Editorial: Addiction to urgency sign of weakness

Prime Minister John Key. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Opinion

Right now, some of the more inexperienced National MPs may be thinking they are in an impregnable position. The latest 3News poll, which shows their party enjoying near record 57.5 per cent support, will have done nothing to diminish their confidence. In such circumstances, some in the National hierarchy may well think they can afford to cut a few corners. A heavy legislative load is one obvious target. It is always tempting to lighten that burden by passing law under urgency, thereby avoiding sometimes tedious parliamentary processes that consume time and resources.

Yet the widespread use of urgency always says more about a party's weaknesses than its strength. It suggests it may not be comfortable enough with the rationale for a piece of legislation and its MPs' understanding of its detail to usher it through the normal parliamentary procedures. This is especially the case when bills are passed without the chance for public submissions at a select committee. Urgency also suggests a party is not convinced its MPs are able enough to carry what may be an arduous debate in the House. Last week's passing of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill was a case in point. National MPs made often-feeble contributions as the legislation passed its second reading, committee stages and third reading in little more than a day.

Most importantly, the frequent use of urgency suggests a lack of regard for parliamentary process. And if many governments have been guilty of succumbing to temptation over the years, National's record this term is particularly poor. In its first two years in power, it used urgency for 331.5 hours, nearly double the time the former Labour Government sat under urgency in its full first term. In that time, it has pushed through 17 laws without allowing select committee examination. Labour's figure was four or five each term.

National has offered no coherent reason why it has felt compelled to take this path. A pre-Christmas rush last year has now been succeeded by an even greater embrace of urgency. Included in the latest sweep have been copyright and Canterbury earthquake legislation and stages of bills covering child abuse protection and tougher sentencing for assaults on the police.

The copyright law is an especially curious case. It was set aside after being reported back from a select committee last November, and did not seem a pressing matter. All the Government's rush has done is spread apprehension. A more considered approach would have avoided this. Likewise, there seemed little reason for urgency for the latest Christchurch legislation, other than to establish the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. The Government had already granted itself wide-ranging emergency powers under law passed after the first earthquake.

Legislation rushed though in this manner has a much reduced chance of being good law. When the select committee stage is bypassed, a valuable chance to iron out problems is removed and opposing viewpoints are denied due consideration. A glaring example of this was the law change introducing national standards in schools.

Various proposals have been put forward to reduce the use of urgency. Requiring a 75 per cent vote in Parliament before the select committee stage could be omitted for any bill is one of the more valid. Another suggestion is for more sitting weeks each year. But the total number of bills passed by National is little changed from that passed by Labour. That suggests National's problem is mostly one of attitude. For parties in a position of strength, urgency is a temptation that must be resisted.