-
@paekakboyz said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan no supplementary questions after?
Not that I saw from the clip, just a lot of shitty one word answers from our supreme leader and ineffective questioning from Collins.
-
@kirwan I'm sure that @Godder could give more clarity but I think there are rules around how many questions the opposition can ask.
From what I can see sometimes the best they can do is get a Yes/No answer to get it on the Hansard record so they can repeat it back to the answerer at a later date. Andrew Little has already publicly said that he thinks there is enough stretch capacity for ICU so I can only imagine Collins specifically wanted the PM to say the words on the record in parliament.
-
My understanding and @Godder will probably tell me how I am wrong, is that supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Speaker in order to add clarity to a Ministers initial response. If that is correct then a simple Yes or No potentially limits the ability to ask another question as you have had a definitive answer that doesn't need clarification?
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
My understanding and @Godder will probably tell me how I am wrong, is that supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Speaker in order to add clarity to a Ministers initial response. If that is correct then a simple Yes or No potentially limits the ability to ask another question as you have had a definitive answer that doesn't need clarification?
That's true, although the Speaker (and previous Speakers) usually follows a formula to give each party questions and supplementary questions based on their size, with the government size only counting back bench MPs (i.e. not ministers or under-secretaries), so in practice it's not entirely at random or the whim of the Speaker. The Speaker also likes to add or remove supplementary questions as an incentive to behave.
Also agree that it's hard to expect more clarity for a yes/no question. What is probably being set up is the ability to ask a question at a later date if/when more information comes to light about the preparedness (or lack of) of the hospital system in the face of increasing cases. The questions tend to be worded along the lines of "Does the Minister/PM stand by their answer to (insert question here) on date X?" and then followed by awkward revelations in the form of questions, or just combine the awkward revelation with a difficult question referring back to this question at a later stage.
-
@godder said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
My understanding and @Godder will probably tell me how I am wrong, is that supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Speaker in order to add clarity to a Ministers initial response. If that is correct then a simple Yes or No potentially limits the ability to ask another question as you have had a definitive answer that doesn't need clarification?
That's true, although the Speaker (and previous Speakers) usually follows a formula to give each party questions and supplementary questions based on their size, with the government size only counting back bench MPs (i.e. not ministers or under-secretaries), so in practice it's not entirely at random or the whim of the Speaker. The Speaker also likes to add or remove supplementary questions as an incentive to behave.
Also agree that it's hard to expect more clarity for a yes/no question. What is probably being set up is the ability to ask a question at a later date if/when more information comes to light about the preparedness (or lack of) of the hospital system in the face of increasing cases. The questions tend to be worded along the lines of "Does the Minister/PM stand by their answer to (insert question here) on date X?" and then followed by awkward revelations in the form of questions, or just combine the awkward revelation with a difficult question referring back to this question at a later stage.
Correct. The supps are based on party size (outside the executive). For example, in the last Parliament, National had 37-38 supplementaries (depending on the day) to spread across their 7-8 (and very occasionally 9) primary questions.
The current Speaker brought in this adding/reducing supps approach as a form of discipline in the 52nd Parliament but it's very arbitrary and the problem was often all he'd do was wave a finger or two up to indicate he'd removed supps from the Opposition (or very occasionally added them), so it was rather challenging for the whips to keep count. So all of a sudden, you'd be down to Question 12 of 12 and the question asker would only end up with one or two supps (which - trust me - is pretty much a waste of time).
Re the primary question - the wider the original question, the more wriggle room the Minister has. There's an advantage of a primary question being quite vague (does he/she stand by their statement) but the easy out for the Minister if the questioner immediately goes tight on detail is "if the Member would like to put a more precise question on notice, I'd be happy to respond to them" or something along those lines. This is usually backed up by the Speaker (whatever the colour of their stripes)
The art of a good oral question is to give just enough insight what the topic is within that Minister's portfolio, but not too much for them to be fully briefed between 10.30am when the questions are lodged, and Question Time at 2pm. Any department worth their salt should have half a clue what the topic is anyway when the Minister's Office comes knocking, as a lot of Oral questions are a result of Written Questions or OIAs.
-
@godder wow, a new bureaucracy - colour me surprised.
Add this to uncessary ministries, such as;
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry for Pacific Peoples
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Women
Ministry of Māori Development
Ministry of Social Development
Ministry for ChildrenIs it possible that there is some overlap here? Surely people needs can be met without grouping them by ethnicity, disabilitise or sex?
If you disagree, looking at things like the sucide rate and workplace death rate for men, where is the Ministry for Men?
There's almost as many Asian people in NZ as Maori, where is the Ministry for Asian Peoples?
SMH.
-
@kirwan Ministry of Social Development is a bit out of place on that list - they aren't a policy shop although they do have policy advisors and various analysts, they have more operational staff than the rest of the ministry staff. Likewise Ministry of Children.
-
@godder said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan Ministry of Social Development is a bit out of place on that list - they aren't a policy shop although they do have policy advisors and various analysts, they have more operational staff than the rest of the ministry staff.
Listed them for potential overlap with the others.
Seems super inefficient to me, but I guess it’s easy to spend over peoples money (that’s a slur on all parties)
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@godder said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan Ministry of Social Development is a bit out of place on that list - they aren't a policy shop although they do have policy advisors and various analysts, they have more operational staff than the rest of the ministry staff.
Listed them for potential overlap with the others.
