Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National Emergencies — Instruction to Regulations Review CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Standing Orders Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National Emergencies — Instruction to Regulations Review Committee[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I move That the recommended amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament. I also move That the Regulations Review Committee be instructed to inquire into Parliament’s legislative response to future national emergencies and to report to the House on the inquiry. These two motions reflect the recommendations made to the House by the Standing Orders Committee in its report on the Review of Standing Orders. I would like to speak to each motion in turn. The first motion is to adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders that are set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Members will see the recommended amendments shown as tracked changes at the back of the report. Once the amendments are adopted a new edition of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives will be published before the start of the new Parliament.The committee reviews the rules and practices of the House during every term of Parliament and recommends changes where there is overwhelming support for them. Such broad support is necessary because the Standing Orders are recognised as an important constitutional set of rules that should not be adjusted by a simple majority. This does not mean that everyone agrees about everything but we have discussed various proposals and arrived at something that acceptably balances the interests of the Government the Opposition and the institution of Parliament as a whole. Although this approach means that each review is unlikely to result in radical changes the fact that there is a cycle for a regular review of the Standing Orders means that the House is able to update the way it operates and sometimes even come up with some innovative ways of progressing legislation. This is an important feature of our parliamentary system and should not be taken for granted. Not every Parliament regularly reviews its rules in this way.Can I make a point that this Parliament has made significant use of extended hours to deal with matters such as the ones we are dealing with this morning where there is widespread support—in fact unanimous in the case of this morning—across the House and therefore a desire that the effects given by any of the motions that have passed this morning be enacted as quickly as possible. This was a very good innovation and Parliament should be proud of the achievements of it.Briefly then I want to run through what the committee’s new recommendations are. The Business Committee after receiving a proposal from the Prime Minister will be able to make arrangements for what will be known as State occasions—events at which Parliament as New Zealand’s pre-eminent forum can mark occasions of special significance. Speeches by foreign leaders can be part of Parliament’s proceedings and a State occasion could mark for example the approach of Anzac Day next year. This is the centenary year and we may in fact have some commemoration of that in the Legislative Council Chamber. Those matters are yet to be decided. The House will recall that the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard spoke in this Parliament some time ago. There was a question about whether that should be a session of Parliament or otherwise. What this Standing Order will do is allow for those matters to be sorted out as a matter of normal course with the Business Committee making most of those decisions.The right of members to address the House in New Zealand Sign Language is also now part of the Standing Orders. That means that alongside English and Māori as a formal language of New Zealand it can be used in this House although at this stage it will need to be with some notice to the Clerk so that the translation service can be provided.This report includes discussion about the House’s consideration of legislation and particularly looks at New Zealand Bill of Rights Act matters. This is a significant development. At the moment papers are presented to the House by the Attorney-General to call attention to any apparent inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. These Standing Orders will mean that that reference is now made directly to select committees. We have set a strong expectation that there should be good information for members when they decide whether a significant limitation on rights and freedoms is justified. Inevitably when you are passing law there will be a question about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues; it does not mean that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act pre-empts any choices that Parliament itself might make about those rights in the promotion of law. For that reason we did not reach agreement about including further formal New Zealand Bill of Rights Act mechanisms in these Standing Orders.Another new initiative is revision bills. These will start to appear in the new Parliament. They are special bills that are intended to express laws more clearly without significantly changing their meaning. I noted hearing on my way to the House the comments of the Attorney-General about the 1908 Legislature Act and the need for clarity in the way law works. These revision bills will do that and there is now a formal way in which they can be presented to the House and dealt with quickly. I would expect that before too long it may be a matter of standard course that these are dealt with in extended sittings of the House where there is widespread agreement.Financial scrutiny will also be a little rationalised under the Standing Orders so that the examination of spending plans and the performance of agencies can be arranged according to themes or sector groupings. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will be able to suggest groupings when using its existing powers to allocate financial scrutiny to other committees. This should flow through to a more thematic arrangement of scrutiny and debates in the House. To encourage this the estimates debate is being lengthened with some of the time being reallocated from the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement which occurs at the beginning of each year. That used to be a 17-hour debate; in the new Parliament it will be reduced to 14 hours which is still plenty of time to make comments on the Prime Minister’s statement.The Parliamentary Privilege Bill has just been passed and a small change is needed to ensure that the bill’s language is reflected in the Standing Orders. A new paragraph in Standing Order 3 will provide for that. Whenever proceedings are published circulated or made available to the public under the Standing Order or otherwise by order of the House the communication of those proceedings is under the authority of the House or the committee. This reflects the wording of clause 15 of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill and is intended to ensure that dissemination of proceedings is protected.The report includes an endorsement of more extensive webcasting of select committee hearings of evidence. Select committees are also encouraged to request that the Business Committee arrange set topic debates so that committee reports and other matters of interest can be debated—for example during extended sittings. It worth noting that the Business Committee did do that this term with debate in the Health Committee and it worked very well. We had one previously on relations with the Pacific. Those are very important occasions.Turning then to the second motion regarding the instruction to the Regulations Review Committee you will recall that the previous Standing Orders Committee recommended in 2011 that there be an inquiry into Parliament’s legislative response to a national emergency but that such an inquiry be referred following a reasonable period to enable the progress of recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Standing Orders Committee has suggested that this time has now come. This is not to say that there have been significant deficiencies in the way in which the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act has been used and I know that the Regulations Review Committee has kept a watching brief on this. But I think it would be good—and Parliament agrees it would be good—to set out constitutional principles for the arrangement and delegation of recovery powers for the House’s ready reference on the next occasion should this country be unfortunate enough to require the passing of special disaster-recovery legislation.I think this is particularly important because when that legislation is passed it will be because Parliament expresses a will—in most cases unanimously I am sure as it was in the case of Canterbury—to ensure that there is the facility for things to be done to improve people’s lives. I think it is best that the way in which the Act is tested is through having the Regulations Review Committee formally look at the way in which that Act is being used. It is generally a group of parliamentarians who are experienced and who understand the way in which legislation should be interpreted. It is always chaired by a member of the Opposition—these are very important points Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson as was a valedictory speech that went well over time yesterday I might point out—and I think it is important that we establish a way that gives some surety particularly to the courts that Parliament is constantly reaffirming what it intended when it passed legislation. With those comments I commend these reports to the House.