Cherry picking is also an important matter for parliamentarians, although not in the plucking-delectable-fruit-from-a-tree sense of the word. Rather, it is the art of selecting just the right statistic from the myriad available to back up one’s argument.
The whole spectrum of cherry picking was explored in Parliament on Tuesday as southern MPs got to strut their stuff during the second reading of the Public Finance Amendment Bill.
In the name of Finance Minister Nicola Willis, the Bill is either an exercise in restoring discipline to public spending and putting the government’s books back in order, or an erosion of the trust that fundamentally underpins not only our democracy but our society as a whole, depending on which side of the House one sat.
Either or, it certainly sparked a lively debate. Willis set the tone in the opening speech, in which she briefly explained that the Bill introduced more specific disclosure requirements for the statement of specific fiscal risks and repealed requirements for consideration of wellbeing requirements, while spending most of her time bashing the Opposition.
"It is clear that we are making sure this Act can work well into the future," she said.
"But man, oh man, New Zealanders need to know that the Green Party — the Labour Party’s best friend — disagree with the very thrust of this Act. Let’s not take our prudent fiscal management framework for granted. Thank goodness a sensible National Party is leading the charge."
Not everyone thanks goodness for that, of course, including Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez. Although you could have been forgiven for thinking otherwise.
"Before I begin my speech proper, I just wanted to thank the Finance Minister, Nicola Willis, for the free advertisement for the Green Party fiscal strategy," he said not at all sincerely.
"You can go to it by googling ‘Green Party fiscal strategy’ and it outlines, actually, that we do have a comprehensive vision for managing public debt in an actually financially responsible way, as opposed to — well, we’ve seen what this government counts as financial responsibility."
Hernandez went on to decry the government’s self-proclaimed skills as hard-nosed economic managers.
"They’re doing something that every person who doesn’t have a growth mindset does: instead of actually tackling the challenge and challenging themselves to chew and walk gum — sorry, I can’t remember the analogy now — but to do several things at the same time, they’re instead changing the metrics because they’re afraid of failing these wellbeing targets."
"They’re cherry-picking," Hernandez’s Green colleague, Lawrence Xu-Nan, helpfully chimed in.
"Indeed, they’re cherry-picking," Hernandez enthused.
"Has our human capability been enhanced by the wastage of high unemployment, youth and otherwise, that this government has sacrificed our young people to? I would suggest no, and this government realises too, which is why they’re cooking the books — so that they don’t have to be accountable."
Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson, the next speaker, was not going to have a bar of that.
"Actually, that last comment from the last speaker was totally offensive. There is no ‘cooking’ of the books," he exclaimed.
"We are continuing to deliver enhanced transparency and accountability ... New Zealand has one of the strongest public accountability regimes in the world and this Bill only seeks to enhance that."
Stephenson went on to say that he was not going to be lectured by members across the other side who had racked up over $60 billion in additional spending — actually, neither he nor Hernandez were in the House at the time but never mind that.
"The measures in here will ensure greater transparency around forecasts, budgeting, etc," he extolled.
"Greater cherry-picking," Xu-Nan trilled, having got the metaphorical stone between his teeth now.
"No, it’s not cherry-picking, not at all," Stephenson denied.
"In fact, it’s very black and white, very straightforward ... We measure it and we deliver it. That’s the way you actually get things done, not wellbeing economics."
Labour Dunedin MP Rachel Brooking rounded out the debate, sadly without a cherry or a stove in sight.
Rather, she wished to lament the imminent demise of a central premise of the previous Labour government — the Wellbeing Budget concept.
"A great Dunedin graduate and person who’s back there now had, in 2019, the first Wellbeing Budget. I can tell you that when I was electioneering in 2020 I was able to talk about this a lot and with my colleague Ingrid Leary — and we had even retired finance spokesperson Michael Cullen helping us with our campaign," she reminisced.
"These objectives, we had a just transition, increasing physical and mental health, shaping the future of work, lifting wellbeing outcomes for Māori and Pacific people and improving child wellbeing. These were the outcomes that Budget decisions were making and those were the choices when this side of the House was in government, and I hope for all of New Zealand we are back there very soon."
Good day, bad day
Tuesday wasn’t an entirely great day for Hernandez, who copped a gentle scolding from Assistant Speaker Greg O’Connor for having the draft of his speech on an open laptop while speaking to the House.
"Mr Hernandez, you’re a very good orator," O’Connor said. "It’s a shame you had to read so much of that. It’d be good to practise your oratory skills."
It is a convention of the House, very much not observed, that MPs do not directly read their speeches from notes.
Things picked up on Wednesday when Hernandez was appointed to the finance and expenditure committee. He replaced party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick: both Green leaders are stepping down from committee work to concentrate on electioneering.
