Donald Rod: Standing Orders 
Donald Rod: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10731] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am pleased that the review of the Standing Orders has finally come to fruition having started over 3 years ago before the last election. I would like to join with other members in thanking my colleagues for their contribution and for the way that we were able to work together. It is unfortunate that we were an all-male committee. Hopefully the next Standing Orders Committee will have a better gender balance. I would like to thank David McGee in particular for his comprehensive submission to the committee and also David Bagnall for the sterling work he has done in trying to pull together the diverse range of views of the members of the committee and also the comprehensive submissions from members of the public and political parties. 
However I have to say that the Green Party is disappointed with the outcome of the review. While there are a number of positive changes in the document that we are debating many necessary reforms proposed by the Green Party and others have failed to win backing from all the parties. I guess this is inevitable given the committee’s decision-making process that Dr Cullen outlined. The approach essentially is that we do not divide on Standing Orders’ matters. This does not mean that all of us support every measure but on the other hand a number of significant proposals that might have attained majority support have not been adopted. As a result rituals that became redundant last century are still retained despite the best efforts of this party’s representative in particular. 
I would like to highlight a few key areas where I believe the committee has failed to do its job. The first of those areas is New Zealand’s treaty ratification process. That is where we reserve our strongest criticism. New Zealand continues to be locked in an era where kings and queens controlled foreign policy. We believe it is simply not acceptable for minority Governments to retain the Crown prerogative and with it the power to bind future Governments to international treaty commitments. 
All treaties should receive approval by Parliament before New Zealand becomes a party to them. In that regard I would like to acknowledge the comprehensive submission from Professor Jane Kelsey to the Standing Orders Committee. She outlined very cogently all the arguments in favour of changing the treaty-making process. In particular she said: “A range of multilateral regional and bilateral economic agreements now constrain the domestic regulatory policy and legislative options of domestic Governments in unprecedented ways. Unlike many other international treaties these are enforceable through the imposition of retaliatory economic sanctions. The behind-the-border effect is to circumscribe a nation’s economic and political sovereignty and the powers of its domestic Parliament courts and the executive. These agreements often have an effect equivalent to entrenched legislation yet they can be signed and ratified by the executive in power at a particular time and are not subject to the constitutional requirements that apply even to an ordinary statute.” That is why Keith Locke introduced his International Treaties Bill to Parliament and why the Green Party made strong submissions on the Standing Orders that relate to international treaties. 
We regret that the committee has not implemented the two unanimous specific recommendations of last Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to change the Standing Orders which were made when it considered Keith Locke’s bill. The first was to widen the scope of treaties to capture any bilateral treaty. The final decision on whether such a treaty should be considered by Parliament is to be made by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and not the Government as is currently the case. The second was that the interim report of that committee suggested the national interest analysis on international treaties be expanded to include Waitangi obligations human rights local government and existing international obligations. We are very disappointed that this recommendation made over 2 years ago has still been left with the ministry. It is time for Parliament to take charge of its own destiny in this regard. While we are pleased that there is now a 6-monthly list of treaties that is circulated to the committee we need to go much much further than that when it comes to the treaty-making process. 
We also believe that this Parliament needs to go much much further with the position of the Leader of the Opposition. This position is an historical anachronism that has no place in an MMP Parliament. National does not even represent a majority of the Opposition members in this House. We have a situation where the official leader of the Opposition does not command the support of a majority of the parties that that person is supposed to represent. Further under current rules it is entirely possible for the so-called Leader of the Opposition to have a confidence and supply agreement with the very Government that it is meant to oppose which is why we recommended an amendment to the Standing Orders to add the words: “or with a formal confidence and supply agreement with a Government party” so that any party in that position would not be eligible to provide the Leader of the Opposition. While expressing no ill will towards Don Brash it is patently ridiculous that he should represent the Green Party in Parliament at public functions and on bodies such as the Intelligence and Security Committee. I suggest that United ACT and New Zealand First may share our concerns about that particular matter. 
However we are pleased that the review looks beyond the demise of the draconian Electoral Integrity Act to define how members are represented if they cease to be a member of the party for which they were originally elected. Party recognition will now include members who stood for a component party of an umbrella party that they leave after the election. That is a step forward that United Future might find useful at some future point. 
A number of other positive suggestions have been adopted particularly from the Green Party. The bells now ring when the House rises and not until it rises. That was one of our early suggestions and it has been in practice for some time. The Thursday urgency is another one of our suggestions. We are pleased to see that apply. The change to proxy voting is something that we were pleased to have contributed to. I think that is a step in the right direction. However I am disappointed that the committee declined to adopt several other Green Party initiatives including an investiture vote Parliament sitting in alphabetical order until the Speaker is elected constructive votes of confidence and the proportional distribution of select committee chairs and deputy chairs. I am particularly disappointed that the Clerk’s proposal for select committee orders was not adopted. I encourage members to read page 11 of the Standing Orders Committee report. It states: “The Clerk submitted that a genuine prospect that inquiry reports will be debated in the House and the establishment of a transparent mechanism for this to occur would enhance the scrutiny offered by committees.” It is a shame that we have not gone there. 
I am also disappointed that Matt Robson’s attempt to modernise the prayer has been rejected. It was time we did that. It should be reviewed especially in the light of the growing diversity of society and Parliament over the last 40 years. I am equally disappointed that the committee refused to modernise the dress code. Members’ standard of dress should be at their own discretion subject of course to the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain order and decorum. Insisting that male members wear ties and jackets does not ensure order and decorum—in fact quite the opposite. Some of the most vile insulting and unparliamentary statements that I have heard in this House have emanated from members known for their high standard of dress. I am sick of trying to explain to schoolchildren as I did in Blackball yesterday that the behaviour of some MPs is unbecoming and that those members are disrespectful to their colleagues and to the Speaker. I urged those children not to follow our poor example in the way they treat each other and their teachers. The onus is on the Standing Orders Committee to take seriously the submission from Wellington High School set out on page 23 of report to improve our behaviour in this Parliament and to return to the question of a code of conduct which was proposed by Ross Robertson.