Prison population projected to boom over next decade
Photo:
Finn Blackwell
New Zealand's prison population is expected to increase by 36 percent over the next decade.
The
Ministry of Justice projects
there will be 14,230 prisoners in June 2035, up from 10,488 in February 2025.
The projections take into account government policies like the reinstatement of 'Three Strikes', and reforms to cap sentencing discounts and introduce more aggravating factors.
Last year's report, which projected a prison population of 11,317 by June 2034, did not take into account those policies, as they had not yet been passed into law.
"The new policy settings are expected to see more offenders receive prison sentences and for those sentences to be longer," said ministry sector insights general manager Rebecca Parish.
The projected increase takes into account both the remand and sentenced populations.
The number of those on remand is projected to increase steadily over the time period. The sentenced population is expected to increase rapidly until June 2028 and then gradually by June 2035.
Those on remand have spent longer on remand, due to their cases taking longer to go through the courts, but Parish said initiatives were underway to reduce the time taken to resolve cases and the time spent in custodial remand.
The ministry said it released these reports to evaluate long-term trends, and help inform investment, planning and policy decisions.
The report was done in collaboration with Corrections, Police, Crown Law and the Serious Fraud Office.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Assault of migrant worker in Auckland sparks protest
More than 30 people gathered in Henderson on Saturday, demanding justice for a migrant worker who was allegedly assaulted. Photo: Blessen Tom / RNZ Protesters gathered in West Auckland on Saturday, demanding justice for a migrant worker who was allegedly assaulted at his workplace. The protest, organised by the Migrant Rights Network and the Migrant Workers Association of Aotearoa, called for greater accountability and stronger protections for migrant workers in New Zealand. The victim, Satnam Singh, was allegedly attacked at his workplace - an Auckland restaurant - on the evening of 29 June. He was reportedly later found injured on the roadside by cleaning staff in the early hours of Monday. Singh, who held an Accredited Employer Work Visa, had been living and working in New Zealand for the past two years after migrating from Punjab, India. "We've gathered here to show our support for Satnam," said Sher Singh, a migrant advocate with the Migrant Rights Network. The protest called for greater accountability and stronger protections for migrant workers in New Zealand. Photo: Blessen Tom / RNZ He told RNZ he had been at the victim's bedside for the past few days. "He [Satnam] is recovering but he's feeling very down. He never expected something like this happening to him in a country like New Zealand." Anu Kaloti, president of the Migrant Workers Association NZ, said that "no one should come to work expecting to be harmed." "This is shocking. We do hear of workers facing minor assaults, but this-this is on another level," she said. Anu Kaloti is the president of the Migrant Workers Association NZ. Photo: Blessen Tom / RNZ The protest organisers said it was time for the government and its agencies to act by upgrading the charges to attempted murder, ensuring safer workplaces for migrant workers and abolishing the Accredited Employer Work Visa. The work visa scheme had been under intense media scrutiny since reports emerged in 2023 that migrant workers on such visas were finding themselves destitute and jobless after paying large sums of money to relocate to New Zealand. A 2024 Public Service Commission review found that Immigration New Zealand did not adequately assess the risk and impact of changes to speed up processing times would have on visa abuse . The government announced major changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa in December 2024, but a union advocate told RNZ the reforms still left migrant workers vulnerable to exploitation . Singh was recovering after surgery at Auckland City Hospital. A 26-year-old man has been arrested and charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The man was expected to appear in Waitākere District Court on Tuesday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Katikati's Reid family found guilty of unconsented building work, dwellings on rural property
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter in Tauranga of The Reid family, Jason (left), Dhruva, Bianca and Bhadra, spent two weeks defending 25 charges related to unconsented dwellings and buildings on their rural Katikati property. Photo: Open Justice via The New Zealand Herald / Hannah Bartlett For two weeks, a family of four sat along a bench normally reserved for lawyers, defending their use of unconsented dwellings and buildings on their rural block of land. In the process, the court got a glimpse into their unconventional way of life and why "the Reids" believe they should be able to do what they want with their own land. In rural Katikati, just outside Tauranga, sits a sprawling property scattered with sheds, houses, kids' climbing frames and trampolines, a half-built American-style barn and a non-operational timber mill. It