While members' bills are often associated with conscience votes and major social reform, most are far less glamorous.
By Louis Collins of RNZ
All but one of this week's bills came from government backbenchers. Each bill appeared to serve multiple purposes at once, including political branding, policy testing, legislative tidy-ups and broader political signalling.
Parliament's legislative agenda is dominated by government bills - legislation agreed by Cabinet and introduced by ministers to enact government policy.
But ministers aren't the only MPs who can try to change the law. Any backbench MP can develop an idea, draft a member's bill, and throw it into Parliament's biscuit tin ballot (one each at a time).
The hard part is having the luck to get it drawn. Only eight members' bills can sit on the Order Paper at once, chosen from approximately 90 bills in the biscuit tin.
Some hugely significant laws started life this way. Without luck in the members' bill ballot, reforms like marriage equality, anti-smacking legislation, or assisted dying may have floundered in the "too hard, too controversial" basket for years.
Major social reforms have come from backbench MPs from both governing and opposition sides of the House. But why, when it can introduce legislation at will, would a government choose to rely on blind luck and put bills in the biscuit tin? Why not just introduce legislation through its ministers?
Some reasons to choose the hard route
One tactical consideration is about pure numbers. Every government-backed member's bill sitting in the biscuit reduces the chances of an opposition bill being chosen. Every government-backed member's bill that is chosen in the ballot occupies a slot on the Order Paper occupies what would otherwise be an opposition slot.
But there can also be more purely political motivations. Member's bills can bolster broader party policy, reinforce political branding, or provide a chance to throw political barbs at the opposition.
The Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill from National's Rima Nakhle, for example, isn't strictly necessary policy, but could be seen as reinforcing her party's "tough on crime" branding.
"The simple principle behind my member's bill, which I inherited from the Hon Simeon Brown, is that public funds should never end up in the hands of gangs," Nakhle said. "New Zealanders rightfully expect funds to strengthen communities, not to benefit criminal organisations."
That bill may also be attempting to continue the political jibe at the previous government who had funded a drug programme that the Salvation Army ran cooperatively with a gang, aimed in part at gang members.
Sometimes members' bills are a back-up legislative vehicle if governing coalition partners can't agree to make an idea into government policy. (It is possible that this week's gender definition bill began like this, although every governing-coalition party voted for it at the first reading).
Member's bills may also express policy ideas that aren't urgent priorities – more "nice to have" than "need to have". They may also be policies that parties want to politically, and publicly test for popularity before fully committing to.
ACT MP Laura McClure's Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill arguably may sit somewhere in those spaces. This bill would create new criminal offences around the creation and distribution of harmful deepfake material, and has since attracted wider support.
"Although the ACT Party and Te Pāti Māori don't agree on a lot of things, this is where it was really important that we could agree on this," said Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.
Members' bills can also be vehicles for political signalling. Just lodging a bill in the biscuit tin can generate headlines about a party's intentions, can sharpen political policy differences, or force debate on a broader issue, whether or not it ever becomes law, or is even chosen in the ballot.
The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill could be seen as this kind bill.
"What it means to be a woman is under attack," New Zealand First's Jenny Marcroft told the House. "The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill will ensure clarity and consistency in New Zealand law by providing biologically grounded meanings for the terms 'woman' and 'man'."
Nicola Grigg (speaking for National), said her party was cautiously supporting the bill to select committee.
"I'm not convinced that this bill will advance the rights and opportunities or the wellbeing of women and girls in any way, shape, or form in New Zealand," Grigg said. "While I do have strong reservations about this bill, the National Party will support this bill to select committee. We do so to ensure that New Zealanders have the opportunity to have their say through a proper democratic process."
Supporting a bill through to select committee allows parties to test public reaction, hear submissions, and avoid immediately alienating voters on either side of the debate.
The select committee won't report back to the House about this bill until after the House rises for the election, which will allow parties to equivocate if they think a firm stance could harm their public support.
Whether the bills are technical legislative fixes, policy testing, political signalling exercises, or a combination of these and other types, they will now face select committee scrutiny and public submissions before being referred back to the House.
Information on how to make a submission is available on the Parliament website.
SHARE ME