Louis Collins
This week had 10 separate bills
scheduled for third reading debates, on the cusp of becoming
law, with only the largely ceremonial Royal Assent
afterwards. What is different about this final debating
hurdle?
A third reading is the final debate a bill
receives before it heads off for Royal Assent, when the
Governor-General signs it into law.
By this point in
the legislative process, each party’s position is usually
crystal clear. For the most part, the detailed scrutiny has
already happened during the committee stage, so third
reading speeches tend to focus more on a bill’s broader
purpose than its technical detail, although reflections on
any committee stage amendments that occurred can still
arise.
The legislature’s bible, Parliamentary Practice
in New Zealand, says members “must confine themselves to the
general principles of the bill as it has emerged from the
committee of the whole House”.
It also says that
“although members may advance general arguments as to why
the bill should or should not pass, they must confine
themselves to matters covered in the bill”.
Sometimes,
that’s exactly how the debate unfolds, particularly when a
bill isn’t especially contentious. For example, National’s
Simeon Brown described this week’s Offshore Renewable Energy
Bill, as “a really important step forward. I’m excited about
the potential that this [bill] is going to unleash across
our country as we seek to grow the energy that this country
is delivering”.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
On that occasion, the Opposition was
similarly supportive.
“I agree with the Minister for
Energy; this is an exciting day,” said Labour’s Megan Woods.
“I think it’s also fair to say it’s a very long-anticipated
day that we are coming to finally get the legislation passed
to put in place this regime.”
If you’ve watched enough
Parliament, you’ll know that’s not always how third reading
debates play out. For ministers, they’re often a final
opportunity to make the case for why their legislation
deserves to become law. Sometimes those speeches are rousing
paeans. Other times, they’re more akin to a polished
corporate email announcing the launch of a successful
project.
Outgoing ACT minister Brooke Van Velden’s
final words on her Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill
leaned towards the latter.
“This bill is about
restoring clarity, common sense, and focus to New Zealand’s
work health and safety system. At its core, this government
has taken a straightforward approach. Laws should work in
practice, not just in theory.”
Opposition MPs,
meanwhile, often use the debate to deliver something closer
to a philippic about a bill they’re ultimately powerless to
stop.
“I’m also incredibly disappointed that we’ve got
to this point,” lamented Labour’s Jan Tinetti about the same
bill. I’m disappointed that this bill is not being killed in
the water here.”
Despite the relatively narrow scope
prescribed for third reading speeches, they regularly drift
into broader political debate. How much MPs are able to
stretch that depends on how strictly the presiding officer
chooses to interpret the rules.
At the less regulated
end of that scale, this week Health Minister Simeon Brown
spent a significant portion of his speech during the third
reading of the Health Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill
criticising the previous Labour government’s record on
health.
“Cranes in the sky because after six years
under the previous government of talk, talk, talk, we’ve
signed a contract, we have construction under way, and
cranes in the sky getting things done. We are building the
future of our health infrastructure under this government.
Under that government, all there was talk, talk, and
talk.”
Brown might argue that criticism was relevant
given the bill repealed aspects of the previous government’s
health reforms, and did touch briefly on infrastructure.
Labour, unsurprisingly, disagreed: “…And you can talk
about whatever you like,” Kieran McAnulty could be heard
saying as the Speaker called on the next speaker, presumably
in reference to the scope of Brown’s
contribution.
That next speaker was Labour’s Ayesha
Verrall, whose speech illustrated another feature of third
readings: anecdote and emotion. MPs will often draw on
personal stories or connect legislation to current events.
Verrall referenced the death this week of a man waiting at
Waikato Hospital’s Emergency Department.
“As a health
worker, I also understand that these events are a prism
through which we can see the challenges our health system
faces. It’s individual stories like these that make up the
reality of the health system experiences of New
Zealanders.”
She went on to directly challenge the
government’s emphasis on performance targets.
“For two
years, in fact, the government has talked about very little
other than [waiting time] targets. The target didn’t get
that man care. The target also did not staff the Waikato
Hospital Emergency Department. Ask any doctor or nurse.
There is a hiring freeze in Health New Zealand.”
Like
Brown’s preceding speech those remarks demonstrate how third
readings often become a forum for wider political arguments,
even as the rules suggest they should remain tightly focused
on the legislation before the House.
By the end of a
long Wednesday, and after days in the trenches under
urgency, any expectation that third readings would follow a
procedural formality had perhaps worn thin.
*RNZ’s
The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and
issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the
Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at
RNZ.
New Zealand’s public broadcaster, providing comprehensive NZ news and current affairs, specialist audio features and documentaries.
Radio New Zealand is a Crown entity established under the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. Radio New Zealand News are vital elements in our programming, providing impartial news and information to New Zealanders every day. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) provides listeners with exciting and independent radio programmes in accordance with the Radio New Zealand Charter.
