Scrutiny Week: When 'government comes to Parliament and tries to justify its spending'

This week Parliament is undertaking 12 concurrent inquiries into government spending plans, in a rejigged post-Budget process being called Scrutiny Week. It is hoped this will improve on recent Parliaments' lacklustre scrutiny of governments.  

During Question Time you often see ministers dodge questions from opposition MPs - sometimes batting them away as  pesky or irrelevant. Watching this, it would be easy to assume that governments are in charge. Most governments seem to agree, but that's not how New Zealand's constitution works.

Despite appearances, Parliament is the boss, but seldom gets to show its dominance and properly inquire into what its subordinate governments are up to. 

Question Times are often a dead loss for getting answers. Written questions are more effective at gaining information, but the results can be lost in the deluge of tens of thousands of questions. 

The best means for drilling deeper into governments' plans, actions and spending is in public select committee inquiries. Select committees review the executive twice a year, but for a long time these inquiries have lacked real teeth.

Getting ministers to turn up, or to devote more than half-an-hour to being questioned has sometimes been an effort. Upon turning up, some ministers have shown skill in wasting time with long introductions, or wandering bloviate answers, leaving little time for real scrutiny of their plans or performance.

Scrutiny week - now with added scrutiny 

This year, fingers crossed, that will change. The new rules for Scrutiny Week may actually involve solid scrutiny. 

National MP and chair of the Justice Committee James Meager describes Scrutiny Week as "when the government comes to Parliament and tries to justify its spending". 

His description accurately describes the power-relationship between the institutions. Spending may be planned by governments, but it only occurs at the allowance of Parliaments. 

A new approach

Parliament has new rules and guidelines for scrutiny (from the 2023 Standing Orders Review). Some of the changes and implications are:

• Normal sittings of the House are on hold so select committees can devote the whole day and whole Parliamentary week to scrutiny. (Each committee normally only sits one morning per week). 
• Despite the House not sitting, Scrutiny Week is still a sitting week so all MPs are expected to be at Parliament. 
• Ministers and their ministry and agency bosses are expected to turn up as well - and for decent periods. The weeks are diarised many months in advance. 
• The long, meandering ministerial introductions that filled the allotted time are no longer allowed. "Very brief" is the new expectation.
• Sustained questioning is expected to be encouraged by committee chairs (who are usually MPs from governing parties). 
• The 12 committees each have to submit to Parliament their scrutiny plans for the next few years, detailing which government entities will be investigated and when. (Though these plans can adapt to changing political circumstances.)
• Committees are planning far enough ahead to be well-briefed and well-prepared.
• Opposition MPs will have enough guaranteed opportunity to ask questions that preparation time won't be wasted.

Why the change?

Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson says "it came from feeling in the [Standing Orders] Committee, and from a number of people that made submissions, that Parliament (particularly select committees), were not scrutinising the work of the government particularly effectively. They didn't spend much time on it, and the questions were not well-directed. And considering the huge sums of money that Parliament approves the government to spend, more should be done." 

A return to normal service

David Wilson notes that effective scrutiny isn't new. 

"When I first came to work [at Parliament] in the mid 1990s… there was a lot more time spent on [scrutiny]. Committees spent a lot of time with agencies, particularly ones that were responsible for large budgets and also for really important social outcomes. So in some ways, it's getting back to that, but with, I guess, a little bit more signposting, flagging in advance that's going to happen; and very strong expectations that ministers and chief executives will be available."

On the opposition side of the Justice Committee, Labour MP Duncan Webb is looking forward to the new approach. 

"[Previously] a reluctant minister could make life a little bit difficult, but… MPs are expected to turn up and ministers are expected to make themselves available. And it would be pretty much outrageous if that weren't to happen." 

Webb has also experienced reviews as a minister. He sees the new approach as making solid preparation for MPs much more worthwhile. 

"I guess when you know that the minister can… deflect for half an hour, you wonder what the point [of preparation] is. But when you've got an hour-and-a-half or two hours with a minister, and… the chair should be allowing sustained questioning by a member… to pursue an avenue, then preparation is much more fruitful and much more likely. And I think it's about also changing the culture of what scrutiny is, rather than a bit of a dance and a charade, to being something that's much more meaningful."

Acting as umpire when your own team bats

Committee chairs are usually (but not universally), junior MPs from the governing parties. Meager is the National Party MP for Rangitata (Timaru and hinterland). As chair of the Justice Committee, he will have the fun job of managing the performance reviews of senior MPs from his own party. He's a first-term MP but has plenty of parliamentary experience as a political staffer. 

"It's my job to maintain order in the committee, but also we do this structured approach that we agree on beforehand, where we kind of allocate time, roughly, so that the Opposition do get a fair share of the time. And it's my job to make sure that we keep the process on track, that we make sure that ministers and officials keep their answers as short and sharp as possible, so that all members have a fair chance.

"I really see my role as to try and stay out of the debate as much as possible and just facilitate questions and facilitate debate across both sides and give everyone a fair shot. And during Scrutiny Weeks, that means giving the opposition more time than the government, but in general, just trying to be a neutral referee and making sure the business of the committee gets done."

Something not to expect

One thing does not get scrutiny -  prime ministers don’t appear before these committee hearings. It has been this way for at least some years, though I understand Helen Clark appeared before the Governance and Administration Committee a number of times during her leadership. Reviews of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) typically hear from the chief executive of DPMC, but not the prime minister. As a result they are often surprisingly dry events.

Where and when to watch 

All of the ministerial scrutiny events are public and can be watched online (or in person). Preparatory briefings for committees are not public. You can see the timetable of events at the links below - who is being questioned by which committee and when. 

Useful Scrutiny Links

• The full live timetable for Scrutiny Week, including links to video streaming
• The timetable with the names of those appearing. 
• Advice for the public sector on Scrutiny Weeks, including summaries of the changes. 
• The Review of Standing Orders 2023 with the new approach to scrutiny
• Committee's structured agendas for end of year agency annual reviews. 

RNZ’s The House – journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights – is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.