Let’s fix it, or this could be our worst Parliament

The last Question Time of the year is often likened to the last day of school – and not unfairly. MPs trade lighthearted barbs and take a swipe at the press gallery before adjourning the House and heading to Parliament’s end-of-year bash (hosted, I might add, by the very same press gallery they’d been lashing just minutes before).

It was in this spirit that Finance Minister Grant Robertson was asked a silly patsy by colleague Greg O’Connor: ``What reports has he received about questions to him about reports he has received about the state of the New Zealand economy?’’

The joke (for people who don’t spend their lives watching Parliament TV) is that Robertson is often asked a patsy question by a colleague, usually along the lines of ``what reports has he received about the state of the New Zealand economy?’’

He uses the opportunity to regale anyone still listening with tales from Treasury, the Reserve Bank and anyone else about how well the economy is doing. It’s grating, of course, but grating questions are a fairly bipartisan offence.

During the last Question Time of 2016, National’s acting finance spokesperson, Steven Joyce, was asked a similar question by colleague Alastair Scott: ``What reports has he received on the diversification of the New Zealand economy?’’

No-one likes patsy questions, but there’s an argument to be made in their defence. Under MMP, Parliament is proportional. Parties are given a proportion of 12 parliamentary questions and supplementary questions based on the number of non-executive MPs they have.

The opposition will use its questions to attack the government – government MPs can use their patsies to tell the other side of the story, which they do.

But Robertson’s question rubbed the wrong way. He joked he’d been asked a version of the ``reports’’ question 103 times in the previous term. Opposition MPs sank into their chairs, quietly seething.

The reason this couldn’t be brushed off as another bout of pre-Christmas mirth-making is the shape of the new Parliament. Labour’s thumping majority means it gets to ask more questions about itself than National does. National MPs need to get used to the ``what reports’’ question – they’ll be hearing it a lot in the next three years. This is fair and proportional – New Zealanders voted for this House, after all – but it denudes Parliament of much of its power as a place of accountability.

Question Time, when used effectively, can draw all sorts of information out of ministers, as can a well-run select committee. But there’s very little chance of that happening this Parliament. Labour gets about five questions out of 12 every Question Time and chairs every select committee, bar one. Our small, unicameral Parliament is a bit of a rubber-stamp legislature at the best of times, but this Parliament will take it to new extremes.

The brief period of sitting this year has been atrocious, with nearly half of each Question Time spent watching Labour MPs ask themselves questions then gleefully clapping at the response like some banana republic legislature.

National, which last term used its scores of supplementary questions to forensically prosecute the Government, now has about four supplementary questions per primary question. It’s National’s fault, of course – if it wants Parliament to run better, it should have done better in the election.

Minor opposition parties are doing what they can to pull the political needle in their direction. ACT and the Ma¯ ori Party have decided to share supplementary questions, meaning each party can probe a line in any given week. The help doesn’t stop there; ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden – a seasoned parliamentary staffer – could also be glimpsed helping Ma¯ ori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi refine his question to fit within parliamentary rules.

The Greens have been pushing their co-operation to the max, using former ministers Eugenie Sage and Julie Anne Genter to ask probing questions of the Government.

It’s not enough, of course, and already there are moves from many political parties to think about ways to make the current Government more accountable to this Parliament. They should be taken seriously. In other Parliaments, the threat of backbench rebellions keeps ministers responsible to their own party as much as to the opposition. Other Parliaments also reward careers as a parliamentarian – political life in New Zealand belittles the role of an MP, viewing it merely as part of a long job interview for being a minister.

Our Parliament has neither tradition. We haven’t had a serious rebellion in government since the 1990s, and non-ministerial parliamentary careers are toxically undervalued.

Now all opposition parties (and the Greens) have an interest in buttressing the power of Parliament against the interests of the Executive. The changes are long overdue, but probably won’t take effect until the next Parliament.

Question Time, used effectively, can draw all sorts of information out of ministers ... But there’s very little chance of that happening this Parliament.