On 25 September the Speaker’s Delegation undertook a tour of three countries (The Netherlands, Norway and Germany) to study/investigate MMP and coalition arrangements in these three countries.
The members of the tour party were:
The Speaker - Labour Party MP Hon Margaret Wilson
Jo Goodhew - National Party MP for Aoraki
Kate Wilkinson - National Party MP
Te Ururoa Flavell - Maori Party MP for Waiariki
Maryan Street - Labour Party MP
Trip Diary: For photographs, see my Flickr pages.
(Brief notes from meetings in The Netherlands and Norway - 1-5 October)
Wednesday 26 September, a very busy first full day of the tour.
At the Rathaus (Town Hall) we were welcomed by the President of the Hamburg Parliament. During the discussions that followed the Speaker and the MPs asked questions about the system of government here in Hamburg. A recent referendum has resulted in a change to the 'version' of MMP that will be used in their next elections. A €1 Million campaign to educate the voters about the change is about to commence.
We then visited the remand prison where there is capacity for about 900 men and women on remand. The prison also houses an extensive prison hospital of 63 beds. The occupancy of the prison is low at the moment, and the Governor was unable to explain why that might be. In Germany the prisons are owned by the 'State', but in varying degrees, various roles within the system may be contracted out. There is a relatively significant number of non-German nationals that make up the prison population.
Lunch was in the impressive 'Rose' room of the parliamentary restaurant (Das Parlament).
We then had a tour of the Town Hall, including the Senate and Parliamentary parts of the building. You will see from the photos how stunning this building is. Amazingly,despite a large percentage of Hamburg being destroyed by bombing in the second world war, the Town Hall escaped largely unscathed. We then observed a 'general debate' in the parliament for a short time. The topic for debate was 'climate change' and the Green Party was accusing the ruling parties of being half-hearted in their approach.
We then visited the Hamburg Constitutional Court and heard descriptions of recent decisions relating to electoral law and referenda. This was followed by a short tour of the building. Of note was the law library, a room that had been used for some of the filming in the Harry Potter movies.
Tomorrow, we travel to Berlin.
Thursday 27 September
The Delegation left Hamburg early in the day to travel to Berlin on the train. We had a very good view as our seats were right up behind the driver, and even had the opportunity to talk with the driver and look at the speedometer. It didn't feel like we were traveling at 230km/hour but he assured us that we were!
The 'Grand Coalition' between the centre-right CDU/CSU (Christian Democrats/Bavarian Christian Socialists) and the centre-left SDU (Social Democrats) was formed after the 2005 election. Our next meeting was with Dr Winkleman, Head of the Parliamentary Services. He outlined what he saw as the many similarities between our two systems, and some of the differences. The Grand Coalition is seen as having a strong opportunity to achieve a number of significant initiatives, as it has a two-thirds majority of the 613 seats.
One of the more contentious initiatives have included agreeing to raise the retirement age from 60 to 67 by 2029. Interestingly the initiatives taken are part of a 160 page coalition agreement, negotiated before the Grand Coalition was officially formed. Some of the 'easier' initiatives are now out of the way and the Grand Coalition is half-way through it's term. Many of the discussions we had during the day gave us a variety of views on the next contentious issue to be decided, that of a nation-wide minimum wage.
One very interesting difference in our two systems is that if a 'constituency' member leaves the parliament for any reason, then they are replaced by a 'list' member. The coalition agreement of the Grand Coalition is a 160 page document!
At lunch I was seated beside a student of politics who had assisted with the organizing of our programme. She was hopeful of a job working in the parliament, after her time as an intern, but said that there was a lot of competition for such jobs. The lunch was hosted by Nina Hauer, Chair of the German-Australian-New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group. Ms Hauer has recently visited New Zealand.
After a tour of the very impressive Reichstag , German Parliamentary Building, we met with Mrs Petra Pau, Deputy Speaker of the German Bundestag (Lower House or Second Chamber). Mrs Pau indicated that two of the challenges she faces in her work were balancing her role as a constituency MP and remembering all of the names of the 613 members of the parliament when acting as Speaker. Mrs Pau indicated that she would spend one full day per month in her constituency visiting schools, businesses and meeting with constituents.
The last meeting for the day was with the Leader of the Opposition Party (CDU) in the Berlin Parliament, Dr Friedbert Pfluger. Dr Pfluger was very frank about the trials of operating in a Grand Coalition. As he is relatively new to the role of Opposition Leader, he hopes that his chances of winning the role of Mayor will be better at the next election. He believes that the more radical left and right parties thrive in the environment where the centre parties are involved in a Grand Coalition.
Friday 28 September:
The meetings during Friday underlined the messages we had already received.
Dr Kajo Wasserhovel (Social Democrats, SPD), Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs spoke of the balancing act required to operate a centre-left-right coalition. He told us that a Grand Coalition needs much more political leadership than a small coalition.
We next met with the Mayor of Berlin, Mr Klaus Wowereit in his Town Hall office.
Our next discussion was with a representative of the Integration and Migration office of the Berlin Senat. Here we heard about the activities to integrate citizens of other countries into German society and life. Many 'guest workers' have come to Germany, particularly through the opened borders under the European Union. The theme of challenges relating to the integration of these people into their new country seems to be occupying the thoughts of many European Parliaments.
Our last meeting for the day was with two representatives of the Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB), Annelie Buntenbach and Wolfgang Lutterbach. The DGB are the equivalent of the New Zealand Combined Trade Unions.
Union membership numbers 6.6 million out of the working population of 37 million and there is a smaller Civil Service Union. The average age of retirement is low, at 61 years. The DGB is not affiliated to any political party, with office holders in the organization from all of the main parties, both right and left. This is because of a 'co-determination' agreement that involves employers and workers alike.
A bus tour of the city followed, but as it poured with rain and was nearly dark, we had the benefits the next day when we walked around the city, revisiting the sites we had heard about on the tour, but not seen through the rain
Saturday 29 September:
Free day to explore the city of Berlin
Sunday 30 September:
We travelled to the airport early in the day, mindful that much of the city was disrupted by road closures for the huge Berlin Marathon.
By lunchtime we were in Amsterdam and were met by the New Zealand Ambassador to The Netherlands, Ms Rachel Fry.
We were treated to a one-hour tour of the Van Gogh Museum prior to our travel to The Hague city and arrival at our hotel.
Monday 1 October
New Zealand's Ambassador to The Netherlands (and also Norway), Ms Rachel Fry briefed us on the bilateral relationship between The Netherlands and NZ. Her assertion that the ties and relationship are strong and warm was certainly borne out by the following two and a half days.
At this stage I think it is important to say that I am only mentioning a couple of points for most of these meetings, otherwise this commentary would be too long. On many occasions I recorded many pages of notes, which I will write up for my own sake, but these notes are too detailed for the commentary. In each of the meetings the Speaker, Margaret Wilson would explain a little of the New Zealand setting and outline the areas of interest for the delegation. Each of the MPs had the chance to ask questions of the people we met with. Often we would like to have had more time, such was the generous sharing of information.
Our first visit for the day was to the International Criminal Court where we had half hour meetings with His Excellency Judge Philippe Kirsch QC, President of the Court and Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Prosecutor. The ICC is an independent, permanent court with jurisdiction over people (not states) accused of very serious crimes eg. Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. New Zealand is one of 105 parties that signed up to the treaty, the Rome Statute that established the court.
As the ICC is the Court of last resort, there are a number of pre-requisites to a case being investigated or prosecuted by the Court. These include the territory of the crime and the nationality of the accused. The Court must have jurisdiction over one of the two. When a matter is referred by the UN Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction even if the State concerned is not a party to the Rome Statute.
Although the ICC has investigated a number of cases since it's formation in 2002, only one arrest has been made and a number of arrest warrants are outstanding, due to the States involved not enforcing the arrest warrants.
Over lunch we had an excellent briefing on the Dutch Political system by Prof Rudy Andeweg, Professor of Empirical Political Science, Leiden University. It was an extensive briefing and I took lots of notes, but a number of points stood out. The system of forming a government after an election seems complicated (even more so than NZ).Each of the political parties visit the Queen of The Netherlands and advise her of what the coalition should be. That advice is made public, although it is likely some of what is said is left out! If every party suggests the same coalition (highly unlikely), then it's all go. However, usually the Queen appoints an 'Imformateur' to advise on the possibilities and work with the parties. On average it takes 80 days to form the government, but it has taken much longer. The old government stays in place and continues until the new one is formed. A coalition agreement is written up, the current one sets out the programme for the parties and is 51 pages long. Small, single-issue parties are often elected in their MMP system, because there is no threshold of votes to pass. The new party will often only last one parliamentary term as the other parties will then move to address that particular issue. An example of such a party in the current parliament is the Party For the Animals. There are ten political parties in the parliament at the moment, all are List MPs, not elected in a constituency, but are connected to one of the twelve provinces. Ministers are not MPs, but are experts in their field, appointed by the parties in the coalition. The Current government is a coalition between the centre-right Christian Democratic Appeal, the left-wing Labour Party, and the centre-left Christian Union Party.
The Peace Palace, home of the International Court of Justice, was our next stop. Sir Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE QC spoke to the delegation about the Court. The Court was established in 1946 and NZ was a founding member. Sir Kenneth Keith is New Zealand's first judge on the ICJ, and serves a nine year term until 2015. There are 15 judges. New Zealand has been involved in three cases since 1946. Cases brought to the Court involve the settling of international legal disputes between States that are members.
Sir Kenneth spoke of cases he had been involved with, the process that is followed, and we also had a tour of the Peace Palace.
Our next visit was to the Dutch Parliament, the Binnenhof, where the red carpet was out! We then had meetings with individual MPs from the Dutch Parliament, and I enjoyed a wide-ranging discussion with another relatively new MP, Ms Janneke Schermers. Ms Schermers has a health background and is a member of the Christian Democratic Appeal Party. The Dutch are facing challenges and decisions that are similar to those in New Zealand, relating to how health dollars should be spent and what Dutch people should expect to receive in the way of health care and what contribution they should pay themselves. Each Dutch person pays a 'health tax or insurance' and that gives them a 'basic' package of care. They can then add on additional packages which are more comprehensive.
We then were welcomed and hosted to dinner by the Presidents of both the First and Second Chambers. The Presidents are the equivalent of our Speaker.
Tuesday 2 October
The first meeting for the day was with Mr Wim van de Camp of the CDA party, an MP for 21 years. Mr van de Camp explained that although all of his party (41 MPs) are well spread amongst the 12 provinces, some parties are more predominantly in one geographical area. An example is the Green Left Party where 6 of their 7 MPs live in Amsterdam. In Mr van de Camp's province he will take responsibility for the 10 local authorities in his area, visiting all at least once a year.
In an election, each party's list dictates which MPs will be elected unless an individual MP gets a priority vote of 15,000. This happened in the case of 6 of the 150 MPs at the last election. The vote cast for any MP becomes a vote for that party and determines the proportionality of the parliament. There is some dissatisfaction on the part of the voters as to their lack of 'linkage' to the MPs. An in-depth evaluation of the electoral system concluded that MPs should have more provincial meetings on individual issues.
We next met with the Social and Economic Council (SER). This very interesting organization was founded in 1950, and is the main advisory body to the Dutch government and the parliament on national and international social and economic policy. The SER is financed by industry and is completely independent to the government. The advice it gives is derived from the work of a 33 member board that have 11 representatives each from industry, trade unions and independent advisors. (Note: I have a detailed paper that further describes the work programme of this organization)
Of interest in this meeting were these points: There has been a long tradition of collective labour agreements, which are valid for all people working in the sector, not just the union members. The SER gives advice relating to legislation that should be enacted, and would also be asked for advice on how to solve complex 'issues'. We were told that there are only negligible days lost to strikes, and that unions are very pragmatic and realistic in their demands. The Netherlands have very many less 'small to medium enterprises' compared to New Zealand, and in fact describe their SMEs as 250-500 employees.
We then returned to the Binnenhof and had a working lunch discussing the Dutch electoral system further, with the first Deputy Speaker of the Second Chamber, Mr Jan ten Hoopen, Secretary General of the Second Chamber, Ms Jacqueline Biesheuval-Vermeiden, and Mr Henk Kummeling who is Chairman of the Electoral Council of The Netherlands and Professor of Dutch Constitutional Law and Comparative Constitutional Law, Utrecht University.
As we had explored the basic form of the Dutch electoral system, we asked much more specific questions on this occasion. Any individual or organization giving €4500 or more, annually, to a political party must declare it. There is, however, no limit on how much an individual or party can spend. The Socialist Party MPs tithe all of their income to their party. The nature of the recent investigation into the electoral system was explored. This consisted of 140 ordinary Dutch people who spent months being paid to consult with experts and the general public, in their weekends, about the options for change. Dutch people volunteered to be part of this and the 140 were randomly selected from the volunteers (thousands).
We then had a tour of the Parliamentary building and the adjacent Muritshuis Gallery where the famous Vermeer paintings are on display.
The President of the First Chamber, Ms Yvonne Timmermann-Buck then welcomed us to the First Chamber Committee Room for discussions over afternoon tea. Of particular interest to us was to hear that the First Chamber, when examining a Bill from the Second Chamber, will not amend it. There will be delicate discussions with a Minister to suggest he/she may wish to decide to change something in the Bill back in the Second Chamber. If the First Chamber do not like the Bill they will simply throw it out and the Minister will then have to start again, so in reality there is a lot of discussions all along the process to make sure that doesn't happen often. The First Chamber is also called the Senate and there are often discussions about whether it is necessary to have this Chamber in existence. We were able to observe plenary sessions of both Chambers while at the Binnenhof.
The final discussion at the Binnenhof was with members of the Dutch Parliament equivalent of our Select Committees. Four members who varyingly represented the committees of Foreign Affairs; Housing, Communities and Integration; Social Affairs and Employment; and Justice spoke of the work they do in their committees.
The committees arrange their response to issues, utilizing public hearings when useful, on location when necessary. The observation was made that most of the work is done by the parties, prior to the discussions in the committees. In a committee meeting, each of the 10 political parties can speak for the same time and this can be time-consuming. The committees can request advice from the SER (see above), but the SER may choose to offer advice even if not asked.
We were told that an 'urgent meeting' (like our urgent debate) can be requested by any MP, as long as they have 29 MPs in support of their request.
The other point of interest explained to us was that during the budget debate, there can be changes to the budget, but the money has to be redistributed rather than additional money voted.
That evening we were treated to a buffet reception in our honour, hosted by Ms Rachel Fry, Ambassador to The Netherlands, at the New Zealand Residence. There were about 45 guests, including 6 Ambassadors, and representatives from Dutch organizations, business connections with a NZ link, and representatives from the International organizations present in The Hague. This was an excellent opportunity for us to talk to New Zealand business people located in The Netherlands, as well as the Diplomatic and International organization representatives.
Wednesday 3 October
On our way to the airport, we had some meetings scheduled around Amsterdam.
The first meeting was with Mr Colin Nellis, a Policy Advisor on Radicalisation. With the opening of borders alongside the formation of the European Union, large numbers of immigrants have settled away from their homelands. In the case of most western European countries, this has meant huge growth in the numbers of Muslim people being integrated (or not) into non-Muslim countries. The high-profile assassination of a movie maker with anti-Muslim beliefs, Mr Theo van Gogh, was one of the reasons that there are now guidelines and a department that aims to help the Dutch people identify radicals and extremists who may be a risk to safety in The Netherlands.
We then had a brief welcome from the Deputy Mayor, Alderwoman Henna Buyne.
The next couple of hours were spent visiting two projects that have a hands-on, rather than policy approach to integration of people from other cultures. The first project was an education programme for Muslim women, to teach them the Dutch language and cultural norms, so that they can then teach other Muslim women. We had a lovely discussion with these Muslim women about the challenges for them in living in The Netherlands.
The second project was, similarly an education programme, to enable women from other than the Dutch culture, to set themselves up in a small business. The programme was more about mentoring and enabling than about funding, but in the first nine months had seen considerable success for some of the women that were involved. This project was called the Czaar Bazaar.
We then flew to Oslo in Norway. We were met on our arrival by the Secretary General of the Norwegian Parliament (Storting), Mr Hans Brattesta.
The first official function was a dinner at the Holmenkollen Park Hotel, overlooking the city. The hotel is up near the famous Norwegian Ski Jump, as was once upon a time a sanitorium. The guest list for the dinner was hailed as very significant by our host, President of the Storting, Mr Thorbjorn Jagland, as there were more party leaders present than is usual for a visiting parliamentary delegation. We felt honoured! At dinner we were all able to 'pick the brains' of the politicians we were seated next to. I had the Leader of the right-wing Progress Party (the largest opposition party), Ms Siv Jensen on one side and the Deputy Speaker (Vice President) of the Lower house (Odelsting), Mr Ola T Lanke on the other side.
Thursday 4 October
This was to be a big day! We were first briefed on the various people we would be meeting and the logistics of our visit by the Protocol people from the Storting. In each country it was people from the Parliamentary Protocol office who would make sure we got to the right meeting room, with the right people etc.
We arrived at the Parliament (Storting) just before their plenary session began, and noted the New Zealand flag flying outside. We were ushered into the guest gallery at the opening of the meeting, and the President welcomed us. We stood as he did this and were applauded by the MPs. That didn't seem so strange as it is exactly what we do in New Zealand, but we were later told that never before had a delegation been applauded, and in fact to do so was to break the Standing Orders (rules).
Mr Brattesta then spent time with us, giving us a further briefing on constitutional and administrative matters.
Interesting points he raised included: The parliamentary elections are every 4 years. Neither the King nor the government can dissolve the government, it must go the full term, but the Ministers and Prime Minister can change. An MP cannot leave their seat, but can have a substitute appointed from next on the list (not good for job security). An example of this was one MP who attended a luncheon, he was a 'substitute' MP for one who had suffered a heart attack and may or may not return. There are 13 standing committees (select committees). There are not many diverse cultures represented amongst the MPs, with one Pakistani, and the Sami (indigenous people) having their own parliament. The Sami parliament has 39 MPs from 13 constituencies and their role is to act as a consultative body with the Storting to protect traditional rights. There are 60,000 Sami in Norway and 30,000 on the Sami roll. The Sami parliament sits in the North of Norway, and as the majority of the MPs are in the area of Oslo, they need to travel to attend the parliament.
Next we had an early lunch meeting. Working lunch meetings proved popular, as MPs have to eat and it was sometimes easier to arrange the meeting over the lunchtime. It did, however feel like we were constantly being plied with coffee, food, water, everywhere we went. That's hospitality! Lunch was with members of the Justice Standing Committee. The Chairperson, Ms Anne Marit Bjornflaten, outlined the issues that are currently part of their work programme, and we discussed informally with fellow MPs the issues. Interestingly, Norway is just about to embark on 'home detention'.
We then had a meeting with the President of the Storting, Mr Thorbjorn Jagland. He mentioned, amongst other things, the reasons that Norway is not keen on joining the EU. However he acknowledged that there are many EU policies that Norway wants to align to. One of the greatest threats he espoused, was that of the laxity of the EU fishing polices and Norway's belief that their own fishing policies are much more sustainable for the fisheries.
The next meeting was away from the Storting, at the office of the Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund (Global). The Chairperson, Ms Gro Nystuen, outlined the way that the Council has determined the scope of the 'ethical' investment that they promote, and the process by which a company is declared to fall outside the 'permitted' list of investments. The Global fund carefully invests >$300Billion, ensuring that they do not own shares in excess of 1% in a listed company. The Fund is derived from a percentage of the sales of the mined oil reserves.
The final meeting for the day was with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. This cross-party committee outlined the three areas of foreign policy that they concentrate on. These were:
1. Europe
2. Trans Atlantic
3. Africa
Their committee, and it seemed, the other committees also have an extensive budget for international travel, to investigate issues of interest to the committee. The committee had recently traveled to Namibia, Angola and Iceland, and also sent MPs to all of the international forums.
The aid budget for Norway was set in the budget on the day we were leaving Norway, at 0.98% of Gross National Income, higher than any other country in the world. The priorities for spending this aid are:
1. Democracy building
2. Empowering Women
3. Energy and Natural Resources
4. Health and Education
One excellent example of their aid programmes, was with Namibia. Namibia has rich fisheries resources, but did not have the 'know-how' to utilize these to best advantage for their country. Norway assisted with the technology for patrol boats and know-how, plus legislation. The result is a $3Billion industry, with 40-50,000 people employed and a far superior economy to before Norway's intervention.
That night we were hosted at dinner by Mr Carl I Hagen, Deputy Speaker, and MPs from the Committee on Labour and Social Affairs. The advantage in this meeting, as with most of the mealtime functions was the chance to talk one-on-one with other MPs.
Friday 5 October
This was to be our last day on the tour and the day was shortened to four meetings and a very quick visit to the excellent Viking Ship Museum, prior to our flights home.
The first meeting was with The Minister of Children and Equality. This Minister and Ministry are the champions of equal rights and representation for women. One law that has been passed to mandate equality in representation on state owned and publicly listed company boards is to require that there are specific minimum numbers on boards of fewer than 10 members and where there are more than 10 members, there should be at least 40% of each gender. The transition period runs out in January 2008, after which there will be fines or dissolution of the company. The Ministry is working to reform family and women's laws and would like to see equal involvement by men in parenting and by women in the workforce and pay equity.
We next had a meeting regarding Norwegian policy on Sami issues. The Deputy Director General, Mr Bjorn Olav Megard from the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion replaced the Sami Parliament representative we would have met with as there had been a 'reshuffle' in the Sami leadership just a few days before. The points raised previously were revisited at this meeting. It was explained that in order to enroll on the Sami roll, the voter had to either consider themselves Sami and/or have one of their parents, grandparents or great grandparents have the Sami tongue spoken at home. There are separate Sami language schools, and funding to the Sami Parliament for this. There is also space in the national curriculum for 'matters Sami' to be taught. The Sami parliament did not arise out of inequalities in statistics for Sami people, but rather because there was an uprising about a proposed hydro-electric power scheme in the Sami populated northern territories. In the Finmark court in Sami territory the Judge is bi-lingual and Sami customs are taken into account in the work of the court.
We then met with the Norwegian Labour organization and heard about the Nordic model, which notably has very high unionization at 55%, low unemployment and relatively high productivity. Half of the Norwegian workforce is in either the Health or Education sector. Taxes are also high, with the top rate at 50%.
The last meeting of the day was another working lunch, chaired by Ms Marit Nybakk, Second Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. The venue was the oldest restaurant in Oslo, Engebret Café, and former Speakers of the Parliament looked down on us from the walls as we ate!. We discussed briefly both the extensive travel programme of the committee and her delight at the additional funding for the aid budget. We were joined at lunch by two academics with an interest in the electoral system. Professor Anne Marthe Narud and Professor Aanund Hylland are both from Oslo University. Professor Narud will travel to New Zealand later in the year on, where she will participate in an international study to look at how electoral candidates are selected.
Straight after lunch we had a 20 minute tour of the Viking Ship Museum, before heading to the airport to return home.
