The House: Early Question Time sparring may indicate themes

Parliament began a new three-week long sitting block on Tuesday - the penultimate sitting block of the year.

The beginning of a new sitting block is a little bit like the opening minutes of a boxing match, when the combatants size each other up and try out a few combinations in both attack and defence.

Those first few jabs can be strongly indicative of the rest of the bout, illustrating the themes and tactics likely to dominate. At Parliament, this is most true of Question Time.

In Tuesday's Question Time, two government portfolios were the target of most of the sparring.

Casey Costello and tobacco policy

Labour targeted New Zealand First MP Casey Costello, Associate Minister of Health on three fronts; information missing from OIA responses, the sources of some questionable advice on tobacco, as well as her handling of tobacco regulations.

They also targeted the Prime Minister on the same issues by proxy, because the PM is responsible for all the ministers. He deflected all questions to her.

One outcome of the interchange was the blunting of a recent government counter-attack, in which questions about possible ministerial conflicts of interest were deflected by means of attacks on a member of an Opposition MP's wider family.

The Leader of the Opposition was unimpressed at the tactic.

"Repeatedly, the Government have named a public servant who happens to be related to a member of the Opposition in the House - a public servant who cannot speak back, a public servant who is part of a politically neutral Public Service, a public servant who declared their conflict of interest and has done absolutely nothing wrong."

After prompting from the Speaker, the Prime Minister withdrew the claim and apologised.

Costello also tried a fresh defence when she was questioned.

"I acknowledge there has been widespread reporting and discussion in the House about the release of documents and handling of official information requests in my office. I don't deny there were challenges during a transitional period, very early after receiving my ministerial warrant. Once my office was fully staffed, operational issues regarding management of information was remedied. I am far from the first Minister not to meet some of the obligations imposed by the Official Information Act, and I'm sure I won't be the last."

It was a scattergun combo of three classic excuses: it was just teething troubles; it wasn't me, it was the staff; and, but everyone does it.

Karen Chhour and youth justice

ACT MP Karen Chhour also had a workout on Tuesday, with questions from three different opposition MPs, mostly about the permitted use of violence in military academies, and about these being run for profit.

Green MP Tamatha Paul questioned the development of the government's Boot Camp policy.

"Does she understand how disingenuous it looks to label something as a pilot and then seek Cabinet agreement to cement it in legislation before it's even finished and before it's even been evaluated?"

Chhour responded with "Look, I'm proud of what we've achieved this year. I'm proud of the fact we've managed to step up a pilot, have 10 young people have a chance to turn their lives around, and invest in making sure they have every opportunity to be the best that they can be. I'm proud of that and I'm looking forward to seeing many more children have that opportunity."

Government appointments

There was also a first foray into a more unusual subject area, from Labour's Duncan Webb to the Minister of Justice - Government appointments. Specifically, the appropriateness of the choice of the incoming Human Rights Commissioner, Stephen Rainbow, who has come under criticism.

"Why did he appoint Dr Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner given he is not suitably qualified, is not politically neutral, and was, in fact, assessed by an appointment panel of a retired Supreme Court judge, a former Attorney-General, a King's Counsel, and an Iwi Chairs Forum representative as not meeting appointment criteria to be a viable appointment?"

Paul Goldsmith (Minister of Justice) responded: "To the first part of the question, it is not I who appointed anybody. Cabinet made the decision and the Government made the appointment.

"The Government made the appointment because he is a very well-qualified person who would do a great job, and it's very important in this country that we have a strong advocate for universal human rights, and he'll do a good job in that area."