Back in 2023 the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties raised concerns about the inherent conflict of interest involved in public service agencies supporting parliamentary select committees. Our parliament is run on a shoestring, so depends on the public service for advice. But public service agencies work for Ministers, not the legislature, and are usually committed to progressing the legislation they have proposed and worked on. This isn't an abstract concern; there have been a couple of disturbing instances where public service agencies have attempted to impede or even outright subvert the will of the select committees they are supposedly supporting, advancing unauthorised amendments, sanitising departmental reports to remove criticism, and even preparing a fraudulent "select committee" report despite being instructed not to. And now we have another example, this time of an agency just saying "nope" when instructed to advise on amendments.
The bill in question is National's Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. The bill introduces new search powers to detect drug-driving, and these are so extreme that even Judith Collins though they were unjustified and produced a statutory section 7 report advising parliament that it violated the Bill of Rights Act. To their credit, the select committee tried to fix this. A key issue was that compulsory roadside testing necessarily involves detention, but the bill set no time limit on this, meaning it allowed indefinite (and thus arbitrary) detention. The committee naturally asked the obvious question (how long is it expected to take?) so they could set one. But according to the select committee report, the department (Ministry of Transport) simply refused:
We record here that we have been unable to satisfactorily resolve this matter ourselves during our consideration of the bill. This was due to time constraints on our committee and because departmental officials did not provide us with a possible maximum time period for enforcement officers to administer the first oral fluid screening test. Officials noted this was due to their concerns about specifying a maximum period as outlined above.It is very clear from the above that the refusal was deliberate. It is also very clear that this obstructed the work of the committee. And that sounds an awful lot like contempt. The question is, will the committee actually do anything about it, or just whine pathetically in their report?
There are more than enough examples now to make it clear that this situation is untenable. Parliament cannot depend on the inherently conflict and compromised servants of the government of the day to advise it. It needs its own independent advisers if it is to do its job properly. And if this means that it reaches different conclusions to the executive about what the law should be, so much the better - that is what a separate branch of government does.
