1Mediawatch: Holding to account, holding the line on media freedom Holding ministers to account and also amplifying their spending statements without scrutiny; two editors in Asia holding the line on media freedom; update on advocacy ad angst. [Radio New Zealand, Sunday 25 August 2024, 09:08]

2[The House] How not to answer a question, and other lessons from Parliament A dispute during Question Time this week was packed with lessons on asking questions in Parliament, and especially how not to answer them. During Question Time on Wednesday, MPs in the House argued at length about something usually hidden from view. The to-and-fro was pretty fascinating for political geeks, but it was also full of lessons. It illustrated aspects of how Question Time is prepared, how it works, the political considerations that can feed into that – and showed how not to answer a question. How not to answer a question A question began all of this. It was not in the House. It was from Stuff reporter Glenn McConnell on Parliament’s Tiles on Tuesday. He was asking National’s Tama Potaka (Associate Minister Housing - Social Housing) about homelessness. Specifically, about data suggesting no one knew the housing status of one in five children previously in emergency housing. The crucial section was this: McConnell – “Are you worried that some are now homeless?” Potaka – “No, no, I'm not worried that some are now homeless… .” Potaka’s answer was much longer but he had already lost control of the narrative, which was now ‘minister not worried that children are homeless’. This is one reason politicians seldom answer the question they are asked, but instead ignore its premise and offer their own. It stops them accidentally creating a horrible soundbyte. It wasn’t surprising that, on Wednesday, opposition parties were keen to ask questions on the topic. Both Labour and Green parties had questions scheduled. Unwrecking a train For the Greens, Tamatha Paul addressed Potaka’s poor choice of words. “Does he stand by his statement relating to the drop in children living in emergency accommodation, “I’m not worried that some are now homeless”, and, if so, is that why funding for community housing providers has reduced to only 750 new places a year, under his Government?” This time the Minister was ready. He began by trying to clear the previous day’s trainwreck from the tracks, before having a better crack at replacing it with his own narrative. “In the context in which the question was asked, and in relation to Priority One, I am absolutely confident that those 1,110 children have been placed out of emergency housing and into a warm, safe, dry home between April and July. I am confident and very aware that they are no longer homeless … .” He repeated the words ‘warm, dry, and safe’ multiple times across his answers – working to reinforce his own chosen message. Negotiating Question Time Of interest was that the exchange occurred at all. Labour’s Kieran McAnulty had also wanted to ask questions of Potaka, but his question had been transferred to a different National Party Minister. Each of the twelve questions that make up Question Time are actually just the first of a series. That first or primary question is prepublished, but the supplementary questions are hidden. The primary questions are pre-vetted against Parliament’s Standing Orders (the rules). The vetting is carried out by the clerks and ultimately the Speaker. The Green Party’s primary question was aimed to only be applicable to Tama Potaka, but McAnulty’s was broad enough for Chris Bishop to be able to answer it instead. Governments have the right to look at the twelve primaries slated for Question Time and say ‘your question to Minister X is going to be answered by Minister Y’. This exchange is also negotiated, like the vetting; between the parties and the clerks. As it happens, The House hopes to sit in on that vetting session in the next few weeks. There are various reasons a party might wish to transfer an answer to another minister: practicality (e.g. who is available), appropriateness (e.g. which minister is more responsible for what appears to be the topic), or politics (e.g. protecting a minister who is bad at answering). They cannot do it to hide information that only one minister is able to talk about. Writing Question Time Questions is an art form, and you can see why many MPs choose utterly bland primary questions that are unlikely to run into such difficulties. Getting away with making a fuss McAnulty was unimpressed with the transfer, and attempted to relitigate that decision in the House. It was a tough task. His attempt was over in a few seconds. He was obviously displeased, but he was also respectful. The Speaker reminded him that what he was doing could be considered questioning a ruling, but allowed it regardless. Questioning a speaker’s ruling is considered very naughty in the House. You can get kicked out for the day for that. Speakers don’t usually seem to mind a bit of respectful tussle, however. Having failed, McAnulty decided the question he had prepared