. Minor parties struggled to enter Parliament, in spite of occasionally winning a significant proportion of overall votes. Women and minorities were not well represented in Parliament under FPP.

The referendum result was also a reaction to the preceding years of single party governments, which often exerted strong control over Parliament. Governments were able to rush through legislation with little public input or scrutiny. Governments of the period were able to use broad and powerful regulation-making powers to bypass parliamentary scrutiny for matters pertaining to economic stabilisation and public safety. This was particularly problematic during the latter years of the Muldoon Government.

So people voted for change.

In 1996, New Zealanders elected their first Parliament under MMP.

Moving forward to 2016 we can now reflect on the positive impact MMP has had on the New Zealand Parliament.

Without a doubt, MMP has strengthened our Parliament.

Parliament now better reflects our society. It has seen more women, Māori and other ethnic minorities become MPs. There are also more parties represented in Parliament and this diversity has helped to ensure that Parliament remains relevant and better reflects New Zealand’s ever changing society.

Governments are more restrained now.

Every Government since 1996 has been formed by coalition, or through an arrangement of confidence and supply agreements between two or more parties. In spite of concerns that MMP would lead to dysfunction, our experience is of stable governments—over the last 16 years we have had only two Prime Ministers. Governing has required consultation and compromise between all political parties, particularly government support parties, to progress legislation.

I see this as a positive step.

The number of parties represented in the opposition has also increased, allowing for a wider variety of opposition interests to be represented and the Government held to account by more than one party. This leads to greater scrutiny of the Executive, which I believe enhances Government outcomes.

Parliament continues to evolve its procedures and practices through the triennial review of its Standing Orders, to ensure it remains relevant.

I would like to highlight our Business Committee, which can be characterised as a creature of MMP. Every party is represented and my role as chairperson of the committee is to drive decisions to where near unanimity is achieved. Over the years this has become crucial to the smooth running of the House.

I have one final observation.

MMP was established in Germany and New Zealand to rein in the power of the Executive. Far from creating instability, both countries have witnessed long periods of stable, responsible government. This has enabled both our countries to be successful, vibrant liberal democracies and important actors on the world stage.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

> Related content

RIGHT HONOURABLE DAVID CARTER
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2016 CSPOC CONFERENCE

A few weeks ago I read an article by a former member of our Parliament in a publication called the National Business Review. The author makes the provocative suggestion that MPs should only be allowed to serve a maximum of four terms of Parliament and then be required to do something else with their lives. He said, and I quote, “In a nation of just four million, we have made politics a career much like butchery, accountancy or law. People choose politics at a young age and then work at it their entire lives. They are professional politicians, a breed apart”.

I disagree with the sentiments in this article for a number of reasons, not least because it displays a lazy cynicism, unfortunately shared by many in New Zealand, about our elected representatives.

In over 20 years as a member of the New Zealand Parliament, and as Speaker for the last three, I have been fortunate to encounter many politicians who have looked upon their work as an MP as far more than a career. They have understood that the privileged position they find themselves in allows them to do good and important things.

Rather than professional politicians, I consider them to be professional parliamentarians. Rather than being a breed apart, driven by self-interest and detached from the people who elected them, they represent constituencies, interest groups, and individuals with vigour and fearlessness.

But they cannot do so in isolation and without support. And this is the subject of my address today – what role should Parliaments play in inducting and then providing ongoing development for members? And in particular, what should we, as Speakers and Presiding Officers, be doing to equip our members to be effective parliamentarians?

Implementing worthwhile induction and development programmes for members would be more straightforward if we could say definitively what we are seeking to equip them for.

But the role of an MP can be a nebulous one and the accountabilities unclear. As statutory office-holders, they are not in a simple employer – employee relationship. They are not contractually obliged to perform specific tasks to particular standards, nor are they required to meet minimum skills and qualifications criteria.

