��һ�ǿ�����

��һ�ǿ����� flash: New Zealand is not the USA.����

A staple of a new, or re-elected, president for decades has been to establish a 100-day plan: a political to-do list of campaign promises neatly packaged up to be ticked off as they’re completed; accompanied by a self-congratulating press release. ����

They’re good for accountability and, for political leaders, they’re great for getting a good headline. ����

For Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, there’s a stark focus on the latter. ����

Like previous PMs Jacinda Ardern and John Key, Luxon was quick to establish his own 100-day plan soon after he got his feet under the Prime Minister’s desk. ��

In fact, he established the plan during the election campaign. ������

And on November 29 last year, the clock started ticking: the Government had 100 days to tick off 49 commitments. ��

Now, deep into February, Luxon has just 14 days to tick off the last 22 promises.����

The timeframe was already extraordinarily tight. ����

But the House rising because of the tragic death of Greens MP Efeso Collins – therefore effectively losing two full days – makes that time frame even tighter. ����

The question isn't: will they achieve their 100-day plan goals? ��

Leader of the House and senior minister Chris Bishop says yes and plans to bend the operating hours of Parliament to his whim to ensure that happens. ��

The questions should be: at what cost? ��

A cornerstone of Luxon’s plan has been new legislation. Starting with the scrapping of the Reserve Bank’s employment mandate, a steady stream of bills has made its way through the House. ����

And there’s been a theme for many – the use of urgency in the House. ����

Under normal circumstances, a bill is introduced and debated in a first reading. ����

If it passes, the proposed legislation goes to a select committee where MPs and submitting members of the public get to apply scrutiny while refining the bill.����

This process usually takes months – sometimes years – and results in a law that has had time to be properly discussed and debated.����

In short, the bill gets better.����

Under urgency, in many instances, the Select Committee process simply does not happen.����

“We sought a mandate at the election, and we will be carrying out that mandate,” Bishop said, adding that all new Governments have legislation they want to pass quickly. ����

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, however, disagrees. ����

"It’s cynical politics. It’s bad lawmaking and it’s also highly hypocritical – given they criticised the previous Government every time urgency was used.” ����

Both MPs are right, and they’re both guilty of abusing the urgency process. ����

When he was new leader of the House in 2017, Hipkins introduced many new bills under urgency – under the guise of Labour’s 100-day plan. ����

And, at the time, the then-National Leader of the House Simon Bridges made the same comments Hipkins made this week. ����

They’re all as bad as each other, but it’s the rest of us that suffer. ����

There is nothing special about the first 100 days in office. It’s an arbitrary number that ultimately means nothing.����

Aside for the opportunity for winning Governments to boast about "a successful 100 days" -- the only real purpose it serves is imposing an unnecessarily tight timeframe. ����

Laws take a long time to craft and pass because they affect millions of people. ����

They shouldn’t be rushed in a bid to tick them off a list in a bid to win a few political points. ����