Photo source: Wikimedia Commons
Parliament is considering a new bill aimed at overhauling its internal processes and extending its independence from the executive branch. Known as the Parliament Bill, it’s a legislative proposal that seeks to address issues concerning funding independence, security, and the overall structure of parliamentary operations.
During recent public submissions, experts, legal professionals, and members of the public have provided feedback on the bill, bringing forward a host of perspectives on the effectiveness of the proposed reforms.
The Core Objectives of the Parliament Bill
Ultimately, the Parliament Bill is designed to streamline existing parliamentary legislation, consolidating various rules into a unified framework to simplify parliamentary operations.
One of the bill’s central aims is to reinforce parliamentary sovereignty by making budget decisions more independent of government control. Currently, funding for Parliament’s secretariat and administration is controlled through the government’s annual budget process—a setup that, according to critics, allows the executive branch to exert undue influence over Parliament.
The bill proposes transferring budget-setting responsibilities to a cross-party committee of Members of Parliament, whose decisions would then be approved by the House. This model, which is similar to the budget process for officers of Parliament, aims to establish a clearer separation between the legislative and executive branches.
Additionally, the bill introduces statutory authority for Parliament’s security officers, an area highlighted for reform in the wake of recent security incidents – namely, the 2022 occupation of Parliament grounds. Under the proposed legislation, parliamentary security would gain limited powers for search, seizure, and detention, with the goal of increasing on-site safety and limiting dependence on police intervention.
Public Submissions and Key Concerns on Security Reforms
A significant focus of the public submissions was the expanded role and authority of parliamentary security staff. Currently, Parliament’s security personnel have limited legal authority, often requiring police assistance to manage more severe situations on parliamentary grounds. However, the bill proposes giving these officers powers akin to those of court security, enabling them to search, seize, and temporarily detain individuals if necessary. The goal is to make Parliament less reliant on external police forces, which are typically present primarily for the protection of dignitaries, not for general security.
Several submitters questioned whether Parliament’s current security staff, who were hired without such statutory authority, would be equipped for these enhanced responsibilities. Concerns were raised about whether these personnel have the necessary training or resources to manage the new level of authority effectively. Some submissions suggested that the police would be better suited for these duties, given their specialised training and experience with crowd management and law enforcement.
Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer criticised the bill’s security measures as inadequate, pointing to the 2022 occupation of Parliament grounds as a major incident that highlighted weaknesses in parliamentary security. He argued that the bill fails to address lessons from that occupation adequately, stating, “That was a disgraceful thing that the Parliament should not have tolerated.”
Palmer’s critique is indicative of a broader sentiment among experts that Parliament’s security needs are more complex than those of court facilities and may require a re-evaluation of the proposed model.
Funding Independence and the Strive for an Autonomous Parliament
A core issue with Parliament’s current funding structure is its susceptibility to executive influence, which critics say undermines the principle of parliamentary supremacy. Currently, funding for Parliament’s administrative and secretarial functions is determined through the government’s annual budget—a process that, while generally standard, has left Parliament vulnerable to financial constraints imposed by the very government it is supposed to hold accountable. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a vocal advocate for parliamentary independence, called the current arrangement “inappropriate” and argued that it jeopardises Parliament’s ability to effectively scrutinise government actions.
While the Parliament Bill hopes to address this problem by delegating budgetary decisions to a cross-party committee, some experts argue that this approach does not fully resolve the issue. Critics contend that since the majority party would likely still dominate both the committee and the House, the government could continue to exert influence over Parliament’s financial resources.
To mitigate this, some submitters have proposed establishing an independent body—similar to New Zealand’s Higher Remuneration Authority—to oversee parliamentary budgets. Such a body, they argue, would ensure that Parliament’s financial needs are met without interference from the executive branch.
Palmer recounted his own experience with executive interference. Sharing a story from his early days as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he recalled how the Minister in charge of the legislative department refused to approve basic office furnishings, showing the extent to which executive control could impact parliamentary operations.
Addressing Workload and Staffing Constraints
The issue of staffing and resources within Parliament has also received considerable attention during public submissions. Palmer and other submitters argue that the current number of MPs is insufficient to handle the demands of parliamentary duties effectively. With a high volume of legislation introduced each year, the substantial workload can strain Parliament’s capacity for meaningful debate and thorough legislative review.
The Auditor-General also noted that the executive has been introducing too much legislation for Parliament to effectively manage, leading to concerns about the quality and accountability of legislative processes.
Palmer highlighted the heavy toll this workload takes on MPs, and in particular, those with young families. The pressure of balancing legislative responsibilities with family commitments is “acute”, he noted, and he suggested that an increase in both MPs and staff support might be necessary to ensure a functional and effective Parliament.
Despite the need for change, Palmer acknowledged that MPs may be hesitant to support such measures, fearing that public opinion may be unsympathetic to the idea of expanding parliamentary resources.
Implications and Calls for Broader Reform
The concerns that have been raised during public submissions indicate that, while the Parliament Bill addresses some critical issues, it may fall short of implementing the comprehensive reforms needed to ensure a truly independent and functional Parliament.
As submitters like Palmer pointed out, the bill’s current scope may be too narrow, especially in terms of security, funding, and workload support. The recurring themes of these submissions reflect a public appetite for a more robust approach to parliamentary reform—one that goes beyond operational tweaks to address structural imbalances in New Zealand’s political system.