Category: New Zealand Legislature

Source: New Zealand Parliament

Presentation by Dr the Right Honourable Lockwood Smith, Speaker of the House of Representatives, at a Reception in the Grand Hall, Parliament

2 October 2012

As Winston Churchill reminded us in 1947, “indeed it has been said that democracy is a form of government which may be rationally defended not as being good, but as being less bad than any other”. Governance is inevitably fraught with compromise, and its best exercise requires sufficient checks on its operation, so that it can be seen as fair and just when interacting with those affected by it.

The establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman in 1962 to provide such checks was a major constitutional innovation. New Zealand was the first English speaking country outside of Scandinavia to adopt the Ombudsman concept and this 50th anniversary offers an opportunity to reflect on how it has helped foster fairness and justice in the government’s dealings with its people.

The legislation which underpins the New Zealand Ombudsmen’s Office remains a model to which others aspire. Its success is widely recognised, and that success is evidenced in part by its rapid adoption throughout Australia, Britain, Canada and the Pacific.

The New Zealand ombudsmen are supported by their genuine independence: There is independence in the structure and functioning of the office and independence in its financing. That independence is confirmed by the office being an office of parliament, not an organ of executive government.

The fact that an Ombudsman can gain access to the inner workings of the government system and independently assess what has happened and why, has helped the public sector focus upon the manner in which it interacts with the people it’s designed to serve. The Office provides a vital ‘check’ within our democratic system.

And it’s not just whether government actions have been appropriate or not, the Ombudsman methodology is distinctive in that it seeks a conciliatory resolution of issues, in contrast to the legal system’s rather more adversarial edge.

Arguably, one of the keys to the office’s success has been the careful and thoughtful manner in which it has been developed since 1962.

What then is a modern ombudsman?

When the office was first established in 1962, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction was limited to investigating complaints about central government departments and organisations.

In 1968, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction was extended to include education and hospital boards.

And then in 1975, the legislation was consolidated in the Ombudsmen Act 1975.  The appointment of additional Ombudsmen was permitted, and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction was extended to include local government agencies.

In July 1983, the Official Information Act 1982 came into force.  Under this Act, the Ombudsman was empowered to investigate and review complaints about decisions by Ministers and central government agencies on requests for information.

Then in March 1988, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 added complaints about decisions by local government agencies withholding information.

In January 2001, the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 came into force.  This, commonly known as the “whistle-blower” legislation, made the Ombudsman responsible for providing advice and guidance to any employee, in the public or private sector, who was considering making a disclosure about serious wrongdoing in their workplace. The Ombudsman is in fact one of the “appropriate authorities” listed in the Act to whom a protected disclosure can be made.

Four years later, in January 2005, the Crown Entities Act 2004 finally brought all crown entities within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

As if that wasn’t enough, in June 2007, the Ombudsman was designated a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (COTA).  That Act gave effect to New Zealand’s obligations under Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“OPCAT”), making the Ombudsman responsible for visiting prisons, immigration detention facilities, health and disability places of detention, child care and protection residences, and youth justice residences, to ensure those nasty things didn’t happen here. The Ombudsman in fact monitors and makes recommendations to improve the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees.

Finally, in October 2010, the Ombudsman, along with the Human Rights Commission, and the New Zealand Convention Coalition, took on the independent role of protecting and monitoring implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

One could say that over 50 years the role of the Office has expanded somewhat.

The New Zealand Ombudsman’s office has, however, not been immune from the need to deal with complaints more effectively and efficiently. In the 2011/2012 year 10,636 complaints and other contacts were received, up 22% on the previous year. Cases on hand at any time have grown from an average of 800 to over 1700.

New work flow structures allow the office to cope better with the unprecedented level of complaints and strategically the Office is putting more focus on encouraging better administrative practices in the state sector.

Despite Dame Beverley advising my office this afternoon, when we enquired after complaints of a lighter nature, that “it’s no fun palace over here you know”, they do get the odd, shall we say interesting complaint.

One such example was the inmate of a North Island prison who lodged a bitter complaint with the Ombudsmen’s Office when his Case Officer had refused to provide him with the prison building plans and the Prison Wardens’ Duty Roster for the next month.

But I think that was well topped by one of the first complaints Dame Beverley had to deal with when she first became an Ombudsman. It seems a bloke complained to the Ombudsman that his being failed a flying course was unjust. He had taken his hands off the controls of a light aircraft at 800ft in order to better argue with his instructor.

Our new Ombudsman, Dame Beverley, thought “I’ll get him in and explain carefully why I cannot uphold his complaint”.

Ten minutes into her carefully rehearsed speech, the complainant, a big man, upended the large glass topped table in her face and threw his papers after it. Dame Beverley, even if somewhat unsuccessful in convincing the complainant of the lack of merit in his case that day, is nothing if not astute in her employment strategy. The high level of karate skills that Deputy Ombudsman Leo Donnelly brings to his position, while fortunately not frequently needed, proved invaluable that day.

We are currently served by two outstanding Ombudsmen, Dame Beverley Wakem and David McGee.  They are supported by the Deputy Ombudsman, Leo Donnelly, a General Counsel, John Pohl and General Manager – Corporate, Peter Brocklehurst, as well as a team of 65 staff in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

Dame Beverley is also the President of the International Ombudsman Institute, established in 1978, the global organisation for the cooperation of more than 150 ombudsman institutions. All in all the Office can be justifiably proud of its first 50 years and I wish it every success for the next 50.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

Trinidad and Tobago

Monday 9th January, 2012

The limited time available for the House to conduct its business places pressure on the Government’s legislative programme. While this tension can provide a safeguard against unfettered legislative activity, governments in New Zealand over many years have sought to supplement the House’s regular sitting hours by taking urgency [1]   to progress their legislative programmes, rather than solely for the passage of particular bills that genuinely need to be fast tracked.

The use of urgency has attracted considerable negative publicity, particularly where it allows select committee consideration to be by-passed. Its impact is potentially to suspend other House business, including question time and members’ business, remove stand down periods between the various stages of the legislative process, and to remove select committee consideration. In examining the concerns raised, the Standing Orders Committee in its review of the Standing Orders in the 49th Parliament had regard to the open and transparent operation of the House and good quality legislative scrutiny – in other words legislative accountability.

It sought to find ways to make government decisions on the legislative process more open and accessible, and for the House’s procedures to work in a way that reflected well on the institution of Parliament – for the House to be following a well established and deliberate set of rules in its law making, breaking from these only in exceptional circumstances.

This paper addresses the package of reforms the Standing Orders Committee recommended in it review of the Standing Orders, the balance necessary to achieve endorsement by the House, and the impact on the role of the Speaker.

Reviews of Standing Orders

The Standing Orders Committee reviews the Standing Orders during each Parliament. [2]   These reviews help ensure the ongoing relevancy of Parliament. They allow the House’s procedures to be adjusted to ensure:

• quality law making
• parliamentary scrutiny that enhances government outcomes
• proper opportunity for members to represent their constituencies, both regional and sectoral, and that these interests are balanced with the public interest
• the Government can advance its programme, and maintain the confidence of the House.

Revised Standing Orders were developed during a review conducted by the Standing Orders Committee in 2011. The Speaker chairs the Committee and presents the Committee’s report to the House. [3]   The revised Standing Orders, recommended by the Committee, were adopted by the House with effect from 21 October 2011, ready for the opening of the 50th Parliament following the general election on 26 November 2011.

Standing Orders – principles of good law making

The Standing Orders are akin to constitutional rules. They reflect the exclusive right of the House to control its own proceedings. The House’s privileges are part of the general law. [4]   The Standing Orders are the House’s own code of practice, which sets out the procedures to be followed. As constitutional rules they have to balance the Government’s need to progress its policy with effective scrutiny of legislative and budget proposals. The Standing Orders establish hurdles over which government proposals must pass:

• Debates to agree the first, second, and third readings of bills

• Time delays for progressing from one stage to the next to allow proper consideration by members

• Opportunities for public participation through submissions to select committees

• A select committee stage and an unlimited committee of the whole House stage where members may propose amendments.

The Standing Orders also set limits so as to ensure progress can be made:

• First, second and third reading debates have limited numbers of speeches (12) and limits on speaking times (10 minutes)

• Closures may be moved in the committee of the whole House

• Amendments that have more than a minor impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates may be vetoed by a Minister.

In so doing, the Standing Orders balance the Government’s need to progress its legislation against effective scrutiny by Opposition parties. The rights of the Opposition are protected, without making it impossible for the Government to progress its legislative proposals.

The Standing Orders Committee takes this balance into account when reviewing Standing Orders. It does not tinker with the rules. Every change has implications that have to be weighed up carefully. The Committee seeks to come up with a package that will have overwhelming support. It has been criticised for this approach because it is seen as inherently conservative. However, the Committee remains firmly of the view that constitutional rules should not be changed lightly. To get the necessary support for a package of changes there has to be give and take. The Government may not always fully support all changes, but can see merit from an Opposition perspective. It is recognised that there will always be something of a conflict for governments in an effective Parliament.

Public submissions on Standing Orders

The Standing Orders Committee called for submissions from members and the public on its review of the Standing Orders. [5]   From the evidence the committee received two major themes emerged:

• Government’s need for more House time to advance its policy platform with less frequent resort to urgency
• Need to improve the quality of legislative scrutiny, with time for informed and open policy consideration and the observance of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Submitters drew particular attention to the use of urgency by successive governments to supplement the amount of House time available for them to implement their policies. They considered the use of urgency to meet the shortfall in sitting hours to be undesirable.

