With normal democratic procedures in abeyance, there were two ways to go. 

First, it was open for the government to dissolve itself and invite the National Party to join a ministry of national salvation. That would have lessened the democratic deficit of the times by having a team of rivals without either bloc enjoying power unchecked by the other. That did not happen, though the leader of the opposition signalled some openness to it.

Dissent in the midst of emergency

In the absence of a unity government, National has little choice but continue to function as an opposition. Perhaps unsurprisingly, however, some of the government’s boosters are aghast at the notion of criticism during an emergency. The usual parlance is to call this “undermining” official efforts to combat the virus. 

That has, of course, been the time-honoured response of those in power and their fellow travellers since forever.

Remember Britney Spears during the early stages of the War in Iraq? “Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes,” the pop-star opined on CNN “and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.”

 It has become clear that New Zealand’s chattering classes feel much the same way about Jacinda Ardern now.

The stakes are high

But the government is making decisions and initiating measures that are altering the fabric of the New Zealand economy. “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money,” as the saying goes. And beside the astonishing spending, the effect of halting most economic activity for at least a month will inflict damage that will outlast the government itself. 

This is all necessary, of course, in the pursuit of saving the lives of tens of thousands of vulnerable New Zealanders. However, the government must constantly be called upon to justify what it is doing and why. And to be effective, that scrutiny has to be vigorous.

Making the most of a bad situation

The government gets its mandate from Parliament and is answerable to it. Since Parliament is not sitting, however, an alternative is required. It seems the best that could be managed was an all-party select committee that meets by video link. 

This is not a real substitute for Parliament. The committee does not enjoy legislative supremacy and has no way of cutting the government off from political power. It is, necessarily, an imperfect solution.

But it is something, at least. 

The minority-majority 

One important concession that National did win for the committee was an opposition majority. That gives Simon Bridges a degree of agenda setting ability to ensure the thrust of the committee’s work is appropriately critical. That’s good for a scrutiny oriented body.

This seems to have annoyed Labour MPs, however. Ministers seem to be filibustering at the start of the session to diminish the prospects for scrutint. Yesterday, it looked like an extra government MP was somehow let into the conference for no Earthly reason.

And afterwards, there was complaining about the state of affairs to  some of our more venerable political commentators. 

In response, the Herald’s Fran O’Sullivan sniffed about Simon Bridges needing to be “bipartisan” by allowing more speaking time to Labour members of the committee.

We don’t need more pro-government voices

These lamentations are a bit silly. Why expend our limited capacity for checking the government on patsy questions? The government doesn’t need help to get its message out. It is bombarding us with its messaging day and night using the formidable resources of the state. As it must.

Perhaps it would be different if we still had a tradition of independent minded MPs willing to buck their own party for the sake of principle. That is not how our MPs do business, however. In a smaller Parliament, the prospects of advancement always seem within grasp and so no member sees much advantage in troubling their own ministers. 

Normalcy will return soon enough

When the emergency is over then politics as usual will resume. We will once more bear witness to government backbenchers asking their superiors about the exciting initiatives they are spearheading and asking why the prime minister is so popular. Some flabbiness in the business of holding the executive to account will be tolerable again, even if it is not terribly dignified.

Until then, however, the process must be lean and mean. It has to be focussed. And that means it has to be opposition dominated.