is home to "the Reids" and at least two other families, and is an "intentional living" community, where children are homeschooled and people visit to practice their shared Vedic faith. And for two weeks, the ramshackle property was at the centre of a highly unusual trial. It was only the second district council prosecution of its kind in the Western Bay of Plenty in the past five years, and the only one to go to trial. Jurors were provided with stacks of booklets that didn't show the sort of crime scene they might have expected when they answered their summons. No drugs, no violence, no forensics. Instead, the booklets showed what one might describe as a commune, made up of at least 16 buildings that were, for the most part, unconsented. The Reids had not only elected trial-by-jury, but chose to represent themselves instead of instructing lawyers. Jason and Bhadra, superannuants who were once married but are now estranged, for the most part took a back seat in the defence case. Their son Dhruva and daughter-in-law Bianca led the charge, grappling with the task of leading evidence and cross-examining Crown witnesses. Differences of opinion seemed evident when Bianca would be mid-question and Dhruva would whisper suggestions, as she swatted him away. Some days, the Reids were joined by a "McKenzie friend", who wasn't allowed to address the judge or jury, but spent his time furiously writing notes. On all days, a picture of a Vedic deity oversaw the proceedings from their desk. They brought their own filtered water and a waft of essential oils as they entered courtroom three of the Tauranga District Court each day to defend the 25 charges they collectively faced, mostly related to unconsented building work and dwellings, and failures to comply with council abatement notices and notices to fix. Their position is best summed up in a letter they sent to the Western Bay of Plenty District Council in February 2021, some four years before they found themselves arraigned in the dock. Signed by all four, it stated they accepted only the authority of God, and explained their family's size had "increased considerably". "The need for further building, which we see as our God-given right, has become a necessity. "As it affects only ourselves, we consider it inappropriate for others to meddle in the process. It is difficult enough for us to build within our meagre means, and as such, we consider it justified that we proceed accordingly." Despite the assertions, at the end of two weeks, they were found guilty on most of the charges. The two women were acquitted on some charges related to ongoing building work, but by and large, their case was lost. After the verdicts, Bhadra and Bianca Reid agreed to meet with the Herald, with Bianca sharing that her disappointment felt akin to having studied for an exam, only to fail. Bhadra and Jason struggled to afford the property and wanted their children to be able to "live simply" on the land for as long as they wanted, growing their own food and developing their spiritual lives. The eventual development of the rural property "grew without a plan", evolving to suit their children and the other families they took in. Bhadra's view is the Resource Management Act and District Plan are too rigid to allow for such a lifestyle, and the consent process too expensive, but it's a lifestyle she maintains is a worthy one. That being said, if she could turn back the clock, she might have done things differently. She regrets, for example, blocking her door during a search warrant, yelling "Narasinghadev!" at officers attempting to enter. She explains it's a word of "protection" and comes from her ancient Indian faith, a bit like saying, "Hallelujah". She wonders how she came to think it was okay to break laws, but recalls a childhood with a mother who battled authorities for the right to homeschool her children, followed by a young adulthood during the 1960s hippy movement. While none of this caused her to "consciously" break laws, she considers she may have developed a subconscious distrust of authorities. Bianca's upbringing in rule-abiding Germany stands in contrast, but perhaps explains her views on what she sees as a lack of due process by the council. When asked if the legal battle has been worth it, Bianca reflects the stakes were high and she's not sure if the battle is over. They didn't want to just roll over, choosing to test their defence given their lifestyle was on the line, not to mention the homes they allowed families to live in. "It wasn't just a matter of, 'oh, your deck is 50cm too wide'... for us, it would mean a whole change in the way we've been putting our roots down, with the council knowing about this for so long," Bianca said. "Are we going to just drop it and say to these two families, 'sorry guys, you've got to go now and find something'? It's a tricky one." Jason and Bhadra purchased the land in the 1990s. Up until the wheels of justice began turning, there had been seemingly limited interactions between the council and the Reids. A council visit in 2011 and letter showed "it is apparent that a large number of sheds and dwellings have been or are in the process of being constructed". Fast-forward to 2018, and the council came back and inspected a "large American-style barn" that was under construction. Building inspector Case Verkerk met