Labour loses confidence in the Speaker

Written By: - Date published: 11:14 am, December 14th, 2024 - 14 comments
Categories: chris bishop, corruption, Gerry Brownlee, Parliament, politicans - Tags:

Although ferry news has dominated politics this week there was another event that also deserves intense attention.

This week saw the committee stages of the Fast-Track Approvals Bill.

The bill has been contentious from the start. It is hard to imagine a more obnoxiously corrupt and damaging piece of legislation. Giving private entities extraordinary abilities to obtain fast track approvals for projects that may have been declined in the past without proper public oversight is just wrong.

The bill has been through a full select committee process and the select committee has reported back to Parliament with suggested amendments.

This was clearly not good enough for Chris Bishop who at the committee stage introduced a supplementary order paper with a number of changes to the bill.

The prospects of these changes being scrutinised properly are exceedingly poor.

This is the bill that creates a list of projects that get a gold-plated guilt-edge consent process which will almost inevitably result in success. But we have only recently discovered what projects these are. The list was not available to the public when the bill was before the select committee.

And you would think that this far down the track the bill would at least technically be in good shape.

But this did not stop Bishop from making a number of changes.

Some of them are relatively minor. The Minister can now determine that a project is a priority and needs to be progressed urgently. But others are contentious.

As an example appeal rights have been further restricted. The ability for any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public to appeal has been removed. To have standing now you either have to be the applicant, a relevant local authority, the Attorney General or any person or group that were invited to and provided comment on the application. And if you want to apply for and have standing to apply for Judicial Review of a decision you better be fast. The time limits are very short. You only have 20 working days from the date of decision to get your paperwork filed.

I wanted to better understand the reason and effect for the changes so I dutifully clicked on the link in the SOP to the supplementary report. The result was a broken link. How very Kafkaesque.

But this week the SOP ran into procedural difficulties.

Deputy Speaker Barbara Kuriger ruled, based on advice, that the addition of the listed projects in schedule 2 of the Bill were out of order being in the nature of private legislation.

From Hansard:

Many of the projects are listed under authorised persons in a private capacity. The effect of being listed appears to be of benefit to the specified persons, which would differ from other persons who apply for fast-track approval. Provisions that are for the particular interest or benefit of a person or persons are classified as private legislation by Standing Order 257(1)(d). As a result, the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 may not be debated and no question will be put on it.”

This was rather momentous. A fast track bill without any listed projects in it would be but a pale imitation of what the Government wanted to achieve.

This could have blown a really large hole in the bill.

Brownlee was recalled and overruled Kuriger’s earlier decision.

This was subject to comment by Law Professor Eddie Clark. From Radio New Zealand:

Victoria University’s Eddie Clark said Brownlee’s ruling relied on the fact the benefit to the named individuals was not guaranteed, it just put them ahead in the process.

“You’re not guaranteed your consent, and because it is a process benefit rather than a substantive one … he thought it was okay.”

He said it showed the pitfalls of rushed lawmaking.

“It’s very poor law making. This government has had a lot more urgency than previous governments … I think we’re seeing one of the effects of that, which is that you don’t necessarily think all this stuff through when you’re rushing it and they’ve got very close here to having a problem where this whole amendment was ruled out.

“We did have a select committee process. It was a somewhat constrained one, but we had a select committee process, and this functionally undermines it.

“They made recommendations for changes, and that was the chance of public input, input from officials, from a multi partisan select committee. And instead we’re getting … an extensive amendment.”

He said it was concerning the amendments had been put forward with no notice to the opposition, to journalists and academics.

“It just reduces the amount of scrutiny what quite a significant bill ends up getting.”

Labour has declared no confidence in Brownlee as speaker. From Radio New Zealand:

The Labour Party says it has lost confidence in the Speaker of the House.

Gerry Brownlee took the rare step of disagreeing with the clerk and the assistant speaker on Tuesday night

He ruled there was no private benefit in an amendment paper that listed projects under the Fast-Track Bill.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said the decision was “unprecedented”.

“He failed to reference a single previous ruling and in making his decision has potentially unilaterally changed the rules of Parliament.”

McAnulty said it raised serious constitutional questions about the passing of a government bill that provided for private benefit.

“This amendment provides a list of 149 individuals and companies that will benefit from this change. There is a clear process for Private Bills that has not been followed in this case.

It is fitting that such an extraordinary travesty of a bill should test Brownlee’s commitment to due process and respect for the rule of law.

But Brownlee has been found wanting.

14 comments on “Labour loses confidence in the Speaker ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Srylands 1
    14 December 2024 at 4:33 pm

    The Speaker did not act unlawfully. He simply held a different view to the Clerk.