And yet the public’s expectations of what they could and should be doing are sky-high and any failure to meet these expectations means considerable disappointment or criticism. Or, as one academic paper puts it, “Those elected to public office are expected to possess indefinable qualities to accomplish an indescribable job.”

In New Zealand we do now have a firm idea of the type of training and support members need when they first arrive at Parliament. We are fortunate in having two well-functioning agencies that can introduce new members to the operational logistics of being an MP and what they need to know to begin participating in parliamentary business.

Our Parliamentary Service inducts them on technology, staffing arrangements, travel and finance services and everything else they need to get up and running; while the Office of the Clerk leads training on speaking in the House, what happens in select committees, the role of the Speaker, the constitutional role of members of Parliament, and other matters to allow them to start discharging their representative functions.

This aspect of induction is effective because it is participatory, with new members engaged in mock debates and question time in the House, and select committee role plays. Proof of its benefit was the high level of member satisfaction with the last induction programme in 2014 and the situation has certainly improved considerably from when I first entered Parliament through a mid-term by-election in 1994.

So while the “sink or swim” mentality for new members is not as prevalent as it once was, gaps remain in what we offer new members. The first few days and weeks of being new MP’s may feel extremely disorientating, even alienating, as they seek to get to grips with a considerable workload, new relationships to manage, and the realisation that their performance is being intensely scrutinised.

It is not surprising that some of these members struggle to absorb all of the information and advice received in induction, complain about the lack of follow-up, and come to rely heavily on party whips and senior members of their caucus. While close allegiances with party colleagues are inevitable, the risk is that new members focus on these relationships to the exclusion of others and that this may promote an increasingly partisan politics.

As Speaker, I’m always keen to see cross-party engagement and cooperation and I believe induction and ongoing development can assist in this. We heard of an initiative of the Scottish Parliament, which has set up an induction programme to establish a cohort of new members from across the political spectrum and build a shared identity from the time they enter Parliament.

I think this idea could work well in New Zealand, with the new intake of members meeting on a regular basis throughout the term of the Parliament. The impression I have is that we mostly succeed in imparting knowledge to our members but are less effective at enhancing the essential skills they need to conduct parliamentary business well. Members know how to lodge oral and written questions, but they may need training in what constitutes effective questioning and how to ask those searching questions, for example.

We want a true House of Representatives, with a diversity that is reflected in the backgrounds of our members. We shouldn’t then be surprised if some of them arrive having had minimal exposure to reading and analysing legislation, public policy development and analysis, budget scrutiny, effective committee membership or the myriad other activities that a member is required to perform on a day-to-day basis.

The value of ongoing professional development for parliamentarians is, I believe, very hard to argue against. But there are barriers to successful implementation and uptake that Parliaments need to address. A key one is the engagement and motivation of members themselves. Parliaments may be empowered to develop stimulating, varied and useful programmes for members but these will mean nothing if members do not avail themselves of opportunities.

Members are time-poor, and regularly work long hours. They may say they want more training but fitting sessions into a working day can be very challenging, and training will be the first thing they forgo when the inevitable, unexpected issue arises to derail their day.

So, there will be members who want development but find it hard to accommodate. And there will be those who simply do not think they need it. A response to these issues and that of the skill gap faced by many MPs is for Parliaments to advocate for implementing compulsory professional development for members.

The argument for mandatory training has been advanced by various people, including the Australian academics Colleen Lewis and Ken Coghill.

Opponents of the idea may say that it is inappropriate to prescribe what MPs should be doing and focussing on, that this is contrary to the democratic notion that we elect representatives to represent us and that there are many different ways of doing this well. Related to this is the view that members are answerable to the electorate for their performance and that performance is judged ultimately and regularly at each subsequent election.

What better motivation to do a good job than to expose yourself to the risk of very publicly losing it every three, four or five years?

However, there are many factors in play at election time other than the performance of an individual member in the preceding term of Parliament. Politics isn’t always fair and I’m sure we can all think of examples from our own jurisdictions of capable MPs losing their seat at an election and of underperforming MPs being re-elected.

