Before Parliament adjourned it agreed new rules for next time. In discussing them MPs gave glimpses into the rules they would like to change and the Parliament they wished existed.
Before Parliament adjourned for the election, MPs' final order of business was agreeing to rule changes for the next Parliament. The new rules have been developed over the last year by a committee of senior MPs from every party.
Some of those MPs spoke about the changes, and interestingly about what changes they did not achieve. On Sunday here at The House we will go through the new rules with the Clerk of The House David Wilson and Principal Committee Clerk Gabor Hellyer, but for now let's focus on how MPs imagine Parliament could be.
Possibly most honest were the two departing MPs from the rules committee, Jan Logie (Green) and Michael Woodhouse (National).
Listen to a short radio report related to this story, and including a chat with The Herald of Arms Extraordinary to the King Philip O'Shea who will officially declare Parliament dissolved on Friday September 8th.
Michael Woodhouse - National
Michael Woodhouse referred to himself as one of Parliament's "rules guys", those MPs who take a particular interest in how it works, and how it should and could work. He's taken part in three rules Standing Orders Reviews (rules rewrites), and has come to acknowledge that change does not happen fast. Instead, the approach is "make haste slowly".
He particularly acknowledged the people who always do the lions share of the effort - the clerks. "I think David Wilson and his team, David Bagnall and Gabor Hellyer particularly, have done a gargantuan job of distilling the very, very good submissions that we had, listening carefully to the arguments on both sides of any change, and then coming up with things that I think in their hearts they would agree could've been so much better."
The clerks' team always make a hefty submission themselves to what needs can change, and what needs to. And as always, no-one got everything they desired.
Change is tricky, partly because no party wants to make life too hard for themselves. Woodhouse observed that who might be the next government was never clear during the process, which makes for an unusual dynamic.
"I've been party to conversations not just with my own colleagues but with others where the conversation will go something like this: 'Well, that's great when you're in opposition, but once you get to government you wouldn't like that Standing Order.' I thought, with a 50/50 chance when we started this that either side of the House could lead government, we may have made more progress than we actually have…