Standing Orders Committee approach

The Standing Orders Committee’s approach to addressing these themes was to:

• Examine ways to use the existing sitting pattern more effectively, while providing opportunities for members to debate matters that are important to them
• Provide incentives for negotiating the management of House business through the Business Committee. [6]  

The Committee produced a package of reforms that provide extra sitting time for government business, with the aim of using urgency only where legislation actually needs to be fast-tracked, and encourage more effective management of the business of the House through negotiation in the Business Committee. It balanced these with proposals that require instructions to reduce the time for the consideration of bills in select committees to be debated in the House, provide a focus on debating matters of importance to members in the committee of the whole House, along with recommendations to the Government aimed at enhancing scrutiny of legislative proposals before bills are introduced.

In recommending extended sitting hours within the normal House sitting pattern, rather than simply additional hours, the Standing Orders Committee sought to balance all the roles of members. As well as their roles as legislators and scrutinisers of government activity, members face demands as Ministers, party members, and representatives of their constituents and sectoral interest groups. These latter responsibilities, while not as fundamental, all require the time of members, time away from the capital, Wellington.

The Standing Orders Committee also had regard for long standing criticism of the New Zealand Parliament for legislating too much. A previous Prime Minister and academic, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, famously described it in 1979 as the “fastest lawmaker in the west”. [7]   Governments have frequently sought to use legislation to demonstrate they are responding to public concerns, where legislation in terms of additional powers or protections for citizens is not strictly required. To this end, the Standing Orders Committee’s recommendations sought to ensure that all legislative proposals are properly scrutinised for compliance with Cabinet guidelines [8]   and, in particular, with New Zealand’s fundamental rights and freedoms, as expressed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, before they come before the House, and that this scrutiny is made available to the House.

The proposals to provide extra time for government business and to encourage the Government to achieve more open and transparent management of its House business through the Business Committee are discussed further below. This is followed by examination of the Standing Orders Committee’s balancing proposals aimed at enhancing legislative scrutiny and outcomes.

Extended sittings

The Standing Orders Committee’s recommendation for extended sittings [9]   enables the House to sit on Wednesday and Thursday mornings to advance government business on the Order Paper, provided the Government has given the Business Committee notice in the week before. This is not urgency by another name. Only the stage notified on the Order Paper may be taken during a sitting extended in this way. Urgency is still available to the Government to progress urgent business. However, a Minister moving urgency must now inform the House with some particularity of the circumstances that warrant the claim for urgency. [10]  

This requirement should provide greater transparency about the need to fast track particular bills. At the same time there is an incentive to manage non-urgent government business stage by stage through extended sittings, the Government having given notice to the Business Committee in the week prior, making the timing apparent to members and the public well in advance.

Incentives for negotiation in Business Committee

The Business Committee is a formal forum for considering the management of House business. Notice may be required for proposals and both notice and the Business Committee’s determination published, making the process a great deal more open and transparent than the inter-party negotiations behind closed doors that have characterised the management of the Government’s business in the past. [11]   Where the Government proposes to set aside the House’s rules, if it cannot persuade the Business Committee of the merits of its arguments for so doing, it may now have to debate them in the House, enhancing accountability.

The Standing Orders Committee in its recommendations set out to promote constructive engagement through the Business Committee, where all parties are represented. While the Government’s ability to order its business remains largely intact, there are greater incentives for the Government to go to the Business Committee and negotiate the passage of its bills.

The Business Committee now has greater powers to determine extra sitting hours for government business, and also to take a greater role in determining the length, nature and timing of debates in the House, in particular in the committee of the whole House. It can determine that the House sit on a Thursday evening and Friday morning and may also allow more than one stage to be taken during an extended sitting. It may determine bills with related subject matter to be cognate, [12]   thus potentially allowing debates at their first, second and third readings to be taken together. It can give select committees the power to meet during the sittings of the House and set the reporting dates for business referred to them from the House.

However, the Government cannot railroad its proposals through the Business Committee. It must build the support of other parties, for there are certain safeguards built into the Business Committee’s operations. It is chaired by the Speaker, and makes its decision not by majority but by unanimity or near unanimity as determined by the Speaker. To make Business Committee determinations more transparent, they must now be published on the Parliament website once confirmed. [13]   Formal notice to the Business Committee from the Government of extended sittings and committee stages will also be published in this way.

Incentives for better legislative outcomes

The committee of the whole House stage is currently the only unlimited stage of a bill’s passage through the House. Each part of a bill is considered in sequence and members may table amendments for consideration. In order to reduce the number of debateable questions, Ministers frequently instructed Parliamentary Counsel to draft bills in as few parts as possible, the consequence of which was often large two part bills, rather than a logical grouping and arrangement of the legislative provisions.

Now with the Business Committee able to shape the committee of the whole House debate, it is envisaged that Ministers might approach the Business Committee at an early stage, even before a bill is introduced, to get agreement around the debateable questions. Debate might be focused on the major issues, rather than the parts of the bill. It could be shaped to ensure the issues are debated, rather than machinery provisions, and allows for the putting forward of alternative propositions. This way a Minister has some certainty and bills can be drafted to promote the accessibility of the law, rather than so as to minimise debate.

Protecting effective select committee scrutiny

Select committee consideration is critical to the proper scrutiny of legislation. In a unicameral Parliament, such as New Zealand’s, it plays an especially important role providing the opportunity for in depth scrutiny of legislative proposals. It allows the public to participate and influence the legislative process. Participants need time to consider and prepare their submissions. The Standing Orders provide as a standard that select committees have six months to consider and make their reports on bills. [14]   To this end the Standing Orders Committee recommended changes aimed at ensuring committees have adequate meeting time during this period and governments are discouraged from restricting the time available to them to consider legislation.

Instructions to select committees reducing the time for the consideration of bills to four months or less or seeking to give a select committee additional powers to meet at times not otherwise available to it are now debateable. The Government must be open and transparent in its proposals for the consideration of its legislation and weigh up the use of precious House time to debate instructions. Select committees may not meet during extended sittings of the House on Wednesday or Thursday mornings, unless the Business Committee determines accordingly. Here the Government must offset progress in the House against progress in select committees, unless it has been able to negotiate a compromise in the Business Committee.

Bill of Rights scrutiny

Many submissions to the Standing Orders Committee review raised the need to ensure fundamental rights and constitutional principles are given proper consideration in the legislative process. While the Attorney-General is required by law [15]   to report to the House on any inconsistencies with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in bills on introduction, submitters took the view that the Government should be required to account for inconsistencies at any stage of a bill’s passage. The Committee made recommendations aimed at improving scrutiny both prior to the introduction of a bill and at select committee.

It recommended to the Government that the Regulatory Impact Statement, [16]   which accompanies a bill’s introduction, give more prominence to Bill of Rights and other constitutional issues and that Cabinet guidelines require Bill of Rights reporting on substantive amendments proposed at the committee of the whole House stage of a bill. It recommended also that select committees receive briefings on these reports from government officials and that select committees also invite public submissions on these issues.

Scrutiny of substantive amendments at committee of whole House stage

Substantive amendments at the committee of the whole House stage are another serious impediment to good legislative scrutiny. They can be introduced as late as the day of the committee stage and will not have had the benefit of select committee consideration. Here the Standing Orders Committee drew attention to the power of the Business Committee to determine that a select committee consider such an amendment where a bill has already been reported to the House by the select committee. [17]   Rather than having to use time on the floor of the House moving an instruction, Ministers are encouraged to go to the Business Committee and negotiate consideration of amendments by a select committee, as a potential trade off against time in the committee of the whole House.

Arrangement of committee of whole House

The committee of the whole House stage now allows a broader debate. Debate is focused on the major provisions (each part) rather than the detail of individual clauses. It allows members who have not spoken in the limited first or second reading debates to participate and for alternative propositions to be raised in a public forum. It is the point where the House’s full proportionality is brought to bear on the text of the bill.

In its review, the Standing Orders Committee sought to promote constructive negotiations in the Business Committee about the arrangement of the debate in the committee of the whole House. It also agreed changes aimed at giving greater notice of committee stages so as to encourage earlier circulation of proposed amendments. Where practicable the Government must advise the Business Committee of the committee stages of bills to be taken in the next week. [18]   A schedule of proposed amendments will be published to help inform members for the debate. The Chairpersons of Committees will have the power to group amendments that form alternative propositions and select amendments where there are similar amendments at the same place in a bill. The aim being to maximise debate on issues of significance to members, rather than spending time discussing and voting on every individual amendment proposed.

Conclusions

The package of reforms recommended to the House by the Standing Orders Committee in its recent review included other changes, many of a more technical nature. The changes to provide extra time for government business and mechanisms to encourage more open and transparent management of the House’s business, balanced against protections for select committee scrutiny are the most significant changes made to the Standing Orders since the adoption of new Standing Orders to accommodate the move to a proportional electoral system [19]   in 1996. There has, however, been criticism that these changes are too timid.

Critics consider that by not recommending specific limits on aspects of the use of urgency, the Standing Orders Committee has not done enough to change the long standing use of urgency by governments simply to progress their business. [20]   They believe the use of urgency will continue to be viewed by the public, regardless of whether it is justified or not, as the Government ramming legislation through Parliament without regard to the House’s own rules. A wide-ranging review of parliamentary time was put forward to the Standing Orders Committee as the way of addressing what critics saw as the comparatively low number of House sitting days that require significant augmentation through the use of urgency.

