Comment: We’re often told select committees are the “engine room” of Parliament. The place where MPs do the hard yards of poring over the detail of proposed laws. They’re also a place where the public can go to have a say on these laws. Every year, thousands of us do just that in the hope our views will get a hearing.
But what happens when submissions have been heard and the doors to the select committee room close? And how much influence do committees really have in shaping the laws that govern us?
In the normal course of events, before a bill becomes law it’s a select committee’s task to scrutinise the bill, call for public submissions, consider those submissions along with advice from officials, and then report on the bill.
My research puts a spotlight on the behind-the-scenes decision-making of select committees, drawing on interviews with MPs and officials, and analysis of 1503 select committee reports from 1996 to 2023.
I found committees are workhorses: their reports almost always make recommendations to improve bills. In turn, these changes are almost always accepted by Parliament. Select committees improve the quality of our laws as a result.
However, there’s a big proviso. Since 2008, select committees have been increasingly dominated by MPs from the parties in government. The upshot is that recommendations often appear to be “polishing” bills within parameters acceptable to the government.
Many of us might expect select committees to be doing more than this. In theory, committees can act as a strong check and balance on the government of the day. But, in practice, my research found this isn’t necessarily the case. At one extreme, they sometimes act as little more than a rubber stamp. And they rarely recommend bills shouldn’t be passed at all.
Over the 27-year period I looked at, there were only four occasions where committees “rebelled” and recommended a government bill not pass because they disagreed with the policy it was implementing. In these cases, government MPs didn’t hold a majority on the committee.
Is there a way to make committees more able and willing to challenge the government of the day?
One option would be to give the position of committee chair to an opposition MP. Chairs have a lot of power to direct how committees run and to ensure proper consideration of bills. As things stand, chairs are typically MPs from the governing parties. This was the case in 80% of chair appointments included in my analysis.
Extra time could also improve the quality of discussions. If select committees had longer to report on bills, then their analysis and consideration of public submissions—which have been rising—may be more thorough. Over the parliamentary term from 1996–1999, committees received about 9100 written submissions. During the 2020–2023 term, this jumped to 208,200 (excluding form submissions). Numbers fluctuated in the years in between, but the overall trend is up.
Or, if New Zealanders really want a stronger institutional check on the government, then perhaps we need to revisit the idea of an upper house—a second chamber with the authority to review government proposals—instead of trying to make select committees fill this void.
If, like me, you’ve previously made a submission thinking your well-reasoned arguments might sway committee members, then you may feel dispirited by my findings. My advice: don’t stop making submissions but don’t make it the only avenue you pursue to express your views.
If you oppose a policy or law change, talk to your electorate MP, write letters, sign petitions, attend protests. And get involved in the consultation processes that take place before a bill is introduced to Parliament. Remember, the select committee process usually happens near the end of a long policy development road. Stay engaged because, after all, the strength of our democracy depends not only on our ability to make our voices heard but also our willingness to do so.
This article was originally published in the Sunday Star-Times as part of its Brainwaves series. Will's research was supervised by Associate Professor Fiona Barker and Professor Maria Bargh.