Source: Radio New Zealand
The House was in the midst of its fourth evening of urgency on Friday. VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox
A late night voting error during a fourth evening of urgency last week forced the government to end urgency sooner than expected.
Most Friday evenings at Parliament, not many people are around – maybe the cleaners, maybe a few staffers getting ahead for next week, and most MPs have headed back to their electorates. If anyone is still around, they’re probably having a drink at Parliament’s Pint of Order bar.
But the last Friday night of Parliament’s penultimate sitting block for the year was different (Parliament typically doesn’t sit on a Friday). The House was in the midst of its fourth evening of urgency, which was accorded on Tuesday evening by Deputy Leader of the House Louise Upston.
Urgency gives the government the ability to progress bills through the House more quickly, by enabling longer hours of debating with no stand-down period between each of a bill’s stages of consideration, meaning a bill can go from first to third reading in the same day. This recent bout of urgency saw various stages of 13 bills on the urgency agenda, with none of them bypassing the select committee stage – which is probably the most controversial power that urgency gives governments.
By about 8.30pm on Friday evening, the House was on its last item of business – a committee stage and third reading of the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill.
Apart from being a bit of a tongue twister to pronounce, the word judicature refers to the administration of justice by courts and judges. This particular bill would, among other things, increase the number of High Court judges to 60.
The committee stage is short for the committee of the whole house stage, which is the second to last one of a bill’s journey through the House. Its purpose is for MPs to go through the bill line by line and make sure it will do what it promises.
The committee stage is also a last chance for changes to be made before it goes to its third reading debate which acts as a concluding summary of a bill and final chance for MPs to put their support or opposition on record. These changes are made through amendments.
During the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill’s committee stage, Labour’s Greg O’Connor proposed an amendment that would allow for a more flexible range on the number of judges (60-65). He said it “made more sense than coming back with a bill every time you wanted to increase the numbers even by one.”
It’s common in a committee stage for the minister, who sits in the chair at the table in the middle of the chamber to address any amendments, usually adding why they won’t be adopting them if they are proposed by the opposition.
In reaction to O’Connor’s amendment, Minister for Courts Nicole McKee said it was to do with costs.
“The High Court judges are paid through a permanent legislative authority, which is held in section 1351 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The judges’ remuneration is set independently by the remuneration authority to maintain judicial independence, and so we need to think about that every time we add numbers to the cap because it means that there has to be an appropriation put aside for that number.”
All proposed amendments (that are ruled in order) are then voted on at the end of each clause or section.
Perhaps as a result of urgency fatigue, when it came to the vote on O’Connor’s amendment, no party called for a follow up recorded vote, meaning the Opposition amendment was agreed to, making it part of the bill.
The plan under urgency had been to move immediately into the third reading, which is the final stage before a bill passes.
Instead, at the end of the committee stage, the government ended urgency prematurely, meaning MPs were free to go home after four long days of debating bills.
Had the House proceeded immediately to the third reading, the amendment would have been locked in. After that point, there would be no easy way to correct the bill. “You’d need amending legislation,” [the Clerk of the House David] Wilson explained. “There is no way back once you start down that path.”
The mechanism the government can use to fix an error like this is sending it back to the committee stage (recommitting) When the bill next appears on the Order Paper for its third reading, it can be recommitted “just to focus on one issue, if there’s just one mistake to fix, and that’s normally the case,” Wilson said.
The bill now sits on the order paper scheduled for its third reading until the government decides to return to it. When it does, the House will likely go back into the committee stage to revisit the clause on High Court judge numbers.
Wilson said that there are risks that come with urgency, especially when MPs have spent consecutive late nights debating legislation.
“Your normal options of only being able to do a bill through one stage in a day means [there is] usually a little bit more time to spot it [compared to under urgency]. Luckily for the government, in this case, they did spot it, and they had time to put the brakes on before it had its third reading”
To listen to The House’s programme in full, click the link near the top of the page.
RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand









Tucker Carlson ‘tuckered out’ with Donald Trump and Israel – insights for New Zealand rightwing politics
COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell
The origin of the expression “tuckered out” goes back to the east of the United States around the 1830s.
