Why select committees should be selective

There’s no constitutional right to harangue a captive audience

Select committees are a kind of subcommittee of the House of Representatives. They exist to assist Parliament in scrutinising legislation referred to them, investigating public issues within their remit and providing some oversight of the public sector. ¹

Public input to select committee proceedings is only useful to the extent it assists Members of Parliament to do that work. The submission process does not exist as a mechanism for general advocacy or activism by members of the public. It is a tool for legislators, not activists.

When a bill is sent to a select committee, the MPs on the committee evaluate its content to ensure it is fit for purpose. This involves:

• Inviting submissions to gather evidence and insights.

• Clarifying points of contention or complexity.

• Suggesting amendments to improve the bill.

The key point? The select committee process is about helping Parliament do its job better, not about creating a platform for everyone to restate their personal views or vent their frustrations.

How the gathering of evidence has evolved over the years

Years ago, select committees primarily relied on oral evidence when considering evidence on matters before them. Members of the public or experts would appear in person to present their views or provide information about the business before the committee. This approach was practical when the volume of legislation and public interest was manageable.

Over time, the advantages of allowing written submissions to be provided in advance became clear. This allowed committee members to familiarise themselves with the evidence before it was given which, like doing the reading before a lecture, would improve comprehension and assist in the delivery of evidence.

Today, the submission process usually starts with written submissions, with oral evidence playing a secondary role. Committees will generally receive all written evidence (provided it is non-abusive and at least minimally on point).²

Once it is received, the committee may allow all or only some submitters to then present their evidence orally. During oral submissions, members of the committee actively engage with submitters by asking questions to clarify points, explore the evidence provided and so on. Remember, it’s not meant to be a platform for a speech.

When a large number of people wish to present their evidence orally, it is likely that there will not be enough time to hear them all while keeping the legislative agenda moving. In that case, only some submitters will be permitted to appear before the committee. This is naturally disappointing for those whose request is denied, who may also feel a sense of outrage or exclusion.

Written submissions can be more easily accommodated than oral presentations

Written submissions are the foundation of the process. They allow people to present their views in detail, supported by evidence or reasoning. Committees can review these to identify key themes and insights that warrant further attention. Written submissions are the foundation of the process. They allow people to present their views in detail, supported by evidence or reasoning. Committees can review these to identify key themes and insights that warrant further attention.

Unlike written submissions, oral submissions require allocated time and resources, making an open slather approach undesirable as it could overwhelm the committee's schedule and hinder their ability to focus on the most valuable contributions or complete its work.

It is important to clarify that it not elitist to assert that some contributions are more valuable than others. Submissions are meant to be evidence rather than as a platform for subjective political views. The select committee process is fundamentally about gathering the most pertinent evidence and insights that can aid in scrutinising and refining legislation. This requires prioritising submissions that offer unique perspectives, technical expertise or substantive analysis over those that merely reiterate personal beliefs or generic viewpoints.

The committee seeks the further insight it considers it needs

When there are tens of thousands of written submissions, committees can’t possibly hear from everyone orally. So, who gets to give oral evidence?

The committee decides. This will be easier in some cases than others. In the case of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, for example, more than 4,000 written submissions were received and the select committee appointed its own subcommittee to determine the matter.³

But the fact remains that it is up to the committee to determine who it wants to hear further from for whatever reasons it thinks fit. Generally, however, an oral submission is more like to be heard based on the following types of consideration:

• Does the submission address the specific issues in the bill? Submissions that are irrelevant, off-topic or generic are unlikely to result in an invitation.

• Does the submission provide new information, a unique perspective, or technical expertise? Committees look for evidence that helps clarify complex issues or highlights unintended consequences.

• Individuals or groups with expertise (e.g., academics, industry professionals or iwi representatives) are more likely to be invited. This also applies to major stakeholders directly affected by the bill.

What the Process Is Not For

Here’s what the select committee process is not designed to do:

• There is no inherent right to personally address MPs in the select committee proceeding. The committee’s purpose is to gather evidence as it considers useful, not to hear every individual personal opinion.

• Submissions that regurgitate talking points without adding anything new are unlikely to warrant further attention. MPs don’t need to hear the same argument a thousand times.

• Select committees are not captive audiences for venting frustrations or grandstanding in a formal setting.

The select committee process is designed to improve legislation, not to accommodate every individual’s desire for a public platform. MPs are tasked with making decisions on behalf of the public, using the best evidence and arguments available. To do this effectively, they must:

• Focus on submissions that add value.

• Avoid being bogged down by repetitive or irrelevant contributions.

• Work within the time and resources available.

What if you don’t have anything unique to say but want to signal your disapproval?

In recent years, technology has facilitated the rise of pro forma submissions, where individuals align with a common stance without necessarily providing substantive new evidence or insights. These submissions, in effect, act as pseudo-petitions. While they may lack individual depth, a petition, when properly organised, can serve as a powerful expression of collective public sentiment.

A well-organised petition can effectively demonstrate the strength of a position and the degree of public engagement on an issue. Instead of submitting numerous identical form submissions, advocates might consider focusing on creating a petition and presenting it to Parliament for referral to the relevant select committee as a consolidated representation of support.⁴

This approach avoids overwhelming the system with generic views or, worse, the low-effort AI-generated content that promises to create new and disheartening ways to clog the process.

What if you think you have something important to say but the committee doesn’t call you?

If the committee doesn’t call you to present your submission orally, the good news is that it’s not the end of the world.

There are plenty of other ways to make raise your voice:

• Publish your submission online through social media.

• Submit a letter to the editor or opinion article to a publication.

• Write directly to your local Member of Parliament (or other MPs) explaining your position and why it matters.

• Advocate for your perspective through protest or media campaigns.

• Use your submission as a starting point for discussion in social or family settings.⁵

Just remember that, while you undeniably have the right to express your views and make your statement, you do not have the inherent right to be listened to by everyone. Living in a democratic society means accepting that not every voice will be heard equally or acted upon. Harsh as it sounds, nobody actually has to care what you think.

If you’re frustrated that the committee didn’t call you to speak, consider this: are your views genuinely adding something new or useful to the discussion? If not, there are other ways to make your views known.

For now at least, it’s a free country.

1. The overall makeup of select committees is supposed to reflect the overall proportionality of Parliament in terms of party representation. Sorting out which party gets what slot on which committee is determined by another committee known as the Business Committee, through which all parties are represented. Party entitlement having been determined, each party then gets to choose who fills the spots allocated to them. Cabinet ministers are usually not appointed to select committees but they can be called upon to give evidence.

2. Anyone can make a submission on matters being considered by a select committee, regardless of their citizenship or residency status. This openness allows for input from international experts, stakeholders and other interested parties who may have relevant insights or expertise on the issue being examined. Remember, submissions are for the benefit of the select committee.

3. A select committee is not limited to hearing those people who have sought to be heard and may seek an appearance from somebody or on behalf of an organisation that could be expected to provide some useful insight. It could even ask for input from another select committee.

4. Petitions must be presented to the House by a member of Parliament on behalf of the petitioners. Once presented, they are referred to the appropriate select committee for consideration. Most MPs will be good about this.

5. This works best if also you want your family and friends to hate you.