Moreover, relying on a general election as a verdict on performance is the very antithesis of what we now understand to be good people management and motivation practices. We would be rightly concerned if our doctors, nurses or teachers had to wait three plus years for a conversation about their performance or received hardly any training opportunities over that period, so why should it be any different for our members of Parliament?

While I do not think we should compulsorily require all members to undertake a programme of development, I firmly believe that parliaments have a strong duty to provide proper professional development to members. This is a duty owed not only to the electorate but also to the members themselves. We want members to contribute positively to society, both as representatives and when they depart Parliament, even if it is only after one term.

So, I encourage you all as Speakers and Presiding Officers to consider carefully a number of questions: What do my MPs need to perform the role? What skills are they lacking in? Who is best placed to develop them in a way that promotes the interests of Parliament? Do they need specialist support?

And find out members’ own perceptions – do they think they are adequately equipped to discharge their representative functions?

And after those conversations and discussions, should come the decision to invest in our people. Investing in members of Parliament is not an easy sell to the public and media, who have become accustomed to hearing and writing stories of MPs displaying poor judgement or taking advantage of public funds. The solution to this is, I believe, to be strategic in the construction of professional development programmes and to be prepared to advocate strongly for their worth.

This is what we have done with our inter-parliamentary relations programme and its new strategy. Overseas travel by MPs has previously attracted criticism, with questions being asked about the value to the taxpayer of spending public funds. This negative commentary and media scrutiny can make members reluctant to take advantage of opportunities for international engagement.

The strategy is structured around five drivers, including the provision of professional development for members, the intention of which is to build parliamentary capability through increasing members’ knowledge of parliamentary business, the workings of representative parliamentary democracy, and of global issues.

I fully expect public scrutiny of delegations and visits to remain but I hope that the scrutiny can hopefully occur in a more balanced and informed context, with us being able to articulate a coherent programme and resulting set of benefits and motivations for members which shows that public money is being spent appropriately.

I see no reason why a similar model should not apply to our domestic development of members, with the implementation of a coordinated programme of training opportunities in such topics as representing constituents, understanding and making policy, constitutional law, analysing public accounts, and developing in-depth understanding of key policy areas.

A recent report on the funding of the New Zealand Parliament identified the folly of not spending on professional development for members, stating that, “The tax payer has spent millions completing the process of electing Parliament every three years. The tax payer will then spend millions more supporting them and the cost of Parliament for the three-year term but spend an infinitesimal amount on knowledge and skills development.”

So I end with a simple message: we must do more. Failure to do so would be to do the electorate an injustice.

Thank you

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

RIGHT HONOURABLE DAVID CARTER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SPEAKERS OF PARLIAMENT – GENERAL DEBATE

1st September 2015

Good afternoon

It is heartening to be here at the United Nations, and it is reflective of the closer working relationship between the IPU and UN. Because of the status of our office, we Speakers have an extraordinary opportunity here to enhance peaceful relations between parliaments and hence our countries.

The Sustainable Development Agenda articulates a vision for developing and developed countries, recognising we do not all start from the same point and taking into account different national realities, capacities and priorities, cultures and traditions.

The agenda states that there can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development. New Zealand views its own peace and security as innately linked to the prosperity and stability of our whole region, the Pacific.

I am immensely proud of the work New Zealand parliamentarians do to promote peace and democracy in our region and beyond.  I have made it a priority to facilitate IPU engagement with the Pacific and to promote the value of democratic governance in our region. I take this opportunity to thank the IPU Secretary General Martin Chungong for his recent visit to the Pacific.

New Zealand is a small country of 4.5 million, with a small unicameral parliament with 121 members, but we are held in high regard internationally.

We were one of the founding countries who committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security by establishing the United Nations in 1945, and currently sit on the Security Council.

We have a reputation for being practical, positive and constructive.

