Governments often propose policies that are wrong in principle. And even when policy is right in principle, it is easy to make mistakes when drafting legislation.
Select Committees are where legislators file off the rough edges. Ideally, they will have already consulted with officials and with those affected by the policy earlier in the process.
But legislative drafting is tricky, even if everyone involved has the best of intentions, and even if no one has been under time pressure. Policy development does not always meet those ideal conditions.
Policy in general, and specific drafting details, can also have unanticipated consequences. Some aspects are only noticed when the legislation is scrutinised by a broader affected community.
That process helps Parliament avoid critical, costly errors. Unfortunately, the process has become far noisier.
The shift to online submissions has enabled much broader participation, which can be to the good. But it has also enabled another kind of shift.
Interest groups on all sides of political divides encourage supporters to submit on legislation.
Those groups’ concerns about legislation are most genuine. But they may be tempted to use the opportunity to build up their email lists, which are crucial for fundraising. This can lead them to use language that is often stronger and more inflammatory than the legislation at issue warrants.
There is no civic duty to provide submissions to select committees. But surely submissions should be well-considered.
Relying on columnists’ views, rather than reading the text of short bills, can be risky. You may have heard claims that the Regulatory Standards Bill enables companies to sue the government if regulation imposes costs. But Subpart 5 would make such suits difficult. It says the Act creates no rights or obligations enforceable in a court of law.
In the second column in this week’s newsletter, Bryce Wilkinson discusses how Select Committees might respond when faced with tens of thousands of submissions on single pieces of legislation. Assistance from AI might become necessary in triaging submissions and gleaning common themes.
Select Committee processes matter because legislators and officials are not infallible. Parliament needs help in getting legislation right.
Thoughtful submissions can point out important details that everyone else has missed. Those submissions, whether in support or opposition, risk being lost in the noise. Legislation will be worse for it.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
But legislative drafting is tricky, even if everyone involved has the best of intentions, and even if no one has been under time pressure. Policy development does not always meet those ideal conditions.
Policy in general, and specific drafting details, can also have unanticipated consequences. Some aspects are only noticed when the legislation is scrutinised by a broader affected community.
That process helps Parliament avoid critical, costly errors. Unfortunately, the process has become far noisier.
The shift to online submissions has enabled much broader participation, which can be to the good. But it has also enabled another kind of shift.
Interest groups on all sides of political divides encourage supporters to submit on legislation.
Those groups’ concerns about legislation are most genuine. But they may be tempted to use the opportunity to build up their email lists, which are crucial for fundraising. This can lead them to use language that is often stronger and more inflammatory than the legislation at issue warrants.
There is no civic duty to provide submissions to select committees. But surely submissions should be well-considered.
Relying on columnists’ views, rather than reading the text of short bills, can be risky. You may have heard claims that the Regulatory Standards Bill enables companies to sue the government if regulation imposes costs. But Subpart 5 would make such suits difficult. It says the Act creates no rights or obligations enforceable in a court of law.
In the second column in this week’s newsletter, Bryce Wilkinson discusses how Select Committees might respond when faced with tens of thousands of submissions on single pieces of legislation. Assistance from AI might become necessary in triaging submissions and gleaning common themes.
Select Committee processes matter because legislators and officials are not infallible. Parliament needs help in getting legislation right.
Thoughtful submissions can point out important details that everyone else has missed. Those submissions, whether in support or opposition, risk being lost in the noise. Legislation will be worse for it.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
With regard to the deluge of submissions received for the Treaty Principles Bill, a brief list of submission arguments for and against the Bill was provided in the Select Committee Report. However, it seemed to me that although the arguments against the Bill were not invalid, they had simply been overtaken by the passage of time.
Since the Treaty was signed, we have experienced enormous changes in the size and racial composition of our population, plus 30 years of “full and final” settlements of Tribal claims and decades of affirmative action. (Yet we still have Māori dominating all the wrong statistics.)
The list of submission arguments for and against the TPB needed further evaluation as to their utility for policy-making that would stand the test of time.
As one ewho has spent considerable thought and time on submissions on a few occasions I suspect AI might be helpful. iIt should enable common or near common mass submissions to be identified and separated out from th clearly individual thoughtful ones . Depending on who organises the pocessing, which with current pro maori staff indoctrination is especially important.
It is easy to rubbish the submissions to Select Committees which have been promoted by various groups via "click on the link" to add your name to a standardized submission. Yes they may encourage "group think". Yes, risk being simplistic. Yes, might be based on the organiser's views which may bear little relevance to the actual legislation in question.
But to dismiss them as mere "noise" which masks "real" submissions is not very fair.
I must admit the sheer number of pieces of legislation seeking responses does incline me to simply add my name rather than submit my own original thoughts in some cases.
But in many cases I have read, say, a blog from someone who views I have considered at some length, and desire to support and emphasize. Surely this should not devalue the fact that a large number of people support that particular view?
For a Select Committee to think mass "sign ins" should be ignored and instead, perhaps place more weight on "interesting" submissions, perhaps presented orally,..by "experts", is a trend which strikes at the fundamentals of democracy...that the common man is less valuable than more articulate, professional experts.
Post a Comment