The House: Parliamentary Agency Resources Under Pressure
Wilson, along with Speaker Gerry Brownlee and Parliamentary Service Chief Executive Rafael Gonzalez Montero, joined the Governance and Administration Committee on Wednesday. The event was part two-albeit a month late-of the Estimates hearing for the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service.
Brownlee is not a cabinet minister, but even so, he is the minister responsible (as Speaker) for Parliament's agencies, the Office of the Clerk (OOC), and the Parliamentary Service (PS). He oversees the PS but the OOC is independent.
Much of Wednesday's hearing was focused on a perceived strain on the OOC's staff and resources. The source of that strain has apparently come from the increase of three things: the increased use of urgency, the number of public submissions on bills, and the amount of scrutiny by select committees.
Such technical, behind-the-scenes parliamentary issues are dry but crucial to the effective oversight and transparency of government, and to participation in the law-making process. Both are sacrosanct to a functioning democracy.
Wilson said the Office of the Clerk currently has the resources to cope with the aggregate demand for its services. His concern though, is being able to cope with a potential "new norm" of having unprecedented submissions on bills, which he said they would "really struggle to deal with".
"We can deal with one or two bills that attract a huge amount of public interest [but] we couldn't deal with those simultaneously, though, with current resources," Wilson said.
So would such a shift mean that some public submissions will not be able to be processed because the Office of the Clerk wouldn't have the capacity?
There is potential mitigation on the horizon in the form of the Parliament Bill, which is currently waiting for its second reading.
While not a silver-bullet, the law change would enable Wilson to make a case directly to Parliament for sufficient resourcing to deal with the increased scale of submissions, and not rely on the discretion of the Minister of Finance.
Double the scrutiny, half the resource
The current session of Parliament changed how select committees scrutinised Government spending and performance. This included the introduction of two dedicated scrutiny weeks a year (one for Estimates and one for Annual Review), longer hearings and cross examinations, and more for committees to report.
All that extra scrutiny increases labour and time costs. Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March expressed concern about whether Parliament has the resources to do justice to the new arrangements.
"The feedback we have received [is] that there's a genuine trade-off that happens with increased scrutiny and ability to produce substantive reports," he said.
Wilson said it's a matter of priorities.
"More so than previously, there is the need to weigh up where the energy and attention of the committee and therefore the staff are going to focus... If you're doubling the amount of time spent on scrutiny, there's not double the amount of resource to support that," he said.
Other than hoping for respite from the Parliament Bill's new funding mechanism, MPs could also propose changes to Parliament's rules and processes in the Standing Orders Review, which happens at the end of each Parliamentary term. That would be expected to occur in 2026.
Brownlee, who chairs the Standing Orders Committee, suggested this as a method for countering the increased strain on Parliament's staff and resources. He told MPs on Wednesday the trend is that there are more submissions on all bills at the moment than there has been in the past.
"I think it's for the Standing Orders Committee of Parliament to make some decisions around that, so if you've got some ideas, then feed them in," Brownlee said.
* RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Local government confusion
As we head towards local government elections, prospective candidates might be wondering what they could be letting themselves in for. For the last year or more the government has been berating councils for being poor fiscal managers, insisting they need to refocus on core services and cut out wasteful spending. As well, there has been unhelpful and unfocused speculation about the future role of regional councils. To add to the messy mix, last week the government announced a confusing set of restrictions on councils' planning programmes to stop them doing work which will not align with the forthcoming laws replacing the existing Resource Management Act. Plan reviews and changes will be stopped through an Amendment Paper to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, expected to become law next month. There will be mixed views about whether councils are irresponsible big spenders on vanity projects or whether the majority of rates rises are the result of them finally trying to catch up with years of underspending on infrastructure. What people believe is the truth may depend on the size of their rates increase and whether they take issue with some aspect of council spending they think is unnecessary. It is convenient for the government to point the finger at local government for the impact rates rises are having on the cost of living. It diverts attention from other living cost pressures, among them continuing food price rises. Despite its big talk about reining in the dominant supermarkets, nothing changes. The Regulatory Impact Statement on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill which passed its first reading in Parliament late last week made the point cost pressures on councils were being driven by capital and operating cost escalation, flowing from supply chain upheaval and a tight labour market during the pandemic and "accelerated headline inflation since". "Infrastructure costs have long been a major cause of rate increases, with councils needing to upgrade infrastructure, especially for water and wastewater treatment plants, and invest in more infrastructure to meet growth demands. "Around two-thirds of capital expenditure for councils is applied to core infrastructure, not including libraries and other community facilities, or parks and reserves." What the government considers is OK for council spending and what is not has not always been clear, but the Bill attempts to shed some light on that. It defines the core services of a local authority as network infrastructure, public transport services, waste management, civil defence emergency management, libraries, museums, reserves and other recreational facilities. It has also tinkered with the definition of the purpose of local government to include supporting local economic growth and development. But the purpose also states it is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities. Councillors and wannabe councillors around the country might wonder what that means when it appears the central government is wanting much greater influence. Many will be feeling betrayed by the failure of the National Party to live up to its promises of devolution and localism. Local Government NZ president Sam Broughton summed up that feeling at the organisation's conference last week, saying it felt like "every party in opposition is a localist and then as soon as they're in power, they become a creature that draws all the more power to themselves." Local government minister Simon Watts is still talking up plans for a rates cap, saying the government is working at pace on a model for it, despite National not seeming to have the backing of its coalition partners. NZ First leader Winston Peters was scathing about it, quoted as saying "every other party is interfering in local government" and his party had never done this. He suggested central government could not preach to local government when it did not have its own spending under control. Whatever happens next, it is clear there is much to do to improve the relationship and trust between central and local government and to ensure the word local is not becoming a synonym for national. Further preaching and scolding will not achieve that.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
South Korea's ex-President indicted for abuse of power
South Korean prosecutors requested a new arrest warrant on July 6 to detain former President Yoon Suk Yeol, after questioning him twice, including a session that lasted over nine hours. Photo / AFP Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. South Korean prosecutors requested a new arrest warrant on July 6 to detain former President Yoon Suk Yeol, after questioning him twice, including a session that lasted over nine hours. Photo / AFP Disgraced South Korean ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol was indicted for abuse of power over his declaration of martial law last year, as investigators widened an insurrection probe. Yoon plunged South Korea into a political crisis when he sought to subvert civilian rule on December 3, sending troops to Parliament in a bid to prevent lawmakers voting down his declaration of martial law. He became the first sitting President in the country to be taken into custody when he was detained in January after resisting arrest for weeks, using his presidential security detail to thwart investigators. He was released on procedural grounds in March, even as his trial on insurrection charges continued. Last week, he was detained again after an arrest warrant was issued over concerns he might destroy evidence in the case.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Parliament Versus Executive: Regs Review And The Regulatory Standards Bill
, Editor: The House Analysis - Parliament recently heard a single week of public submissions on David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill. The submissions were seldom complimentary. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is considering that bill, but this week a different select committee heard briefings of its own on issues that arise from the bill, because the bill's aims seem in conflict with the purpose of the Regulations Review Committee - even its existence. The Regulatory Standards Bill's own description lists its aims as being to: promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems; and support Parliament's ability to scrutinise Bills; and support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation. That may sound good on paper, but the bill does not create or support parliamentary bodies to keep a check on the Executive. Instead, the bill creates an external board which works under the Executive. Parliament already has a committee tasked with the express job of evaluating regulations, including hearing public complaints - the Regulations Review Committee. Regs Review, as it is commonly described, is traditionally one of Parliament's most cross-party, collaborative committees. It is usually chaired by a senior opposition MP; currently that chair is Labour MP Arena Williams. Among the committee's briefings on the bill this week was a public briefing from former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Because it was public, this article uses that discussion to help outline the reason the Regs Review Committee is concerned enough to ask for briefings on a bill being considered by a different committee. Williams outlined one purpose to the former prime minister thus: "I would like to progress usefully for the Standing Orders Committee, what the role of the Regulations Review Committee is now." Note: The Standing Orders Committee is the body that considers changes to Parliament's rules. If the Regulatory Standards Bill is passed, the Standing Orders Committee will likely need to adjust Parliament's rules to try and make it all fit. Background to Regulations and Regs Review It was Geoffrey Palmer's parliamentary reforms in the 1980s that created the Regulations Review Committee and gave it the job of fixing regulations, with the power to ask Parliament to disallow (ie. kill) bad regulation. Earlier this year the current committee asked the House to do exactly that to a regulation regarding law school curricula - and the House agreed. More often though, the committee asks ministers to fix poor regulation, and is successful in doing so. This role clashes with aspects of Seymour's new bill, which would empower its own non-parliamentary board to review regulations - a board appointed by the minister for regulation and working together with their Ministry for Regulation. Sir Geoffrey provided background to the Regs Review Committee's creation in the 1980s. It was part of a response to a period of government under Robert Muldoon when New Zealand was often governed by executive decree, without much reference to Parliament, in spite of the fact that Parliaments - not governments - have supremacy. Sir Geoffrey listed a few former laws that gave ministers vast powers. "The Economic Stabilisation Act, the Commerce Amendment Act of 1979, the National Development Act that allowed you to develop New Zealand by Order in Council, and not by Parliament. These were very grave exercises of executive power, and that led to the repeal of all those statutes. And it also led to the setting up of this committee." The Economic Stabilisation Act from 1948 for example, was used by Robert Muldoon's National Party government in the 1970s and 1980s to freeze wages and prices across the entire country, and to determine interest rates. As one response to the 1970s oil shock, people were forced to choose a day they could not drive their cars. That was all done without reference to Parliament. Despite his own government's repeal of such broad powers, Sir Geoffrey argued that regulation is not inherently bad, but is necessary. "You cannot run a country on the basis of primary legislation alone. It is not possible. And the ministers have to be able to have the ability to have administrative arrangements that are within the competence of the enabling provisions in the primary act that allows detail to be dealt with." Ministers need to be able to act without constant reference to the boss. Many powers are necessarily delegated to a minister or a ministry. That delegated authority is enabled by primary legislation (statute law), and is referred to as secondary legislation - mostly it is regulation. Imagine if no authority was delegated. How would that look? Maybe you couldn't get a new passport until your name had been included in legislation, or your passport was approved by the governor-general. Every price change for a government service (eg. a DOC campsite), and every new-build classroom would need specific approval. That all sounds ridiculous, but power is delegated, and without delegation things must be confirmed at the centre of power.. "The enthusiasm for terrific deregulation makes me nervous," Sir Geoffrey told the committee. "I don't quite know where that desire comes from, because the evidence has not been put in front of this Parliament. It's asserted, but it's not generated as evidence anywhere that I have seen." The double-up Putting aside other criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill, what exactly is the issue for the Regulations Review Committee? Sir Geoffrey noted one glaring issue: "There was nothing said about the Regulations Review Committee in the legislation, or indeed, as far as I can see in any of the consideration that led to the drafting of this ill-considered bill." That is a monumental oversight, or possibly a snub, because the job of the Regs Review Committee and that of the Board that the bill creates will, at best, overlap. They may clash terribly. It's like a second referee being sent onto the field during a game - a referee that answers to someone different, and one with a vested interest. "The conduct of this Parliament," Sir Geoffrey said, "already pretty unsatisfactory in many points of view, is going to get a whole lot worse when you have these confusing areas of responsibility that don't fit." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked the former prime minister which group would have supremacy if they both tried to consider the same regulation - board or committee? "The Regulatory Standards Board is a creature of the minister, and it is not a creature of Parliament. This committee is a creature of Parliament." Only one of those creatures has the power to ask Parliament to strike out bad regulation. Sir Geoffrey indicated that was everything you needed to know. In other words, since Parliament has supremacy over the Executive, Parliament's Regulations Review Committee would have supremacy over the Executive's proposed Regulatory Standards Board. Sir Geoffrey argued that the bill ought to be amended to have no role in secondary legislation at all. He also had advice for the committee and for its backbencher colleagues. "If you are left alone, that would be good; but what you need to do is to be more muscular. …The bad habits of New Zealand legislation have been somewhat restricted by the activities of this committee, but not enough. The bipartisan thing that is necessary to make the committee work properly needs to extend to backbenchers from the governing parties feeling that they can exercise their judgement without fear or favour." He suggests that non-executive MPs-regardless of their political affiliation-ought to do their jobs as parliamentarians, not as voting automatons without a role in keeping a check on governments. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
