Mike Bain/cvnznews.com
The Conservative Party has accused successive governments of undermining democratic accountability through their use of parliamentary urgency, arguing that both the current coalition government and the previous Labour administration have sidelined public scrutiny.
Party leader Helen Houghton said the growing reliance on urgency provisions to pass legislation
without full public consultation was contributing to voter distrust and cynicism about politics.
“Politicians need to respect democracy instead of abusing it,” Houghton said.
Her comments come amid ongoing debate about the use of urgency in Parliament, a mechanism that allows governments to accelerate legislation and, in some cases, bypass the select committee process where members of the public can make submissions on proposed laws.
Houghton criticised the National, ACT and New Zealand First coalition government, claiming it had made extensive use of urgency during the current parliamentary term.
“The malpractice of skipping select committees by calling urgency is simply arrogant,” she said.
However, she also acknowledged that the previous Labour government was not blameless.
“Not that the previous Labour government was guilt-free. The Ardern-Hipkins government also passed laws without a select committee process.”
The comments reflect a long-running concern among constitutional experts and political observers that governments of different political persuasions have increasingly relied on urgency to advance legislation.
Select committees are generally regarded as one of Parliament’s most important accountability mechanisms, allowing affected groups, experts, organisations and ordinary citizens to examine proposed legislation and provide feedback before laws are passed.
Houghton argued that bypassing that process weakens public confidence in democratic institutions.
“The use of urgency is arrogant and an insult to the public, to democracy and to the institution of Parliament,” she said.
She added that many New Zealanders now question whether participating in the select committee process has any meaningful impact on legislative outcomes.
The Conservative Party leader also argued that public consultation can sometimes appear largely symbolic, noting that submitters are often given only limited time to present their views and that governments frequently proceed with legislation despite overwhelming opposition from those making submissions.
As an example, she pointed to the Regulatory Standards Bill, which attracted significant criticism during the public consultation process.
The debate highlights a wider tension within Westminster-style democracies. Governments argue urgency can be necessary to implement election commitments, respond quickly to emerging issues, or ensure legislative programmes are completed efficiently. Critics argue that excessive use of urgency reduces transparency, weakens scrutiny and limits public participation.
While disagreements over policy are commonplace in Parliament, Houghton said concerns about democratic process should transcend party politics.
“How can democracy function if a government simply tramples over public opinion and democracy?” she asked.
The Conservative Party’s criticism is likely to resonate with some voters frustrated by a political culture in which governments frequently campaign on public participation and accountability, only to be accused of bypassing those same principles once in office.
Whether the government benches are occupied by National or Labour, the broader question remains the same: how much power should elected governments have to fast-track legislation, and at what point does political efficiency come at the cost of democratic scrutiny?
