Putting aside the emotion around the 90 day bill for a second, I'd like to present my personal view on select committees in an MMP environment and why National's by-passing of the select committee on this bill is such a dangerous move.
Under FPP in the 1980s and 1990s the executive rushed through radical legislation so quickly people didn't know what was happening. To a large extent it was that approach that led to the referendum and subsequent adoption of the MMP system. People sought a more consensual approach to politics where one party didn't have absolute power to ram through radical legislation.
Over the past 12 years of MMP select committees have developed as a major check on the executive. Select Committees are the forum where the public can have their say, where legislation can be scrutinised and backbench MPs can recommend changes through a majority and minority report. Increasingly select committees have played a major role in developing amendments to legislation.
The worst select committees were those who simply sought to report back to Parliament as quickly and with as little controversy as possible. The best select committees were those that took a genuine approach to improve legislation in a constructive and, if possible, cross-party manner. In particular during the last Parliament the Government did not have a majority on several select committees and there was a real opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny of Government legislation.
Which is why National's move on the 90 day bill is so dangerous. It removed Parliament, backbench MPs, the opposition and the public from the political process. It is back to the days of elected dictatorship. Is this the change New Zealand can believe in?
Recent Comments