Today was the first day back at Parliament for MPs.
If it had been school the teachers might have had them writing stories titled “what I did in my Covid lock-down”, but this is Parliament... so they did something very similar.
In Parliament such catch-ups are called Ministerial Statements and the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern kicked off with one today. On the epidemic, unsurprisingly.
Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during Question Time. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Ministerial Statements are a chance to brief or update the House on significant goings-on. They happen before Oral Questions get underway and only usually when something big is going down: civil defence events, bio-security scares, outbreaks of significant news.
While some of the same information could be imparted during answers to oral questions statements are generally around 10 minutes and avoid the restrictions of having a question line decide the ambit of the discussion.
It’s not a one-way street though. The other party leaders get to weigh in on the topic as well. Today’s statement and replies provided a wide array of the possible approaches to these debates.
The Prime Minister’s statement was partly a briefing, partly an argument for past actions and current policy settings, and partly a call to arms.
“Within 25 days of our first case, we closed our borders to all but New Zealanders. Germany took 49 days; Spain, 52; Australia, 55; Singapore, 61,” said the Prime Minister. “Our lockdown was in place from day 31, with just over 200 cases. Our first economic package was in place 18 days after the first case; most other countries took more than 40 days.”
Simon Bridges’ response began with discussion of the Epidemic Response Committee’s role but largely focussed on how he believes things should be different. Particularly arguing for an open up. His talking points strongly echoed some recently heard from America.
“This has been going on too long. We want to get New Zealand working again—safely and sooner than later. The reason for that is that we believe the medicine is worse than the disease.”
Winston Peters in the House during 2019 Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters, like Simon Bridges, was looking towards the difficult combination of an election and an economic shock.
"The global industrial system is in massive shock. The longer the pandemic prevails, the greater the probability that all sorts of unforeseen second-order disruption will kick in as the global economy unravels. The fragility and the vulnerability inherent in the highly interconnected and networked global economy have been revealed."
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson looked for structural changes in a rebuilt economy.
“...Soon the conversation is bound to turn to what we do about the debt we have accumulated. How should the burden of paying it back fall between generations, between different levels of income, and between different parts of the country?”
ACT party leader David Seymour was also looking for a structural adjustment in a rebuild, though his plan was quite different. He paraphrased Reagan’s line that the institution of government is the problem, not the solution.
“It would be a mistake to reward the institution of Government by expanding it when its failures are in part responsible for the scope and size of the crisis we now face.”
MPs create physical distance in the Covid-19 chamber Photo: PTV
It was an oddly sparse House for these speeches with few MPs. As many as three quarters of the members were following from home, with their absence enabling the second row of the three to be entirely empty. What MPs there were sat two or three seats along from each other.
It gave the chamber the look of a convention of introverts, or a self-help group for halitosis.
The House was not just sparse, it was also brief. But despite the shortened hours they still completed an hour of Covid debate, and a full Question Time.
There was one more critical order of business on the first day back, an initial foray into the Annual Review Debate. It’s Parliament’s final look over last year’s spending and performance by the government.
A review of last year might seem less critical at the current juncture but it has to happen regardless because until it’s dealt with the Government can’t start in on it’s new budget - which is due just three weeks away.
Like a watchful parent Parliament operates on the basis of ‘I’ll give you more pocket money when you demonstrate how you spent the last lot’.