Dhruva and asked if there was consent for the building. Dhruva responded to the effect that "he'd issued himself" a consent. When Dhruva got the chance to cross-examine Verkerk during the trial, he began his questions with, "Remember me?" The question posed by the clearly memorable Dhruva seemed to amuse Verkerk and the courtroom. Verkerk recalled their conversation as "not unfriendly" and even Judge Kelvin Reid (no relation) may have smirked when Dhruva repeated a statement he'd made during the building inspector's visit: "My parents didn't need a consent to make me". While Dhruva may have, at times, asked seemingly impertinent questions, there appeared no malice in his approach. Indeed, as the trial progressed, the Reids' dealings with the judge, witnesses, prosecutors and their amicus lawyers were polite; even friendly. During the trial, prosecutor Ben Smith had a persistent dry cough he couldn't quite shake. Dhruva was heard, at the end of a long day, sharing a recipe for a herbal remedy Smith could try. The large barn Dhruva "gave himself a consent" for was referred to as "Building 13″ during the trial, and the jury heard the council had said it either needed to come down, or have a certificate of acceptance. Initially, correspondence signed by Bhadra seemed to suggest they planned to apply for the certificate. However, nothing came of it. And so, four years after the Reids effectively asked the council to leave them be, they spent two weeks defending their alleged use of more than one dwelling on their rural-zoned land, a building containing what the Crown said was a commercial kitchen, used to operate Dhruva and Bianca's festival catering business, and the half-built American barn. Prosecutor Hannah Speight said, in opening the Crown's case, there were clear rules set out in the District Plan and the Resource Management Act. "We cannot pick and choose which laws we follow and which we don't," she told the jury. The District Plan allowed for one dwelling as a "permitted activity" and the ability to get consent for a second "minor dwelling". An aerial photo showed 16 labelled buildings but not all were the subject of charges. There were also a number of lean-tos and shipping containers. Only one dwelling had a consent. Six buildings were classed as dwellings, meaning they had a bathroom/toilet, a place to sleep and a kitchen or kitchenette. They were the buildings labelled 1, 2, 12, 14, 15 and 16. In December 2021, compliance officer Mark Keaney turned up at the Reids to investigate a complaint about a relocated building. Body camera footage captured him speaking to Dhruva at the gate and asking his name. Dhruva responds that he "goes by many names" and "to which name do you refer?" Keaney: "Just your name." The conversation continued and Jason joined them. There were references to Keaney trying to "enslave" them, with the compliance officer responding to the effect that he was "not trying to enslave anyone", he just wanted to look around. Jason says they don't have a "contract" with the council, and wants Keaney to read the letter they sent nine months earlier (where they questioned the council's jurisdiction and asked to be left alone). Keaney snaps a few photos from near the gate and leaves. From that interaction, Dhruva was charged with not providing his name to an enforcement officer, and he and Jason were charged with hindering an enforcement officer. Both were found guilty of those charges. In pre-trial hearings, the Reids argued the compliance officer should have read their letter and done a thorough search of their council file before turning up. Then he would have been on notice that he was likely to find an RMA breach, and would have needed a court-issued search warrant. But that pre-trial argument was unsuccessful, as was their challenge to what formed substantial evidence in the trial: the 2022 search. The search footage showed vehicles, building materials, children's play equipment and sandpits around modest buildings with front porches, pot plants and long grass licking the exteriors. The sky was grey and terrain muddy, as Dhruva is seen and heard in the background, talking about a "War Rant". An officer enters a house and a group of children are playing on the floor, music from the Disney film Encanto playing in the background. "Hi kids," the compliance officer says as the children cheerfully greet him. He seems to reposition his body camera to avoid filming the children, as best as he can. In each dwelling, bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms are noted. When the officers get to Bhadra's home, the woman stands blocking the door defiantly. She yells her ancient Indian phrase, which no one in the court except the Reids seemed to recognise: "Narasinghadev!" She asks police officer Sergeant Steve Hindmarsh to say it, too. "I'm not going to say that," he replies. The main facts in dispute seemed to be whether the building work continued on the large barn after notices to fix, and whether a "higgledy-piggledy" storage area, as the Reids claimed, was a commercial kitchen in a large building. The Reids said the commercial catering business involved everything being prepared and cooked on-site at festivals, and the only time the storage kitchen was used for cooking was by guests, or for a big shared meal for those on the property. The next issue