Parliamentary Urgency: Hero or Villian?

By James Aitken

I Introduction

So the cliché goes, “with great power comes great responsibility,” which is no less true for Spider-Man than for New Zealand's House of Representatives. Now, let me address what I am sure you are all thinking: "How can such a dry, legislative, political body come anywhere near the excitement of Marvel?" Well, both characters in this story (one a superhero and the other Aotearoa's legislature) can exercise their powers with absolute supremacy; we trust that they will be used for good, for the benefit of society in the pursuit of justice, fairness, safety, and the beneficial power of positive change. At the same time, we must remain aware of the risks that come with overusing or abusing such power. 

So, what is urgency, and how is it used within Aotearoa's legislative system? Urgency is simply the procedural term used for when Parliament chooses to speed up the process of passing legislation. The Government can force Parliament to sit longer and pass legislation within a much shorter time frame than would otherwise be the case. Urgency is helpful during times of crisis, or as the name suggests, when there is an urgent matter; however, it allows the government to limit debate and scrutiny, while avoiding any need to provide advance notice of this action. The loose rules around this process undermine the stability and certainty, not to mention accountability, that exists in the normal legislative process, and call into question the potential overreach of the government's powers, to the detriment of debate and the wider democratic process. 

This article explores the recent increase in the use of urgency by Aotearoa’s executive branch to pass legislation. The role that urgency plays in our legislative process is not new, but it is now being used in more aggressive and unconventional ways, most prominently with the recent repeal and replacement of the 2020 pay equity legislation. The power that rests with our legislature operates primarily on trust, much like any fictional superhero. As is often seen in those stories, absolute power can corrupt absolutely - instead of accepting that outcome, we must choose to reclaim our role in shaping a system where governmental power is kept in check, by us, the voters and authors of this democratic story.

II The History of Urgency in Aotearoa

The term "urgency" has been part of Aotearoa’s legislative process since at least the 1970s. Over the years, the use of urgency in passing legislation has had different names, all of which produce similar outcomes of circumventing the normal legislative process. Prime Minister Robert Muldoon used it to expedite many of his "Think Big" projects, aimed at minimising parliamentary scrutiny and limiting accountability. This use of “fast-tracking” legislation was then enshrined through the National Development Act 1979. 

This ongoing use of legislative urgency is also found in Parliament's Standing Orders, which govern the procedures of the House of Representatives. In short, it is Parliament that has given itself the power and authority to pass legislation under urgency at its own discretion. It is a power created and granted by the same body that implements it. The only mitigating feature is an appeal to a belief in good law-making practices. 

III The Concerning Contemporary Use of Urgency

Every government of every hue uses urgency. To be clear, the mere practice of urgency from time to time is not the critique of this article; rather, it is the normalisation and abuse of this process that should concern us all. Often, Parliament can be slow, wrapped up in curious and rudimentary rules that represent a bygone era rather than a modern-day reflection or representation of Aotearoa. However, this stability, compromise, and the practice of rules protect against governmental overreach and unstable, insecure changes. This rules-based continuity may be frustrating, but it is essential to protecting trust and confidence in the government. Urgency operates as a “get-out-of-jail” clause within New Zealand's legislative story, often being used during unprecedented moments such as the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring the government to act quickly and deal with a threat to our health and security. As a result, several bills were passed urgently to limit movement and gatherings, enforce vaccine mandates and more. There is a balance to be struck, which is beginning to be lost, with the Government trading normative processes and principles in favour of quick change.

The growing normalisation within our legislative process threatens the existing role that scrutiny, accountability, and transparency have within our wider democracy. This is a story of how unchecked power, when used carelessly, can pose a real threat. The current Government has passed more bills under urgency in their first 100 days than any government before. At the end of January 2025, the Government passed 19 pieces of legislation through all stages of urgency, more than any previous government in New Zealand's history. The Government has come to defend this as being entirely within the rules and citing the democratic mandate they received during the 2023 general election. The mere fact that this use of urgency is allowed is precisely the concern; if a government can use it whenever it chooses, what does that say about the credibility of the ordinary legislative process? 

The ability of the public, interest groups, and businesses to submit a bill and for parties to amend, scrutinise, and work on legislation throughout a three-stage process is entirely undermined. Furthermore, any claim to a mandate was thrown out when the Government did not campaign on, nor seek a mandate to, repeal and replace the Pay Equity legislation. The government wishes to advance many of its priorities with speech while limiting debate, scrutiny and pushback, which has been alluded to by some government ministers as being why they made the changes to pay equity retrospective -  to prevent any ‘gaming of the system’. 

What we are witnessing is a radical shift in the use of urgency, witnessed by all, with responsibility for good governing and law-making cast aside. There is a constant balancing act between legislative propriety and swift action, a balancing act that has begun to be abused and tilted in the wrong direction, perhaps even one that the Parliament itself has been able to opt out of. It is curious and dangerous that the character of Parliament and the executive can set the bounds of its own power, giving little to no thought to the responsibility that should co-exist. 

This is an action that the government has every right to use; however, what is not a right, but rather a privilege, is good democracy. This recent use of urgency flies in the face of good faith practices. If our only protection is the belief that our superheroes-turned-villains are motivated by the common good, then I think we need to consider more restrictions and controls on

Parliament, its authority, and the increasingly normalised use of urgency, under the guise of a need for change, faster progress, rule-following, or claimed democratic mandate. 

IV Where Might This Story End? 

Urgency has increasingly been used as a tool of partisan, political, and ideological point scoring rather than a response in favour of the greater good. This idea of the common good delivers a mandate for our fictional superheroes that can circumvent normalcy. But in our reality, this is a story about legislative, legal, and political power being stretched and distorted. Parliament could choose to restrict itself and its use of urgency by requiring a supermajority to vote in favour of invoking urgency during the legislative process. 

However, I remain sceptical. I started this article by framing the story as one of power and the tension between accountability, responsibility, and authority. The balance between these two forces now exists out of kilter. Who will be the hero who restores that balance? Who knows - it might very well be you. 

The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.