Deputy Speaker of Parliament Barbara Kuriger (centre) chairs the committee stage of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority) Bill, alongside Health Minister Shane Reti (left) and Clerk David Bagnall, 28 February 2024. Photo: Johnny Blades
MPs worked under urgency to progress 13 bills through the House, but a slew of amendments and numerous party votes threatened to slow progress down.
The government moved into urgency on Tuesday, 18 November to put through 13 bills in the second-to-last sitting week of the year. Eight of those were set down to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage.
This stage allows for more freeform exchanges between the MP in charge and other MPs, with multiple speeches permitted as long as they're on topic. It is also the last chance for changes to be proposed to the bill.
The more amendments and speeches that take place, the longer this stage takes, which can present opportunities to slow down the pace.
On Friday morning, MPs voted on 57 amendments to part one of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill.
It may not seem like much, but this bill had four more sections up for debate and if there were 57 amendments lodged on each part, then voting in the committee stage could be extended from about 20 seconds to about four hours.
With the government trying to work through its agenda before the next and final sitting block of the year, small delays like this add up - but despite the many amendments and time spent on votes, the government has a majority and it is unlikely any of the bills they've put down to pass under urgency will fail.
How can a vote slow down the House?
Most of the time, there's a limit on how long things can take but the committee stage allows for multiple debates on the details of a bill - as long as the rules on speeches are still followed.
An MP who speaks to the topic and raises new points can take a number of five-minute speaking slots until the chairperson decides the topic has been discussed enough and an MP (usually from a government party) suggests they should move on, saying something like, 'I move, that debate on this question now close.'
This requires a vote, which is a regular part of Parliament. But it can also be used as a delaying tactic. Voting in the House is usually a 'voice-vote', which is basically shouting out "aye" if you support it, or "no" if you don't. The chairperson judges which answer sounded like it had more people and declares the winner.
It's common for the opposition to challenge that decision and then call for a party vote, which involves an MP from each party standing up and announcing the number of votes their party has in favour or opposition of the topic - the clerk then tallies this up and gives the total vote to the speaker
A voice vote can take about five seconds. A party vote can take about a minute.
Therefore lodging a number of amendments and calling for a party vote for each of them can hinder progress in the House. For debate on clause 5 of the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, 20 amendments from the opposition were voted on, taking up about 20 minutes of House time. This bill had four clauses up for debate, and if there were 20 amendments lodged on each clause then voting in this stage would be extended from about 25 seconds to one hour and 40 minutes.
Bills like the Statutes Amendment Bill for example, which has 42 parts could provide even more chances to slow the process down.
Amendments themselves are not there to slow down the pace, but it is a side effect of the process that voting on a lot of them will take up time and could be considered futile if the government will use its majority to vote them down, or if they are ruled out of order.
Tamatha Paul. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
For example, Green MP, Teanau Tuiono's amendment to change the title of the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill to the "Defence (Counter Strike) Amendment Bill" was ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
It's not a given that opposition amendments will be automatically rejected however.
Green MP Tamatha Paul put forward an amendment to the Crimes (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill to ensure that police consult victims before issuing offenders with a formal notice, which was accepted with no disagreement.
This is the parliamentary purpose of the committee stage - for MPs across parties to look at a bill line by line making sure it actually will do what it says and adding in any last-minute changes to make it better. Options to change a bill after this are severely limited.
Whether the political use of amendments and party votes is a good use of parliamentary time will likely depend on where political allegiances lie, and it's unlikely MPs will outright confess to this tactic. But with no rules broken, there's sure to be many, many amendments and party votes in the future.
To listen to The House's programme in full, click the link near the top of the page.
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