was whether building had progressed on the large barn, despite notices to fix, with Jason and Dhruva telling the court they did one big working bee after a council officer visited, then stopped. It seems the jury didn't buy the defence on either matter, undoubtedly a personal blow for the Reids. When the prosecutor cross-examined them and suggested they had used the kitchen for commercial food preparation, and had kept building the barn, and were now lying about it, they objected, appealing to the judge to intervene. However, not only was the prosecutor entitled to suggest they were lying, he was required to in order to put the Crown case fairly and squarely. Bhadra said afterwards that she'd felt "insulted and hurt" by the accusation. The essence of what the Reids wanted to argue was the council knew what was going on at the property since at least 2011, and turned a blind eye, meaning the charges were outside the one-year limitation period. However, they were given a chance to argue the "limitation argument" at pre-trial hearings, given it was a legal issue; it didn't go in their favour and they weren't allowed to offer it as a defence to the jury. Yet it continued to crop up. When their questions of witnesses seemed to stray into this territory, the judge would send the jury out of the courtroom. It isn't uncommon to have discussions "in chambers" - it's a chance for the lawyers to wrestle over legal issues, such as what evidence is admissible, or trial procedure, without the jury present. While chambers matters can't be reported on, broadly speaking in this case they involved Judge Reid, the prosecutors, and two amicus lawyers, attempting to help the Reids stick to what was relevant. At times it felt like all were working together to help the Reids put their best foot forward in terms of any legitimate defence; all expressed a desire to ensure the trial was fair, making allowances for the Reids' lack of knowledge about legal concepts and trial procedure. Simple things like needing to stand when being addressed by the judge, or fundamental evidence issues, such as when something is considered hearsay. It quickly became apparent how much time is saved in jury trials when all counsel speak the same language and get down to the nitty-gritty. The Reids didn't always seem sure what the nitty-gritty of the trial was. There was an undercurrent of what the judge referred to as "sovereign citizen-type" arguments. Dhruva's questions were peppered with references to "contract", "fiduciary duty", "statute law", "wet ink signatures" and "Crown agents". When cross-examined, he wouldn't accept the property's address or zoning, arguing something to the effect of its address being legally located in an office Wellington, and said his "legal person" was registered to the address. These arguments were foreshadowed before the trial started. A decision by Justice Andrew Becroft refers to the Reids filing "voluminous documentation" purporting to be "an application for judicial review of the decision [by Judge Kirkpatrick] not to dismiss the charges". He called the application, made in the weeks before trial, an "abuse of process" and said its sovereign citizen-type arguments characteristic of "pseudo-law" were "legally incomprehensible". While the Reids said their submissions could "no longer be vainly dismissed as non-sensical gibberish" and needed to be taken seriously, the judge countered that, "With the very greatest of respect to the applicants... their own use of the word 'gibberish' is an appropriate a description of what they have filed as any". Yet when speaking to Bianca and Bhadra Reid after the trial, they don't describe themselves as "sovereign citizens". They pay their rates and parking tickets, though accept they tested what could be termed "sovereign citizen-type arguments" early on, navigating the justice system as laypeople. For the two women, at least, the decision not to get a lawyer seems to be a financial one. It's unclear whether Dhruva and Jason, who didn't want to be interviewed, had other reasons for self-representing. While Dhruva used "sovereign citizen" rhetoric in trial, Bianca and Bhadra's main concerns centred on the council's procedure. Despite this, Bianca's advice to those faced with non-compliance is to speak with the council. "Hope that they'll be reasonable, and help you," she says. While Dhruva didn't want to be interviewed, he did send a message. "Our family had adopted and identify with a very ancient culture based on love and respect," he wrote. "As love and affection are the ultimate controlling forces and the highest aspirations for a prosperous society, we feel it substandard to inflict harm in an area that no harm is inflicted." A statement from Western Bay of Plenty District Council general manager regulatory services Alison Curtis said people generally understood the need for consents and just a "small minority" went ahead without them. The council's main concern with unconsented dwellings was quality and safety, and the risk people could be living in substandard or unsafe homes. "Most people do the right thing, and it can be frustrating for them to see others ignoring the rules," she said. She confirmed that the Reid prosecution was the second of its kind by the council in the past five years and said it aimed to work with people, providing advice