Marcus Ganley brings more than 25 years of experience in government, politics, business and law to his role at Franks Ogilvie. He holds an MA (First Class Honours) in Political Studies from the University of Auckland, where he was the Commonwealth Scholar from Australia, and an LLB (First Class Honours)from Victoria University of Wellington. He was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand in 2003 and as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in 2021.
Marcus spent over a decade working in the New Zealand Parliament, first in the select committee office, then as a senior adviser to ministers, including a prime minister and deputy prime minister. He later served as director of policy to an opposition leader and was a Wellington City Council candidate in 2010.
He has held senior roles in Australian politics, including as chief of staff to state and federal ministers and shadow ministers, and worked on the establishment of the Australian Parliamentary Budget Office in 2012.
From 2013 to 2016, Marcus was a board member and executive director (legal and corporate affairs) at Brisbane-based training provider Charlton Brown, leading its legal, corporate and government relations functions.
Marcus has worked on election campaigns across New Zealand and Australia, and has published research on MMP, select committee influence and Treaty settlements.
Marcus advises on public law matters with a focus on navigating the intersection of regulatory, parliamentary and business environments. He brings deep institutional insight, legislative expertise and practical policy skills to his client work.
Before rising for the 2026 election, the House of Representatives adopted new rules for the operation of the next Parliament.
The changes include a new Legislative Scrutiny Committee, revised procedures for passing legislation under urgency and new guidance on how select committees should approach public submissions.
The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives set out rules for the conduct of proceedings in the House and for the exercise of its powers.
During the course of each Parliament, the Standing Orders Committee reviews the operation of the Standing Orders and considers what changes might be necessary.
Towards the end of each parliamentary term, one of the last things the outgoing House does is vote on amendments to the Standing Orders.
The changes that will apply when Parliament sits after the 2026 election were set out in the Standing Orders Committee’s Report on the Review of Standing Order 2026 .
One of the principal changes for the next Parliament is the establishment of a Legislative Scrutiny Committee.
Ordinarily, after a bill has been considered by a select committee and received its second reading, it proceeds to the committee of the whole House. MPs then examine the bill's provisions in detail, question the Minister responsible and consider amendments. These debates take place in the main debating chamber, preventing the House from undertaking other business simultaneously.
In our submission to the Standing Orders Committee, Franks Ogilvie proposed allowing committee of the whole debates to take place in parallel with proceedings in the House, drawing on the Australian House of Representatives' Federation Chamber. This would significantly increase the legislative time available without requiring additional sitting days, extended sittings or greater reliance on urgency.
The new Legislative Scrutiny Committee is a different way of tackling this problem. It will have two main functions. The Business Committee will determine that some bills go to this new committee, instead of a subject select committee (such as the Justice Committee). In terms of the House time the bigger change is that the Business Committee may also send some bills to this committee instead of the normal committee of the whole stage.
When operating in the place of the committee of the whole, the Legislative Scrutiny Committee will meet in public, with proceedings livestreamed to undertake what will be called “consideration in detail”. The Minister responsible for the bill will be required to attend and answer questions, and the committee will be able to amend bills directly.
The committee will be chaired by the Deputy Speaker, and Government parties will not hold a majority. All MPs will be entitled to participate, although only committee members will vote.
Where two or more committee members disagree with the result of a vote announced by the chairperson, the decision will be reserved for the committee of the whole House to resolve. Otherwise, the bill can proceed directly to its third reading.
This is a narrower approach than the model proposed by Franks Ogilvie, concentrating detailed consideration on bills whose policy is relatively settled and which enjoy broad support.
Its usefulness will depend on how frequently bills are referred to it and how much consideration subsequently returns to the committee of the whole House. There is also a question about how the model will work where the Legislative Scrutiny Committee undertakes both the ordinary select committee and consideration in detail stages of the same bill.
Under the new rules, a bill that receives its first reading under urgency will be referred to a select committee unless the member in charge moves a separate motion to bypass that stage and explains why.
Under the previous rules, where urgency was accorded to the first reading and subsequent stages of a bill, it automatically bypassed select committee consideration without any express decision to that effect. Under the new rules, the Minister will have to seek the House's approval, explain why select committee consideration should be omitted and take responsibility for that decision.
A Government can still use its majority to secure the separate motion, but bypassing select committee consideration will now require an explicit decision.
Our supplementary submission recommended a change along these lines but went further suggesting that the motion should be debatable. Where a bill is genuinely urgent and enjoys broad support, debate is likely to be short. In a contentious case, the time required would come at the expense of the Government's other legislative priorities.
While the committee did not recommend this additional constraint, making ministers formally justify the decision to bypass select committee consideration is a positive step.
The substantial increase in the number of submissions received by select committees has placed growing pressure on the time available for oral hearings. The Standing Orders Committee report records that 697,657 written submissions were received on bills during the 2023-2026 term (as at 11 September 2026), more than the total received during the preceding five parliamentary terms.
To manage the load of submissions, committees frequently allocate five minutes to individual submitters and ten minutes to organisations. This can leave very little time to examine technical issues or test evidence, particularly where a bill raises complex or contested questions.