was now redundant, and chose to forgo the opportunity to ask it, at which point Chris Bishop got to his feet to do some cheeky grandstanding, seeking leave to ask himself the question, and answer it. The Speaker was unimpressed. Bishop’s kibitzing led to further points of order, and McAnulty was given a chance to make a fuller argument. The whole discussion took eight minutes. If the Speaker was providing his National colleague a lesson, it was ‘if you’re already winning the argument, keep schtum’. The Speaker’s position stayed the same second time through, though he did offer to let Labour keep that question until the following day and pose a new version of it then. Chris Bishop rose again to berate the Speaker. “Because he can't be bothered asking me the question, you're going to give him a freebie?” “Mr. Bishop, I've made a ruling. I'm not changing it.” Bishop was possibly lucky not to be ejected from the House – a punishment I haven’t seen Speaker Brownlee dispense yet. Brownlee’s response was aimed at Bishop, but to some extent it applies to both MPs’ situations. Fighting a speaker’s ruling after-the-fact is a tough ask, but doing so without due respect is a hiding to nothing. [Radio New Zealand, Saturday 24 August 2024, 08:00]

3[The House] From Beehive to Bluegrass: Kiwi MPs head stateside The House hears from two MPs, usually foes, who have spent a week together stateside, like a political odd couple. You might think that travelling around the United States with another MP from a rival party would be a bit like going on holiday with your in-laws. In reality though, it’s not like that at all. Earlier this month, National MP for Southland Joseph Mooney, and Labour list MP Glen Bennett travelled to the United States together under the auspices of Inter-Parliamentary Relations. Far from a jaunt Parliamentary diplomacy, which is distinct from government-led foreign affairs, is something that New Zealand’s Parliament values highly. Connecting with counterparts both in the context of both inward and outward engagements gives members a uniquely parliamentary platform to foster bilateral and multilateral relationships and exchange knowledge. Such knowledge exchange often comes in the form of attendance at a number of multilateral conferences and meetings. Your mind probably goes to New York, Geneva, Brussels, and the like. For Mooney and Bennett though, this time it was Louisville, Kentucky. The two MPs, after a series of meetings in Washington D.C., headed across the Appalachians and into the ‘Bluegrass State’ for the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). This is, as the name suggests, an annual event that gathers state and local legislators from across the US for seminars, networking, and discussions on a variety of topics. You’ll notice I said state legislators, not global or national legislators, so what were Mooney and Bennett doing there? Bennett described it in a nutshell as “observing.” “There was, I think it was about 5,000 people, and even that was a small conference. So they do actually have an international contingency that always goes. And Joseph and I were the first New Zealand MPs to actually attend. For me, I guess an observation was that we were actually sort of hanging out with 50 different countries, almost because each legislator, each state had their representation. And it makes you realise how small we are as a country, and how slimline and simple our politics is.” Mooney noted that other international delegates said their countries often work on trade relationships with individual American states rather than the US as a whole. The negotiation is less complex and the economies are similar. It apparently works well. “The Irish had a contingent there, and one of the senators was making the point that they do a lot of work building relationships with states rather than federally, because they get more value out of that.” As you’d expect, the experience was especially intriguing given the timing of their visit, which was just a couple of weeks after the Trump Assassination attempt, and the move from Biden to Harris as the Democrat contender. Both members recalled that the political volatility was palpable; perhaps, bafflingly, even more than the American political landscape normally is. Bringing lessons home While never as fun as the travel itself, but always necessary, every field trip requires a report back post-trip. Bennett described the process of informing his colleagues about what he got up to. “The Speaker sends us, and so he expects us to send him a report. I've been told that the report needs to be short and to the point, so I’m okay with that. Then it is taking it back to the caucus in terms of that report. But also, since I've been back this week, it's really talking to colleagues, and looking at some of those ideas, some of those possibilities, some of those innovations. You learn how to take that and workshop it and use it within our caucus to build ideas and concepts, I guess, to form policy for the future.” [Radio New Zealand, Sunday 25 August 2024, 07:00]