Submitters to the Standing Orders Committee also recommended that the Speaker be given the role of approving urgency where its use would by-pass select committee consideration, in much the same manner as the Speaker approves the use of extraordinary urgency. [21]   The Committee did not agree. It considered the decision to by-pass select committee consideration a political one that would unnecessarily draw the Speaker into the politics. Its preference was to make changes that provide incentives to use extended sitting hours rather than urgency, and penalise the Government in terms of taking time in the House to debate instructions to select committees that significantly shorten the time available to them to consider bills.

Concerns over lack of legislative capacity have existed over a number of years. Submitters to the Standing Orders Committee drew particular attention to the consequences for technical, non-controversial legislation to remedy existing problems or otherwise maintain and enhance the legislative infrastructure. Not surprisingly governments give priority to major policy reforms in their legislative programmes and as a result non-controversial legislation is often not progressed. The Committee took the view that now there is a very good chance that negotiations in the Business Committee will result in this type of legislation progressing through the use of extended sittings.

The remedies put forward to the Committee were to increase the regular sitting hours of the House and to provide for the committee of the whole House stage to be taken off the floor of the House and for it to sit concurrently with the House. Standing Orders Committees have addressed such proposals before.

Balancing the pressure on members’ time is an important consideration. This Standing Orders Committee preferred to see extensions to the current sitting pattern and better management of House business rather than more regular sitting days. Two extended sittings over Thursday evenings and Friday mornings will equate to a whole extra sitting week in terms of hours for the Government. The Committee considered a Main Committee, akin to that in place in the Australian House of Representatives, an expensive option in the current fiscal climate and acknowledged the difficulties it would place on small parties in terms of presence in the House and the committee. A real difficulty in the 50th Parliament where there are four parties with fewer than six members.

Time will tell whether this carefully balanced approach is successful in achieving more openness and transparency in the legislative process and greater government accountability where it is proposed that the House’s legislative procedures be set aside and bills fast tracked. Much will depend on the way in which the Business Committee works in the new Parliament to manage the business of the House. The Speaker as the chair of the Committee has a large part to play in this. The Chairperson must create an environment in the Business Committee where the Government feels confident to bring forward proposals for the management of its business. In determining such proposals, it is the Chairperson who has the challenge of judging whether, on the basis of party membership in the House, a sufficient degree of support has been reached for the Chair, to be satisfied of the fairness of a proposal to all parties. [22]   In so doing the Speaker has a growing role in ensuring an open and transparent legislative process, a role that must achieve a balance between effective Opposition scrutiny of legislative proposals and reasonable progress for the Government’s legislative programme.

1. Urgency is a procedure available to the Government, (see Standing Orders 55 and 56) whereby it can, on motion without notice, extend a sitting for the purpose of advancing Government business. There are virtually no limits on the business. It may include the introduction and passing of bills, or the passing through the remaining stages of bills. The House sits from 9.00am until midnight each sitting day until the business is concluded or 12 midnight on Saturday is reached. A bill introduced and taken through all stages under urgency does not go to a select committee for consideration.   [back]
2. Standing Order 7   [back]
3. Review of Standing Orders, Report of the Standing Orders Committee, September 2011, I.18B, presented 27 September 2011, http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Reports/4/a/8/49DBSCH_SCR5302_1-Review-of-the-Standing-Orders-I-18B.htm   [back]
4. Section 242 of the Legislature Act 1908   [back]
5. The submissions received by the Standing Orders Committee on its review are available on the New Zealand Parliament website at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Evidence/   [back]
6. The Business Committee is chaired by the Speaker and has membership from every party in the House. It makes its decisions on the basis of unanimity or near unanimity, determined by the Speaker. Standing Oder 77 sets out the Business Committee’s main functions.   [back]
7. Geoffrey Palmer Unbridled Power: An Interpretation of New Zealand’s Constitution and Government Oxford University Press, Wellington 1979, p. 70   [back]
8. Cabinet Manual 2008, Cabinet Office, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, paragraphs 7.60 – 7.62, http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/   [back]
9. Standing Order 54   [back]
10. Standing Order 55(3)   [back]
11. Since the introduction of MMP, minority Governments have been the norm in New Zealand, governing with the support of smaller parties. These smaller parties have on occasions exercised a degree of restraint on the use of urgency, withdrawing or negotiating their support for government urgency motions. However, this restraint has been patchy and commentators do not consider it an effective accountability mechanism.   [back]
12. Standing Order 266   [back]
13. See http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Details/Business/f/8/2/00SCBU_Determinations20111221_1-Determinations-of-the-Business-Committee.htm   [back]
14. Standing Order 291   [back]
15. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s. 7 and Standing Order 262   [back]
16. Cabinet Manual 2008, Cabinet Office, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, paragraph 7.32, http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/   [back]
17. Standing Order 186(3)   [back]
18. Standing Order 297(3)   [back]
19. Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP)   [back]
20. Urgency was first provided for in the Standing Orders in 1903 and has been a feature of parliamentary procedure since that time.   [back]
21. Standing Order 57 requires the Speaker to agree that the business justifies the taking of extraordinary urgency, which allows the House to continue to sit beyond midnight.   [back]
22. Standing Order 76   [back]

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

5pm to 6.30pm

For the first time a substantial block of the historic Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (A to Js) published by Parliament, is being made available in digital form, through the internet. It is “A to Js Online”.

We are here to launch the digitisation of 24 volumes covering the 1860s and 1870s – a small but vital part of the entire set of volumes. These pilot volumes include 1604 reports, and 158 foldouts comprising maps, plans and tables.

They are searchable, are available in both text and facsimile versions and include all material within the volumes including foldouts.

Since its earliest days, publication of the A to Js has always been an essential part of Parliament’s record-keeping. It is part of the accountability of government departments and other statutory bodies to Parliament. These reports and papers are tabled in the House, Parliament orders that they be printed, and they are bound into the volumes we know collectively as the ‘A to Js’.

Now some of these weighty volumes – accumulated for more than 150 years – will reveal hidden treasures previously not accessible to many New Zealanders. They are an impressive resource.

These are hidden treasures indeed. One researcher at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, when ordering the New Zealand A to Js from the stacks, found that they had to be retrieved from an underground salt mine in Cheshire! He got them 48 hours later. Apparently a salt mine has an ideal dry and constant temperature environment. Not everyone has to go to the lengths of this particular researcher in getting access to the hard-copy A to Js, but the difficulties of access cannot be denied.

The A to Js of the 1860s and 1870s cover a crucial period in our history – the land wars and the confiscation of land, the discovery of gold and influx of a great many migrants, Vogel’s public works and immigration programme involving a mass government-assisted immigration scheme and the building of railways and roads, and the abolition of the provinces and strengthening of central government.

As a by-product of this turbulent period of our history, the A to Js contain a myriad of information about the people of that time – lists of civil servants, sheep owners, land purchasers, Maori landowners and petitioners, and many more, as the activities of government intersected with people’s everyday lives.

The digitised A to Js will be made available in a similar format to the popular ‘Papers Past’, the National Library’s digitised historical newspaper collection. Those of you who have used Papers Past will know just how much research opportunities are opened up. I would bet that if you took a look you would not leave the Papers Past website for hours – such is the fascination once you start browsing!

We have only just begun to lift the curtain on the hidden treasures in the A to Js. We now need to digitise the whole period 1854 to 1999 when the modern-day Parliamentary Papers begin.

It is hoped that this pilot website will provide a launching pad through which further digitisation of the A to Js can be achieved with the support of other stakeholders, and to date, some have indicated their financial support to enable this to happen.

The first 24 volumes will eventually become an estimated 600 volumes, though the speed at which that happens will depend on available funding.

In a recent on-line poll, conducted by Digital New Zealand on candidates for digitisation, the A to Js were voted one of the top information source priorities.

Responses described the A to Js as providing open access to the treasures of the past and I am sure we will see a surge in scholarly interest by anyone studying New Zealand history. There is a desire to keep the momentum going.

For making this start on digitising the A to Js I wish to acknowledge the work and funding of the National Library and Digital New Zealand; the assistance of the Hocken Library which provided the volumes; and the Parliamentary Library staff who checked those volumes for completeness.

Other organisations also to be thanked include the Office of the Clerk, the Council of NZ University Librarians, the NZ Law Librarians Association, the Association of Public Library Managers and Te Puni Kōkiri.

I now officially launch ‘A to Js Online’. There is no button to press or champagne bottle to break over the ship, but I invite you all to press some buttons on the keyboards across the room. Take a look at what is on offer, and consider how magnificent this resource will be when all the A to Js are digitised.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

12:30pm, Tuesday 11 May 2010

The role of the Speaker is inextricably entwined with the evolution of parliamentary democracy, which was so hard fought for over so many centuries in England.

King John didn’t affix his seal to the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215 because he had some great vision of democracy. He desperately needed extra taxes for his failed military campaigns and the Barons had had enough. They weren’t going to pay any more without something in return.

Likewise, when Edward I summoned the ‘Model Parliament’ eighty years later, in 1295, he needed more taxes to fund his campaigns against the Scots, including William Wallace.

