Advertisement
National Alliance (NA) Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion says he will no longer attend parliamentary meetings with the General Audit Chamber unless they are held in public, arguing that discussions about accountability and public spending should not take place behind closed doors.
Irion made the remarks Tuesday during a Central Committee meeting of Parliament, where the board of the Audit Chamber presented its 2024 annual report. The session was held publicly — an exception to the usual practice, he noted.
Addressing the chamber, Irion said the Audit Chamber had distinguished itself through innovation and outreach, particularly in its use of social media, new technology and a custom GPT-based digital tool. He praised the institution for being “one of the most innovative” high councils in the region, citing its online platforms, interactive content and efforts to engage the public.
At the same time, however, the MP cautioned against overreliance on artificial intelligence, noting that GPT systems can still produce inaccurate information. “You can train it on factual material, but it can still create incorrect answers if information is missing,” he said, urging careful use of such tools.
Concerns about “self-praise” in annual report
Irion’s main criticism focused on what he described as a lack of self-reflection in the Audit Chamber’s reporting. After reviewing the annual report with auditors and a former Dutch Audit Chamber member, he said he found the document placed too much emphasis on visibility, marketing achievements and outreach metrics.
According to Irion, the chamber’s strength lies in its moral authority rather than enforcement power, and excessive self-promotion risks weakening that authority. He compared the local report with the Dutch Audit Chamber’s publications, describing the latter as more analytical, restrained and externally focused.
“The question is not how many followers you gained or how much engagement you have,” he said. “The question is: what impact do your reports actually have on society and on government accountability?”
He pointed to past reports, including the investigation into Christmas vouchers, asking what tangible changes had followed. Without clear follow-up or monitoring mechanisms, he warned, public confidence could erode.
Irion also echoed calls for a monitoring system to track whether government implements recommendations made by the Audit Chamber. While acknowledging that the institution lacks enforcement powers, he said it could strengthen its role by maintaining continuous public pressure and documenting progress over time.
Demand for public meetings
A significant portion of Irion’s intervention focused on the format of parliamentary discussions with the Audit Chamber. He questioned why many of these meetings are held behind closed doors, saying he had been unable to find a legal basis for making secrecy the standard practice.
“In the Netherlands, closed meetings with the Audit Chamber are the exception, not the rule,” he stated. “If we are discussing accountability of public funds, the public should be aware of these discussions.”
Irion announced that, as of now, he is inclined not to attend any further closed-door sessions unless they involve matters of national security or similarly sensitive information. He said his position also led him to step away from the Committee of Country Expenditures.
Exchange with MP De Weever
Party for Progress (PFP) MP Ludmila de Weever responded by reminding Parliament that the Committee of Country Expenditures — which reviews Audit Chamber reports in detail — currently has six members. She expressed hope that more MPs would participate in the next term so the committee can thoroughly examine audit findings.
Irion later took the floor again, reiterating that he would return to the committee if meetings were made public. “If the chair succeeds in making it public, I will definitely be back,” he said.
Questions about impact and priorities
Beyond procedural concerns, Irion questioned how the Audit Chamber measures the effectiveness of its work. While acknowledging its strong communication strategy, he said reports often disappear from public attention quickly due to the constant flow of information.
“What we want to see is impact,” he said, suggesting that the chamber evaluate whether government performance improves over time following its investigations.
He also raised questions about the growing number of “mini-audits,” asking who determines their topics and how they fit into broader strategic goals. Referring to an air-quality mini-audit, he wondered how priorities are selected and whether smaller studies eventually lead to comprehensive investigations.
According to Irion, multiple institutions — including the Integrity Chamber and government bodies — have issued overlapping reports on certain issues without clear follow-up or measurable outcomes.
Call for stronger accountability
Despite his criticisms, Irion emphasized that the Audit Chamber has taken important steps to modernize its image and reach the public. He described the institution as an “outlier” among high councils for its efforts to make its work more accessible and less technical.
However, he urged the body to balance innovation with greater critical self-assessment. “We have to be able to hold government accountable so that in the end there is real impact on society,” he said.