Franks Ogilvie recommended greater use of alternative approaches to oral submissions and public engagement, including roundtables and concurrent expert evidence (sometimes known as hot-tubbing), in which witnesses with different perspectives appear together and respond to each other's evidence.
We also supported the Clerk of the House's proposal for a purpose statement governing select committee consideration of bills and recommended going further by providing specific guidance on the purpose of oral hearings.
The new Standing Orders establish that the primary purpose of select committee consideration is to ensure that a bill, if passed, results in high-quality legislation. Another purpose is to be informed of public views, to the extent practicable.
The report recognises that the submissions process is not designed to operate as a straw poll. It encourages committees to organise hearings that allow sustained conversations with key submitters, including those with relevant expertise or lived experience, and to consider longer hearing times rather than automatically applying standard allocations.
The Standing Orders Committee encouraged committees to adopt more innovative approaches to public engagement, including less formal hearings, online surveys and other ways of gathering public views.
The Standing Orders Committee also provided guidance on the use of AI to process and analyse public submissions.
For departmental officials, it endorsed existing guidance requiring departments to manage risks relating to accuracy, bias, privacy and security, and to disclose how submissions have been summarised. It also expects departments to seek committee permission before outsourcing this work.
The report noted that the Office of the Clerk is exploring how AI could assist committee staff to process and categorise submissions, identify substantive contributions and help members make decisions about oral hearings.
The committee emphasised that AI should assist rather than replace human engagement with submissions and recommended that the next Standing Orders Committee receive a briefing on its use.
The Standing Orders Committee noted concern about the amount of House and select committee time that was taken by some private and local bills.
Private bills allow individuals or organisations to seek legislation addressing their particular circumstances, for example to change the terms of a trust or obtain an exemption from a law. Local bills are promoted by local authorities seeking special legislative powers for their area, such as permission to use land for a purpose that would otherwise be prohibited.
Under the new rules, promoters of such bills will need approval from the Business Committee before commencing the process for introducing a bill. They will have to apply to the Speaker, as chair of the Business Committee, explaining the bill's objectives and why legislation is necessary.
The Business Committee will consider whether those objectives could reasonably or practicably be achieved without legislation, and whether alternative means would be appropriate. It will also have discretion to consider the likely political support for the bill and the demands on the House's time.
We have substantial experience with these types of bills and can assist promoters seeking to navigate these new rules.
Our supplementary submission identified a drafting problem in the Standing Orders requiring the promoter of a private or local bill proposing to amend an Act to notify the government department responsible for administering that Act.
As neither private nor local Acts ordinarily have an administering government department, we recommended limiting the relevant notification requirement to public Acts. That amendment has now been adopted.
The 55th Parliament will provide an opportunity to test whether the new Legislative Scrutiny Committee delivers meaningful additional capacity and whether select committees take up the encouragement to adopt more innovative approaches to public engagement.
For many observers, a key question will be whether the high use of urgency continues. The Legislative Scrutiny Committee may free up House time for more contentious legislation, while the new requirement for an express decision to bypass select committee consideration may discourage that practice.
These changes may help at the margins, but the larger question remains: does the House have sufficient legislative time to accommodate the ambitious legislative programmes that successive governments have sought to pursue?
The next Review of Standing Orders should draw on that experience and revisit whether more substantial reforms are required.
For further information on these changes or similar issues, please contact Managing Director Brigitte Morten or Director Marcus Ganley.
UPDATE: the Cabinet Office has now released circular CO (26) 5: Constitutional Procedures after the Election.
In addition to reiterating that after polling day the Prime Minister is likely to indicate that the incumbent government will operate in accordance with the caretaker convention until the swearing in of the new government, it also provides guidance on the last date by which the new Parliament must sit (14 January 2027), the status of incumbent Ministers who are not re-elected and the process for briefing the incoming government.
The Circular can be accessed here
In the lead-up to general elections, successive governments have chosen to exercise restraint in how they make decisions. These arrangements are sometimes loosely referred to as the “caretaker convention” or “caretaker conventions”. Strictly, the Cabinet Manual uses the term “caretaker convention” for the arrangements that apply after an election, or where a Government has clearly lost the confidence of the House. Different protocols apply during the pre-election period, as set out in the Cabinet Manual, a Cabinet Office Circular and guidance from the Public Service Commission.
In New Zealand the government of the day continues to have full power to govern until the general election. The caretaker convention does not apply in the pre-election period.
The only situation in which the caretaker provisions apply in New Zealand pre-election is where a government has clearly lost the confidence of the House a general election is the result.
However, the Cabinet Manual notes that although they are not in caretaker mode, successive governments have chosen to restrict their actions to some extent in the pre-election period.
The protocols that guide this pre-election restraint are set out in a Cabinet Office Circular (in this case CO(26)1 issued on 29 January 2026) and guidance for public servants issued by the Public Service Commission.
The pre-election period is generally regarded as being the three months before a general election. Cabinet Office Circular CO(26)1 confirms the pre-election period in 2026 commenced on 7 August.