Seems super inefficient to me, but I guess it’s easy to spend over peoples money (that’s a slur on all parties)
Sorry, added Ministry of Children by edit after you quoted my post from the looks. Adding Ministry of Children/Oranga Tamariki back into MSD isn't going to help their woes, and MSD is huge already and probably doesn't need more stuff added to it (second biggest department after Corrections).
Some or all of the rest could no doubt be combined for the sake of combining them, but there's very little overlap in the functions or policy areas of most of them, and they exist to do research for and give policy advice to the government of the day.
There is a Ministry of Ethnic Communities which would be the closest to a Ministry for Asian Affairs.
-
@kirwan in my experience it happens in between management layers. Where you can hit a sweet spot with folks knowledgeable and empowered enough to wrangle the system and get things moving. But that only works up to a certain contract value before all manner of oversight and stuff kicks in, that is where the real drag kicks in. Not to mention the tension around where the money goes. I have no problems with due diligence around tax payer money but the procurement dance can be really tiresome.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@godder wow, a new bureaucracy - colour me surprised.
Add this to uncessary ministries, such as;
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry for Pacific Peoples
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Women
Ministry of Māori Development
Ministry of Social Development
Ministry for ChildrenIs it possible that there is some overlap here? Surely people needs can be met without grouping them by ethnicity, disabilitise or sex?
If you disagree, looking at things like the sucide rate and workplace death rate for men, where is the Ministry for Men?
There's almost as many Asian people in NZ as Maori, where is the Ministry for Asian Peoples?
SMH.
Clearly its racist not to have one
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@godder wow, a new bureaucracy - colour me surprised.
Add this to uncessary ministries, such as;
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry for Pacific Peoples
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Women
Ministry of Māori Development
Ministry of Social Development
Ministry for ChildrenIs it possible that there is some overlap here? Surely people needs can be met without grouping them by ethnicity, disabilitise or sex?
If you disagree, looking at things like the sucide rate and workplace death rate for men, where is the Ministry for Men?
There's almost as many Asian people in NZ as Maori, where is the Ministry for Asian Peoples?
SMH.
Clearly its racist not to have one
-
@donsteppa said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@godder wow, a new bureaucracy - colour me surprised.
Add this to uncessary ministries, such as;
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry for Pacific Peoples
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Women
Ministry of Māori Development
Ministry of Social Development
Ministry for ChildrenIs it possible that there is some overlap here? Surely people needs can be met without grouping them by ethnicity, disabilitise or sex?
If you disagree, looking at things like the sucide rate and workplace death rate for men, where is the Ministry for Men?
There's almost as many Asian people in NZ as Maori, where is the Ministry for Asian Peoples?
SMH.
Clearly its racist not to have one
Which one is for people with a European background?
-
@donsteppa said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@godder wow, a new bureaucracy - colour me surprised.
Add this to uncessary ministries, such as;
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry for Pacific Peoples
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Women
Ministry of Māori Development
Ministry of Social Development
Ministry for ChildrenIs it possible that there is some overlap here? Surely people needs can be met without grouping them by ethnicity, disabilitise or sex?
If you disagree, looking at things like the sucide rate and workplace death rate for men, where is the Ministry for Men?
There's almost as many Asian people in NZ as Maori, where is the Ministry for Asian Peoples?
SMH.
Clearly its racist not to have one
Don't we all have an ethnicity?
-
@paekakboyz said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan in my experience it happens in between management layers. Where you can hit a sweet spot with folks knowledgeable and empowered enough to wrangle the system and get things moving. But that only works up to a certain contract value before all manner of oversight and stuff kicks in, that is where the real drag kicks in. Not to mention the tension around where the money goes. I have no problems with due diligence around tax payer money but the procurement dance can be really tiresome.
Middle-senior management is where I've found it grinds to a halt. I worked at a Crown agency until recently. There'd been a change a few years back which put in some retrospective requirements for some NZers that was not based on evidence at all. Anyway, those that were affected kicked up a stink, a few subject matter experts came up with a number of solutions and put it in a paper for a senior manager to consider. It sat with that senior manager for WEEKS, even though the issue was getting a lot of negative media coverage. It was a pinch point in June and I note from recent media stories that a decision was only made at the start of this month.
Problem with those senior managers is that they're sitting in planning days, leadership meetings, wider leadership meetings, strategy meetings, meetings about meetings and God knows what else that fills up their weeks with 30 hours of meetings and bugger all time for much else. Incredibly inefficient.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@donsteppa said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@godder wow, a new bureaucracy - colour me surprised.
Add this to uncessary ministries, such as;
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry for Pacific Peoples
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Women
Ministry of Māori Development
Ministry of Social Development
Ministry for ChildrenIs it possible that there is some overlap here? Surely people needs can be met without grouping them by ethnicity, disabilitise or sex?
If you disagree, looking at things like the sucide rate and workplace death rate for men, where is the Ministry for Men?
There's almost as many Asian people in NZ as Maori, where is the Ministry for Asian Peoples?
SMH.
Clearly its racist not to have one
Which one is for people with a European background?
Treasury
-
@smudge said in NZ Politics:
Problem with those senior managers is that they're sitting in planning days, leadership meetings, wider leadership meetings, strategy meetings, meetings about meetings and God knows what else that fills up their weeks with 30 hours of meetings and bugger all time for much else. Incredibly inefficient.
Same the world over.
Kate Bingham, the Venture Capitalist who masterminded the UK's vaccine program, tells of calling an initial Zoom meeting with a handful of key civil servants only to find that over 100 people had invited themselves and joined the call....
NZ Politics