Graham Kennedy: Adjournment 
Graham Kennedy: Adjournment 
[Volume:676;Page:21853] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 We come to the end of the forty-ninth Parliament. Mr Speaker I begin by paying tribute to your skills and capabilities in directing our proceedings over the past 3 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 are taken from those I advanced in the Standing Orders debate and also advanced by my colleague Sue Kedgley in her valedictory. 
In the Standing Orders debate 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 is required. Let me expand on that. We as citizens are accustomed to hearing complaints about the shortcomings of our Parliament and we as members are accustomed to offering 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 so we continuously delude ourselves addicted to our own belief systems. 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 are often 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 one excludes personal attacks. It excludes insinuations of deception. It excludes offensive words. Clapping and cheering are counter-productive to the democratic process; they drown out what is being said. They banish any semblance of reasoned debate. They thwart clarity of thinking. They ignite passions that drive behaviour sufficiently unedifying as to turn the public away. If that is what we want in the name of democracy 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 the second is balance and the third is accessibility. The structure of our Parliament itself needs to be reconsidered. 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 moderated. In the Westminster system we exacerbate it by means of our physical arrangements in the Chamber. This dignified Chamber is characterised by undignified contributions 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 and psychically encourages the opposing front benches to trade salvoes and the cross-bench parties to look on—largely observers—and to comment. 
So the nature of debate in the House is twofold. 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 the general debate. The childish taunts over the future outcome of the forthcoming election were followed by a thoughtful intervention on this occasion by the Maori Party. Whether it is the Maori Party the ACT Party or the 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 the ACT Party the Maori Party and the Green Party advance their views in reasoned tones. The two main parties often do not. This is not a criticism of individuals or of parties; it is a criticism of the system we have devised. The 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 structured in a semicircle all looking towards the centre. 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 underutilised. Our parliamentary process would be enhanced if we used the Legislative Council Chamber for cross-party discussion that searches for consensus among parties rather than difference and highlights the common ground rather than the divisions. We could easily 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. 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 afforded 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. 
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 and the integrity of the process can be judged objectively and with insight only 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 New Zealand Parliament. I suggest that an independent review be undertaken sometime during the fiftieth Parliament on the nature and functioning of our Parliament. The soft cadence of democracy in this land deserves no less.