We come to the end of the 49th Parliament. I begin by paying tribute to your skills and capabilities in directing our proceedings over the past three years. This House is fortunate to have had you in the chair.
In this adjournment debate, I offer some reflections on the nature of our institution. My comments take from those I advanced in the Standing Orders debate, and also by my colleague, Sue Kedgley, in her valedictory.
There, I said that the main problem we face is the poor regard the public has of us as members. Refining the procedural dimension of our institution through amendments to the Standing Orders is not, in itself, enough to solve this problem. Something bigger, I suggested, is required. Let me expand on that.
We're accustomed, as citizens, to hear complaints over the shortcomings of our Parliament. And we're accustomed, as members, to offer explanation, if not exculpation, of the way things are done here. So even as MPs, we are conflicted about the way the House functions.
I am not the only one on these benches who cringes at the behaviour here, acutely aware of the public in the gallery, watching in various states of horror and disbelief. I do not feel proud, when our children look down upon us, both literally and figuratively.
We buttress ourselves against public scorn with two beliefs. The first is that the Standing Orders can keep us adequately tamed. The second is that our behaviour is a necessary by-product of free debate. Both beliefs are half-wrong, and so we continuously delude ourselves, addicted to our own belief system.
The procedural rules that govern our parliamentary interaction go some way to maintaining order. But they will not meet the true requirement of far-reaching change if there is no strong motivation. To date, we have tinkered at the margins.
We do that because of a fallacious understanding of the nature of democratic debate.
We members of Parliament hold our various political views deeply, along with the values that underpin them. We can get passionate about what we believe. So the debating chamber should be a robust place for the free and vigorous exchange of ideas.
But a robust debate must be a healthy one. A healthy debate excludes personal attacks. It excludes insinuations of deception. It excludes offensive words.
And clapping and cheering is counter-productive to the democratic process. It drowns out what is being said. It banishes any semblance of reasoned debate. It thwarts clarity of thinking. It ignites passions that drive behaviour sufficiently unedifying as to turn the public away.
If that is what we want in the name of democracy, then so be it, but let us not delude ourselves that we know better than the public about the democratic process.
If we are serious about parliamentary reform, we must proceed beyond the Standing Orders. And we must think out-of-the-box. Let me identify three areas where fundamental reform might be considered. One is structure. A second is balance. The third is accessibility.
Mr Speaker, the structure of our Parliament itself needs to be re-considered. There are several reasons why our debate often degenerates into near farce. Primarily it is because of the nature of the adversarial system of political interaction that we celebrate in the West.
As our means of checks and balances, and to deter tyranny, we divide into political parties, and compete for power through the ballot. That naturally sets up multiple, adversarial relationships.
The adversarial character of our body politic can be exacerbated or it can be diminished. In the Westminster system, we exacerbate it by means of our physical arrangements in the chamber. Our dignified chamber is characterised by confrontation. And it still reflects a two-party system.
Even today, the leadership of the two main parties face off directly across from each other, separated theoretically by the width of two swords. The confrontational nature of the arena is palpable. It evokes gladiatorial combat of ancient times.
The layout of the chamber - physically, visually, psychically - encourages the opposing front benches to trade salvoes, and the cross-bench parties to look on, largely as observers, and to comment.
So the nature of debate in the House is two-fold. The debate between the two main parties deteriorates into a deafening slanging match. Then a third party intervenes and the tension and the decibel level diminish. The difference is qualitative.
We saw this just yesterday in General Debate. The childish taunts over the future outcome of the forthcoming election were followed by a thoughtful intervention, on this occasion by the Māori Party. Whether it is Māori, or ACT or Greens, all with different values and views - the nature and style of the debate change.
The contention is made that the debate is robust and vigorous because members feel deeply about their convictions. This is wrong. All members cherish their principles. But ACT, Māori and Green parties advance their views in reasoned tones. The two main parties often do not.
This is not a criticism of individuals or parties. It is a criticism of the system we have devised.
This structure is wrong. When I worked in New York, I had occasion to visit many parliaments and congresses around the world - I must have visited 30 or 40. I came to sense the ambience that would characterise a national assembly, giving rise to different dynamics in the political process.
The best were those configured in a hemispherical layout, with the benches or desks structured in a semi-circle, all looking towards the centre dais. There, at the centre, was the Speaker, and there, also, would the member proceed down, to look back at colleagues and address them.
It is perhaps no surprise that the hemispherical, as opposed to the confrontational, layouts of Parliament tend to be non-Anglo-Saxon. Many, though not all, are recent democracies.
My suggestion is that it is time we gave thought to the structure of our Parliament and the effect it has on the conduct of members.
The second issue is balance. Not only does New Zealand have a Westminster system, but it is unicameral. So the adversarial nature of the single chamber stands in starker relief than might otherwise be. An upper chamber may have its own tensions, but it is usually less adversarial.
One way of modifying this might be to use the Legislative Council chamber more than is currently the case. That elegant chamber is under-utilised. Our parliamentary process would be enhanced if we used the Council chamber for cross-party discussions that searches for consensus among parties rather than difference - highlights the common ground rather than the divisions.
We could identify issues that underpin legislation before the House and generate a dialogue, occasionally off the record, identifying in an informal setting, the scope for flexibility that might not be present in the chamber itself.
Accessibility is the third issue. The essence of democracy is the open and honest way in which members, as representatives of the people, are accessible to them. As a small country, it is relatively easy in New Zealand to ensure openness and accessibility for the public. But we need to ensure that this does not deteriorate with the pressures of modern political life.
Mr Speaker, the Greens are concerned about the possibility of paid lobbying intruding into the parliamentary process in New Zealand. We are assured that there is no such lobbying in this Parliament. Then we are told that certain individuals are accorded security clearance to gain access on the grounds of frequency of visits. So, perhaps it is a matter of definition.
Either way, the litmus test will be the level of transparency. We believe that open discussion on this matter is, in itself, a test of the integrity of the political process. And this is essential to the public interest.
Mr Speaker, these are our areas of concern. We do not believe that it is fruitful for them to be explored from within. No body - legal, medical, financial, legislative - can govern itself on an enduring basis through guardianship of its own rules.
We need an independent review of Parliament. Not one undertaken by members, of members, for members. The functioning of Parliament, the integrity of the process, can only be judged objectively and fairly by the people whom the institution is designed to serve. The public must be given the opportunity of judging the nature and functioning of this Parliament.
I suggest that an independent review be undertaken, sometime during the 50th Parliament, on the nature and functioning of our Parliament. The soft cadence of democracy in this land deserves no less.
Subscribe to email newsletters
