Scrutiny Week Q&A with Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan
Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan.
Photo:
VNP / Phil Smith
This week at Parliament is Estimates Scrutiny Week, when government ministers face select committees to defend their budget plans.
For an insight into the preparation necessary to properly hold a government to account on their budget estimates, The House chatted with a star performer from last year's scrutiny weeks.
Lawrence Xu-Nan is one of a number of MPs in this Parliament who have doctoral-level qualifications. That suggests he holds some brutal research experience that might prove useful in digging into something as labyrinthine and esoteric as the budget.
Xu-Nan's background is in Egyptology. If you can translate and analyse ancient fragmentary texts in dead languages, surely the budget is decipherable.
"One of the major roles of being an MP and part of the legislature is to scrutinise the Executive.
"How they make law is one part of it, and the other part is how they put together their budget and how they're going to spend that budget. So that is what we're going to be seeing this week as one of two scrutiny weeks, [the other being the Annual Reviews in December].
"We will have hearings with both the minister and the ministry or agency, on how they are going to spend the money that they set out in the budget."
"I like to take a very methodological approach.
"The first thing I always look at is the Summary of Initiatives. So within that, what's new? What has the government introduced that's new? What has the government taken away? That's formed the basis of a number of my questions.
"Then you go to the actual Votes. [Note: The sections of a budget are called votes]. Within my portfolio, the two biggest ones are Vote Education and Vote Justice. Getting into the minutia and going through it line-by-line, looking at how the budget is being put together, what money is being spent, what money hasn't been spent."
"I've normally put together a massive spreadsheet of all of the different questions. …I then prioritise it, based on the questions I would like to ask, put into different themes. And anything I don't get to ask is put aside as post-hearing questions."
"Yeah, I think on one hand I take my role as an MP and as a member of the legislature extremely seriously, particularly around how we hold those checks and balances against the Executive.
"And I think …opposition MPs have a particularly important role in that. …Because of my research background, I'm particularly aware that I need to be able to justify the questions I ask and be able to find very quickly where that source is from. So I'll have it with me all the time."
"To be fair, in most cases when it comes to select committee, let's say Education and Workforce for example, regardless of which political party you are from, most people are pretty collegial when it comes to asking questions; and the Chair is usually pretty good about allocating the time based on requirement, so often the [Opposition MPs] do get a little bit more time [than their strict proportion].
"I think, if we're looking at maybe roughly 15 minutes or 20 minutes for a really long sustained line of questions [from an initial primary question], within an hour [the hearing] might be able to get four or five main questions [or topics], but everyone has the ability to [ask supplementaries] off each other's questions."
Being able to support each other, and bounce off each other, is a really good way of scrutinising the Executive, Lawrence Xu Nan says.
Photo:
RNZ/ Blessen Tom
"It's MP dependent, and it's portfolio dependent.
"For example, last year I did a lot of coordination with [Labour MP] Jan Tinetti, as education spokesperson, and I and [the current Labour education Spokesperson] Willow Jean [Prime] have also had conversations around what questions and themes we're going to be looking at this year.
"Being able to support each other, and bounce off each other, is also a really good way of scrutinising the Executive, because I think at its core, the intention here is to hold the Executive to account on their budget, as opposed to finding moments where it's less about a "gotcha" moment and more about everyone and the legislature in general working together to scrutinise."
"Before the budget is announced, we can put in some pre-hearing questions. And those are a fairly standard list of questions that people may submit. They come from the committee itself to the ministry. So the really important thing about Scrutiny Week (both this week, but also the one in December), is this is one of the few opportunities that we have to be able to not only ask a minister questions (which we can do normally through Written Questions), but to put some questions together to the Ministry.
"When the budget is launched, we are then also able to put in some post-budget questions, …on the basis of what is in the budget, and [answers to those] will be available before the hearing; so [you can] prepare more detailed questions based on those responses.
"The hearing itself is kind of like [Question Time], and that's when we get to ask some very specific questions, but also, I guess in some ways, the more spicy questions.
"After the hearing, depending on whether you have any questions you weren't able to ask, or if new information came about as a result of the public hearing with the minister or with the ministry (or agency), you can put together post-hearing questions.
"[Those] can be fairly substantial, and it also allows the ministry time to digest your questions and be able to give you a more fulsome answer."
