People are waxing lyrical about Speaker Lockwood Smith's new regime. Lockwood will make Ministers answer questions properly, they are saying.
Well I hope he plans to include written questions. Here's a smattering of answers from the Minister for Social Development. The spelling mistakes are not mine. Comments are interspersed.
8749 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (15 Dec 2008): Will she guarantee no frontline staff will lose their jobs as a result of her holding the Ministry of Social Development to their target of 5% overall reduction in staff numbers in the next 4 years?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: The question the Member asks relates to operational and employment matters, which are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.
Evasive. If Ministers have no input into operational matters why did we bother changing government?
8692 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (12 Dec 2008): How many staff are employed within the Ministry of Social Development, by section and occupation, at 12 December 2008?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I am advised that the number of staff employed by the Ministry of Social Development is regularly raised as part of the Annual Financial Review and Estimates Examinations of the Ministry of Social Development by the Social Services Committee, which are both available from the Parliamentary Library.
I do not have access to the Parliamentary library. These answers are supposed to serve the public as well as MPs. What is so secret, anyway, about the number of staff employed by MSD? This one is uncooperative and obstructive.
8668 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (12 Dec 2008): In light of the Government’s statements about an “underclass” in New Zealand, What is the Government’s definition of an underclass?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: The Government's overall priorities for this parliamentary term are set in the Speech from the Throne which is publically available via the beehive.govt.nz website. I am currently in the process of further developing and confirming my priorites for the Social Development and Employment portfolio. This is also my response to written parliamentary questions 8669 (2008).
Vague. Throwaway.
8590 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (11 Dec 2008): What, if any, additional funding will she be seeking for effective parenting programmes such as Family Start and Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents (SKIP)?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Information on funding being considered as part of future Budgets is Budget Sensitive. Any decisions will be announced at the appropriate time. This is also my response to written parliamentary querstion 8591 (2008).
Waffle.
Yes, yes. Just par for the course. Just what Labour would have done. No big deal.
Only I thought the National government was going to be a cut above.
Classic Comedy: #32 – Benidorm S05 E04
38 minutes ago
11 comments:
Watching this live, I thought Ms Bennett looked well out of her depth, struggled to answer the question at all and with confidence, I actually find the Labour MP's much better at Opposition and very on the ball in the House, especially the old hands.
Hopefully this is too early to judge new (and inexperienced)Ministers,Lindsay.
Certainly the second question of the three from King should have been answered with facts, in line with Lockwood Smith's ruling yesterday, and he may have that drawn to his attention.
The first question is unreasonable to expect a yes or no answer. No Minister can leg-rope themselves to a guarantee on day one of a three year Ministry, but a better constructed answer required.
The third question is a reasonable trap for a Minister set by an Opposition doing its job. A more carefully planned answer should have been presented.
Question four was answered reasonably predictably, but comes across as too much of a brush off.
Hopefully improvements will be made and meaningful answers given as this Government matures.
kurt
I also agree with anonymous that you're too harsh. Question 1 was answered correctly. In a small state as NZ, it's better if the minister isn't responsible for whom exactly is sacked or who gets a job.
Question 2 should have been answered, I agree on that.
Don't agree. If this stuff is all available from the Parliamentary Library then King should get of fher useless fat arse and go there and get the information rather than clog up question time with such piffling crap.
"Don't agree. If this stuff is all available from the Parliamentary Library then King should get of fher useless fat arse and go there and get the information rather than clog up question time with such piffling crap."
These are written questions. My post makes that clear. Only one was answered with, "available from the Parliamentary library", to which I addressed the point that the public does not have access to the library but should have access to an answer.
Kurt, You seem to know a bit about this stuff. Is the Speaker in charge of answers to written questions as well as oral?
Only I thought the National government was going to be a cut above.
Why? It's not like they haven't been in govt before. They're very much a known quantity, and this performance matches that known quantity.
Paula Bennett is not living up to expections IMO. It's a shame as I love these solo mother made good stories...
Will she guarantee no frontline staff will lose their jobs as a result of her holding the Ministry of Social Development to their target of 5% overall reduction in staff numbers in the next 4 years?
Alternative answer- No, I cannot give that guarantee and I consider it foolish to request such a guarantee. The matter of whether reductions are made in front line or rear line staff is an operational matter, and not for the Minister to provide guarantees on to the opposition. (basically what Bennet said)
How many staff are employed within the Ministry of Social Development, by section and occupation, at 12 December 2008?
That information is available in the library. I am not going to tie up government staff and resources answering questions here when the information can so easily be sourced by your own staff. (more or less what Bennet said)
How many staff are employed within the Ministry of Social Development, by section and occupation, at 12 December 2008?
I don't know. Look it up yourself, I'm not here to run in circles looking up employment numbers on specific dates for fat ignorant commies like you. (its not about being secretive for fuck's sake)
In light of the Government’s statements about an “underclass” in New Zealand, What is the Government’s definition of an underclass?
There is no specific "government" definition of underclass.
What, if any, additional funding will she be seeking for effective parenting programmes such as Family Start and Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents (SKIP)?
Maybe, maybe not. I can't answer that right now as no decisions have been made. (more or less what Bennet said)
King's questions were pointless and ineffective, and it is unrealistic to expect much more than what she got. I think your criticisms are nit picking and piffling.
There's plenty one could criticise National on, but this issue seems like an over eager beat up to me.
A babe in the woods so far, but give her time, Bennett has been dropped in the deep end.
It looks like Kings office needs practice in writing better questions. Unfortunately for her office, I wont be writing any this year.
I agree Lindsay, why talk staff numbers when it should be budget.
You can employu twice the staff if you pay every one half.
I think they are still working on the numbers and Paula should of said so.
Post a Comment