    The Bill is not a travesty. It is essential to get the country functioning again through enabling major projects. The actual travesty was the six years that David Parker devoted to RMA "reform" only to create an obscenity.

    • Patricia Bremner 1.1
      14 December 2024 at 5:29 pm

      Well well. It obviously suits you. However, if laws and regulations are not followed and ad hoc law gets passed, there will come a time when it cuts across your interests. I wonder how happy you will be then?

    • Mike the Lefty 1.2
      14 December 2024 at 8:41 pm

      "Functioning"?

      I would have thought you would have had higher hopes for your beloved CoC than merely functioning.

      But then this lot doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in anyone who is not on their payroll.

    • Ad 1.3
      15 December 2024 at 9:31 pm

      Prove then it is both necessary and would "get the country functioning again."

      Back your bullshit up.

  2. Stephen D 2
    14 December 2024 at 5:33 pm

    The problem is Patricia, is that the left tends not to play dirty pool. Perhaps we need to start.

    • gsays 2.1
      15 December 2024 at 7:38 am

      While you are right about not playing dirty pool, I would like to see them hit the ground running.

      Know what reforms are needed then implement them. No more committees, enquiries advisory groups or polling. Do your consulting while in opposition.

      Make the Tories heads spin with a shock and awe regime of dismantling crap legislation (Landlording tax breaks, three strikes, Regulatory Standards Bill, Fast Track etc) and get needed stuff started – proper ferries, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure.

      • Res Publica 2.1.1
        16 December 2024 at 9:24 am

        That's one of my main criticisms of Labour: they are so afraid of upsetting the median voter, the best they can offer is milquetoast, incrementalist policies that do nothing but fluff around the edges of our nation's biggest problems.

        The next Labour government should have a fully-fledged agenda ready to go on day 1. Or, at least, a clear direction and a few key principles to hang their hats on and start the public service working on legislating towards.

        Then, once they've forced the right to eat their dust for 18 months, sit back and dare NACT to come at them, if they think they're got the stones for it.

  3. barry 3
    14 December 2024 at 5:51 pm

    So fast track legislation for fast track development shows up the problems of fast tracking.

    • Incognito 3.1
      14 December 2024 at 6:13 pm

      Fast-track is a euphemism for poor rushed process, poor decision-making by poorly informed persons with a strong ideological bias, and poor outcomes.

  4. adam 4
    14 December 2024 at 7:08 pm

    Who was it that undermined people trust and turned them into anarchists.

    Jerry the bent speaker.

    If your not an anarchist yet, somethings wrong with ya, there is no law and this government has proved it.

  5. Jenny 5
    15 December 2024 at 7:35 am

    The rules based order, the rule of law, or rule by private vested interests?

    What sort of world would that be?

    And what sort of other laws will be needed to be passed to cement this new order?

    Will the right to public protest against seabed mining or a new coal
    or fossil fuel project also be forced through under uregency, when ever such inevitable protests arise?

  6. Ad 6
    15 December 2024 at 9:29 pm

    The Labour government comparator is simple. The $3b Provincial Growth Fund has been remarkably uncontroversial in delivery and benefit. Thanks to MBIE oversight, and little need for legislation. And all made a difference.

    The Think Big suite of legislation in the early 1980s is a reasonable comparator to this shambles. Each project tainted for decades even now.

    Just as there is a strong cultural campaign against the Treaty Principles Bill, we can stigmatize each of these projects with t-shirts, negging online campaigns, and online protests similar to those who build houses on Treaty Settlement land.

    Each regional protest can taint properties and sales like they are contaminated.

    This ain't over.

    • Mike the Lefty 6.1
      16 December 2024 at 9:48 am

      The Think Big projects of the 1980s are a good comparison.

      Both relied on changes in legislation and regulations.

      The difference is time.

      In the 1980s the world still had the notion that fossil fuels were practically inexhaustible and CO2 had not yet been identified as the climate change ravager that we now know it to be. We looked for “clean” burning fuels rather than non-burning fuels.

      That excuse is no longer acceptable, Jones and Peters know damned well what the environmental consequences of their danse de macabre with fossil fuel exploration but short term financial gains are much more important to them than long term environmental losses. When the chickens come home to roost they will have long been in their graves with their consciences untroubled.

      Mind you, not all the Think Big projects were bad.

      Electrifying the main trunk railway line was good, still one of the best things National ever did. Only problem was that they never completely finished it.

  7. Ad 7
    15 December 2024 at 9:30 pm

    Very principled and thoughtful post thankyou Mickey.