The highs and lows of ‘scrutiny week’, an opportunity not fully seized by MPs

Saturday, 22 June 2024

Select committee chairperson Parmjeet Parmar ticks off minister for answering a question she deemed technically out of bounds.

Ministers, MPs, government officials and journalists have had a hectic week, with the parliamentary schedule choc-a-block with select committee hearings arranged for 'scrutiny week'.

A new invention in Parliament’s calendar, the goal of the hearings was to provide an opportunity for MPs to grill ministers and senior public servants for a longer time and in greater depth than is usually possible about their spending plans for the coming year.

Some MPs and ministers got more into the spirit of the week than others, resulting in some highs and lows. Overall it was a new opportunity for MPs not quite fully seized.

Labour Party media spokesperson Willie Jackson was embarrassed on Tuesday morning when he missed his chance to grill Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith after turning up to the relevant select committee meeting four minutes before it closed.

Jackson had thought his opportunity to quiz Goldsmith would come when the minister turned up at a different select committee wearing a different hat later in the day. Not so.

Labour MPs Barbara Edmonds, Deborah Russell, Megan Woods, and Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick at the Finance and Expenditure committee this week.

But Jackson was probably not the only one to have his head in his hands - in his case literally - later in the week, during a thoroughly awkward 'blue on blue' exchange between ACT Party MP and Economic Development, Science select committee chairperson Parmjeet Parmar and Commerce Minister Andrew Bayly.

Parmar deemed a question asked of Bayly by Labour commerce spokesperson Arena Williams on Commerce Commission litigation in the grocery sector out of bounds.

She dug her heels in grimly even as Bayly made it more and more clear that he, at least, was happy to get into the spirit of scrutiny week and answer the question anyway.

The painful episode ended with Parmar ticking off the minister by reminding him who was chairing the meeting and a patient Williams penning a note to Speaker Gerry Brownlee, asking him to 'offer an education session' to new members of the committee and Parmar about their role in holding the executive to account.

New Defence Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies, Defence Minister Judith Collins, and Veterans Affairs mMister Chris Penk at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade committee.

The hearing got back on track thanks to Bayly's candour, it should be said, and ended in a literally table-thumping performance from the minister that had MPs from left and right laughing together.

Select committee hearings work best when Opposition MPs fire informed, precision-guided questions to ministers and officials, and when they in turn are not pedants.

So another low of the week came when senior Labour MP Duncan Webb provided a case study in the weaknesses of the dumb bomb approach, asking Minister for Regulation David Seymour a vaguely worded question about whether Seymour saw regulatory systems as being purely about economics.

Cue an unedifying academic lecture from Seymour on the 'tragedy of the commons', game theory and the problem of the prisoner's dilemma.

MPs on the Finance and Expenditure committee question Finance minister Nicola Willis and Treasury chief Caralee McLiesh.

The 'pointy-questioner award' for the week may go to Labour transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere.

He stuck to his guns and appeared to nail down the fact from Transport Minister Simeon Brown that if the Government is still committed to getting started on all its Roads of National Significance within three years, that is contingent on its controversial fast-track consenting regime being put in place.

Utikere showed promise as a select committee star earlier in the week, refusing to be fobbed off by a suggestion from Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop that media misreporting - rather than Bishop's own speech notes - were responsible for reports that it had already been decided all of National's Road of National Significance would be toll roads.

It was not only the performance of Opposition MPs that was mixed.

ACT MP Todd Stephenson at the Finance and Expenditure committee.

National MPs at times asked engaging and ranging questions, or at least gave basic prompts to better furnish their limited understanding. But they also practised the art of the patsy question - which serve neither the Parliament nor the public.

Tauranga MP Tom Rutherford was one such offender. He expounded a theme of some of the National Party patsies, asking how the Government’s “savings exercise” - or spending cuts - had affected NEMA, the emergency response agency.

Lo and behold, the cuts hadn’t. Yet Rutherford wanted to “flesh this out a little more”. And with little more that could be said about this, NEMA head David Gawn confirmed he was “grateful” for the Government’s benevolence.

Rutherford appeared similarly keen to “flesh out” a question line about how the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet knows the prime minister is satisfied with the advice he receives.

Parliamentary Services Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, Clerk of the House David Wilson, and Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee at a Governance and Administration committee hearing.

Basically, the officials ask him. But it was nice of Rutherford to confirm Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is happy with the paperwork.

Rutherford’s colleague on the Governance and Administration committee, Tim Costley, at times demonstrated that even MPs of the Government party can ask some high-level, forward-looking questions that prompt thoughtful responses about big issues.

But he also proved to be something of a scrapper, testing whether Labour MPs should be allowed to ask certain questions and bickering over his “point of order” not fully being heard.

No doubt such performances are seen positively in the party caucus room, but valuable minutes with Local Government Minister Simeon Brown could be seen evaporating as Costley and committee chair Rachel Boyack settled the squabble.

Boyack was intent on keeping a tight leash on her committee, working hard to reign in Brown’s politicking over Labour’s Three Waters scheme. He was possibly the only person in Parliament who cares to remember that policy, which has been as dead as the Government has been long.

Other ministers were given greater latitude. At the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade committee, Judith Collins donned her defence minister hat and proceeded to direct the traffic. She even broadcast a promotional video prepared by the Defence Force, complete with a dubstep soundtrack.

Scrutiny week was probably a qualified success in bringing greater transparency to Parliament, but it also exposed the limitation that such hearings can only shed so much light on the Government's plans and priorities at a particular moment in time.

Its success also depends on how our parliamentarians perform.