It was under Edward III that the Commons met separately for the first time and in 1376 the ‘Good Parliament’ elected the first Speaker, Sir Peter de la Mare. I must say he didn’t last that long – John of Gaunt had him arrested just a year later.

In those early years the Speaker chaired the House of Commons and spoke to a monarch on behalf of the Parliament. Sir Thomas More made the first known request for the right of freedom of speech in Parliament in 1523. He sought it from Henry VIII.

It is something I still do formally today. The first act of a newly elected speaker in New Zealand is to seek from the Governor-General confirmation of the appointment and, on behalf of the Members, lay claim to all the privileges of the House, especially to freedom of speech in debate.

In the 1600’s Charles I tried to bypass Parliament and levy forced loans without parliamentary approval. So desperate for money did he become that in 1640 he summoned the Long Parliament.

Frustrated at not getting his way, he forced his way into the Commons in 1642 to arrest five senior Members.

History has it that Speaker William Lenthal sent Charles I packing with the words:

“May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here”.

The English Civil War followed five months later and Charles I was eventually to lose his head. Since that time, no monarch has entered the U.K. Commons or our Debating Chamber here in New Zealand.

In that courageous action, Speaker William Lenthal established the Speaker as Parliament’s man and set the standard for future speakers in protecting the rights and privileges of Parliament.

Of course the monarchy was restored in 1660 with Charles II followed by James II, but religious tensions saw Parliament at odds with the Crown until the glorious revolution in 1688 and the passage of the Bill of Rights Act. It was the start of the constitutional monarchy and, in 1690, the Commons took control over the Crown’s use of revenue as well as taxation.

Those crucial separations of power so fiercely fought for over hundreds of years, remain today and establish, to my mind, the breadth and depth of the Speaker’s role.

The role is not just chairing or presiding over the House. It is, in its full context, about ensuring the House of Representatives is free and able to function effectively both as a legislature and in the vital role of holding the Crown or Executive to account.

This view of the Speaker’s role guides my interpretation of Standing Orders and also my role as “Minister” responsible for the Parliamentary Service.

It provided the basis for my departure from some recent Speakers’ Rulings over the conduct of the House – especially question time; the urgent need to re-examine the key Standing Orders having been triggered by a perceived disenchantment (to put it mildly) of the public with the performance of Parliament.

Speaker Margaret Wilson, in a paper for the New Zealand Universities Law Review in 2007, wrote this about the Standing Orders.

“The Standing Orders are often general and capable of different interpretations. The Speaker is guided in his or her judgement on how and when to apply the rules through previous Speakers’ Rulings that have precedent value”.

It would be fair to say that, as a former scientist and not a lawyer, I am more guided by primary analysis than precedent.

A progression of Speakers’ Rulings over the past decade had seen question time become more of an exercise in avoiding questions than answering them.

Speaker Wilson acknowledged this in her law review paper when she wrote:

“Ministers have become skilled at turning the questions and their answers into attacks on the Opposition.”

This was justified with the argument that:

“Given the current Standing Orders, the Ministers are not required to answer the question but to address it ….”

The progression in Speakers’ Rulings probably started in 2001 when Speaker Jonathan Hunt ruled:

“The Standing Orders require a Minister’s reply to address the question. But an adequate answer might not result. The Speaker could not judge that.”

Speaker Wilson elaborated on this in 2005 with her ruling:

“An answer must be relevant to the subject matter of the question. But answer is a neutral word. The quality of the answer required by the Standing Order comes from the use of the word address. That is the test of adequacy.”

What was the outcome of these Speakers’ Rulings?

A journalist writing in a blog in 2008 claimed:

“If a Minister got to their feet and in answer to a question farted loudly, the Speaker would say that they had addressed the question.”

That kind of disdain puts our Parliament at risk. Parliamentary democracy is a fragile thing. History is littered, and not just old history, with Parliament’s powers being usurped by armed force with all the consequent loss of rights and freedoms for the citizens involved.

So what do the Standing Orders actually say about Ministers answering questions.

The relevant Standing Order is 377 which states:

“An answer, that seeks to address the question asked, must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.”

I’ve asked myself what that means from two perspectives.

What did the writers of those words intend?

From the perspective of the Speaker’s wider role in protecting the rights of the House of Representatives against the power of the Crown, what do those words mean?

I’ll never forget, about 3 years ago, having dinner with a senior colleague at Bellamy’s. It must have been a day when Ministers had successfully avoided answering most of the questions. With a sigh, my colleague said that of course the Standing Orders only require Ministers to address the questions anyhow.

I said, “well no – they actually require an answer to be given”. My colleague took a bet with me for a bottle of wine and was most surprised when he checked the Standing Order. He lost his bottle of wine.

The Standing Order says that an answer must be given, and to me the word answer is not a neutral word as a Speakers’ Ruling has suggested.

Answer relates directly to a question. What’s more, why would the writers of the Standing Order have included the words “if it can be given consistently with the public interest”, if they had not intended that Ministers should answer questions?

That then brings me to the phrase within the Standing Order “that seeks to address the question”.

Far from being a “test of adequacy” as in the existing Speakers’ Ruling, I see the phrase merely as recognising that for some questions there is no answer.

Where a question is more of a political statement, that part of the Standing Order is helpful in that it requires the Minister’s response to address the same subject matter.

Having analysed the Standing Order somewhat differently from my recent predecessors, I have then applied my second test – what interpretation of the Standing Order best serves the rights of the House of Representatives in holding the Crown to account – the Speaker William Lenthal test if you like.

In thinking about this I’m mindful that Parliament has changed over the years. With the advent of MMP, Parliament is now more a place of political parties than a House of Representatives.

Some have even suggested that question time today should be accepted as political theatre, where Members and parties can trade political blows, verbally that is – we aren’t quite the Ukraine, to establish who and which party is the most politically adept.

But I come back to that vital role of the House of Representatives, that of holding the Crown to account. A Speaker allowing that role to be diluted is, in my view, not protecting the hard fought for rights and privileges of Parliament so courageously upheld by William Lenthal.

So how do I apply my interpretation of Standing Orders to question time – I hope with some common sense, impartiality and, above all, fairness.

Essentially, I recognise three types of question.

• the question that is a thinly disguised political statement
• the question that seeks an opinion
• the question that asks for information.

Strictly, some of the political statements could be ruled out as being inconsistent with the Standing Order covering the asking of questions. But that would involve the Speaker intruding too much into the flow of question time.

So, where a question is essentially a political statement, I expect the Minister to “seek to address the question” in responding. But such a question can expect a political statement in response.

Again, where an opinion is being sought in the question, the reality is that there is no particular answer. Any answer given, however, should address the subject matter of the question.

It is where Ministers are tested with a clear, concise question seeking information that I apply the full force of the Standing Order that an answer must be given if can be given consistently with the public interest.

You may well ask how everyone has reacted to all of this.

To give Ministers credit, apart from some initial dismay that their opportunity to play the political evasion game, after years of suffering from it, was to be somewhat constrained, Ministers have really stepped up to the mark. Answers by and large are much more informative.

Even government departments are putting more work into preparing information for Ministers to answer questions. There have been some glaring embarrassments where they have failed to do this.

Even Members asking questions are now seeing benefit from shorter, more succinct questions that can put a Minister on the spot where an answer is expected. Achieving a greater proportion of more succinct, telling questions, I would have to accept, however, is still work in progress.

Interestingly, there has even been an international reaction. It’s not uncommon for me to receive emails from people in places like Australia and Canada who comment on the day’s question time. And, at this year’s Commonwealth Parliamentary Speakers’ Conference, in New Delhi, New Zealand’s question time was a matter of significant interest.

But it’s our own public, whose Parliament this is, whose reaction is most important to me.

I sense a positive response and more people now seem to be watching question time on the Parliamentary Channel where it is live at 2.00 pm and replayed at both 6.00 pm and 10.00 pm.

It would be fair to say, however, that the positive public response I’m picking up, may link also to two other changes that have been made, changes to both the tone of the House and time wasting in it.

The tone of the Debating Chamber had been a growing problem in recent years. It had been, at times, plain nasty and no one likes to see their Parliament like that.

My analysis indicated that part of the nastiness stemmed from a misuse of points of order.

Under our Standing Orders, any Member can raise a point of order and, because a point of order takes precedence over other business, it is a powerful tool. A point of order can stop the Prime Minister in his tracks.

In recent years, a growing trend had been to use points of order to interrupt speakers and score political points.

In allowing spurious points of order to be heard, the Speaker couldn’t prevent other Members from wading in, and wanting to speak to the point of order. Things would go rapidly from bad to worse, and inevitably end up in nastiness.

The remedy for this was relatively easy. The Standing Orders require a point of order to be put tersely and the Member to speak only to the point of order raised.

I require Members to establish quickly the issue of order, and if I don’t hear it I sit them down. I will not tolerate the business of the House being interrupted with spurious points of order, intended to score political points.

The outcome has been twofold. The tone of the House is much better through the elimination of spurious points of order and, of course, far less time is wasted.

A further action has also had significant impact, and that has been clamping down on the tabling of documents.

A practice had developed in recent years of using Standing Order 368, ‘documents tabled by leave’, simply to score more political points.

Leave would be sought to table documents containing all sorts of political dynamite and often the claimed document didn’t even exist. The Member, seeking leave under a point of order, often had no intention of tabling anything. They were just playing politics and sometimes not very honest politics either.

