Internationally, there is a general trend towards devolution of some powers typically held by central governments to local bodies. Tony Blair, for instance, instituted reforms that saw political powers devolved from Westminster to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Whilst greater community involvement is generally considered a worthy idea, a great number of New Zealanders instinctively believe that co-governance is not the answer.
What then is the solution? How can democracy in New Zealand be enhanced in a manner which enhances voices from all parts of country?
One notable aspect missing from our legislative framework is a second chamber in Parliament. It was once a feature of our Parliament and there may be a compelling case for its return. Advocates argue that reinstating a second chamber would not only improve the quality of legislation but also provide a greater voice to communities and ordinary New Zealanders.
From 1853 to 1950, New Zealand had a bicameral legislature, consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Legislative Council. The Legislative Council was initially established as a “revising chamber” with the purpose of providing a thorough examination and critical assessment of legislation. However, the upper house of New Zealand’s bicameral legislature gradually experienced a shift in its membership dynamics. Over time, the government’s influence and control over appointments to the upper house increased significantly. As a consequence, the composition of the chamber became less representative of the diverse voices and perspectives found throughout the country.
With a lack of diversity and representation, the upper house lost touch with the needs and aspirations of the broader population. The voices of ordinary citizens and communities across New Zealand were overshadowed, as the upper house became more aligned with the government’s interests and agenda. This erosion of representativeness and effectiveness significantly weakened the chamber’s ability to fulfil its intended role. As a result, the second house was abolished in 1950.
If a second house were reintroduced to New Zealand’s Parliament, it would be imperative to implement robust safeguards to prevent the recurrence of the failures experienced in the past. One crucial safeguard would involve establishing a clear and transparent process for appointments or elections to the second chamber, ensuring that it remains independent from the government’s influence. This would help maintain a diverse composition and prevent the chamber from becoming a mere extension of the government’s agenda.
In modern New Zealand, a second chamber would significantly improve the quality of legislation by introducing an additional layer of scrutiny and review. With two chambers, laws would undergo more rigorous analysis, leading to a better examination of their potential consequences and unintended impacts. This would ensure that legislation is well-crafted and considers a broader range of perspectives, leading to more effective governance.
Moreover, the second chamber could serve as a platform for specialised committees focused on specific policy areas. These committees would consist of experts in their respective fields who can provide in-depth analysis and propose necessary amendments. By leveraging their knowledge and experience, the second chamber can contribute to crafting more comprehensive and informed legislation.
A second chamber would provide a forum to safeguard minority rights and provide some check against any potential tyranny of the majority. By allowing for more comprehensive deliberations and consensus-building, a second chamber can act as a check against hasty decision-making. This ensures that the interests of diverse communities and marginalised groups are adequately represented and considered during the law-making process.
Additionally, the second chamber could have provisions for the inclusion of representatives from indigenous communities, recognising the unique rights and perspectives of Māori and other indigenous groups in New Zealand. This would ensure that their voices are heard, and their interests are protected within the legislative process.
In a unicameral system, the government of the day often holds a significant concentration of power. A second chamber would introduce a valuable mechanism to balance this power and promote greater accountability. It would offer an opportunity for sober second thought and critical evaluation of government policies, preventing potential abuses of power and ensuring a more balanced representation of the nation’s interests. Certainly there has been much criticism about the manner in which this current Labour government has used its power within Parliament to force through laws. In late 2021 Sir Geoffrey Palmer commented that the emergency powers that Labour had rushed through the House under urgency during Covid were more extreme than war-time powers. Greater scrutiny, even under urgency, would undoubtedly have improved those laws, and provided more comfort to those that considered that Bill of Rights considerations were not given enough weight.
The second chamber could have different mechanisms for member appointment or election, ensuring that it remains independent from the executive branch. This independence would enable the second chamber to review and challenge legislation proposed by the government, fostering a healthy system of checks and balances.
