Bills relying on Barclay’s vote

By not standing down until the election Todd Barclay’s vote is still available in Parliament so the Government can pass legislation. The Labour Party has pointed out their are three bills that are relying on that vote if they are to be passed before the election recess.

Bill English has said that it is Barclay’s decision as to whether he remains in Parliament until the election. A party leader is not able to force an MP to resign, for good reason.

NZ Herald: Three law changes hinge on National MP Todd Barclay’s vote, Labour Party says

The National-led Government would be unable to pass three pieces of legislation including major child, youth and family reforms if MP Todd Barclay had been sacked immediately, the Labour Party says.

Without his vote, the National Party would need support from two out of three of its coalition partners to pass legislation.

Labour said there were three bills before Parliament which were either opposed by the Maori Party or by both Act and United Future, meaning they would not progress without Barclay’s vote.

Government Bills which are remaining to be passed this term which will depend on Barclay’s vote (based on known party position)

  • Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill
  • Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)
  • Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill

Bills which passed by one vote since the end of February 2016 when the Barclay incident happened

  • Housing Legislation Amendment Bill
  • Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill
  • Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill
  • Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill (National Party members bill – still before the House)
  • Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill (National Party members bill – still before the House)

(Source: Parliamentary Library/Labour Party)

Is what Barclay has done (not being truthful) and is alleged to have done bad enough to justify stopping the elected Government from continuing with it’s legislative programme?

Should he have resigned in February last year? This would have effectively hung the Parliament in the middle of the term.

6 Comments

  1. One of a kind

     /  June 28, 2017

    Not really Pete.

    If he had resigned in Feb 2016 a by-election would have been held and a new Nat MP would have been elected.

    The numbers would have remained the same and no putrid political stench….

    • You’re right, I forgot about that and Labour must have ignored the obvious. There could have been a couple of months where the vote was out.

    • If he resigned effective immediately (do they do that – can they do that?) it would have taken at least a couple of months to have a by-election.

  2. Blazer

     /  June 28, 2017

    ‘Is what Barclay has done (not being truthful) ‘..hello National…sugar coating patsy….try lying like a ..flatfish,him and forgetaBill.This govt is a disgrace,is a stain on NZ’s domestic and international..reputation.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  June 28, 2017

      If the government is a disgrace then the opposition is a pitiful and useless farce.

    • It’s common for politicians to be less than fully truthful. A Prime Minister would probably have great difficulty if they were fully open and truthful without embellishment.

      Were Barclay or English any less truthful than Little?