Invercargill National MP Penny Simmonds, your Minister for the Environment and Vocational Education, had her two hours in the spotlight on Tuesday evening, although how illuminated anyone felt by the burning glare of the Opposition on Simmonds is a moot point.
Things started to go downhill when Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking, her party’s environment spokeswoman, asked whether pending waste minimisation amendment legislation would involve anything relating to the circular economy.
"Is it ‘ideological" to ask for an improvement in the environment? Is it ideological to want a circular economy? What is her analysis of the environmental benefits or the environmental outcomes that come from the spending of the waste levy?"
Perhaps still thinking the question was ideological — which it clearly was — Simmonds opted to ignore it ... but only for so long, because 10 minutes later Ms Brooking reminded the minister that she had not responded.
For those not au fait with the concept, the circular economy is the philosophy that products and materials are reused and recycled as much as possible, over and over again ... hence, circular.
This time Simmonds took the bait.
"The term ‘circular economy’ is one that the previous government enjoyed using," she said disdainfully.
"It is not a term that I have picked up on."
Simmonds then moved on to the Environmental Protection Authority but, as if to encapsulate the concept, the circular economy was not done with yet.
"Could the minister, please, explain what she understands by a circular economy and tell us why she doesn’t like to use that term," Labour’s Deborah Russell asked, with enthusiastic endorsement from Brooking.
Both women were to remain disappointed, as Simmonds refused all further blandishments to expand on the question,
Finally with a minute to go, Brooking tried one last time: "Does the Minister for the Environment have a definition of ‘circular economy’ — the phrase she doesn’t want to use?"
"The member can keep using the term as much as she wants to," Simmonds replied.
"It is not an intention that I have of using it."
That was not that for Simmonds though, who was recycled back 60 seconds later, this time wearing her vocational education hat. This portfolio is more circular saws than circular economies, and that question, at least, could rest until another day.
For the following hour Te Pukenga and its imminent dismantling by Simmonds was the main question of the day, specifically oft-repeated questions about how many jobs may be lost as a consequence. In that context, Otago Polytechnic — which it turned out was the very first institution Simmonds visited to discuss her reforms — played a starring role.
Greens Dunedin list MP Francisco Hernandez was pleased that the minister had engaged with Otago, but that was probably the extent of his happiness.
"You’ve assured Otago Polytechnic people that if they continue their pathway to viability, which they look like they’re on track to do, they will be allowed to accept the anchor federation, but what is the legislative mechanism for doing so?" he asked.
"I was able to discuss with them the mechanism for if they achieve the changes that they are wanting to," Simmonds replied.
"Being able to not be part of the federation is embedded in the legislation, so I was able to draw their attention to that part of the legislation that shows them very clearly a pathway to not being part of a federation if they don’t wish to be."
Meanwhile, Labour’s sector spokesman Shanan Halbert led the charge on the core question around how many job cuts that Simmonds was expecting. In a performance eerily reminiscent of the previous hour, this was another question that the minister was not going to enthusiastically answer.
"I didn’t refer to the job cuts," she said.
"I’ve had no update information across the whole sector in terms of the final number of job cuts because some institutions are still working through that."
There were many more questions to come from Halbert, although not as many actual answers from Simmonds.
Deputy Speaker Barbara Kuriger was to give this exchange a five star review in the House the next day saying, after a decidedly lack lustre hour with the Education Minister — that this was an example of what Appropriations sessions should be like. Simmonds might not be quite as enthusiastic though.
Rules based system
Freshly arrived Dunedin Labour list MP Damien O’Connor had the House in stitches on Tuesday after one-upping Act New Zealand leader David Seymour.
O’Connor had interjected "Money for your mates" while Health Minister Simeon Brown was answering a question, prompting Seymour to take a point of order: "That member happens to be a real stickler for the rules; I wonder if he’d like to withdraw it?"
O’Connor then took his own point of order: "Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said that, but I’m not a stickler for the rules, so I’m not quite sure who the member was referring to."
As the House roared with laugher Mr Speaker replied "Yep, well, only a West Coaster could come up with that, so you get a bit of leeway," before moving on.
The great flood
Late on Thursday Hernandez was in full flight on the Appropriations Bill Third Reading when exuberance got the better of him. As his glass went flying and water cascaded over his neighbours, Hernandez uttered a very unparliamentary expression before getting back on with the heady business of slamming the government.