We engage on the full spectrum of the multilateral agenda, including international security, law and disarmament, environment, human rights, health, United Nations reform, and sustainable development.During the development of the Sustainable Development Agenda, New Zealand’s priorities reflected issues of importance to Pacific countries and other Small Island Developing States. This included advocating for a stand-alone goal on oceans and energy and the importance of sustainable economic development.  New Zealand viewed gender equality and women’s empowerment as a critical element of the new agenda.

I advocated that the agenda specifically recognised the central role of parliaments in ensuring governments effectively implement these commitments.

Parliamentarians, in their role as representatives of the people, will also be instrumental in communicating the agenda to their constituencies.

As this conference concludes, let us consider what we each will do to translate the agenda into action.The role of Speaker is by necessity a non-partisan one, but we have an indispensable part to play in promoting legitimacy and public trust in inclusive and democratic institutions. We set the tone and guide the parliament. I implore all Speakers to ensure that parliamentarians act with integrity – we have many tools at our disposal.

The Sustainable Development Agenda is simply too critical to be distracted by corruption and conflict.  All of us here today will be fundamental in the success of meeting these ambitious goals.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE OF SPEAKERS

31st August – 2nd September 2015

Good afternoon

I have the honour of presenting the report ‘Challenges Facing Parliaments’. Parliament, through which the will of people is expressed in a properly functioning democracy. It is an important institution – but it can be a fragile one.

I am pleased to be here amongst my fellow Speakers and parliamentarians.

I acknowledge the great diversity of our Parliaments and our circumstances. Particularly, the differences between developed and developing countries.

I recognise the challenges that smaller and developing democracies have. I see that the institutional capacity of the stronger more established parliaments must be made available and shared with these countries.

We have a responsibility to work with our neighbours, in my case in the Pacific region. Gathering here, as we reflect on a new development agenda to end poverty in all its forms, reminds us of the tremendous but not insurmountable challenges that we face together.

One of the roles of Speaker, I most value is being an advocate for the Parliament. The role of Speaker is interwoven with the place itself – my authority and standing is dependent on the respect with which the public hold the institution of Parliament.

You have the paper before you – this describes some common challenges and opportunities, including:

• public scepticism, sadly deserved due to the actions of some politicians;
• declining voter turnout, a global trend we must all address;
• the capacity of parliaments, and its ability to reform and make use of technology;
• the composition of parliament, particularly gender balance and the participation of indigenous people; and,
• executive dominance, a particular challenge for the smaller democracies.

In New Zealand, we have started a significant conversation about how effective parliamentary scrutiny actually enhances government outcomes. The New Zealand Parliament is one of the longest continuous parliaments and internationally regarded as a well-functioning democratic institution. I don’t want to get complacent.

No Parliament can afford to stand still, and we have recently strengthened the financial and legislative scrutiny functions of our parliamentary committees.

Promoting a strong and open democracy is high on my list of priorities. Public respect for the institution will grow when the public is informed about what Parliament is doing and is able to participate.

The relevance and legitimacy of parliaments is at stake if we do not move with the fast pace of communications and technology. A well-functioning democracy relies on openness and transparency of information; indeed it is core to making any Parliament as an institution more effective.

I am proud that my Parliament is open, transparent, and accessible. Proceedings are broadcast through a variety of media, and a huge volume of information, including evidence and advice provided to select committees, is routinely published. Committee hearings are open to the public and public input is nearly always invited. Expenditure on parliamentary travel and entitlements is released at regular intervals and all members are required to disclose pecuniary and other specified interests annually.

At the heart of this is maintaining public confidence by being open about expenditure of public money, enabling the public to hold elected representatives to account; and allowing for informed public debate.

I challenge you all; shine the light on your Parliaments. Do not stand for any sniff of corruption or complacency – because your citizens certainly will not. Share both your successes and your challenges with your people. Be honest and the public perceptions of politicians and the standing of your Parliaments will be better for it.

ENDS

MIL OSI