Select committees enhance transparency, accountability and public participation in governance. Their work strengthens the legislative process, improves the law and reinforces our trust in our democratic institutions.
It is the only time between elections where parliamentarians must listen to ordinary people talk to them about the impact of policy decisions on their lives and families. It is the only scrutiny you and I have over future law.
We do not get to decide the law, but we do get to have our say about it. That is part of the representative government arrangements.
We give our representatives the right to decide for us, as long as they have the obligation to listen to us and take our views into account.
This is why there is such a strong push for submissions to select committees. Without the public submissions to select committees, legislation would be even more prone to political manipulation and poor drafting, leading to more uncertainty and increased costs.
When select committees issue the invitation to submit, they are committing to an open democracy and inviting scrutiny and transparency. This process reinforces democratic legitimacy. If the government does not open itself to scrutiny, how can it argue it has consent to govern?
New Zealand’s parliamentary select committee process is fundamental to our view of democracy and good government.
While there is always room for improvement, the select committee system remains one of the most robust mechanisms for safeguarding democratic values in Aotearoa New Zealand.
This means that when ministers attack members of the public who are engaging with the select committee process, they are also attacking our democracy.
This is not an exaggeration. Without unfettered access to the select committee process, you and I are locked out of our only mechanism to scrutinise future law.
It does not matter who you vote for. It does not matter what political ‘‘side’’ you consider yourself on. Your access to select committees should never be threatened.
But this is where we now find ourselves. A senior minister has launched public, and very personal, attacks on some people, myself included, who make submissions to a select committee.
This raises many questions.
One is why would the person who has ultimate authority over the content of the Bill feel the need to personally attack those who disagree with it? This is not the action of someone confident in their rationale.
A confident minister would allow the select committee process to proceed without trying to hinder or constrain it.
A confident minister would welcome, rather than complain about, the public’s engagement with their proposed legislation.
Only a minister who fears the critique would personally attack the critics.
Which suggests a second question: why such a minister would fear for the passage of the proposed legislation?
In the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, it is unclear why the minister is so anxious. The Bill is the subject of the coalition agreement between Act New Zealand and National, so National’s support is guaranteed.
The New Zealand First agreement requires it to support the policy proposals in the Act agreement, so NZ First will also have to vote for the Bill. Because of these political deals, the Bill will pass.
So the only concern must be about the content of the Bill. The Bill might pass but the content of the Bill is open to change based on the submissions.
And the anxiety of the minister over the submissions strongly suggests that these criticisms have legitimacy.
The critiques have been well-traversed. One is that the Bill leaves open the opportunity for corporate entities to sue the government for regulation and legislation that does not meet the Bill’s narrow principles.
This is not as unlikely as some assume. Corporate entities have similar rights to those of natural persons and the fear of litigation by companies has led to a chilling effect on some good public policy protections. The Bill does not protect the government from such litigation.
Another critique is that the Bill will constrain government and local government regulation and bylaw-making powers. This concern has been expressed by our own Dunedin City Council this week as it defends local decision-making and local democracy.
And, of course, that the Bill is itself contrary to the rule of law it proposes to promote, because it excludes the Crown’s constitutional obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The rule of law is not confined to concerns of private property. The rule of law includes constitutional protections, like those found in te Tiriti, and in democratic processes, like our select committees.
You will judge yourself as to the legitimacy of the deputy prime minister making ad hominem attacks against policy critics.
But make no mistake, his attacks against individuals just disguise his attacks against democracy.
■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