Again, the remedy wasn’t difficult. A change to Standing Orders required documents to be tabled and I have ruled that where the House gives leave to table a document, it must be tabled that sitting day.

Furthermore, I would no longer seek the House’s permission for leave to table documents readily available to Members, such as recent media reports, Hansards or answers to written questions.

The intent of Standing Order 368 was to enable the House to be informed on matters not readily available to it. It was not intended to facilitate political party point scoring.

The net result of these changes is not only a markedly better humoured house, but time wasting has been reduced to the point where question time now lasts typically an hour, rather than the 1hr 40 minute parade of point scoring of the recent past.

With Parliament costing approximately $520 a minute to run, less time wasting can’t be a bad thing.

For Parliament to operate effectively, Members do need administrative support. This is provided by the Parliamentary Service for which the Speaker is effectively the Minister. Support for Members has been the subject of some comment in recent times following the expenses scandal in the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister’s and my decision to publish Ministers’ and Members’ expenses here in New Zealand.

A comprehensive account of the role of the Speaker as Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service was given by Speaker Margaret Wilson in her law review paper of 2007.

She had inherited a situation where the administrative practice for Members’ support had not been updated with legislative change and didn’t entirely match the law. She put much work into remedying that problem. And while I have inherited the role perhaps in more controversial times, I am the beneficiary of her work.

Speaker Wilson, in her 2007 paper, also hinted at a tension between the impartial role of the Speaker in the House and the direct involvement with political parties in the administration of their support through Parliamentary Services. This is an interesting issue.

It’s been put to me that may be an independent, outside authority, should establish the support needed for Members to fulfil their roles.

Certainly, the remuneration of Members is set by the independent Remuneration Authority, and that is how it should be. That Authority, in its salary determinations, takes account of any Members’ support from Parliamentary Services that the Inland Revenue Department has ruled is of a remunerative nature.

The wider Members’ support, however, is currently determined by the Speaker who issues a determination on travel, accommodation, attendance and communication services to be provided to Members under the Civil List Act 1979.

The Speaker also issues directions to the Parliamentary Service on the nature of the administration and support services under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.

There will undoubtedly be ongoing scrutiny of this, and where Members’ support is covered by expense payments from taxpayer money, and not deducted from Members’ salaries, those expense payments should be transparent.

But if one comes back to the full role of the Speaker as the claimant for, and the protector of, the rights and privileges required for a fully functional parliamentary democracy to operate, then I would argue the Speaker has a continuing responsibility for these issues of Members’ support.

A part of the privileges of the House is the exclusive right to control its own operation.

The issues aren’t as simple as they may appear on the face of it. Ministerial Services provides support for the Executive, and it’s important that Opposition, and other non-Executive Members are not disadvantaged in the support they receive through Parliamentary Services.

I would also argue that the nature of administrative support should reflect the fact that we still do have a House of Representatives. The change to the MMP electoral system may well have pushed political parties more deeply into the heart of our Parliament, but it is ultimately Members who represent their people, and the administration of support services must facilitate that representation.

Just as requiring Ministers to answer appropriate questions in the House may have made the Speaker’s role a little more challenging, so too the role of determining and administering Member support should not be abandoned just because it is inevitably controversial.

The Speaker claims the rights and privileges of the House from the monarch’s representative. The Speaker has a responsibility to secure the resources necessary to support it.

The impartiality and fairness required in chairing the House should be no more difficult to apply to determining that necessary support.

Some might ask what change I want to try and encourage next.

There is something.

One of the unintended consequences of giving political parties a far greater role in Parliament with an MMP electoral system, has been a change in the nature of debate.

It’s fair to say it was probably never great, but at least at times we did have some really interesting debates. Now, most so called debate consists of time limited set pieces with each party having an allocated number of speeches.

With the enormous control parties now have over their Members through the power of the Party List, debate has tended to become more a repetitive parroting of parties’ political positions.

So bad has it got, we even see Members get to their feet and read a typed speech, obviously written by the party’s research unit, and may be not even seen by the Member until just before the so-called debate.

In the House, Members are expected to reflect the views of those they represent, which hopefully is wider than just a political party, and seek to persuade other Members to the soundness of those views and the thinking behind them.

Sadly, these days that is a rare event. And one small step towards remedying the problem might be to discourage Members from reading pre-prepared speeches.

Such a move wouldn’t magically restore great debate.

However, any move to encourage less of the endless repetition of party positions would be healthy for our House of Representatives.

You might wish me luck, but I think, as you can see, I don’t shrink from challenges.

E N D

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

6pm to 7.30pm

Greetings, Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Service,

Tihei mauri ora

Tuia ki runga

Tuia ki raro

Tuia ki roto

Tuia ki waho

Tuia te here tangata

Ka rongo te po, ka rongo te ao

E ngā mana, e nga reo,

E ngā karanga maha e huihui nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

Translation

Behold the breath of life

Fasten above

Bind below

Unite from within

Unify the outer

Unify the strand of man

Listen constantly night and day

To those gathered here

From diverse backgrounds,

I greet you all

Māori language in the House of Representatives has been an enduring element of New Zealand democracy since the first four Māori MPs were elected in 1868. At that time, Te Arawa chief, Pōkiha Taranui questioned the point of “our chiefs being sent into the Pākehā parliament if they can’t understand the language of the Pākehā.”

They were provided with sequential interpretation of English into Te Reo Māori and, as required, Te Reo Māori into English.

Now, 142 years later, simultaneous interpretation on a permanent basis is being introduced into the House allowing for seamless interpretation of Te Reo Maori into English.

From today whenever a member speaks in Te Reo Māori, simultaneous interpretation into English will be provided. This brings to fruition the Standing Orders Committee recommendation in 2008 that simultaneous interpretation be introduced to the House in either language without waiting for an interpretation to be given afterwards. This is expected to improve the flow of debate in the House.

Members will listen via earpieces provided at their seats. Gallery visitors can ask the attendants for a receiver and earpiece.

Viewers of Parliament TV will have a choice of audio with the live television coverage. They will be able to hear whatever is spoken in the House, either English or Māori, or they can hear “English only.”

I am told it will be seamless as a flick of a switch which will divert the audio stream from the member speaking in the House in Te Reo Māori to the interpreter working in a specially equipped interpreter’s booth in a studio adjacent to the House.

For most New Zealanders it will be a new experience as they choose a preferred audio stream while watching television. I am told the process of choosing the audio stream is going to test many less accomplished users of the remote controls like me, but will be achievable by pushing enough buttons – or even get your 10-year-old to do it for you!

This achievement is a tribute to the work of the Office of the Clerk, Clerk Assistant (Reporting Services), Wynne Price and her team including project manager and Senior Parliamentary Officer (Broadcasting) Carol Rankin, Te Kaiwhakahaere – Nga Ratonga Reo Māori, Wīremu Haunui and his team, technical staff, Parliamentary Service, and all those who have worked with them to make this happen. There have been many hours of negotiation and discussion with the providers of various services to accommodate this modernisation of Parliament’s interpretation services.

Development of Māori Language services in the House since 1997 has been rapid beginning with Wīremu who was then a part-time interpreter on contract in the chamber. In 2000 a simultaneous interpretation service in Māui Tikitiki-a-Taranga was provided and in 2004 a Kaiwhakamārama Reo was appointed. By last year, there were four staff engaged in a range of interpretation, transcription and translation services.

The spur for Te Reo Māori was the ruling by Sir Douglas Kidd, who ruled that,” when a member speaks in Māori that member does so as of right.” (1997, Vol. 562. p. 3192. Kidd)

Timing for a speaker on the floor of the House is strictly controlled, and Sir Douglas Kidd acknowledged that time was an issue when interpreting Māori into English. He decided the interpretation was for the benefit of members who do not understand Māori. He then also ruled that what ever time is allowed by Standing Orders for a particular type of speech in Māori, additional time would be allowed for interpretation.

Simultaneous interpretation means the allowance of time for interpretation within the House is unlikely to be factor in the future.

I also wish to note that the simultaneous interpretation does not form part of the official record of House proceedings. It is a service provided to the House to facilitate debate. A considered, written translation will appear in the published Hansard as the official record.

The simultaneous interpretation service now available is further recognition of the place of the Māori language in Parliament and the status of Te Reo Māori as an official language of New Zealand.

Some of you might like to look at the timeline displayed here in the Grand Hall which summarises the place of the Māori language in Parliament over a full 140 years or more.

From 1868 until 1920 Parliament had interpreters in the House.

The first interpreter was E.W. Puckey, from the Native Department who began his duties on 4 August 1868. He entered the chamber and sat between two of the new Māori MPs following a motion passed in the House that: “pending the consideration of permanent arrangements for the interpretation of Māori speeches, Mr Speaker be requested to summon the interpreter of the House to interpret for the Māori members.”

It is fair to say that the interpreters were absolutely vital to the functioning of the Māori MPs in those days. Most of them had a rudimentary grasp of English at best until the turn of the twentieth century.

By the 1880s the interpreters’ duties (two in the House of Representatives and one in the Legislative Council) also included translating bills and parliamentary papers into Māori, translating hundreds of petitions from Māori, and attending the Māori Affairs Committee.

By the turn of the twentieth century younger Māori members were well educated and spoke English well. Continued employment of interpreters became an issue.