Note - Sometimes questions in a hearing can't be answered immediately and Ministers or officials commit to finding answers for the committee afterwards.
"Although I spend a great deal of time and care in putting together my questions… I acknowledge and recognise the fact that not everyone could know every line off by heart - it's just not feasible.
"And sometimes you do need to [let people] come back with some of those answers. And we do see that happen quite often during hearings."
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
42 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Police Minister's office blames Labour government for police recruit exemptions
Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers fronted a scrutiny hearing this week. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The Police Minister's office says the use of discretion over police college recruits who had not passed a literacy test was introduced in 2018 under the Labour government. It comes after the minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers were challenged over revelations an Assistant Commissioner personally signed off at least two exemptions from recruitment standards. It follows statements from Chambers and Mitchell at a select committee at Parliament this week that there were never any specific orders to drop standards, and that the current administration has been clear what the expectations are. Chambers reportedly knew of the approvals when he told the hearing no one in the executive had said applying discretion was allowed. In a statement, Mitchell's office said a draft report showed "that for the delivery of the 1800 new police target, a discretionary pass was introduced where the literacy assessment standards were not met, which has since become common practice". "This does raise questions about political pressure. "We have made very clear on discovering this practice that it does not meet our expectations and Police have responded quickly with the Commissioner directing that the practice be ended. "Labour should be upfront with New Zealanders about the mess they created in order to deliver their well overdue and incomplete 1800 new police target, instead of trying to blame this Government that had to come in and clean it up." Police in a written statement confirmed Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers gave at least two approvals in the past year, and records were being checked to see if there were more. "As is already accepted, there had been a practice of discretion applied to some applicants to Police College in relation to the Physical Appraisal Test (PAT)," the statement said. "Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers can recall two occasions in the last year where she gave approval to be applied to two applicants. There was no directive, instruction, or request issued in relation to this. We are searching available documentation to confirm this number. "As with other recruits, those two candidates went on to pass all the tests required to graduate as constables. "The Commissioner has made it very clear no more discretion is to be applied, and that is in place now. "He has discussed the standards with his Police Executive, and emphasised his very clear expectation that standards will not be dropped for entry to Police College." Police also confirmed Chambers was told in April about Rogers' approvals - the same month concerns about recruits being admitted for training despite failing physical testing was made public . Chambers told reporters this week the decisions had been made by "decision makers" involved in the recruitment process and some others at the Police College, but from now on any decisions of "that importance" would sit with him. Asked whether it was members of the Police Executive who drilled into those decision-makers that using discretion was okay, he said "not that I'm aware of, no". The government committed in its coalition agreements to recruiting 500 more police officers by November - but seems unlikely to meet that target . Labour's Police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the revelations Rogers was involved raised serious questions about whether political pressure had been applied to the Police College to deliver on that promise. "It's pretty clear that people at the Police College themselves don't make these types of decisions, there's a hierarchy in police. "There's been a clear pattern here of recruits not meeting standards and when the government has promised 500 more police it's pretty clear that pressure has been applied to the college and that's not right. "They've delivered around 30 of 500, and they have until November. It's pretty clear they've failed." She said the minister had not been upfront about the matter with New Zealanders when he fronted at the select committee. "He was asked if there was any direction or intervention from the police executive to the college, and he said that there was not to his knowledge. He may wish to revise those words in light of the information that's come to hand. "This really causes concern whether it might undermine integrity of police." RNZ has sought further comment from Andersen.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Assistant Police Commissioner signed off on two exemptions from recruitment standards
Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers fronted a scrutiny hearing this week. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The Police Minister's office says the use of discretion over police college recruits who had not passed a literacy test was introduced in 2018 under the Labour government. It comes after the minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers were challenged over revelations an Assistant Commissioner personally signed off at least two exemptions from recruitment standards. It follows statements from Chambers and Mitchell at a select committee at Parliament this week that there were never any specific orders to drop standards, and that the current administration has been clear what the expectations are. Chambers reportedly knew of the approvals when he told the hearing no one in the executive had said applying discretion was allowed. In a statement, Mitchell's office said a draft report showed "that for the delivery of the 1800 new police target, a discretionary pass was introduced where the literacy assessment standards were not met, which has since become common practice". "This does raise questions about political pressure. "We have made very clear on discovering this practice that it does not meet our expectations and Police have responded quickly with the Commissioner directing that the practice be ended. "Labour should be upfront with New Zealanders about the mess they created in order to deliver their well overdue and incomplete 1800 new police target, instead of trying to blame this Government that had to come in and clean it up." Police in a written statement confirmed Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers gave at least two approvals in the past year, and records were being checked to see if there were more. "As is already accepted, there had been a practice of discretion applied to some applicants to Police College in relation to the Physical Appraisal Test (PAT)," the statement said. "Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers can recall two occasions in the last year where she gave approval to be applied to two applicants. There was no directive, instruction, or request issued in relation to this. We are searching available documentation to confirm this number. "As with other recruits, those two candidates went on to pass all the tests required to graduate as constables. "The Commissioner has made it very clear no more discretion is to be applied, and that is in place now. "He has discussed the standards with his Police Executive, and emphasised his very clear expectation that standards will not be dropped for entry to Police College." Police also confirmed Chambers was told in April about Rogers' approvals - the same month concerns about recruits being admitted for training despite failing physical testing was made public . Chambers told reporters this week the decisions had been made by "decision makers" involved in the recruitment process and some others at the Police College, but from now on any decisions of "that importance" would sit with him. Asked whether it was members of the Police Executive who drilled into those decision-makers that using discretion was okay, he said "not that I'm aware of, no". The government committed in its coalition agreements to recruiting 500 more police officers by November - but seems unlikely to meet that target . Labour's Police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the revelations Rogers was involved raised serious questions about whether political pressure had been applied to the Police College to deliver on that promise. "It's pretty clear that people at the Police College themselves don't make these types of decisions, there's a hierarchy in police. "There's been a clear pattern here of recruits not meeting standards and when the government has promised 500 more police it's pretty clear that pressure has been applied to the college and that's not right. "They've delivered around 30 of 500, and they have until November. It's pretty clear they've failed." She said the minister had not been upfront about the matter with New Zealanders when he fronted at the select committee. "He was asked if there was any direction or intervention from the police executive to the college, and he said that there was not to his knowledge. He may wish to revise those words in light of the information that's come to hand. "This really causes concern whether it might undermine integrity of police." RNZ has sought further comment from Andersen.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Collaboration Essential To Tackling Housing Challenges — LGNZ
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) says it is vital local and central government work together to address the country's housing issues, including incentivising councils to achieve housing growth. This follows the release of the Government's 'Going for Housing Growth' consultation document today, which outlines Pillar 1 of the Government's Going for Housing Growth programme. LGNZ Vice President Campbell Barry says that while many of the proposals are welcome, the time has come for the Government to establish a more positive relationship with councils on housing. 'It's clear that significant action is needed to address New Zealand's housing crisis, and some of what the Government is proposing is a positive step towards this,' says Campbell Barry. 'And while we understand and share the Government's concern around the issues that exist in the RMA space, it's not helpful or accurate to portray councils as the sole architects of New Zealand's housing crisis. 'Councils have faced ongoing uncertainty as planning rules have changed repeatedly; the RMA was replaced, then that system was repealed, there were promises and reversals on the Medium Density Residential Standards, multiple RMA amendments, and now another replacement is being rushed through. 'The goal posts for councils have been constantly shifted.' 'With the exception of Government giving itself power to intervene in plans, we're confident that councils will respond positively to these changes overall. But the Government also needs to give councils the chance to deliver before it imposes unnecessary constraints on local decision-making, such as the ability for Government to intervene directly to alter the structure of council plans.' Campbell Barry says that the best way to achieve housing outcomes is to stop disincentivising councils to allow for growth. 'It's important to acknowledge that many councils across the country have worked extremely hard to cater for growth, as they recognise the need for more housing and growth. 'If the Government wants to encourage the right behaviours in a sustainable way and build on its good work around development levies, it needs to follow through on introducing a share of GST on new builds to encourage councils to support growth — as well as other funding levers that enable housing growth. 'That would be a far better and more effective option than the Government threatening to veto council decisions. 'We look forward to engaging with the Government further to ensure local and central government work together, to address the housing issues that continue to plague our country'.