and steps to comply, "which is why these matters rarely go to court". However, she wouldn't comment specifically about the case or what happens next. So what now for the Reid family? Will they have to remove the buildings? Will they face a fine? It's anyone's guess. A sentencing date of 23 July has been scheduled. The options available to the judge for charges of this nature range from a fine, to imprisonment - unless the Reids apply, and are successful, in getting discharges without convictions. Separate to the sentencing, there's the question of whether the council seeks enforcement orders, and again there's a range in terms of what they might be. They could include orders to tear down buildings, or remove things such as bathrooms and kitchens. For now, it's understood the Reids, and their supporters, are preparing documentation for the prosecution and the judge as to what they think a fair outcome could be. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Making law - a final avalanche of edits
Pavan Sharma, the Manager of the House Office at New Zealand's Parliament. Photo: VNP / Johnny Blades There are five parliamentary stages to passing a law. The three reading stages are short and built of speeches. The remaining two are when the real work is done, by two very different committees. Select Committees get a lot of attention and, when governments don't dodge this stage entirely, are the best opportunity to improve or alter an impending law. The second, less glamorous committee, is Parliament's last chance saloon for fixing mistakes or changing minds before a bill is finalised. It is variously referred to as the Committee Stage, Committee of the Whole, or the mouthful Committee of the Whole House. "The Committee of the Whole is essentially a big committee that takes place in the debating chamber. Any MP can participate in the Committee of the Whole, and any member can propose an amendment to a bill. There's no limit on the number of amendments that they propose." That is how Pav Sharma describes the Committee Stage, and he should know. He manages the House Office, which is the part of Parliament's secretariat tasked with looking after the debating chamber. "Our focus is ensuring that members have everything that they need to debate legislation, to debate other aspects of house business, to scrutinise the government's finances." All the 'paper' that comes or goes from Parliament's debating chamber (the House) transits through the House Office. Bills, questions, petitions, papers, reports, and amendments - many thousands of them - make the office a thrumming hive of clever people keeping a large machine running smoothly. Johnny Blades has described them as Parliament's Brain . I often seek their expertise, but have learned that one time not to wander in asking dumb questions is when the House is in the middle of a contentious Committee Stage, as they may be swimming through hundreds of amendments on the bill under discussion. These will have arrived as emails, typed notes, or scribbled on slips of paper. They need processing almost instantly, while they are still relevant and under discussion in the chamber. "It can get very busy," Sharma says. "It can get a little bit tense in the House Office and in the chamber when we have a particularly contentious Committee Stage." The point of all of this is a fundamental of Parliament - the mutability of legislation. That it can evolve and improve during its journey through Parliament. "One of the points of the legislative process is that bills should be able to be amended - that they're amendable. Ideally, a bill will start its legislative process in one way and it will be improved as a result of the legislative process and come out a better, more fit-for-purpose piece of legislation." Most of the amendments Parliament accepts on bills come out of the select committee process. But mistakes are made, problems are missed, arguments continue over both the policy and the method - and the Committee of the Whole is the final chance to fix things. When bills debated under urgency skip a select committee entirely, the Committee Stage becomes the only chance for improvement. Not every amendment arrives in a final scramble. There are two kinds. It's worth noting the difference because you hear MPs in Parliament referring to them by their different names - an 'amendment paper' and a 'tabled amendment'. Roughly, amendment papers arrive in advance, while tabled amendments happen in the action. They might also be drafted by different groups of people. "If it's from the [minister] in charge of a bill, [an amendment paper is] usually drafted by the minister's officials, so the Parliamentary Counsel Office [who also draft government legislation]. If it's an amendment paper for a non-minister, then that's where the House Office comes into play and we will draft the amendments for the member based on their instructions," Sharma said. "The great thing about an amendment paper is that it's printed in advance. It's published on the legislation website. It has its own unique number, so it's really easy to identify and to cite in debate." Amendment papers from the MP in charge of a bill (usually a minister) occasionally substantially rewrite a bill. Amendment papers from opposition MPs are usually much more specific, but they are also often written in