Now that the final reuslts are out, and a government is being put together, it's time to look at something else: the initial legislative agenda. When Parliament is dissolved, all the business before the House lapses. The House can, by resolution, reinstate business - but it doesn't have to reinstate all of it.
This is interesting because there were some rather contentious Private Members Bills before the House before the election - among them Sue Bradford's Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, Larry Baldock's Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill, Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill, Nanaia Mahuta's Legal Services (Territorial Customary Rights) Amendment Bill, and Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. And some of them the government may not want to go ahead. The dissolution of Parliament is a good opportunity for Labour to kill those bills and take them off the agenda for a while.
I am not sure of the exact process here - whether Parliament can vote on bills one by one, or whether they just pass one resolution with a list (which was the impression I got from browsing Hansard some time ago). But regardless, this may be a source of tension with potential coalition partners, who will want their legislation advanced. It will be interesting to see how Labour handles this.
I'm also not sure of what happens to Private Member's Bills - whether they stay on the ballot, or whether everything is cleared and has to be resubmitted. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any information about what is in the ballot on the web - which is a shame, because PMB's seem to be the most interesting pieces of legislation, but usually catch people unawares. Something the Office of the Clerk could remedy, perhaps...?
I think that the Private Members' Ballot list is simply a practical way of handling the principle that every time a new Private Member's Bill is drawn every sitting member may have a single bill in contention. Rather than requiring members to submit their bills each time there's a practice of using the last list with any changes that have been requested.
ReplyDeleteTherefore I would expect that there is no formal status for bills currently in the ballot. So they don't carry over between parliaments and, in particular, bills owned by people who are no longer members will simply vanish.
I have suddenly become curious tho, can the speaker have a bill in the ballot? And what would occur if it were drawn?
Similarly if the speaker was an electorate MP and a local bill for that electorate needed to be considered, how would the situation be handled?
I was under the impression that each member bill draw the bills have to be resubmitted. The Bills Office will keep a copy of all the bills but each member still has to enter a registration form every time there is a draw. It's up to individual MPs or parties depending on how their internal decision making works to decide who is going to submit what bill.
ReplyDeleteInformation on lapsed business available for reinstatement is available from:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A4F2FA15-FCB9-46E3-A2A4-9C15DACACD86/15718/Lapsedbusiness2006.pdf
Sadly, I must report that Georgina's gender identity anti-discrimination bill won't go ahead.
ReplyDeleteHappily, neither will ex-UFNZ MP Larry Baldock's same sex marriage ban bill. Labour opposes it on the grounds that it is superfluous. On the other hand, there seems to be overwhelming child health and welfare professional support for
Sue Bradford's anti-beating bill, so it probably will.
Craig Y.
Damn - because there seems to be a fair number of newer National MPs who have gone on record as supporting it.
ReplyDeleteI guess I should really do that post on the numbers for various bills...
As for Georgina's bill, I gather that her colleagues got cold feet.
ReplyDeleteAdded to which, there seems to have been little liaising between the LGB and trans communities over the proposed legislation.
I must agree. Incidentally, you stated that some Nats supported the bill? I had a look at the nzvotes site, and I could only see Chris Auchinvole on side for it.
Adoption law reform is a far safer option, strangely enough.
CY
Sandra Goudie as well, with three saying they're undecided.
ReplyDeleteHaving sat there with a spreadsheet, that's not enough. Adoption is the best bet, with 2 for and 6 undecided (to which we can add Pansy Wong, Clem Simich and maybe Lockwood Smith, given their past votes). The best overall though is Euthanasia - factoring in past votes, there are 7 Nats for and 4 undecided (one of whom - Murry McCully - actually voted for last time; I guess he thought people wouldn't remember). Combined with support for other parties, that means any repeat of the "Death With Dignity" bill would be a close run thing.
As a rule though, social reforms do better if social movements have professional groups lending their heft to the issue in question. For example, the Bradford anti-beating bill has a wide range of such organisations supporting it.
ReplyDeleteIf Canada and the United States are any indication, developmental psychologists and pediatricians will probably similarly sign up for inclusive adoption law reform here.
CY
...which also means any attempt at euthanasia law reform is doomed unless medical practitioners break ranks, or development protocols and procedures for regulating voluntary euthanasia or physician
ReplyDeleteassisted suicide, as happened in the Netherlands and Oregon.
By the same token, Bradford's bill will do well precisely because it does have such considerable professional support. I'd say the same for medicinal cannabis derivatives eventually.
CY