Look at law-making fundamentals could enhance discussion
A Human Rights Commission discussion paper on Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy might evoke more rewarding discussion if it also questioned the fundamentals of the current parliamentary and law making processes, the New Zealand Law Society says.
In a submission to the Commission, the Law Society says the discussion paper only discusses improvements that could be made to current parliamentary and law making processes. It proceeds on the basis that the current fundamental elements of these should remain.
While the Law Society says it agrees with the Commission’s recommendations, public discussion might be enhanced by questioning some of the fundamentals of the current structure.
“It could pose the question: if you were designing a law making process anew, what would a strong system that upholds rights to participation look like?” the submission asks.
Fundamental elements that could be questioned included the three-year term of Parliament, two rounds of consultation during select committees, drafting changes in bills which are close to becoming law, and the passage of legislation under urgency in a single sitting.
Looking at the current structure, the Law Society says there appears to be a general concern with the current legislative process that the closer a bill is to becoming law, the more the drafting can change without consultation or even peer review.
“Another particular issue is that when select committees recommend amendments to bills, often in response to the concerns of submitters, there is little opportunity for those submitters to comment on whether the amendments achieve the committee’s aim or create any new unforeseen problems,” the Law Society says.
It suggests that having two rounds of consultation at select committee could assist, with opportunity for comment on the committee’s proposed amendments and also helping identify drafting errors earlier.