advance. "Opposition members do instruct us to draft amendment papers and often they're very organised and we can have a whole raft of amendment papers that are released from opposition members in advance of the committee stage." The tabled amendment is the more last minute of the two. It is referred to as 'tabled' because it can literally be scribbled out on a sheet of paper, walked up to the front of the debating chamber and handed to the Clerk at the Table. As Sharma elaborates: "They can be typed out or they can be handwritten. They can be delivered to the Clerk at the Table in the chamber, or they can be delivered to the House Office. And the general principle is that if they are an 'in order' amendment, then they are voted on." Examples of (both handwritten and typed) proposed amendments to the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. Photo: VNP / PS Bills are seldom a done deal when they begin at Parliament. Almost all bills are amended, and improved by the process. Improved as law especially, regardless of their policy. But policies are also smoothed, particularly via select committee hearings, when unintended consequences are pointed out and can be avoided. But improvement is not the only reason to offer an amendment. "I think it's important to note that there are different purposes for amendments," Sharma said. "It's quite common for the member in charge of a bill, often the minister, to propose amendments to their own bill. This could be to fix some inconsistencies, tidy up the bill itself, or to potentially introduce some new policy to the bill." An opposition MP suggesting an amendment has a more varied range of purposes, including just eating up House time by slowing the inevitable process. They offer something to discuss in debate and help prevent repetition (which might bring debate to a close). Even the process of voting on them eats time. "In New Zealand, we have party voting. It's pretty quick. You're looking at somewhere like 45 seconds for a particular vote, but if you've got over 100 amendments on a particular part of a bill, then, yep, you're looking at at least an hour of voting, which can be a bit of a challenge for members because votes are taken in silence." It's not all about filibustering though. "They do use up some House time, but they're [also] an important part of the Committee of the Whole debate. [An amendment is] also a really good way of signalling the Opposition's different …policy positions. It could be that they would approach this issue from a completely different angle. It's also a way in which they can [raise] the interests of a community group or other party. So they're kind of almost using their representative function by putting up an amendment." This is a crucial part of the democratic process. "It's a really important principle that members should be able to put up amendments and that every in-order amendment is voted on. That the committee does get that opportunity to make a decision on those amendments. Because some of them actually do improve the bill. A fundamental lore of a 'good parliamentarian' is that, even if they disagree with a policy, they will try to help make good legislation. "A key function for members of parliament is that they are legislators, and when they're putting up amendments to the bill, they are quite often trying to improve the bill," Sharma said. In select committees, working on amendments is a much more collaborative process, but even in the Committee of the Whole government ministers do occasionally accept an opposition suggestion. "It does happen," agreed Sharma. "It happens on relatively rare occasions, and I think part of the reason for that is that the amendments are being put up in Committee of the Whole, and so there hasn't necessarily been the opportunity for ministers and officials to assess those amendments to ensure that they are not going to cause … unintended consequences, for example. That said, there are occasions where you do get that really good debate across the House. Opposition members are able to provide a good explanation of their amendment. They're able to persuade the minister that this is a good idea, and that amendment is essentially adopted by the government and that change is agreed to." When, after much debate, the Committee of the Whole comes to vote on part of a bill, it first votes on all of the amendments relevant to that part, that are within the rules. It is only at this point that amendments are ruled out by the chair. A reason is always given for rejecting an amendment. The rulings come from the chair and are entirely their call, but are based on advice from the clerks. "[Parliament's rules], the Standing Orders say that the Committee of the Whole can make amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill, that are consistent to the principles and objects of the bill, and that otherwise conform to the standing orders and practises of the House. …The default is that unless there's a good reason for an amendment to be ruled out of order, it should be voted on." In brief, an amendment must be three things: it will be relevant to the bill, consistent with its principles and objects, and conform to expectations. Those guidelines lead to a few key reasons for rejecting amendments. "One of the most common [reasons] an amendment is ruled out of order is that