Twitter:
- charleschauvel: To see the latest on the Government's proposed Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill, go to www.redalert.org.nz for...
- charleschauvel: You can follow my most recent updates on my Facebook page, http://t.co/IKqdp9B ...
- charleschauvel: @rorymccourt Unlikely to approve much open cast mining at all ...
- charleschauvel: RT @phil_goff: Absolutely stoked that Boscawen asked me a question in Parliament. Was able to explain what a great job Labour did...
- charleschauvel: [Chauvel News] Contentious legal aid law passes reading - Stuff.co.nz http://t.co/dA9lot5 ...
Parliamentary Reform
At the moment, MPs must stay at Parliament when the House is sitting, even if they are not required to speak or attend select committees. This is because of achaic quorum requirements. If all votes were given to whips by proxy, MPs could increase their availability to community groups and better manage their diaries during Parliament’s sitting times.
Although much legislation is controversial, a great deal is not. An example of legislation in the latter category is the recent Major Events Management Bill. This sort of legislation should have a simplified procedure for introduction and consideration by Parliament. This would save time to work on legislation that we disagree on, in greater detail. We should also look at reducing the number of readings for every bill from three to two; rarely are any new objections or suggestions raised in the third reading stage, so I think in the interests of efficiency we could safely drop one reading and still give legislation proper consideration. The time saved could be devoted to more Select Committee consideration.
Finally, I would like Parliament to consider reform of question time. I certainly do not wish to abolish it, as it is an important and exciting part of our democratic process. But do we really need the endless supplementary questions, sniping for a slip of the tongue? Would it not be more productive to limit the number of supplementary questions and at the same time enforce more substantive answers from Ministers? I think requiring fewer answers of much higher quality might provoke more civilised proceedings during question time.