Parliament Review Would Make Ministers Explain Skipping Select Committee

Ministers and MPs would have to tell the House why legislation is skipping select committee or getting less time there, under proposed rule changes.

The idea comes from the Standing Orders Committee. That is the group of MPs that reviews Parliament's rule book in the last year of each term. It covers how the House and select committees operate. Details of the latest review were reported on 22 September 2026 RNZ.

Scrutiny and urgency

The main proposal would require the minister or member in charge to put reasons on the record for using urgency or for a shortened report-back date. A report-back date is the deadline for a select committee to return a bill to the House. Urgency is the fast-track process that lets the House sit longer and move bills faster.

Leader of the House Louise Upston said she whole-heartedly supported that requirement. She said it would make legislative procedures more transparent.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the proposal was good but could go further. He called for tighter grounds for urgency and more use of extended sitting hours.

Former Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he had been peripherally involved in the review. He described the changes as "pretty sensible". He accepted that more legislation had skipped select committee under the coalition than under any previous Parliament going back decades.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment raised concern about increased use of urgency in a submission to the 2026 review. The Commissioner said the increased use had affected public access and confidence.

The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties also made a submission to the 2026 review. It focused on better select committee scrutiny of bills. Submissions to the review are published on the Parliament website, with only a submitter's name or organisation's name required.

A new legislative committee

The review recommended a new Legislative Scrutiny Committee. It would be a specialist select committee to help the House make high-quality legislation.

That committee could examine some bills in detail instead of the Committee of the whole House. That is the stage where all MPs consider a bill clause by clause on the floor of the House. The proposal would not abolish that stage. It would create a second path for detailed work away from the floor.

The review also recommended changes for omnibus bills, which are bills that amend many laws at once. The review said the aim is to keep them for maintaining the statute book, while making sure they are not miscellaneous or unexpected in content.

A further recommendation would add a purpose statement to guide select committees when they consider bills. That includes calling for submissions and organising public hearings. The statement would sit in Standing Orders, rather than leaving practice to convention and the chair's discretion.

Submissions and AI

The review committee said the number of submissions to select committees has risen sharply in the current term. It did not propose caps or limits on public input. Instead it said the next Parliament should consider using AI to process submissions.

In particular, it recommended writing initial guidance on using AI to process and analyse public submissions. It also recommended the next Standing Orders Committee receive a briefing on AI use in this area.

The broader context here is enforceability. A duty to explain does not stop a majority from bypassing committee. The reason would go into Hansard, the official record of Parliament. It can then be tested in debate and at the next election. For a government with the numbers for urgency, that is a political constraint, not a procedural bar.

Looking at what this means for House management, both options accept speed will sometimes be sought. Mr Hipkins' option of tighter urgency rules plus longer sittings would keep scrutiny in committee and the House. The review leans toward public reasons and alternative scrutiny through the new committee. They differ on where the check should sit.

What to watch next is the AI work for staff and submitters. Machine help to sort large volumes could ease workload pressures. It also raises questions about how submissions are summarised, weighted and heard, and how that fits with the proposed purpose statement on public hearings.