A second chamber could be designed to provide better regional representation, giving voice to communities across New Zealand. By electing representatives from distinct geographical areas, the second chamber would provide a platform for local concerns, promoting decentralisation and strengthening the bonds between communities and their elected representatives. This would allow for a more inclusive and responsive democratic process.
Furthermore, the second chamber could incorporate proportional representation, ensuring that smaller parties and regional voices have a fair chance of being represented. This would prevent the dominance of major parties and encourage the inclusion of diverse viewpoints within the legislative process.
The short-term nature of political cycles often hampers the implementation of long-term policies. A second chamber, with its potential for a more extended term of office for its members, could help foster a more forward-looking approach to legislation. Members of the second chamber would have the opportunity to focus on long-term planning, ensuring that decisions are made with future generations in mind.
By taking a broader perspective and considering the long-term implications of legislation, the second chamber would contribute to the stability and sustainability of New Zealand’s governance. It would help mitigate the influence of short-term political agendas and enable lawmakers to make decisions based on the nation’s long-term interests.
A second chamber can serve as a bridge between the government and the people. It offers an avenue for ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the legislative process. The second chamber could include representatives who are directly elected by citizens, ensuring that the concerns and aspirations of the public are directly reflected in the law-making process.
Furthermore, a second chamber would provide more opportunities for public consultation and engagement, allowing citizens to have their voices heard on important matters. This would lead to a more inclusive and participatory democracy, where citizens feel empowered and connected to the decision-making processes that shape their lives.
Reintroducing a second chamber in New Zealand’s parliamentary system has the potential to enhance democratic governance, improve the quality of legislation, and give a greater voice to communities and ordinary New Zealanders. By providing a check on government power, protecting minority rights, offering a platform for regional representation, and fostering long-term vision, a second chamber would ensure a more robust and inclusive decision-making process. Additionally, it would strengthen public engagement and create a closer bond between the government and the people. As New Zealand continues to evolve, it is worth considering the benefits of reinstating a second chamber, safeguarding the principles of democracy, and creating a stronger future for the nation.
Thomas Cranmer, Lawyer with over 25 years experience in some of the world's biggest law firms. This article was originally published by The Common Room and is published here with kind permission.
Whilst greater community involvement is generally considered a worthy idea, a great number of New Zealanders instinctively believe that co-governance is not the answer.
What then is the solution? How can democracy in New Zealand be enhanced in a manner which enhances voices from all parts of country?
One notable aspect missing from our legislative framework is a second chamber in Parliament. It was once a feature of our Parliament and there may be a compelling case for its return. Advocates argue that reinstating a second chamber would not only improve the quality of legislation but also provide a greater voice to communities and ordinary New Zealanders.
From 1853 to 1950, New Zealand had a bicameral legislature, consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Legislative Council. The Legislative Council was initially established as a “revising chamber” with the purpose of providing a thorough examination and critical assessment of legislation. However, the upper house of New Zealand’s bicameral legislature gradually experienced a shift in its membership dynamics. Over time, the government’s influence and control over appointments to the upper house increased significantly. As a consequence, the composition of the chamber became less representative of the diverse voices and perspectives found throughout the country.
With a lack of diversity and representation, the upper house lost touch with the needs and aspirations of the broader population. The voices of ordinary citizens and communities across New Zealand were overshadowed, as the upper house became more aligned with the government’s interests and agenda. This erosion of representativeness and effectiveness significantly weakened the chamber’s ability to fulfil its intended role. As a result, the second house was abolished in 1950.
If a second house were reintroduced to New Zealand’s Parliament, it would be imperative to implement robust safeguards to prevent the recurrence of the failures experienced in the past. One crucial safeguard would involve establishing a clear and transparent process for appointments or elections to the second chamber, ensuring that it remains independent from the government’s influence. This would help maintain a diverse composition and prevent the chamber from becoming a mere extension of the government’s agenda.