In 1913 Apirana Ngata attempted to speak in Māori without an interpreter present in order to obstruct business. Speaker Lang ruled that the Māori MPs should speak in English if they were able to. This ruling established expectations for much of the twentieth century.

Employment of an interpreter lapsed from 1920. In following years Māori MPs were able to speak briefly in Māori if they themselves provided a sequential interpretation.

Speaker Lang’s ruling of 1913 remained in place into the 1980s but some flexibility was evident. Tapihana Paraire ‘Dobbie’ Paikea (Northern Maori, 1943-63) spoke in Māori – to much mirth from his fellow members even though his interpretation gave no indication why. Oddly, this often occurred on Fridays (then a sitting day). He was ingeniously broadcasting through the radio details to his wife about his impending return home and other ‘marital intimacies’!

This is not to encourage similar practices today. The Speaker must always be vigilant to ensure that speaking in the House is for its proper purpose!

By the 1990s the demand to speak Māori was growing. In 1990 Koro Wētere as Minister replied to questions in Māori and refused to provide an interpretation. On becoming Speaker in 1993 Peter Tapsell sang a waiata and suggested that the occasional use of Māori for formal matters would be appropriate.

With the reintroduction of interpreters and Māori language services in the last 10 or 15 years, the Māori language has become more commonplace in the chamber.

Parliament continues to recognise the importance of Te Reo Māori to New Zealand’s political affairs, society and culture. The introduction of simultaneous interpretation is evidence of that commitment.

I am pleased to now officially launch the simultaneous interpretation service for the House of Representatives.

ENDS

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

3 November, 2009, 10.30am , Select Committee Rooms 1/2 Bowen House.

Opening Address

The Hon Dr Lockwood Smith

Speaker of the House of Representatives

President of the CPA New Zealand Branch

I am very pleased to be here today to open this, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s 18th Australian and Pacific Regional Seminar, in Wellington.

I am particularly heartened to welcome the Samoan and Tongan delegates who have made a significant commitment to be here today.

I would also like to note the presence of the longest serving member of Parliament within our region, the very experienced Uliti Uata, the Peoples No.1 Representative for the Island Group of Ha’apai in Tonga, who has served as a member for the past 34 years. He took the place of honour in responding to the pöwhiri today on your welcome to the New Zealand Parliament.

This has been a very active year for our region with the 40th Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks being held at Tarawa, Kiribati earlier this year.

There is much to discuss over the next two days particularly the recurring theme of climate change and the deep concerns of the peoples within the Pacific region of the potential hazards presented by the possibility of rising oceans.

Our Australian members are also taking up the climate theme for this seminar with the Tasmanian delegate discussing ways of building on their advantages and the Northern Territory introducing the impact of bushfires on the environment.

Representative democracy in our region is a powerful force for freedom and fairness in the government of all our people. But it does not materialise or take root on its own. There is a need for ongoing support and assistance, and encouragement from member countries for there to be true representation.

The presence of Bougainville today is a remarkable tribute to the resilience and determination of a people in developing a process of internal self government as an autonomous region.

New Zealand has been pleased to play a role in supporting the development of self government through the provision of technical support including training and advice.

There are challenges too in Samoa and I know the delegates here today will be interested in learning about reforms in the Samoan Parliament still strongly aligned with mati who hold 47 of the 49 seats. The position of Samoa is a reflection of the diversity of systems being applied to internal self government within our region.

The participation of youth in the democratic process is being discussed where parliamentary organisations meet around the world. The Secretary – General of the Commonwealth, Kamalesh Sharma, in marking the 60th anniversary of the Commonwealth earlier this year, that there is a need for young people to be both seen and heard at the global decision-making table.

His views strike a chord in our region when says there is a need for the views of our young to be heard and acted upon in every corner of public life and, and that the contributions of the young should be embraced.

Next year I will be sponsoring the sixth youth Parliament here in New Zealand as a means to helping young people understand what goes in Parliament and to give them the opportunity to express their views to politicians and the public. I invite all of you to follow its progress and, if you have not done so, consider adopting a similar concept in your parliament.

I know all delegates will be interested in the session engaging with youth which will be chaired by our New Zealand delegate Carmel Sepuloni MP. Carmel last month took a lead role in a workshop on engaging future generations in representative democracy at the 55th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Arusha, Tanzania, speaking on her experience as a young MP in the New Zealand Parliament.

There is also a lot of interest in the workshop on gender representation which will be led by Chris Auchinvole MP. Gender balance is very important for a country’s democracy and I am sure this topic will generate a lot of discussion among delegates.

The last occasion on which this regional seminar was staged in New Zealand was 1996. Since then it is pleasing to see that there has been a strengthening of cooperation and shared support for each other through our network of Parliaments at national and state levels. I look forward to this seminar further enhancing that positive development.

And I look forward to opportunity to further enhance this benefit which flows from gatherings such as this.

It is my pleasure and formal duty as President of the CPA New Zealand Branch to declare this Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 18th Australian and Pacific Regional Seminar officially open.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

The Hon Dr Lockwood Smith

President of the New Zealand Branch of the CPA

Speaker of the House of Representatives of New Zealand

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has an important role in supporting and helping strengthen Parliamentary democracy in the New Zealand, Australian and Pacific Regions.

The 18th Australian and Pacific Regional Seminar to be held in Wellington will provide a valuable opportunity to share and assess our respective views about how Parliaments can better serve their nations.

In welcoming delegates to this seminar, I am mindful of the deep tragedy suffered by Samoa and Tonga where there was sad loss of life following the recent tsunami.

The events were a stark reminder of the vulnerability of our region to natural disasters and the importance of working together to provide assistance in times of need.

Representative democracy in our region is a powerful force for freedom and fairness in the government of all our people.

Continued cooperation and shared support for each other through our network of Parliaments at national and state levels will be one of the outcomes sought from this Seminar. I look forward to renewing friendships and engaging with new members of Parliament during the course of proceedings.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

9.10 am Wednesday 6 May 2009

Welcome to Parliament, New Zealand’s sovereign law-making body.

New Zealand inherited the Westminster parliamentary system’s history and tradition, much of which continues to influence what we do and how we do it.

Our own history and experience has, however, brought some monumental changes to the face – and body – of New Zealand’s Parliament and we have several times led the world in modernisation and achieving full democracy.

For all but the first 14 years since European settlement we have had an elected Parliament, a record that puts us pretty near to the top of the list of the world’s democratic legislative assemblies.

In fact, if you accept universal suffrage – the right of all adults to vote – as a prerequisite for a fully representative, elected assembly, then New Zealand heads the list, having achieved full manhood suffrage in 1879 and female suffrage in 1893. However it was 1919 before we gave women the right to stand for Parliament.

In another break with Westminster and several of our Commonwealth counterparts, we dispensed with our Upper House, or Legislative Council, in 1950.

In the absence of a second house, Select Committees now perform a robust series of checks on the Executive as well as giving the public extremely good access to parliamentary deliberations.

The Select Committee system and the introduction of MMP – Mixed Member Proportional Representation – have brought major changes to our Parliament, including a greater number of MPs representing a wider public voice.

MMP has also influenced how the House is administered. Each party is allocated speaking time in the House on a strictly proportional basis according to party numbers in the House.

Even the allocation of questions and supplementary questions has a formal mechanism based on the party proportions in the House, excluding Ministers.

Thus over a 6-week period National is entitled to 80 questions, Labour 99, Green 21, ACT and Maori parties 7 each, Progressive 2, United Future 0.

When it comes to supplementary questions, over a week Labour, as the largest Opposition party, is entitled to 82 supplementary questions, National 67, Green 17, ACT and Maori parties 6 each, Progressive 2 and United Future 0.

Depending on their size, each party will have an opportunity to lead off question time and will have to take its fair share of less prominent positions in the questions order.

Parties are free to exchange slots with other parties, but they must advise the Clerk of the House when the question is lodged.

Constitutionally, the position of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is the third highest in the land. The Queen’s representative, the Governor-General, is highest of course, followed by the Prime Minister and then the Speaker.

This underscores the importance of Parliament in the democratic governance of our country.

When our Westminster system of parliamentary democracy was still developing in Britain, the presiding officer became known as “the Speaker” because the House of Commons would elect one of its members to be its “mouthpiece to the Crown”. The Speaker would convey the wishes of the House to the King (or Queen).

There is a widespread belief that several British Speakers were executed in the line of duty in the 15th and 16th Centuries because the King or Queen was unhappy with the message delivered on behalf of the House of Commons.

It is true that some people who held the office of Speaker went on to lose their heads, but it had more to do with their activities when they were not presiding in the House – taking part in the civil war, for instance and ending up on the losing side.

While the myth might be more interesting than the reality, it has served to highlight the responsibilities the Speaker had to the House.

My conduct as Speaker is governed by very clear conventions.

The first and most important is non-partisanship. I must never display favour or disdain for one party or side of the House. All Members of the House must be treated equally, regardless of their party affiliation and I have had to put aside my personal political beliefs when carrying out my functions as the Speaker.

Any Speaker who does otherwise would soon lose the confidence of the House.

The second principle, although related to non-partisanship, is independence from the Executive government.

My rulings and actions cannot be dictated or in any way swayed by Executive orders, or ministerial demands.

As Speaker I have several roles – I am a presiding officer when the House is sitting, a landlord, a committee chairperson, a spokesperson for the House, a quasi-Minister of the Crown, and of course, a Member of Parliament. I also chair the Parliamentary Service Commission, which is responsible for members’ administrative support.

