Thread by @drdeanknight

@SpeakerTrevor Thanks. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A few top-of-mind/random thoughts, on what seem to be proposals in tandem.

@SpeakerTrevor My instinct is to think about efficacy and design in functional terms, ie do/will these institutions deliver the type and style of accountability etc expected, regardless of name and form?

@SpeakerTrevor In order to answer that, we need to identify the style of scrutiny/accountability needed in the particular context.

@SpeakerTrevor (As an aside, my students know I’m a fan of big fan of Bovens on accountability — who frames accountability as a social relation (or, I as prefer, an exercise in dialogue).)

ihs.ac.at/publications/l…

@SpeakerTrevor Broadly, there are probably two different types of political accountability in play: forensic scrutiny and performative interrogation/debate — reflecting traditional roles of select committees and the House. That’s more a continuum than a distinctive typology.

@SpeakerTrevor And some of that reflects the profile of the forum and the way consequences bite.

@SpeakerTrevor Performative interrogation has a higher profile and is more likely to affect political stakes of exec etc. Forensic scrutiny might too, but also has a greater role in delivering “learning” accountability — ie incremental improvement in delivery. But the two feed off each other.

@SpeakerTrevor So what does that mean? We probably need to foster both. Hence, working to retain the House — as a crucible for political contest and performative interrogation — makes sense.

@SpeakerTrevor Will the pivot to virtual diminish that?
Unlikely so, at least no more than marginally, especially if we look to the practice such as in Westminster.

@SpeakerTrevor Then what form should forensic scrutiny take? Committee-style, obviously, because intimate proceedings allows the deep diving needed.

@SpeakerTrevor But what form? Panoptic pandemic committee or disaggregated standing committees.
On this, I’m agnostic — functionally I don’t think it really matters.

@SpeakerTrevor Sure, an Epidemic Response committee was quite effective at this during L4 in March/April 2020. But that was a different time, with so many unknowns in play; we now have 18 months of response, knowledge, understanding and established systems in place.

@SpeakerTrevor And, then, the Epi committee also fulfilled both the role of “Parliament-in-miniature” — and the performative interrogation/debate function — because the House wasn’t operating.
If the House is sitting in some form, then there’s less imperative for a committee such as this.

@SpeakerTrevor As an aside, I wonder if the case for a standing panoptic pandemic committee is *stronger* during lower levels when the business-as-usual attitude risk complacency.

@SpeakerTrevor That is, the forensic scrutiny of pandemic response risks being diminished if left to other committees when competing with ordinary business and regular politics. Less risk of that when conditions elevate to L3 and L4 when all eyes are on the virus and response etc.

@SpeakerTrevor Assuming, though, an Epi committee, what form best supports forensic scrutiny? There’s no magic mix — it’s a bit like Goldilocks and the temperature of the porridge.

@SpeakerTrevor The goal is scrutiny of executive and form follows function. Hence, the committee membership, deliberations and stewardship should reflect that.

@SpeakerTrevor The key innovations proposed here is an opposition majority and chair, based on prior experience with Epi committee.
Again, I’m more agnostic than some on these features, if the practice still delivers the necessary forensic scrutiny in reality.

@SpeakerTrevor Eg, my analysis of committees last week demonstrated (in quantitative terms) that select committees could deliver forensic scrutiny even with govt chairs and majorities.

https://twitter.com/drdeanknight/status/1431031926840696835

@SpeakerTrevor But Oppn majority/chair may create stronger conditions for this and less risk of defensive hijinks. Oppn majority will also affect the way the agenda — of topics and witnesses — will be set. But, again, last week showed that can generally be done effectively on multi-party basis.

@SpeakerTrevor FWIW, the proposed party numbers on the Epi are curious (eg Nat has 4x MPs than ACT but is only 3ish times larger party). But there are a number of ways to design the balance.

@SpeakerTrevor In theory, I’ve always wondered if the proportions on select committees — when undertaking scrutiny function — should generally reflect proportion of non-ministerial MPs.

@SpeakerTrevor Eg,
- Lab (65-24=41): 44%
- Green (10-2=8): 9%
- Nat (33): 35%
- Act (10): 11%
- Māori (2): 2%
- TOTAL: 94

@SpeakerTrevor I don’t quibble with small parties having spots even though, strictly, more than proportion — equity and voice etc mean they need to round up to a whole MP.

@SpeakerTrevor Unusually, this term, that might not deliver an Oppn majority. Whether pragmatically Oppn number get boosted or whether Oppn chair might be adequate is a debate point.

@SpeakerTrevor Again, function and practice probably matter more than form. If culture/conscience see bulk of scrutiny being done by Oppn MPs, that’s less important than composition. In other words, backbench govt MPs need to behave properly to facilitate scrutiny.

@SpeakerTrevor For discussion of accountability in earlier phase of pandemic, see this forthcoming chapter.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@SpeakerTrevor @threadreaderapp unroll