After New Englanders began to compare the wrinkled and drawn appearance of overworked and undernourished horses and dogs to the appearance of tucked cloth, it became associated with people being exhausted.
Expressions such as this can be adapted, sometimes with a little generosity, to apply to other circumstances.
This adaptation includes when a prominent far right propagandist and activist who, in a level of frustration that resembles mental exhaustion, lashes out against far right leaders and governments that he has been strongly supportive of.
This came to my attention when reading a frustrated far right lament reposted on Facebook (27 November) by British-Pakistani socialist Tariq Ali.
If anything meets the threshold for a passionate expression of grief or sorrow, this one did.
The lament was from Tucker Carlson, an American far right political commentator who hosted a nightly political talk show on Fox News from 2016 to 2023 when his contract was terminated.
Since then he has hosted his own show under his name on fellow extremist Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). Arguably Carlson is the most influential far right host in the United States (perhaps also more influential than the mainstream rightwing).
He is someone who the far right government of Israel considered to be an unshakable ally.
Carlson’s lament
The lament is brief but cuts to the chase:
There is no such thing as “God’s chosen people”.
God does not choose child-killers.
This is heresy — these are criminals and thieves.
350 million Americans are struggling to survive,
and we send $26 billion to a country most Americans can’t even name the capital of.
His lament doubled as a “declaration of war” on the entire narrative Israel uses to justify its genocide in Gaza. But Carlson didn’t stop there. He went on to expose the anger boiling inside the United States.
The clip hit the US media big time including 48 million views in the first nine hours. Subsequently a CNN poll showed that 62 percent of Americans agree with Carlson and that support for Israel among Americans is collapsing.
But Carlson went much further directly focussing on fellow far right Donald Trump who he had “supported”.
By focussing the US’s money, energy, and foreign policy on Israel, Trump was betraying his promises to Americans.
This signifies a major falling out including a massive public shift against Israel (which is also losing its media shield), the far right breaking ranks, and panic within the political establishment.
It should also be seen in the context of the extraordinary public falling out with President Trump of another leading far right extremist (and conspiracy theorist) Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. In addition to the issues raised by Carlson she also focussed on Trump’s handling of the Epstein files controversy.
Far right in New Zealand politics
The far right publicly fighting among itself over its core issues is very significant for the US given its powerful influence.
This influence includes not just the presidency but also both Congress and the Senate, one of the two dominant political parties, and the Supreme Court (and a fair chunk of the rest of the judiciary).
Does this development offer insights for politics in New Zealand? To begin with the far right here has nowhere near the same influence as in the United States.
The parties that make up the coalition government are hard right rather than far right (that is, hardline but still largely respectful of the formal democratic institutions).
It is arguably the most hard right government since the early 1950s at least. But this doesn’t make it far right. I discussed this difference in an earlier Political Bytes post (November 3): Distinguishing far right from hard right.
Specifically:
…”hard right” for me means being very firm (immoderate) near the extremity of rightwing politics but still respect the functional institutions that make formal democracy work.
In contrast the “far right” are at the extremity of rightwing politics and don’t respect these functional institutions. There is an overlapping blur between the “hard right” and “far right”.
Both the NZ First and ACT parties certainly have far right influences. The former’s deputy leader Shane Jones does a copy-cat imitation of Trumpian bravado.
Meanwhile, there is an uncomfortable rapport between ACT (particularly its leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour) and the far right Destiny Church (particularly its leader Brian Tamaki).
But this doesn’t come close to meeting the far right threshold for both NZ First and ACT.
The far right itself also has its internal conflicts. The most prominent group within this relatively small extremist group is the Destiny Church. However, its relationship with other sects can be adversarial.
Insights for New Zealand politics nevertheless
Nevertheless, the internal far right fallout in the United States does provide some insights for public fall-outs within the hard right in New Zealand.
This is already becoming evident in the three rightwing parties making up the coalition government.
For example:
These tensions are well short of the magnitude of Tucker Carlson’s public attack on Israel over Gaza and President Trump’s leadership.
However, there are signs with the hard right in New Zealand of at least starting to feel “tuckered out” of collaborating collegially in their coalition government arrangement and showing signs of pending laments.
Too early to tell yet but we shall see.
Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.
Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz