Spamming the ballot

The adoption of MMP has led to very definite changes to our political culture. One of these changes has been the shift from Parliament being a mere rubberstamp for the executive to being more of an independent legislature. Larger and more independent select committees and the constant need to negotiate for a majority has meant that legislation has received better scrutiny and that the government has not always got its own way - both good things in a democratic society. But as Graeme Edgeler points out, one thing which hasn't changed is that the government still gets to control Parliamentary business to an extraordinary degree.

This is part and parcel of our Westminster system, which says that the government (broadly speaking) gets to govern, at least insofar as it can get a majority for its policies. But that system was developed in an era of two-party politics where Parliament took a back seat to the executive (or, if we go back to its heart, a tool for ratifying and funding executive decisions). As a result, non-government business is confined to one day every two sitting weeks, with the government dictating the agenda for the rest of the time.

This isn't good enough. Multi-party democracy means that opposition parties should have a meaningful opportunity to advance and debate their policies.

There are plenty of ways our Westminster system can be tweaked to allow this. My preferred solution would be to double the number of member's days, make them weekly rather than fortnightly. This would seriously cut into government time, but it would give Parliament much more say. Graeme suggests a far less radical (and hence more likely to pass) solution: keep members' days as they are, but allow parties to spam the ballot:

[Currently] Everyone (except ministers) can put a bill in the ballot, and enough are drawn so that there are always four awaiting a first reading debate... members are limited to one bill in the ballot each, and two people can't have the same bill (there's another standing order prohibiting Parliament having two bills on the same matter, or indeed voting twice within a calendar year on the same question). If two people try to have the same bill, there's a pre ballot which decides which proposed bill goes into the main ballot (I/S carries an example of where this has happened).

My simple proposal is to delete the last bit.

As Graeme points out, this would allow the opposition a real chance to put up alternatives to government policy and have them debated. They wouldn't necessarily win - they would have to convince other parties and gain a majority, and anything which involved spending real money would be subject to the financial veto (though note that the definition of "real money" seems to be getting higher than it used to be). But simply being able to have the debate and present those alternatives would be good for our democracy.

This would be a simple reform to implement, requiring only a sessional order passed by a majority vote in Parliament at the beginning of the term. And given that the next government is unlikely to posses a majority by itself, it could be implemented whether they like it or not. This will enhance our democracy, and give every party the ability to pick an issue and push it hard (rather than having to disperse their efforts), and I'd urge every party to vote for it.