Commitee Hearing: Inquiry into aspects of Agriculture in NSW- Monday September 24th

The following is my observations on the Committee hearing on state development- inquiring into aspects of Agriculture in NSW.
The hearing begun with an introduction from the chair outlining what the committee was examining. The Chair- The Hon. A. Catanzariti, takes the opportunity to outline the behaviour/courtesy expected of the witnesses. For eg. “Protection afforded to Committee witnesses under parliamentary privilege should not be abused during the hearing” and “witnesses avoid the mention of other individuals unless it is absolutely essential.” From the outset I believed the hearing to be more formal and controlled than question time- and possible less entertaining as a result! Terms repeated throughout such as witness, and evidence- likened the experience to a courtroom and as a result I expected everything that was to follow to be true.
Mr Richard Pearson- The Executive Director for Rural and Regional Planning, from the NSW Department of Planning, was than given the chance to make an opening statement in which he is able to outline what he will run through- he is obviously prepared to do so and takes the opportunity to confidently express own agenda whilst thanking the committee for allowing him to highlight the governments’ initiative. His response is polite, succinct and structured.
The overall format of the hearing was a lot more structured than question time- in particular questions without notice. There were significantly less personal attacks and the chair didn’t have to intervene nearly as much. There was less arguing amongst ministers, which made the discussion a little easier to follow and understand. References to the Central West throughout the discussion caught my attention and made me focus on what was happening, so I was able to take something from the hearing.
When the floor was opened for others to clarify or question what Pearson explained the mood of the discussion was altered. The Hon. Melinda Pavey spoke in a condescending manner towards Pearson. After he responds to one of her questions, she replies: “ A busy month, that month.” She continues to question Pearson, repeating what he has stated and questioning if it is correct. During Pearson’s response, Pavey interrupts several times, cutting him off mid-sentence. Possibly due to limited time, but her display has an accusing and aggressive tone which continues throughout the hearing.
As I expected the hearing was not without a degree of squabbling amongst those involved. The following extract from the transcript is an example of the Hon continuously ‘heckling’ Mr. Pearson.
Pearson: “We have five offices. The North Coast is in Grafton. We have-
Pavey: “Queanbeyan, do you?”
Pearson: “We do have an office in Queanbeyan, yes.
Pavey: “sorry.”
Pearson: “That is alright, you can answer for me. You are going well. We have an office in Newcastle and an office in Wollongong.”
Pavey: “That is not regional.”
Pearson: “Well, it is not Sydney.”

The power struggle between the two distract from the actual content of the discussion. Her questioning tone is aggressive and at times Pearson’s responses seemed somewhat sarcastic- if the question was not avoided all together. On several occasions when unsure of answers Mr. Pearson responded to questions by politely redirecting them to the DPI- or offering to try and find out himself.
Apart from their squabbling I also found myself lost due to the terms used when explaining processes and agricultural jargon. Because the content of the hearing wasn’t something I had a personal interest in I found it difficult to follow- yet believed it achieved or resolved much more than question time did!