Urgency

Standing order 54
(1) A Minister may move, without notice, a motion to accord urgency for certain business
(2) A motion for urgency must not be moved until completion of general business
(3) There is no amendment or debate on the question, but the Minister must, on moving the motion, inform the House with some particularity why the motion is being moved.

The House has gone into urgency today. Why?

Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee then moved that the House should go into Urgency for two bills. One on employment laws issues relating to the film industry and the second on a "legal" matter.
Mr Brownlee said the need for Urgency on the second item would be apparent once the bill was introduced

What is this "legal" matter? How is that informing the House with some particularity as to why the motion has been moved to go to urgency on the second bill?

Urgency and democracy

I have no doubt that if a National government, or a National-dominated coalition, is formed after the elections this spring, it will dominate the Parliament and make use of urgency and other parliamentary abuses, to get its measures through, just as much as its predecessor. That is what has got to stop.Some parliamentarians and some politicians have to begin standing up for the integrity of the legislative process itself, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so.

This quote is from Dr Jeremy Waldron, who spoke at the annual John Graham lecture hosted by the Maxim Institute earlier this year, explaining some misgivings on our parliamentary legislative system. He spoke on select committees being undermined by supplementary order papers, which like urgency, can curtail debate and act like a veto on select committee decisions.We have no legislative safegards other countries take for granted: No quorum, no second chamber, no requirement to attend in order to vote, no judicial review, no real independence from the executive, and constant recourse to urgency and supplementary order papers. All in the name of efficiency, political expediency and executive impatience.

I was unaware that Maxim had put the text of the speech online - and it's a speech worth reading. Waldron, among other matters commented on democracy and fair laws, and considered urgency was not democratic or fair, except in situations like pre-budget taxes. According to Waldron, urgency leads to an unfair lawmaking process and removal of some legislative safeguards means that Parliament is not a place of genuine engagement any more . Sometimes there is more genuine engagement on blogs and forums like Maxim and others. But laws are make by Parliamentarians who seek our compliance.

Our compliance is going to have to be rooted in the fairness and openness of the democratic process by which it was made. We obey because we think the law was made fairly, not because we agree with what it says.