The reform of parliamentary control: a constitutional and procedural history of the New Zealand House of Representatives, 1951-1990

Abstract

The Standing Orders reform process of the New Zealand House of Representatives has been studied. Comparisons were made with Canberra, Ottawa and Westminster. The New Zealand Executive, and its advisors, can dominate the parliamentary process. There is also no legal or constitutional constraint on increasing the membership of the Executive Council or Cabinet. The parliamentary committees are only generalist, the same structures scrutinising legislation, conducting inquiries and the audit process. No pressure exists to separate these three functions along overseas practice. Committees are poorly serviced, have no verbatim recording of proceedings and public(civil) servants can provide the major technical input, even to the deliberative stage. 1962 saw major reviews of expenditure control systems. These were badly researched and ill co-ordinated. A chance was missed then to introduce accountability concepts similar to overseas practice and raise the status of the Controller and Auditor General, a problem since last century. Reforms in 1985 intended to provide exclusive full-time staff fully responsible to select committees. This has not been done. A Parliamentary Service Commission was established with the intention of giving the House the independence of overseas bodies. The new Commission then proceeded to allow Cabinet-directed Treasury-serviced teams to inquire into the provision and operation of the services provided for the House and Parliament. The Executive dominates by rapid passing of legislation without prior notice or consideration through the normal stages. Urgency is freely used, legislation with retrospectively acting clauses is passed, and new bills are tacked on to others without notice in their final stages in the House. No wide policy community was found proffering ideas for reform. Indifference was found in the law and accountancy professions and a lack of awareness in education and church circles. Without a change of attitudes in the community, the Executive, and its advisors, will continue to dominate Parliament.