In modern New Zealand, a second chamber would significantly improve the quality of legislation by introducing an additional layer of scrutiny and review. With two chambers, laws would undergo more rigorous analysis, leading to a better examination of their potential consequences and unintended impacts. This would ensure that legislation is well-crafted and considers a broader range of perspectives, leading to more effective governance.
Moreover, the second chamber could serve as a platform for specialised committees focused on specific policy areas. These committees would consist of experts in their respective fields who can provide in-depth analysis and propose necessary amendments. By leveraging their knowledge and experience, the second chamber can contribute to crafting more comprehensive and informed legislation.
A second chamber would provide a forum to safeguard minority rights and provide some check against any potential tyranny of the majority. By allowing for more comprehensive deliberations and consensus-building, a second chamber can act as a check against hasty decision-making. This ensures that the interests of diverse communities and marginalised groups are adequately represented and considered during the law-making process.
Additionally, the second chamber could have provisions for the inclusion of representatives from indigenous communities, recognising the unique rights and perspectives of Māori and other indigenous groups in New Zealand. This would ensure that their voices are heard, and their interests are protected within the legislative process.
In a unicameral system, the government of the day often holds a significant concentration of power. A second chamber would introduce a valuable mechanism to balance this power and promote greater accountability. It would offer an opportunity for sober second thought and critical evaluation of government policies, preventing potential abuses of power and ensuring a more balanced representation of the nation’s interests. Certainly there has been much criticism about the manner in which this current Labour government has used its power within Parliament to force through laws. In late 2021 Sir Geoffrey Palmer commented that the emergency powers that Labour had rushed through the House under urgency during Covid were more extreme than war-time powers. Greater scrutiny, even under urgency, would undoubtedly have improved those laws, and provided more comfort to those that considered that Bill of Rights considerations were not given enough weight.
The second chamber could have different mechanisms for member appointment or election, ensuring that it remains independent from the executive branch. This independence would enable the second chamber to review and challenge legislation proposed by the government, fostering a healthy system of checks and balances.
A second chamber could be designed to provide better regional representation, giving voice to communities across New Zealand. By electing representatives from distinct geographical areas, the second chamber would provide a platform for local concerns, promoting decentralisation and strengthening the bonds between communities and their elected representatives. This would allow for a more inclusive and responsive democratic process.
Furthermore, the second chamber could incorporate proportional representation, ensuring that smaller parties and regional voices have a fair chance of being represented. This would prevent the dominance of major parties and encourage the inclusion of diverse viewpoints within the legislative process.
The short-term nature of political cycles often hampers the implementation of long-term policies. A second chamber, with its potential for a more extended term of office for its members, could help foster a more forward-looking approach to legislation. Members of the second chamber would have the opportunity to focus on long-term planning, ensuring that decisions are made with future generations in mind.
By taking a broader perspective and considering the long-term implications of legislation, the second chamber would contribute to the stability and sustainability of New Zealand’s governance. It would help mitigate the influence of short-term political agendas and enable lawmakers to make decisions based on the nation’s long-term interests.
A second chamber can serve as a bridge between the government and the people. It offers an avenue for ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the legislative process. The second chamber could include representatives who are directly elected by citizens, ensuring that the concerns and aspirations of the public are directly reflected in the law-making process.
Furthermore, a second chamber would provide more opportunities for public consultation and engagement, allowing citizens to have their voices heard on important matters. This would lead to a more inclusive and participatory democracy, where citizens feel empowered and connected to the decision-making processes that shape their lives.
Reintroducing a second chamber in New Zealand’s parliamentary system has the potential to enhance democratic governance, improve the quality of legislation, and give a greater voice to communities and ordinary New Zealanders. By providing a check on government power, protecting minority rights, offering a platform for regional representation, and fostering long-term vision, a second chamber would ensure a more robust and inclusive decision-making process. Additionally, it would strengthen public engagement and create a closer bond between the government and the people. As New Zealand continues to evolve, it is worth considering the benefits of reinstating a second chamber, safeguarding the principles of democracy, and creating a stronger future for the nation.