The two areas where governments have traditionally chosen to exercise restraint in the pre-election period are:
1) Significant appointments; and
2) Government advertising.
Whether a government action or decision (including a significant appointment) should proceed during the pre-election period is ultimately a decision for the Prime Minister.
Other rules and obligations also take on particular significance during the pre-election period. For example, public servants are required to remain politically neutral at all times, and Ministers must use officials and public resources only for government, rather than party political, purposes. These are continuing obligations rather than additional areas of pre-election restraint, although the Cabinet Office and Public Service Commission guidance emphasise the need for particular care because of the heightened sensitivity around an election.
There is no blanket ban on ministers or Cabinet making of appointments during the pre-election period. The Cabinet Office has set out factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether an appointment is significant. These include:
1. the public profile of the position or organisation;
2. whether the organisation has a significant strategic or decision-making role;
3. whether the organisation controls significant assets or funds; and
4. whether the organisation is an executive body, as opposed to an advisory or technical one.
If a significant appointment is due to commence during the pre-election or immediate post-election period, Ministers are encouraged to ither allow the existing appointee to remain in position, if this is legal, or make a short-term appointment, reappointment or acting appointment.
The Cabinet Office Circular sets out an expectation that Ministers would only bring forward appointments that commence in the post-election period in exceptional circumstances.
The Cabinet Office Circular provides high-level guidance that government advertising must not result in public funds being used for party political purposes, with particular care required during the pre-election period because of the heightened political sensitivity. Government advertising is broadly defined as any publicly funded process for publicising a government policy, product, service or activity.
The PSC guidance recognises that government advertising can continue during the pre-election period as part of business-as-usual activity. It gives as examples road safety campaigns, public health information, information about access to government services and entitlements or about obligations under existing government policy, and promotion of New Zealand exports overseas. It advises public service agencies to consider the purpose, timing and audience of advertising, and notes that deferring some advertising during the pre-election period may be appropriate. It cautions against advertising that lacks detail or uses emotive language or rhetoric, particularly advertising that presents a vision for New Zealand’s future. It also advises agencies to avoid colours, images or other features that closely resemble party political advertising.
While the Cabinet Manual and Cabinet Office Circular identify significant appointments and government advertising as the two main areas in which successive governments have exercised pre-election restraint, the Cabinet Manual and the Cabinet Office Circular make clear that these operate as exceptions to the general rule that the government of the day continues to have full power to govern until the general election. In particular, the published pre-election guidance does not contain a general restriction on entering into contracts or other commitments that may bind a future government.
This is quite different to Australia, for example, where the caretaker convention applies from the time the House is dissolved for a general election. So what are the caretaker conventions in New Zealand and when do they apply?
After an election the incumbent government remains the lawful government, with all the powers and responsibilities that go with that, until a new government is sworn in. This includes during coalition negotiations.
However, governments in this situation have traditionally constrained their actions until the political situation is resolved, operating in accordance with what the Cabinet Manual describes as “the caretaker convention”.
The Cabinet Manual distinguishes between elections where the outcome is clear and those where it is unclear.
Where it is clear who will form the next government, but the incoming Ministers have not yet been appointed, the caretaker convention means the outgoing government should not undertake new policy initiatives. If an important decision cannot wait until the new government takes office, the outgoing government should act on the advice of the incoming government, even if it disagrees with that advice. The Cabinet Manual guidance presumes that in these situations the need for caretaker arrangements will be short-lived.
Where it is unclear who will form the next government, the ordinary business of government and day-to-day administration can continue, and decisions made before the caretaker period can generally be implemented. However, significant or potentially controversial decisions, new policy initiatives, changes to existing policy, and decisions with long-term implications for an incoming government should, where possible, be deferred. This includes matters such as major contracts and significant appointments.
If a decision cannot be deferred, Ministers should consider temporary or holding arrangements that avoid committing the government in the longer term. Where that is not possible, the matter should be dealt with only after consultation with other political parties to establish whether the proposed action has the support of a majority of the House. Any approach to other political parties must first be approved by the Prime Minister or Cabinet.
The caretaker convention is a constitutional convention rather than a set of legal rules. Its application to particular circumstances can therefore require judgement. Ministers who are unsure whether the caretaker convention applies to a decision before them are encouraged to raise the matter with the Prime Minister or Cabinet. The Secretary of the Cabinet can provide advice and guidance, but final decisions concerning the caretaker convention rest with the incumbent Prime Minister.
For further information on these changes or similar issues, please contact Managing Director Brigitte Morten or Director Marcus Ganley.
Franks Ogilvie Special Counsel Marcus Ganley joined RNZ's Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan to discuss the new UK Prime Minister.
Marcus commented on Andy Burnham’s remarkable six-week path from Mayor of Greater Manchester to No. 10, his ability to connect with voters, the devolutionary ideas behind “Manchesterism”, and Burnham's experience as an MP, a Cabinet Minister and then governing Greater Manchester. Marcus and Jesse also discussed the appointment of John Healey as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
To listen to the full interview, click here.
