Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I've been listening to Question Time as podcasts fairly regularly for the last couple of months.

Question Time happens twice a week, and 12 questions are submitted ahead of time. Members of Parliament (typically the opposition) ask questions of the government, and is a way for the government to be held to account on their activity. It is ostensibly performed with dignity and ceremony but it's often a hot mess of shit-talking, interjections and the speaker of the house playing Schoolteacher to bratty politicians. This does however make listening to it a bit more interesting, and helps laypeople gauge how controversial a statement is. I really appreciate that our MP's aren't above calling bullshit.

Question Time is basically my only perspective on NZ politics, politicians. I understand that this is a caveat, but fuck all of you all. This thread is for Question Time time.

Show Contentsome opinions from question time:
[Image: JazGXPG.png]
Question Time 05/07/17 Question One

ANDREW LITTLE Wrote:to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for social housing, given the Hutt housing development announced yesterday would include as few as 60 affordable homes of the 330 to be built?

Give it a listen and give me thoughts

Not sure the difference between the designations of "affordable" and "social" houses, (I really ought to if I want to make any serious comments buuut....) Bill English in his initial answer does a thing typical of National answers, and imply all issues are the result of bad Labour governance! They've been in power for three terms though! Shouldn't they be embarrassed to make that sort of claim so often?

In supplementary answers Bill conflates "affordable" with "whatever the current market price is", which seems... to defeat the concept of affordability? He also reminds Labour that they wrote a list of "Chinese sounding names" and their use of volunteer overseas (unpaid?) workers to campaign for them. Bill doesn't really need to be good at Question Time (and isn't) when Labour is covered in these sorts of scandals. The Chinese-sounding name thing was so outrageous to me at the time that I sort of wrote off the Labour party forever as NZ-First-tier xenophobes. That said, National seems almost entirely unconcerned about first-home buyers, not sure if that's an issue or not (I don't intend to buy a house any time soon, I'm not sure how hard it is...).
[Image: JazGXPG.png]
Huh, I had no idea we had a podcast like this. I will give it a listen.
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps
Dr NICK SMITH Wrote:to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statements by Professor Janet McLean in respect of his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that “The foundational principle of New Zealand’s constitution is that the government of the day may continue in office for only as long as it continues to enjoy the support of the House of Representatives” and “This bill gives a Parliamentary leader of a party (including the Prime Minister) the power to sanction MPs who by their actions indicate they intend to cross the floor of the House including in a possible vote of no confidence. This would be a serious change to the New Zealand constitution and undermine one of its central democracy-protecting mechanisms”?

Thoughts on Andrew Little's waka-jumping bill?

It comes across as a cynical way to preserve party strength in the face of unpopular decisions. If this bill had always been in force, Winston Peters could not have been able to break away from National to form New Zealand First, and the Maori Party could not have been able to break away from Labour following the foreshore seabed act. With the intense 5% threshold for electorateless parties to emerge, I'm scared this will put NZ on the path towards drag race politics.
[Image: JazGXPG.png]
Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard very much would like people not to relitigate points of order that he has already ruled on

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) Wrote: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER Wrote:Mr SPEAKER: A point of order, David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) Wrote:That's surprising. I would like to raise a matter and ask you to reflect on it and perhaps make a ruling, because I think it's quite important. It is in regards to the events of question No. 4 earlier today.

Mr SPEAKER Wrote:Well, the member will resume his seat. Members are aware that points of order are to be taken at the time. It's a longstanding Speaker's ruling. It is Speaker's ruling 23, I think, and the member should know that. If the member has an issue that he thinks needs to be drawn to my attention—if he wants me to go back and look at something or do something similar to that, he's welcome to take it up with me after question time, in my office.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) Wrote:I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER Wrote:I just want to make sure that the member's not going to relitigate that, because if the member is going to relitigate it I will regard that very seriously.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) Wrote:Well, the point I wish to make is that sometimes there are ongoing issues that do require the House's attention, and I think we should be able to raise them in this open forum, not simply in your office.

Mr SPEAKER Wrote:Well, I'm very pleased that that's what the member thinks.
[Image: JazGXPG.png]
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)