John Armstrong's opinion: Report critiquing Government swept under the rug along with thoughts of the future

How regrettable, wasteful and unforgivable it will be if MPs shun what is nothing less than blueprint for a much-needed overhaul of New Zealand’s increasingly sorry excuse for a Parliament.

A just-published critique of the institution ought to be compulsory reading for every MP from Jacinda Ardern downwards.

Those who have laboured long and hard to produce what is effectively a 200 page-plus manifesto for parliamentary reform are deserving of nothing less.

It is not overstating things to rate the report published last week by Victoria University’s Institute for Governance and Policy Studies in partnership with the Office of the Clerk of the House as offering what arguably is the most meaty menu in terms of options for change in a fundamental component of the political system since the Royal Commission on the Electoral System of the mid-1980s made its groundbreaking recommendation that the country switch to the mixed-member proportional system.

The report is the product of scores of interviews with current and former MPs, government officials, staff within offices of parliaments overseas,  academics and think tank researchers.

The status of the document — Foresight, insight and oversight: Enhancing long-term governance through better parliamentary scrutiny — is not clear.

Neither is its future. Presumably it will end up being discussed by Parliament’s standing orders committee through its connection with the Clerk of the House. It will be inexcusable if it is left in limbo.

In hindsight, it was a big mistake not to accompany the adoption of MMP more than two decades ago with a heavy dose of reform of Parliament’s structure, practices and procedures.

The lingering deficiencies in New Zealand’s version of Westminster-style democracy have since been regularly been put under the spotlight by a vocal gaggle of political scientists, constitutional lawyers and assorted academics spearheaded by the indomitable countenance of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, long the prime promoter of reform.

Unfortunately, the push for reform is not reciprocated by the voting public.

The public does not give a toss. Those urging a shake-up are operating in isolation. It is the like-minded talking only to the like-minded.

What is markedly-different about the latest contribution to the cause of parliamentary reform is that it expands the usual boundaries of the debate way beyond current limits. 

There are a couple of sentences in particular in the aforementioned report written under the aegis of the Institute of Policy Studies and the Office of the Clerk which flash like neon.

The first sentence makes the observation that New Zealand’s systems of governance are “less than perfect”, but adds that those systems are capable of being improved following “rational consideration”. Winston, are you listening?

The report goes on to declare there are “serious concerns that those systems are too focused on the immediate issues of the day and less on the variety of long-term problems that may be, or indeed are, around future corners”. Are you still listening, Winston?

That language might be moderate; the message is blunt. The report has put its finger smack bang on the malaise in the country’s politics.

It is a malaise not confined solely to New Zealand First. It is the inclination to delay making the tough decisions until some indeterminate date in the future. The future is a foreign country; one you never have to visit.

The willingness of politicians to confront the future before it confronts them might be described as patchy.

On the plus side, there is the admirable example set by the inquiry into “the future of work” being conducted by the Productivity Commission at the instruction of Finance Minister Grant Robertson.

On the minus side is the refusal of political parties to settle once and for all whether the current entitlements enjoyed by those who qualify for state-funded New Zealand Superannuation will remain affordable.

Instead, there is a not-to-be mentioned pact in place in Parliament that no-one talks about superannuation. Doing so risks awkward questions that don’t have comforting answers.

The refusal to be upfront about pension costs is disgraceful. Similarly,

the absence of a nationwide debate on the soon-to-come blow-out in the bill for public health care is equally disturbing, if not more so.

The financial accounts of the district health boards have long been dripping with red ink despite regular taxpayer-funded injections of cash.  You would have to be an incurable optimist not to assume the the state of the public’s health will all too soon boil down to the following simple, but ugly equation: an ageing population = the axing of services.

No-one wants to make the mistake of being the first to admit that equation will soon enough become a fact of life — or, more to the point, a factor in death.

The joint report by the Institute of Policy Studies and the Office of the Clerk is a very welcome antithesis to the self-serving unwillingness of politicians to address the future for fear of losing votes.

It rejects the attempt to divorce the present from the future. It suggests numerous mechanisms to acknowledge the long-term rather than being fixated with the short-term.

A classic example is the stipulation that legislation brought before Parliament would have to meet requirements of “intergenerational fairness”.

There is a heavy emphasis in getting consideration of what might happen in the long-term cemented into existing parliamentary procedures or by establishing new ones, for example by holding special debates or requiring a portion of the Prime Minister’s Statement —the speech which kicks off the parliamentary year — be devoted to long-term interests.

Will MPs pick up and run with these initiatives?

So far, not so good. The report was shut out of media coverage by events beyond its sponsors’ control. It was always going to struggle to gain attention. But it found itself competing with a Cabinet reshuffle, a rejigging of portfolio responsibilities in National’s shadow Cabinet, the crucial second reading debate on David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill, the findings of a State Services Commission-instigated investigation into the chief executive of the Treasury’s handling of the so-called “Budget hack”.

What media coverage the report did get was cursory. It didn’t help that the media focused on something contained in the report which is simply not going to happen, namely the the report’s recommendation of a four-year parliamentary term.

There was no mention of the report’s caveat that there would be little merit in holding yet another referendum on the term of Parliament unless there was some surety that such a plebiscite would give majority backing for such a switch.

Likewise, the report’s advocacy of an increase in the size of Parliament  from the current 120 MPs to 150.

A hike of that order could be guaranteed to get the kind of welcome reserved for Israel Falou were he to show up at a gay pride rally.

The report acknowledges that such an expansion in Parliament’s numbers is not realistic.

That still leaves leaves a truckload of other recommendations which are not contentious. MPs could pick and choose the ones they favour.

In a sense, the gauntlet has been thrown down for the Speaker to pick up.

It is an opportunity for Trevor Mallard to show leadership in that role.

There is one thing which might stop him doing so, however.

It is a fundamental tenet that Parliament run its own affairs.

It not only has to be independent, it must be seen to be independent.

Above all, MPs bristle when others tell them what they should be doing about something. And never more so than when the lectures originate from the ivory towers of academia.