Ten bills to cross the lawmaking finishing line during urgency

This week had 10 separate bills scheduled for third reading debates, on the cusp of becoming law, with only the largely ceremonial Royal Assent afterwards. What is different about this final debating hurdle?

A third reading is the final debate a bill receives before it heads off for Royal Assent, when the Governor-General signs it into law.

By this point in the legislative process, each party's position is usually crystal clear. For the most part, the detailed scrutiny has already happened during the committee stage, so third reading speeches tend to focus more on a bill's broader purpose than its technical detail, although reflections on any committee stage amendments that occurred can still arise.

The legislature's bible, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, says members "must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it has emerged from the committee of the whole House".

It also says that "although members may advance general arguments as to why the bill should or should not pass, they must confine themselves to matters covered in the bill".

Sometimes, that's exactly how the debate unfolds, particularly when a bill isn't especially contentious. For example, National's Simeon Brown described this week's Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, as "a really important step forward. I'm excited about the potential that this [bill] is going to unleash across our country as we seek to grow the energy that this country is delivering".

On that occasion, the Opposition was similarly supportive.

"I agree with the Minister for Energy; this is an exciting day," said Labour's Megan Woods. "I think it's also fair to say it's a very long-anticipated day that we are coming to finally get the legislation passed to put in place this regime."

If you've watched enough Parliament, you'll know that's not always how third reading debates play out. For ministers, they're often a final opportunity to make the case for why their legislation deserves to become law. Sometimes those speeches are rousing paeans. Other times, they're more akin to a polished corporate email announcing the launch of a successful project.

Outgoing ACT minister Brooke Van Velden's final words on her Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill leaned towards the latter.

"This bill is about restoring clarity, common sense, and focus to New Zealand's work health and safety system. At its core, this government has taken a straightforward approach. Laws should work in practice, not just in theory."

Opposition MPs, meanwhile, often use the debate to deliver something closer to a philippic about a bill they're ultimately powerless to stop.

"I'm also incredibly disappointed that we've got to this point," lamented Labour's Jan Tinetti about the same bill. I'm disappointed that this bill is not being killed in the water here."

Despite the relatively narrow scope prescribed for third reading speeches, they regularly drift into broader political debate. How much MPs are able to stretch that depends on how strictly the presiding officer chooses to interpret the rules.

At the less regulated end of that scale, this week Health Minister Simeon Brown spent a significant portion of his speech during the third reading of the Health Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill criticising the previous Labour government's record on health.

"Cranes in the sky because after six years under the previous government of talk, talk, talk, we've signed a contract, we have construction under way, and cranes in the sky getting things done. We are building the future of our health infrastructure under this government. Under that government, all there was talk, talk, and talk."

Brown might argue that criticism was relevant given the bill repealed aspects of the previous government's health reforms, and did touch briefly on infrastructure. Labour, unsurprisingly, disagreed: "...And you can talk about whatever you like," Kieran McAnulty could be heard saying as the Speaker called on the next speaker, presumably in reference to the scope of Brown's contribution.

That next speaker was Labour's Ayesha Verrall, whose speech illustrated another feature of third readings: anecdote and emotion. MPs will often draw on personal stories or connect legislation to current events. Verrall referenced the death this week of a man waiting at Waikato Hospital's Emergency Department.

"As a health worker, I also understand that these events are a prism through which we can see the challenges our health system faces. It's individual stories like these that make up the reality of the health system experiences of New Zealanders."

She went on to directly challenge the government's emphasis on performance targets.

"For two years, in fact, the government has talked about very little other than [waiting time] targets. The target didn't get that man care. The target also did not staff the Waikato Hospital Emergency Department. Ask any doctor or nurse. There is a hiring freeze in Health New Zealand."

Like Brown's preceding speech those remarks demonstrate how third readings often become a forum for wider political arguments, even as the rules suggest they should remain tightly focused on the legislation before the House.

By the end of a long Wednesday, and after days in the trenches under urgency, any expectation that third readings would follow a procedural formality had perhaps worn thin.

*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.