Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 78531	2007-04-19 03:03:00	Trouble with understanding New Zealand legal system	Renmoo (66)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
542306	2007-04-23 10:08:00	Yes James, the Committee structure is relatively new and quite effective. The divisions between political parties in Parliament become blurred when the MPs consider legislation in a Committee. It is less formal than Parliament, more intimate, and there is a greater chance for a meeting of minds. MPs are just people after all and in NZ genuinely motivated to do what they consider is right. So discussion can be quite open and changes are made to legislation. Winston, I think that James's question was confusing. He is talking (I think) about the Committee of the Whole House, because that comes after the Second Reading Stage, whereas you seem to be talking about Select Committees that typically sit between the First and Second Readings. James, it goes like this - a bill is introduced, and gets its First Reading. Generally this is just an introduction of the bill to the House, and then if the House agrees (and it usually does) it is referred to the appropriate Select Committee, which is what I think Winston is describing. Typically this is where the public and interest groups can make submissions on the bill, suggesting changes and improvements. There is usually a majority of government members on a select committee, and it is frequently chaired by someone from the ruling party. Under MMP this has changed a bit, so I think there are chairpeople from other parties these days. The Select Committee then refers the bill back to the House with its recommendations, and it then gets a Second Reading. This is a debate on the overall merits of the bill. If it gets through that, it goes to the Committee Stage (Whole House) where the bill is debated in detail, clause by clause. Again, if it survives that process, it goes on to its Third Reading, which is usually a formality (though there may be a debate and vote if the bill is contentious). Finally it goes to the Governor General to give the Royal Assent. Once that happens, it ceases to be a bill and becomes an act. The two "Committee" stages are a bit confusing, but Winston is indeed correct if he is referring to the merits of the Select Committee process. It gives the public its best chance of a say. Regarding the bill Sue Bradford is sponsoring, I think it may be stuck at the Second Reading stage (or it may have completed that and be ready for the Committee of the Whole House stage). Winston, correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying.	John H (8)
542307	2007-04-23 10:58:00	Absolutely right John and indeed I was thinking of Select Committees.	Winston001 (3612)
542308	2007-04-23 16:39:00	Hi John and Winston. I was indeed referring Committee of the Whole House, which is just after the second reading. Hence I was asking how do the barriers between the MPs of different parties break down, given that the mindset on the direction of the bill is often one-sided due to majority agreement? If they engage with each other, would situations like John Key discussing with Helen Clark be a common sight? Cheers :)	Renmoo (66)
542309	2007-04-23 21:59:00	Hi John and Winston. I was indeed referring Committee of the Whole House, which is just after the second reading. Hence I was asking how do the barriers between the MPs of different parties break down, given that the mindset on the direction of the bill is often one-sided due to majority agreement? If they engage with each other, would situations like John Key discussing with Helen Clark be a common sight? Cheers :) There is no clear answer to that question, I am afraid James! The answer is political rather than constitutional. Select Committees: It really depends upon the nature of the bill being considered by a Select Committee. If it is contentious, if it clashes with the political 'values' (do pollies have values?) or philosophy of the political parties whose MPs form the membership of the Select Committee, there will probably be little cooperation. There may be conflict and 'majority rule' if the bill is the result of a key plank in the ruling party's election manifesto and the opposition strongly disagreed with it, or the bill substantially changes legislation passed by the previous government and the previous government is really opposed to the change (e.g. National brought in the bill that became the Employment Contracts Act, and when Labour was elected it put forward the bill to replace that legislation - the Employment Relations Act, which was designed to get rid of much of National's anti union legislation). There was more heat than light in the latter debates. However, if the bill is about something neutral, or the political parties agree on the objects of the bill (e.g. the Social Workers Registration Bill), they will often play happily together. I have appeared twice before Select Committees; on one occasion, the opposition didn't agree with the bill, and simply looked bored during the public submissions unless something was raised that they could use to hit the government over the head with. On the other occasion, there was common agreement on the broad aspects of the bill%2	John H (8)
542310	2007-04-23 22:17:00	HI James I tried to edit the previous post, and the edit would not save, so the previous post is incomplete. Here is what I was trying to say: Hi John and Winston. I was indeed referring Committee of the Whole House, which is just after the second reading. Hence I was asking how do the barriers between the MPs of different parties break down, given that the mindset on the direction of the bill is often one-sided due to majority agreement? If they engage with each other, would situations like John Key discussing with Helen Clark be a common sight? Cheers :) There is no clear answer to that question, I am afraid James! The answer is political rather than constitutional. Select Committees: It really depends upon the nature of the bill being considered by a Select Committee. If it is contentious, if it clashes with the political 'values' (do pollies have values?) or philosophy of the political parties whose MPs form the membership of the Select Committee, there will probably be little cooperation. There may be conflict and 'majority rule' if the bill is the result of a key plank in the ruling party's election manifesto and the opposition strongly disagreed with it, or the bill substantially changes legislation passed by the previous government and the previous government is really opposed to the change (e.g. National brought in the bill that became the Employment Contracts Act, and when Labour was elected it put forward the bill to replace that legislation - the Employment Relations Act, which was designed to get rid of much of National's anti union legislation). There was more heat than light in the latter debates. However, if the bill is about something neutral, or the political parties agree on the objects of the bill (e.g. the Social Workers Registration Bill), they will often play happily together. I have appeared twice before Select Committees; on one occasion, the opposition didn't agree with the bill, and simply looked bored during the public submissions unless something was raised that they could use to hit the government over the head with. On the other occasion, there was common agreement on the broad aspects of the bill so the pollies played happily together. Committee of the Whole House: As far as the Committee of the Whole House is concerned, that is a more public forum with less cooperation in general, particularly on contentious bills. Having said that, the bill that led to homosexual law reform was extremely contentious, and it produced some great oratory, and some of the most honest (and dishonest!) speeches in the history of Parliament, some of which (I think) took place in the Committee of the Whole House. That wouldn't have happened in a Select Committee, but the nature of the debate (with a conscience vote, I think) was completely appropriate to the strong feelings in the country about the bill - it needed and deserved a clear and open public debate.	John H (8)
542311	2007-04-24 02:58:00	I'd just like to say thanks to John for an excellent exposition . Essentially James, MPs cooperate on Select Committees where the bill being discussed isn't a big deal for either side . You don't see that cooperation in Parliament because it is a very public place and MPs feel they have to make a noise to avoid being labelled ineffective . Instead, where there isn't much disagreement over a third reading of a bill, it gets voted on, and passed very quickly . The public don't notice . It is only the stuff the parties disagree upon that draws long debates, points of order, amendments, and noise . There is actually more cooperation in Parliament than we ever realise from outside .	Winston001 (3612)
542312	2007-04-24 03:53:00	It's all very complicated . We inherit our system of "representative government" (not "democracy") from the UK one . That's the "Westminster" system . I'm sure Google will have something about that . In theory, the Queen is the supreme ruler, but she (almost) always "follows the advice" of her ministers . (the Cabinet) . Cabinet members are appointed by the Sovereign, on the "advice" of the leader of a group which can muster a majority of the representatives after an election . That leader is the Prime Minister . Acts of Parliament become law only when signed by the Sovereign . (In practice by her representative ,the GG) . The Committee of the Whole has a long history . . . it was the trick used centuries ago when the Parliament wanted to discuss things (often against the wishes of the King) "without being Parliament" . The King could walk into Parliament and shut it down . Remember, the English Parliament and the Sovereigns weren't always in full and happy agreement . Cromwell's Parliament cut the King's head off .	Graham L (2)
542313	2007-04-24 04:06:00	(snip) The Committee of the Whole has a long history . . . it was the trick used centuries ago when the Parliament wanted to discuss things (often against the wishes of the King) "without being Parliament" . The King could walk into Parliament and shut it down . Remember, the English Parliament and the Sovereigns weren't always in full and happy agreement . Cromwell's Parliament cut the King's head off . I had forgotten that - when the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker vacates the chair and someone else takes over (I forget what they are called - Committee Chairperson I suppose!) . Does that go back to that history? Was the Speaker regarded as being the King's man and therefore untrustworthy? James, nowadays when someone is voted in as Speaker, there is a mock ceremony where the new Speaker has to be physically dragged forward to take her/his seat for the first time . It goes back to the times Graham speaks of where the Speaker not infrequently lost his head on the chopping block . Most people were reluctant to take on the role, and were forced to do so . Nowadays, the present Speaker (Margaret Wilson) loses her head all the time without the benefit of an axe - she loses her head because of the childish behaviour and interjections of her fellow Parliamentarians . :waughh:	John H (8)
542314	2007-04-24 13:40:00	New Zealand claims to be a Parliamentary Democracy - perhaps we could more accurately describe it as a Parliamentary Dictatorship where the people get a chance every third year to vote on who is going to be the dictator for the next term. The lack of a written constitution, relying on accepted practice and precedent to determine the rules under which the country is governed, does not necessarily provide sufficient safeguards for the rights of individuals. A first past the post electoral system, even though it has been diluted by MMP, coupled with a uni-cameral house does not provide the necessary safeguards to prevent abuse of power by a government with a sufficient majority. The case referred to concerning Australia's Governor General Kerr, dismissing the Whitlam government arose from a supply issue, because the senate could withhold funding from the Government, thus making it virtually impossible for them to govern. Obtaining a constitutional change, say a written constitution, is a difficult proposition as no politician in government is likely to pass a that restricts their powers and ability to act as they see fit, because we all know they are there for purely for altruistic reasons. 2 thoughts: Democracy can be defined as 10 wise men and 11 idiots - attributed to Churchill. The only man to ever enter parliament with honest intent was Guy Fawkes, and he managed to stuff up.	KenESmith (6287)
542315	2007-04-24 19:43:00	[QUOTE=KenESmith;545108]New Zealand claims to be a Parliamentary Democracy - perhaps we could more accurately describe it as a Parliamentary Dictatorship where the people get a chance every third year to vote on who is going to be the dictator for the next term. The lack of a written constitution, relying on accepted practice and precedent to determine the rules under which the country is governed, does not necessarily provide sufficient safeguards for the rights of individuals. A first past the post electoral system, even though it has been diluted by MMP, coupled with a uni-cameral house does not provide the necessary safeguards to prevent abuse of power by a government with a sufficient majority. The case referred to concerning Australia's Governor General Kerr, dismissing the Whitlam government arose from a supply issue, because the senate could withhold funding from the Government, thus making it virtually impossible for them to govern. Obtaining a constitutional change, say a written constitution,%2	johcar (6283)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8