Hello mr. President, thank you for the question!
Like I expressed in my post in JL's platform, I think oversight is generally not done, even when the region really needs it. Senators will often express that they'd step up to do oversight when a ministry is not performing its core duties, but I don't believe they ever pay enough attention to the executive to notice.
JL's promised routine commitment to oversight may be unappealing to most. Simply reporting on ministerial duties to the senate is seen by many as redundant, or like you say, an unnecessary burden. I think what is more than an unnecessary burden, though, is when large periods of inactivity plague a ministry, but nothing is done about it. Equally critical is when several campaign promises are not followed, but there's no accountability or transparency about it. I believe the Senate has an imperative to address these kinds of issues, rather than remain ignorant to them. I expect JL's plan to expose any enduring inactivity issues, something that would've likely caught Lime's inactivity last term earlier for example, which I think is a step in the right direction. That is why I placed my vote with JL this cycle.
As for whether it might pose an unnecessary burden, certainly it can. It all depends on how JL does it. Any questions that would require more investment from a minister than short regular activity updates would, could easily become overkill. JL will have to make sure to keep his inquiries compact, concrete, and otherwise reasonable.