Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers

129 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I could see an argument for a movement into urgency requiring a higher proportion of votes, which would mean that in order to do it you’d basically need a significant sized party on the other side to agree. 60% or something.

    As DPF frequently points out in, there is urgency, and urgency and urgency.

    Urgency which just extends sitting hours, and allows for question time to take place, and does not allow bills to be progressed through multiple stages, or without reference to a select committee is far less concerning than urgency which sees a bill pass through all stages in one sitting.

    I made a submission to the standing orders committee on possible reforms. One, for example, would be to take the requirements for extreme urgency (which needs the Speaker's Consent) and apply them to urgency which seeks to short-cut the legislative process. Another would be to not allow an urgency motion (itself) to allow the legislative process to be shortened. It would still be possible for short circuit the legislative process, but a second motion, suspending standing orders (which would be debateable, which an urgency motion is not) would be required. Changes like these may make the government more reluctant to use the more concerning forms of urgency, while still allowing them to extend legislative time.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    As DPF frequently points out in, there is urgency, and urgency and urgency.

    Yeah. I don't really see 'extending sitting hours' as requiring urgency. There's nothing urgent about sitting for another two hours so that we can progress these things in the normal process of parliament.

    I would imagine if urgency was abused less, they'd be more likedly to get the support of other parties and the general public when they did use it - when stuff actually is urgent.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Scalia,

    It would be great if the number of parties in parliament would settle down so that there were only two main ones and two minors. Then the system would not matter.

    Usually somewhere over th… • Since Feb 2011 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Scalia,

    Sounds good to me. Labour, Greens, Maori Party, Progressive. Let Greens and Maori Party duke it out for “major party/minor party” on a periodic basis.

    See, two can play this trolling game.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.