My most visible job however is that of presiding over the House.

I am responsible for maintaining order and decorum enabling business to proceed without unnecessary disruption.

One of the most challenging sessions is the daily question time which you will be observing after lunch. It is during these sessions that Executive Government is held to account by the House. Ministers are on permanent notice that Government activity must always be capable of standing up to regular scrutiny by the Members of the House of Representatives.

It is my role to apply the Standing Orders – the rules governing House procedure – and adjudicate on matters of procedure.

In recent years I have become concerned that the way question time was being conducted was devaluing this critical accountability role of our Parliament.

The practice has developed whereby Ministers seem to be putting more effort into evading questions than providing answers the House, on behalf of the public, could reasonably expect.

I was determined, when I accepted the role of Speaker, that I was going to try and change that. Parliament was, in my view, too important, and the role of question time too vital a part of the accountability process, for the whole thing to reduce, as the public saw it, t0 a farce.

To the Government’s credit, Ministers have responded positively to my change in interpretation of the relevant Standing Order, and are now answering questions in a much more informative way. Judging by the flow of communications from the public, watching question time on the parliamentary television channel, the change has been well received.

While I am satisfied with the outcome, I must say I have made something of a rod for my own back in that question time now requires the Speaker to bring a high level of concentration and focus to the process.

One of my less-publicised roles is that of ‘Landlord’. Technically I control all of Parliament’s grounds and buildings; Parliament House, and the adjoining Beehive and Parliamentary Library as well as the lease on Bowen House which is, according to statute, administered by the Speaker.

I have the sometimes-unenviable task of allocating office space and controlling access to the buildings and grounds.

In adjudicating on matters of access it can be difficult to balance the right of those who work at Parliament to an orderly and respectful working environment with the democratic right of access by the news media and the public to their House of Representatives.

After all, every Member of Parliament is accountable to the public and it is essential that those they represent have access to them and that the news media, representing the public, can ask questions of them.

A large news media contingent occupies permanent offices within the Parliamentary complex and it is my job to approve their accreditation and occasionally issue rules for their conduct within the parliamentary complex. Again, it is a matter of balancing their needs with those of MPs.

The Speaker’s role also involves chairmanship of three select committees.

The Business Committee, which coordinates the business of the House, comprises representatives of all elected political parties. These members can discuss any problems they have to ensure the House can focus on debating issues rather than managing business.

The Officers of Parliament Committee covers the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; all of whom are directly responsible to Parliament.

The third body I chair is the Standing Orders Committee, which reviews the rules of the House.

The Speaker is also the Responsible Minister for a number of offices of state including the Parliamentary Service with a budget of around 130 million dollars and a staff of about 650 full-time equivalents and the Office of the Clerk with a budget of approximately 20 million dollars and a staff of about 125.

In addition to this, the Speaker chairs the Parliamentary Service Commission, a statutory committee of members which advises the Speaker on the nature of the services to be provided to Members of Parliament.

In carrying out these functions the Speaker is totally independent of Executive government. My role, however, ensures the same political accountability required of any government department.

But my fundamental role remains – that of being a Member of Parliament. In some countries the Speaker sheds official political party affiliations on election to the position.

Indeed, they stand almost unopposed in General Elections to ensure they are not involved in political campaigning. While that would have its undoubted attraction, I’m not advocating it here.

Our system is a little more practical and recognises that members have basic political values, beliefs, friendships and loyalties that do not magically disappear on resignation from a political party.

We only require that a Speaker actively and conscientiously approach the job in an impartial manner.

Under our MMP system the Speaker, like all other MPs, has a vote in debates, though never a casting vote. This differs from the first-past-the-post system where the Speaker did not vote except to make a casting vote in the event of a tie.

My vote maintains the proportionality of the results of the General Election, as decided by the party vote. I always vote the party stance except on issues that are designated matters of conscience.

As Parliament’s representative I regularly meet foreign ambassadors and high commissioners, visiting delegations and presiding officers on behalf of Parliament.

I also take an annual Speaker’s Delegation to visit other parliaments elsewhere in the world. The fact that a number of the Members on the 2008 delegation were to retire that year certainly brought the value of the Speaker’s Delegations into public question.

However, the Speaker’s Delegations can have real value for New Zealand. Throughout the democratic world, the position of Speaker is highly respected.

Because of that respect the Speaker can open doors for our diplomats and trade representatives that might otherwise take much longer without the Speaker’s support.

A recent example was when the 2009 Speaker’s Delegation visited Japan. In addition to valuable meetings with the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the delegation was able to meet with an extraordinary array of business interests in Hokkaido, and made crucial contacts with key players in the agriculture and tourist industries in that part of Japan, so crucial to advancing New Zealand’s economic relationship with Japan.

In addition, the warmth generated during our visit to both Viet Nam and Japan highlighted the value such delegations can bring to strengthening New Zealand’s relationships with crucially important economic partners.

From my time as Minister for International Trade, I was aware of the high regard in which New Zealand is held internationally. That reputation has been built by successive Ministers working internationally for peaceful stability, and prosperity through free and open trade. Because of the status of the office, the Speaker has an extraordinary opportunity to enhance and add value to that work.

This Parliament lies at the heart of our democratic process. It is the symbol of our freedom. As Speaker I will do all I can to enhance its standing in the eyes of my fellow New Zealanders.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

Saturday 25 April, 2009

Here, today, in this small enclave of the Hodogaya Commonwealth War Cemetery in Yokohama, we gather to commemorate those of the Commonwealth who died during the war with Japan and as members of the Jay Force who came to moderate the peace of war’s end.

One we remember is William Brody, 5th Engineer on the NZ – flagged Merchant Navy ship M.V. Hauraki.

Requisitioned by the British War Ministry, the Hauraki was intercepted in the Indian Ocean en route to the Middle East by armed Japanese merchant ships.

The ship’s company of 56 men were mostly New Zealanders. Except for the engineers and the captain, the crew were set down in Singapore and incarcerated for the duration of the war.

The trip to Japan that ensued for the engineers was an example of courage as, with stealth and guile, they dropped overboard essential spare part for the ship’s engines while under the watchful eye of armed guards.  They also set about further debilitating the engines by running them low on essential oil.

They were first set to work on docklands at the Mitsubishi shipyard here in Yokohama, but American bombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 meant the POWs were sent by train to Kamaishi steelworks on the north east coast of Honshu.

On the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, aircraft flew from American and British air craft carriers and attacked various targets along the coast of Honshu.

Kamaishi was shelled by Allied warships. The POW camp lay between the coast and the steel plant. William Brody was severely wounded, dying on 10 August, 1945 at the age of 30, just five days before the war ended.

Today we commemorate him and his fellow New Zealanders who did not make it back home and who rest here in Japanese soil.

But today they lie in friendly soil for our nations have forged a new future together.

In 1999 New Zealand was a member of the force of the willing, the Australian-led INTERFET operation in East Timor. New Zealand and Australia were both given the task of patrolling and protecting the border with West Timor and preventing incursions across the border the mandate of the United Nations. Japan established and staffed a medical facility in the region supporting the New Zealand contingent.

And our joint efforts in the interest of global peace have continued since then with the Royal New Zealand Navy frigates deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in the Gulf receiving refueling assistance from the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force.

New Zealand and Japan have formed a close defence and security relationship reflecting our shared interest in the stability, growth and development of the Asia-Pacific region, and, above all its freedom.

I have stood on Chunuk Bair and at Lone Pine on ANZAC Day and seen the tears flow down the cheeks of the thousands who each year make the pilgrimage to Gallipoli, the place where our nationhood and the enduring ANZAC bond was forged.

And those tears are shed not just for the New Zealanders, Australians and Commonwealth soldiers who died there, but for all our peoples who have suffered from the unthinkable calamity of war.

They are the tears of humanity, and while they flow we will never forget. And in those tears lies the promise of freedoms our shared future can bring. Let them never be squandered. Let them never be in vain.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Parliament

7.00pm, Friday 26 September, 2008

May I first thank the National Centre for Research on Europe for the invitation to participate in this conference aptly named Europe in the Changing World: challenges, priorities and research collaboration.

May I also congratulate Martin and his team on the Annual Review of the Centre. I read it with interest and can see how established the work of the Centre has become in the academic life of New Zealand. I am sure the research conducted by the Centre will contribute to our knowledge of Europe, especially the enlarged Europe.

I have supported the work of the Centre since it was established and I was still working at the University of Waikato. I recall at the time when the information about the Centre first came to us that I thought this is exactly what was needed. It was needed I thought because we often take for granted our understanding and knowledge of Europe and at that time had underestimated the importance of the influence of a united Europe in world affairs. I think there is now a greater understanding, especially since the countries of what we called Eastern Europe have joined the European Union, but we need an authoritative source of information and analysis and that is the Centre.

I also thought at the time and continue to think that we underestimate the influence of the history and culture of Europe on our identity and character. Much of the discussion in recent times has been on New Zealand as a Pacific nation or as being part of Asia. All of this is true and good, but it should never be forgotten that much of our institutions and culture has its roots in Europe also. Europe both looking forward and looking back is important to New Zealand.

It is useful to remind ourselves that the EU is New Zealand’s second largest trading partner and that European countries make up 14 of our 50 top trading partners, with a combined total of around 16% of our merchandise trade.  Also the 27 members of the EU account for 31% of the world’s economic output and purchasing power.  When you add in other European countries, and Russia, you are looking at over a third of the global economy. 

