Time for transparency on lobbying II

Last weekend, Dominion-Post columnist Tracy Watkins highlighted the lack of transparency around lobbying in this country, and called for change. We're now seeing the first concrete steps towards that, with the Greens' Sue Kedgley putting up a member's bill to require public registration of lobbyists.

The bill is here [PDF]. It is heavily based on the Canadian Lobbying Act 1985 and defines "lobbying activity" as seeking to influence or arrange meetings with MPs, Ministers or ministerial staff, for payment and on behalf of another. It does not cover ordinary citizens seeking to influence their representatives, and it does not cover requests for information or publicly available submissions. Lobbyists must be registered, and will be subjected to a Code of Conduct. Failure to register will attract a $10,000 fine for an individual, or a $20,000 fine for a company.

The interesting issue is the registration authority. The Greens have chosen the Auditor-General, but I'm not sure they're the right choice. They're right I think to choose an Officer of Parliament - someone responsible to the House rather than Ministers - but its a fair stretch from the Auditor-General's normal activities. It probably would have been better to create a new Oficer of Parliament - a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner - and task them not just with lobbyists but also with the register of pecuniary interests. But this is a Member's Bill, so the shortcut is expected.

The question now is what the other parties think of the idea. I predict a deafening silence - unless the media stand up and ask them about it.

In the ballot XXVIII

Another batch of Member's Bills currently in the ballot. Previous batches are indexed here:

Supercity Referendum bills (various): there are four of these - one for Auckland and Waitakere (Phil Twyford), one for Rodney and North Shore (Rajen Prasad), one for Papakura and Franklin (George Hawkins), and one for Manukau and the ARC (Carol Beaumont). Each requires that the reorganisation of the relevant local authorities be approved by a referendum of its residents, mirroring the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. The bills are a reaction to the government's Auckland Supercity proposals, and have no chance at all of passing. But they do clearly highlight the concerns of Aucklanders about not being given a proper say on the future of their local government.

Christchurch International Airport Protection Bill (Clayton Cosgrove): this bill is a response to noise concerns about Christchurch International Airport by local residents. It would "resolve" those concerns by stomping all over them. The bill would ensure that no provision of the RMA could be used to limit the operation of Christchurch airport on the basis of aircraft noise, and require the Christchurch City Council to issue a new District Plan prohibiting "noise sensitive activities" (meaning residential development, schools, hospitals, or pretty much anything involving people living) within a moving boundary which will expand as the airport gets louder. From the maps on the Christchurch City Council's CityPlan site some of this area is already occupied by residential housing (see maps 30 and 31); no compensation would be payable for any loss resulting from this.

This is an awful bill. Its so awful, National might even vote for it. The only thing stopping them is that the victims are in Gerry Brownlee's electorate.

Customs and Excise (Cruelty to Animals) Amendment Bill (Sue Kedgley): this would amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to make products made with cat and dog fur (and the furs themselves) prohibited imports, which is extensively farmed by cruel methods in Asia. The EU, Australia and the US all have such bans - but none of them have a free trade agreement with China.

As usual, I'll have more bills as I acquire them.

Draconian but not secret

In the Herald this morning, Green MP Sue Kedgley criticises the new Auckland Transitional Authority's draconian powers:

"The transition agency has extraordinary powers that I have never seen in legislation before," said the Greens' local government spokeswoman.

She was particularly concerned about a clause stating the agency had to provide information to the public only "as it sees fit".

She's right that those powers - for example to over-rule decisions made by elected local governments - are extraordinary and draconian. But she's absolutely wrong about the secrecy. Section 24 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Act 2009 is quite clear:

The Ombudsmen Act 1975 and the Official Information Act 1982 apply to the Transition Agency as if the Transition Agency were an organisation named in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975.

Which in English, means the ATA is subject to the OIA, and obliged to provide information unless there is good reason to withhold it. Now, I think there will be implementation problems with this - the business executives Rodney Hide wants to appoint will have little experience with the Act and will come from a culture of secrecy rather than openness, and are thus unlikely to take their OIA obligations seriously or interpret its provisions correctly and in accordance with the Ombudsman's practice guidelines (a criticism which BTW can also be levelled at several new government Ministers). But it is simply false to claim that the ATA will be able to release information only "as it sees fit". They will not, and if they try, the Ombudsmen will correct their erroneous views.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, probably the last for the year, and the government has once again delayed its local legislation to ensure time for the third reading of Sue Kedgley's Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. The bill will bring some welcome employee-centric flexibility to the New Zealand workplace, and make it a lot easier for parents with young children or other caregiving responsibilities to juggle work and life. While it's not a government bill, it's easy to see how this fits into the government's programme of encouraging more people into the workforce by addressing work-life balance concerns.

The passage of the bill will be a great moment for Kedgley, and for the Greens. They've already had two member's bills passed this term (s59 and youth rates), and have a good chance of getting another two through by the election (waste management and corrections (mothers with babies)). They've shown considerable skill at picking good issues and building coalitions behind their legislation, as well as compromising where necessary to get it passed. If only more parties would behave like this...

As for other business, Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill will go down to its inevitable defeat, and the House will be able to make a start on the second reading of Sue Bradford's Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill (which looks to raise her tally to three). If they get through that in time, then they'll finally be able to make a start on the Foreshore & Seabed (and there'll be a ballot), but I don't think its particularly likely. And with Parliament trying not to sit past December 11th, we're unlikely to see one until next year.

Pleasing changes

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has finally reported back [PDF] on Sue Kedgley's Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. The bill would give workers the right to request flexible working hours in order to care for dependent children; this was considered too daring for Labour, and so it was buried in committee for a year to allow officials to examine existing practices. But now the committee has finally completed its report, and recommended that the bill be passed, though with amendments. Unlike the amendments to Sue Bradford's Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill (which basically gutted it), these amendments have strengthened the bill. Instead of applying only to flexible working hours, the bill would allow for flexible working arrangements, including work from home. The criteria which allow flexible arrangements to be requested have been broadened to include care for dependent relatives. Refusals are now appealed in the first instance to a labour inspector for mediation, rather than directly to the Employment Court. On the potentially negative side, requests must now specify how the variation in arrangements will help the employee better care for their dependent, and give an ide aof how long they will be needed for, while the grounds for refusal have been extended. But these changes don't seem unreasonable, and seem to be modelled on UK law. As someone who submitted on the bill, I'm quite pleased with the outcome.

Because of the large number of Member's Bills currently facing their Second Reading, the bill likely won't be heard until September.

Promoting work-life balance

Something else from the now departed Green test blog: Sue Kedgley's Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill (I'll put up a link when it shows up on Knowledge Basket) has been drawn from the ballot. The bill

would give employees with children under five the right to request reduced, part-time or flexible hours. Employers would have a legal duty to consider any such requests seriously, and must be able to demonstrate good reasons for a refusal.

Like Big News, I think this bill is a great idea. Forcing employers to consider reasonable requests for flexibility in the case of parents will not only make it easier for people to juggle work and family, but it will also help promote the idea of work-life balance more generally. And as someone who believes that we work to live, rather than living to work, that can only be a Good Thing.

My major concern is that the bill does not go far enough. Parents are not the only people who need flexibility at work, and the provisions should be extended to cover those with (say) significant caregiving responsibility for a sick or elderly relative, or any other reasonable demand on their time. This shouldn't be just about allowing parents to participate more fully in the workforce, but about helping all of us to achieve work-life balance.

This is definitely a bill the government should support, and I'd also hope United Future comes to the party for such "family-friendly" legislation.

Update (03/04/05): Added link to bill.