Thomas Cranmer, Lawyer with over 25 years experience in some of the world's biggest law firms. This article was originally published by The Common Room and is published here with kind permission.
9 comments:
I do not agree.
I doubt a second chamber in New Zealand will add any benefit at all, except to lesson "dole" queues because of the increased number of "civil servants" required.
A second chamber, whether elected or appointed, will simply become an echo chamber for the fashionable causes of the day
I will change this opinion when New Zealand removes the whip-system from the House of Representatives and introduces a freedom of voting regime where every vote is a "concience" vote based on MP's actually representing their electorates.
This, of course, would mean the replacement of MMP - a very good move.
Far better, under the current system, that New Zealand works on a way to democratically remove a Government or individual MPs who fail to represent their electorates.
Add to that a law making ANY form of (political) discrimination based on heredity an instant, imprisonable offense and New Zealand could become a successful country once again.
Yeah, lets just increase the size of government?? What could possibly go wrong??
Less government with 'direct democracy representation' via referendums giving the power back to the people my choice.
Governments can't be trusted.
Reading this it is tempting to agree. However in the back of the mind I was thinking "Yes, but you would need to be very selective about who gets to be in the second chamber". How do you filter out the personal biases and connections? Maybe it would work for another 30 years.
After having a majority government with Comrade Pirinihehe Jacinda though we need to scream for political reform.
I kinda agree with Tim. Something needs to be done and the sooner the better before we descend into tribal rule and coporate control. Wait...hopefully it's not too late already.
MC
Seems to me would make for even more careless legislation than now, as both levels would assume the bulk of responsibility with the other. If the upper house also suffered pro maori capture as very likely in this cancellation age, would be an utter disaster. Where would Select committees fit in? And would require yet another huge increase in staff, all still prone to pro maori contagion as now.
I agree with Tinman. No democracy is perfect, and ours certainly isn’t, but we still can clam to be one of the most democratic counties in the world. Getting a government we don’t like does not mean we’re undemocratic. This is not the first bad government we’ve had by any means, but, whether we like it or not, it was the people’s choice. Along comes another election and they can be voted out. It’s up to the people.
The abolition of the rubber stamp Legislative Council in 1950 was thanks to the newly elected Prime Minister Sid Holland, who had been campaigning to doit for some time. History hasn’t given him sufficient credit for this, and more besides.
There are better ways to enhance our democracy. Abolishing the Maori seats for a start. MMP has enabled Māoris to gain a presence in parliament, like any other sector. A four-year term is another.
'NZ has long been admired for its progressive governance'. If by this is meant the opposite of a conservative stance, I believe this is where things have gone so wrong.
The gradual destruction of traditional methods and values by progressives, in specifically education, is to my thinking, the reason for an overload of social problems, we now face.
A deep consideration of he nature of traditionalism is needed to balance the present introduction of fad after fad by progressives, their hallmark.
I certainly agree something has to be done about the rushed introduction of bad laws but if there are still a pack of staunch progressives in another house not much would change. The madness would just be introduced more slowly.
Sorry - once, one would agree. A proper upper House is a system of checks and balances.
But NZ's big problem is MMP - the model is not right for a small country . Maybe it works for Germany ( 69 million approx).
Far too many List MPs - unelected by the people but able to control policy.
The Swiss model of democracy is far preferable. (Switzerland - approx 9 million)
An Upper House is a "No" from me. We need less governance from meddling low-IQ politicians who quite frankly have not succeeded at anything other than sucking up to those in positions of influence. It's politicians who are stuffing up New Zealand.
The last 3 years have clearly shown the complete corruption of the whole system of government that we now suffer under. Tinkering with the existing machinery is pointless. Like life itself all things go through an infancy, maturity, and finally collapse. We see that now in this country. Only post collapse will we (or our successors) be able to re-invent a governance structure for the population of the time. Perhaps the Athenian concept of ‘governance by lot’ may see a revitalisation?
Post a Comment