We share a vision for a just, secure and sustainable world and are committed multi-lateralists and therefore cooperate closely on a broad range of international issues. A significant milestone in the New Zealand – EU partnership was the conclusion last September of our Joint Declaration on relations and cooperation. The Declaration outlines the broad range of shared interests covered in our relationship with Europe, which highlighted that we need to engage with the EU on a whole-of-government basis. 

As the Joint Declaration between the European Union and New Zealand points out, in today’s increasingly volatile and complex international environment, the value of dialogue and the exchange of information cannot be underestimated. We welcome the existing twice-yearly bilateral Ministerial Troika consultations. Regular contacts take place between the President of the Commission, the European Union High Representative and the New Zealand Prime Minister – in addition to the regular dialogue between the New Zealand Parliament and the European Parliament. We expect these exchanges to continue on a regular basis.

Opportunities will be sought for further dialogue through bilateral visits at Ministerial and Commissioner level and in the margins of international meetings. This will be supplemented with a regular exchange of information missions and in other fora. High-level visits between New Zealand and European Union institutions, and EU member states, are an important anchor for the relationship. The New Zealand Prime Minister travels frequently to Brussels. The Minister of Foreign Affairs travels to Europe at least every six months for high-level consultations with the holders of the EU Presidency. Other Ministers also travel frequently to EU countries, the recent Speaker’s delegations have gone to European countries, the annual exchanges between the New Zealand Parliament and the European Parliament, and the parliaments of member states, establish and strengthen invaluable links between New Zealand and Europe. Parliamentary friendship groups on both sides also play a vital role in the relationship.

Our relationship with Europe goes beyond trade. It is important to recognise the cultural inheritance we in New Zealand have been gifted by Europe. The settlers in the 19th century were drawn primarily from the United Kingdom and Ireland, but it is important not to forget the French influence was strong, especially through the Catholic missionaries, and the smaller communities who came from Scandinavia, Germany, Dalmatia, Netherlands, Switzerland and many other countries. As pioneers they possessed self-reliance and independence, and an openness to innovation and change that was essential to survival. We like to think that these characteristics have become part of our identity as New Zealanders.

For me one of the most important connections with Europe has been the commitment to democratic decision making. While New Zealand has one of the oldest Parliamentary democracies, it has benefited from democratic movements in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. I would argue that we still have much to learn from European constitutional movements as is seen from our MMP electoral system that owes much to the German system. It was for this reason I decided to lead three Speaker’s Delegations to Europe.

I thought this evening I would concentrate on one aspect of our relationship with Europe that is rarely touched on and that is the relationship between Parliaments. It is not well known that Parliament has 8 friendship groups with European Member Parliaments, including the European Parliament. A friendship group is the means by which Members of Parliament can express their individual interest and support for developing a relationship with Parliamentarians from that particular Parliament. They have nothing to do with the executive and are organised by the members themselves but with the support of the Speaker’s Office.

They are essentially informal groups but there has been a recent tendency for some of them to be more active. This activity ranges from engaging with the various missions based in Wellington, to arranging exchanges, to hosting visiting delegations. Many European Parliaments also have New Zealand Friendship groups and I have noted an increased interest in the countries I have visited to form such a group. I have sought to encourage the groups because they enable Members to be better informed about other Parliaments and countries. As a small country at the bottom of the world we need to be constantly aware of what is happening elsewhere. To the credit of most Members I think as a Parliament we are outward looking and there is an understanding of the importance to engage with other Parliamentarians.

As I noted, I have led three cross-party delegations to Europe. The purpose of these has been to affirm the connection between our Parliament, and where there is a friendship group to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest, and where there is no group to seek to ensure one is established. An equally important reason has been to study the electoral system and administration of the Parliament in the countries visited. The reason for this is simple.

Most European Parliaments have some form of MMP government and are of more interest to us in many ways than the Westminster Parliament. I have felt it is important Members of Parliament are familiar with these systems as it is inevitable that at some point we must adapt our form of MMP. For example, I believe a successful electorate Member should only bring other Members into Parliament if they reach the 5% threshold. The other reason I promoted the visits is because Europe is important to our economy and we need to press our case, especially with the recently admitted countries.

It is a matter of record that such delegations receive a bad press. I can only assume it results from residual travel envy by journalists or more accurately their editors. Someone should tell them travel broadens the mind, or maybe that is the problem! I would note that I have approved seven other overseas visits and approved numerous inbound visits from delegations. The New Zealand Parliament is a popular destination because of our Select Committee system and a reputation of innovation in a variety of policy areas.

I thought it may be of interest to relate what happens on these delegations. In 2006 we travelled to the European Parliament in Brussels, and then on to Turkey. We learnt about the operation of the European Parliament in the context of the campaign at the time for Turkey to join the European Union. We were in effect hosted by the very strong and active friendship group that regularly visits the New Zealand Parliament. It quickly became clear that there was a sharp division of opinion within the Parliament on the admission of Turkey, which was the same amongst Turkish Parliamentarians when we visited their Parliament.

The visit was also useful for me because of the somewhat boring, but important issue of the administration of Parliament. I was embarking on a programme of major reform of our Parliament’s entitlements for Members and found the European Parliament also had such issues but on a much larger scale. I am a firm believer that an efficient transparent administration of Parliament is essential for its credibility. There is not enough time to recite what else we learnt in both institutions but it confirmed for me that Turkey is an economy and a country that New Zealand cannot ignore and that there is a great deal of goodwill within its Parliament for New Zealand.

In 2007 the Delegation visited Germany, the Netherlands and Norway. The purpose was primarily to look at their MMP systems, in particular Germany which provided the model for our electoral system. The overwhelming impression from visiting these countries was the increasing demand from citizens to more direct forms of participation within the political system. We could also observe the visible tensions within the ‘grand coalition’ in Germany. It was a useful reminder that all coalitions come at a price and in Germany the price was that some issues were simply placed on the back burner as being just too hard. The observation was also made that the coalition had given political prominence to the political extremes which given Germany’s history was a concern raised by several people.

When it came to this year’s Speaker’s delegation, I confess my choice was largely driven by my interest in learning more about the new enlarged Europe and understanding the role played by Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. I rate this as a highly successful visit and given the recent events in Georgia gave us an insight into the issues facing those countries. More specifically we found a great deal of interest in New Zealand and reforms in the agricultural sector. Our visit had followed a large delegation from Poland to New Zealand and a Czech Delegation is here in New Zealand now.

We also noted that while there was an acceptance of the need for these countries to join the European Union to be able to move forward, there was also considerable scepticism about the long term benefits. The Treaty of Lisbon has provided the catalyst for this debate so I felt it was important to continue to watch the debate over ratification of the Treaty after the rejection by Ireland in the recent referendum.

There was also tremendous appreciation for the assistance New Zealand has extended to the citizens of those countries after World War 11, the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, and the 1968 Czech Uprising. As an aside – Peter Brown, a NZ First Member of the delegation, found he was in much demand the day we arrived in Hungary as the junior coalition partner withdrew, leaving Hungary with its first experience of a minority government.

Before I conclude I want to make a few general observations from the visits to Europe on what we learnt about the state of representative Parliaments. As I have said, one of primary purposes of the visits was to study electoral developments and the legislative and administrative processes of the various Parliaments we studied. We were also interested in the level of support for the Treaty of Lisbon and the constitutional union of Europe. While there was widespread support for the economic benefits of the union, with the usual caveats of too much regulation and bureaucracy, there was less enthusiasm for the political and constitutional arrangements. Our last visit was just before the Irish referendum and I had the impression that result may have been repeated in other countries, which maybe explains why in the countries we visited the Parliaments had the authority to make the decision.

This is not the occasion to examine this issue, as I am sure it has been covered during the conference. It was apparent however that there is a malaise infecting the various representative parliamentary democracies. Disappointing low turnouts at elections and an increasing cynicism about politics and governments generally were all repeated to us as concerns by commentators and politicians. An increasing demand for more participation in the decision making process was often heard. The gap between the governors and the governed has become too great and has led to alienation. Parliaments were seen as representing a professional elite and distant from the people they represent. While the individual Parliaments were being urged by some to be more participatory, it was difficult for people to see the relevance of a European Parliament or constitution, which seemed even more remote and of less direct relevance to the lives of the citizens in the constituent countries.

I think this will be a challenge for us all – how to make our Parliaments not only more representative but more participatory. In New Zealand MMP has made our Parliament more representative but I doubt it is seen as more participative. There needs to be a serious re-engagement with the democratic project otherwise we are in danger of losing it. I know there is literature around this issue that explores ways in which to revive citizens’ interest and participation so I shall not pursue the question here. I raise it however to demonstrate the value of increased contact between New Zealand and the European Union. We share a democratic tradition that is in the process of a necessary evolution so we have much to learn from each other.

I feel I have exhausted my time for an after dinner speech. I do appreciate the time you have given me however because it enabled me to provide some assurance that Parliament takes our relationship with the European Union very seriously. New Zealand has a good international image which is in part attributed to the numerous face to face contacts between Members of Parliament and their counterparts in other countries. We take our international obligations seriously and this attracts many overseas Parliaments to visit to learn about our form of democratic government. All this can only be positive for our future.

I am not sure if there is time for questions but if there is I am happy to answer them.

MIL OSI