it's outside the scope of the bill," Sharma said. That rule is part of the requirement for relevance. "We've got some quite tight rules around what's an acceptable bill. A bill has to have a single subject area and it has to have a focus, which means that you don't have these really big, disparate bills, which you can throw all sorts of different provisions into. "The scope of the bill is really determined by 'how big is this bill at introduction?' and how much it does. So a really narrow bill is going to be much harder to amend than a wide ranging [one]. What we're considering there is how relevant is the amendment to the bill that [was] introduced to the House? "A really good example of that would be an amendment that is 'inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill', which is kind of a parliamentary phrase, but really it's talking about what's the overall intent or the overall thrust of the bill? "You could, for example, have a bill, which is increasing the number of district court judges. An amendment that would reduce the number of judges is definitely relevant to that bill, but it is a completely different direction of travel. So that would be a relevant amendment, which would still be 'out of order' because it's inconsistent with the bill's intent or its principles and objects." An amendment can also be relevant initially and become irrelevant. An amendment already agreed to can alter what is relevant, because now the bill is different and things have moved on. "Sometimes an amendment will come later on in the debate and in the bill, and the committee has already done some voting, …and it's made some decisions. And so those later amendments are inconsistent with the decisions that the committee's already made." It's like the MPs were planning a holiday and have already decided on a beach location, at that point it becomes pointless to debate who will bring the skis. An amendment might be both relevant and consistent and still fail, because it does not conform to the expectations for legislation. "At a basic level, an amendment needs to make sense, …and it needs to make sense in the context of the bill. So you can't just add some random words to the piece of legislation. You have to know where in the bill that amendment's going to go. It has to be a coherent amendment. So if an amendment doesn't do that, it could be ruled out as not in the correct form of legislation. So it's got to be written as if it was part of the bill and actually make sense within the whole." It's complicated. Certainly the advice the clerks offer is both useful, and also essential. The House Office offers advice to all MPs, not just presiding officers. Clever MPs accept that assistance and learn as much as possible. That includes help in drafting amendments likely to fit within the rules - if that is required. Not all amendments need to fall within the rules to be useful for debate. "We do provide advice to members when they are discussing their amendments with us," says Sharma. "We can …say, 'we think it's possible that this could be …out of order for particular reason'. But ultimately, the decision on whether something is in order or out of order sits with the chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, (the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Speakers). It's their sole decision. Note: The Speaker never presides over the Committee of the Whole, only his team does. "[When an amendment is tabled] we read it really closely. We read it not in and of itself. We also read it in the context of the bill. So that relationship between the amendment and the bill itself is what's going to determine whether it's going to be 'in order' or not. So, yes, is it relevant to the bill? And is it consistent with what the bill's trying to do?" A predictable flurry of amendments is always offered on a bill's shortest section - its title and the date it comes into effect. These 'preliminary clauses' are a bill's first section, but the final one that is voted on. The amendments to them are often (but not always), unserious, even sarcastic, Some may fall within the rules, but many will not. "It's common for members to put up dozens… of amendments on the title clause. Opposition members have been doing this for many, many parliaments. [Historically] we've had amendments which described a bill as 'Orwellian' or as 'betraying senior citizens'. Lots of these amendments are an opportunity for opposition members to signal their dislike of a particular bill, or just critique it." "They're quite good for us because we can rapidly see that they're going to be 'out of order' because they're not necessarily a serious amendment or not an objective description of the bill." The sarcasm or irony in many title clause amendment suggestions carries a small upside of releasing a little tension in the final debate after a long Committee Stage. Oppositions predictably lose the final vote on any government bill, but after many hours of hard debate they get to not just critique the policy, but outright mock it. And once the preliminary clauses are agreed and the sometimes hundreds of amendments on a bill have all been dealt with, the House Office can collectively exhale. But never for long. Another avalanche of paperwork is always heading their way. *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.
