Category: Parliament

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