Political Review: Strange politics of urgency

By VERNON SMALL

Sometimes, watching Parliament, it strikes you how much it has in common with professional wrestling.

Both rely on fake surprise, mock pain and carefully choreographed moves to give the outward appearance of conflict without anyone really getting hurt.

That is never more true than when the House goes into what is hilariously called "urgency".

The only element of it that is "urgent" is the Government's eagerness to pass laws. The tactic allows the various stages of a debate to be taken end on end during extending sitting hours.

Normally, this includes ditching the dramatic highlight of the day, question time, and pretending that day after day the calendar stands still.

So by Friday you can still be living out Wednesday in Parliament's precincts, but be two days older and wiser in the real world.

Within this limbo world, select committees stop sitting, and Opposition parties are supposed to talk and talk to show how much they resent the suspension of standing orders (which they never resent in Government).

The Government shows its enthusiasm for the new laws by saying almost nothing in their defence, while prodding eager new MPs to speechify along the lines of, "Mr Speaker, I move that the motion now be put".

More wily members find ways to sunbathe out the back of the library, eat fish'n'chips in their offices and on the lawn or get stuck into an airport blockbuster novel to fill in the long hours.

Thus entertained, they are still legally within the bounds of "Parliament" so their votes can be cast without their having to be in the debating chamber in body, or even spirit.

So it was this week when the Government invoked urgency for the first time since the election, with the help of its new ally, United Future.

Before the public could sample the action, the business committee, made up of MPs from across the spectrum, had on Tuesday already "rigged" the bout.

The Opposition parties agreed to pass nine statutes by 6pm on Friday and then take a three count.

In return, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen agreed to take a few ritual blows by allowing the normal question times to go ahead.

The net effect was a shroud of boredom and torpor over the whole precinct that was about as far from urgent as it is possible to imagine.

But, to be honest, it is not fair to simply slag off urgency as a quaint and outdated ritual.

In reality, it is an essential part of Parliament's processes because the normal sitting hours are nowhere near long enough to deal with the laws any Government must pass.

Without significant reform, it will remain a key part of the sitting calendar.

But not all urgency sessions are equally valid.

To give them credit, some Government advisers had the good grace to look shame-faced when the laws hand-picked for urgent treatment were circulated this week.

On the left of Labour, in particular, there was clearly embarrassment at how the list would be viewed - as an early sign of the pallid priorities of the second Clark Administration.

Having called an election, in part at least because the Greens were "rationing" urgency - and having struck a deal with United Future for support on key confidence and supply votes - Labour was honour-bound to turn to Peter Dunne's party for the first significant legislative push.

But in selecting from the backlog of 94 laws, Cullen put together a smorgasbord which it would be stretching to breaking point to call either urgent (as opposed to long-delayed) or of such moment to a centre-left Government that they should be rushed on to the statute books.

Some, such as the Civil Defence Emergency Management Bill, were so uncontroversial that the Opposition had real trouble mustering enthusiasm to filibuster them ... but needs must.

The Racing Bill had been so long in the back straight the industry must have wondered whether it would ever get to the finishing post.

It was rescued from being totally pedestrian when someone in Labour's caucus noticed it would legalise racing on Easter Sunday. A conscience vote was hastily arranged.

And why was it suddenly so important to ram through Trevor Mallard's plans for a new recreation and sports agency?

National had no objection to it whatsoever.

Three other bills were flagged as urgent, including the politically charged Resource Management Amendment Bill and the long-awaited Construction Contracts Bill, improving the lot of sub-contractors when development projects collapse.

But they were dropped to the end of the list and were not part of the deal struck by Cullen.

Absent were the contentious Tertiary Education Reform Bill, which United Future sees as hostile to private institutions, and the Television New Zealand Bill, at which United has also baulked.

They will have to wait for a "Green-washed" session.

The tertiary education bill is likely to be dealt with next week, although not under urgency.

Yet the most significant element missing from last week's card was anything distinctly "United", despite United's support for the urgency motion.

To give Peter Dunne's party credit, it is the new party on the block and is still examining some of the laws before it takes a position.

The final item on the agenda - the Victims' Rights Bill - was fast-tracked as part of its support deal with the Government. United is promising to use it as a catalyst to promote more rigorous enforcement of victims' rights.

But it was before Parliament long before the election delivered the Ohariu-Belmont MP the balance of power.

What the list of laws passed in the past week demonstrated was the obvious mismatch between the Government as a vehicle for managing the country - for which the Labour-led Coalition relies on United Future - and its remaining reforming instincts, for which it will rely on the Greens and on rare occasions New Zealand First.

In a nutshell, a yawning gap between its instincts for survival and a coherent sense of policy progress.

National, take note.