There have been a couple of troubling incidents this term of government agencies trying to subvert and interfere with the parliamentary select committee process - first DIA making unauthorised changes to the three waters bills, and then Ministry of Health failing to include pro-transparency submissions in its departmental report on the Therapeutic Products Bill. And now we have a third example, with MBIE's chief executive making a non-apology "apology" after being caught trying to subvert the committee process on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill:
The head of MBIE has apologised to a Parliamentary Select Committee as a senior MP accused staff of “devious” conduct in preparing a report despite clear direction it had not been requested.Meanwhile, MBIE CEO Carolyn Tremain's "apology" is minimising bullshit, calling her agency’s disobeying an explicit committee instruction a "misunderstanding". Some MPs are talking about complaining to the (powerful) Privileges Committee as a result, and that needs to happen - because what happened was clearly contemptuous of the committee and of parliament, born of MBIE's belief that Parliament "had no choice but to pass the bill".[...]
Committee chair and Labour MP Jenny Salesa said today that due to that 50/50 split, they were unable to reach a majority position on the bill and so had not sought a department report, which usually occurs when there is agreement.
Despite this, department officials prepared a report anyway, which Immigration Minister Andrew Little said would be used to inform any changes he would make to the bill as he proceeds to the second reading.
Committee members from all parties today raised concerns with MBIE officials that those staff had circumvented the committee, and in turn submitters, by preparing a report without their input.
But prosecuting and sacking a CEO for contempt of parliament only deals with the symptom. The underlying cause - identified by the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties during the recent review of Standing Orders - is that committees are advised by departmental officials, who have deep and fundamental conflicts of interest over the bills they are advising on. The solution is for committees to have their own independent advisors, to provide actual independent advice (and as a bonus, they won't automatically be spies for the Minister on the committee process). But the chances of the executive stepping up and funding Parliament to reduce their own power sadly seems remote.
