Changing the Rules After the Debate

Parliament exists for more than passing legislation. It exists to ensure proposed laws are tested, challenged, amended and scrutinised before they become law. Public submissions, select committee hearings and parliamentary debate are all intended to improve legislation by exposing weaknesses, identifying unintended consequences and allowing those affected to have their say.

That process only works if the legislation being debated is substantially the same legislation that ultimately becomes law.

Recent reports concerning the replacement of the Resource Management Act have highlighted concerns that a substantial package of amendments was introduced after the select committee process had concluded and after the legislation had passed its second reading. Environmental organisations have responded by withdrawing their support for the legislation and calling for it to be abandoned altogether.

Whether one agrees with those organisations is almost beside the point.

The more fundamental question is whether significant policy changes introduced so late in the legislative process receive the level of public scrutiny they deserve.

Governments regularly amend bills as they progress through Parliament. Indeed, that is often a sign that the legislative process is working. Select committees identify drafting problems, technical errors and unintended consequences, and governments respond by refining their proposals.

There is, however, an important distinction between technical amendments and substantial policy changes.

Minor drafting improvements rarely require renewed consultation. Major changes that alter the practical effect of legislation raise a different question altogether. If the public, local authorities, industry groups, environmental organisations and other submitters have already made their submissions on one version of a bill, should they have an opportunity to comment when important new provisions are added later?

That question applies regardless of which political party is in government.

Public confidence in legislation depends not only on the final outcome but also on confidence in the process by which laws are made.

The replacement of the Resource Management Act has already been one of the most extensive and costly legislative exercises undertaken in recent decades. It has involved years of policy development, consultation, drafting, select committee hearings and parliamentary debate. Such major reforms inevitably attract strong opinions.

That makes transparent process even more important.

Parliament’s committee system is widely respected because it allows those directly affected by proposed laws to contribute before decisions are finalised. It enables governments to hear practical concerns from farmers, conservation groups, businesses, iwi, councils, outdoor recreation organisations and individual citizens alike.

If significant policy changes occur after those opportunities have largely passed, it is reasonable to ask whether Parliament’s consultation process has kept pace with the legislation itself.

This is not an argument against governments improving bills during their passage through Parliament.

Nor is it an argument for delaying legislation indefinitely.

Rather, it is a reminder that democratic legitimacy depends not only on the ability of Parliament to make laws, but on the confidence of the public that those laws have been openly examined before they take effect.

Good legislation is rarely achieved simply because Parliament has the numbers to pass it.

It is achieved when those affected have had a genuine opportunity to understand it, question it and contribute to making it better.

That principle should apply regardless of the subject matter, the government of the day or the political views of those making the submissions.