The House: Misleading Parliament - do MPs set a bad example?

Analysis: MPs are rightly angry that Parliament's authority may have been flouted by public servants. Is it possible that public servants model their behaviour on MPs?

We look at the current case, the history of public agencies and privilege, and some possible issues.

The background

On Wednesday, Parliament's speaker initiated an investigation by Parliament's Privileges Committee into the actions of senior Immigration officials. It is alleged that, during annual reviews earlier this year, the officials may have withheld information from a select committee about a failed IT project.

This investigation is separate to an inquiry initiated by the Public Service Commission (at the request of the minister of immigration) into whether officials kept successive ministers in the dark over the same project.

Earlier this week, MPs debating these allegations were unified in their concern that Parliament and government might be so disrespected.

Misleading MPs and ministers was connected with "the erosion of accountability", "the erosion of public trust in government", and "going to the heart" of "fragile democracy".

Privilege and the public service

Cases involving MPs are not unusual - the most recent was in 2024. A case involving a public servant, however, is both rare and serious.

The last time an accusation was made of withholding information was against NZ Post in 2001. On that occasion the committee found that NZ Post had not deliberately misinformed a select committee, but could have been more frank.

The Privileges Committee report on this case ruled that tension with a committee "is no excuse for being less than fully open and frank" (NZ Post, 2002). They have also reminded public servants that "Parliament has the ultimate, overriding oversight of the State sector" (TVNZ, 2006).

The committee has even previously expressed concern that "there is insufficient material and training provided to State enterprises and Crown agencies on their responsibilities to Parliament" (TVNZ, 2006).

Training has apparently improved since then. The Public Service now provides officials with detailed specific advice about their role in committees, including noting that the House "must get free and frank answers and evidence from those who appear before its committees", that officials are protected by privilege when they speak, and even acknowledges that "officials must operate within the framework of accountability to ministers who are in turn accountable to the House.

"As a result, there is sometimes a tension between the Parliamentary privilege of the House on the one hand, and the accountability of agency personnel in the public sector to ministers on the other."

In practice, ministry officials are typically forthcoming during both annual reviews and scrutiny hearings carried out by Parliament's select committees, so this current story does not appear to indicate a wider malaise.

Senior public servants apparently understand that while their immediate boss is the government of the day, Parliament is sovereign, and that MPs' questions arise from that authority, equally including questions from backbench or opposition MPs.

Role modelling disrespect

Contrary to that behavioural expectation, though, is the behaviour officials regularly observe from their political masters.

When ministry officials turn up to select committees, they often come with their ministers. Many ministers give informative, if careful, answers. A few are unusually open (Chris Bishop is perhaps the best current example).

Others are often less forthcoming than is expected of public servants. This can be because a minister isn't as familiar with the inner workings of a department as its own executive. But ministers also give what you might call "politically cautious responses", especially to questions from opposition MPs.

Some ministers get rude, even aggressive, in response to questions. The public servants sitting alongside them can appear caught in no-man's land.

Senior public servants also tend to keep a close eye on Parliament's question time. In the House, MPs exercise the same authority to question ministers as they employ to question officials in committee. Every MP (including a backbench or opposition MP) asks questions on behalf of Parliament, and with its authority.

Again, some ministers answer well, and others cautiously. But if public servants were seeking consistent role modelling of appropriate responses to questioning from MPs, question time is dangerous ground. Flippancy, counter-attacks, evasion, dodgy statistics, deflection, rhetorical questions, whataboutism, and equivocation are regular and longstanding tactics in question time.

Ministers do get chided on occasion, but appear to consider it a small price to pay for the chance to slap down a questioner, and avoid a genuine answer.

A public service official who, during a select committee hearing, employed tactics and responses borrowed from question time might have reason to be nervous about serious consequences.

For some reason, in the House, no one seems concerned about repercussions.

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.

This story was amended on 27 June to replace a passage criticising the Code of Ethics for ignoring Parliament's authority with one acknowledging that training has since improved, citing specific Public Service guidance on officials' obligations before select committees.