WHEREAS El Lexhatx H.2.6, dealing with Terpelaziuns, reads as follows:
Quote2.6. The Minister must answer the question in the same thread or its equivalent as the original question and the questioner may ask a reasonable number of supplementary questions (as determined by the presiding officer), in which the provisions of H.2.[r 14] apply, with the seven days starting from the date each supplementary question is asked. [709]
AND WHEREAS it may actually be beneficial to full and frank debate in the Ziu to allow other members to "chime in" with supplemental questions in a single thread;
AND WHEREAS this is the practice in other Parliamentary systems (https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/delving-deeper-supplementary-questions/), with the condition that the original questioner gets "first go";
THEREFORE El Lexhatx H.2.6. to be amended as follows:
Quote2.6. The Minister must answer the question in the same thread or its equivalent as the original question and the questioner may ask a reasonable number of supplementary questions (as determined by the presiding officer), in which the provisions of H.2.[r 14] apply, with the seven days starting from the date each supplementary question is asked. [709]
2.6.1. If the questioner does not ask a supplementary question within 24 hours, or waives their right to ask a supplementary question, any other Member of the Ziu may raise a supplementary question on the original topic, under the same conditions. The Túischac'h shall be the sole judge of "on topic".
On a reflection 24 hours might be a too short period, maybe 48?
lol, I will definitely not support this under the current interpretation of the rules. Currently, you can ask as many questions as you want in a "question," and no other members of Government are permitted to comment or supplement answers unless the questioner asks. This means that we've gotten times when there are eleven-part "questions" and where multiple members of the Opposition want to -- in their words -- "hassle" a minister in turns. 86 questions so far -- far more than a question a day -- shows that the system already allows abuse.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 20, 2023, 08:32:28 AMlol, I will definitely not support this under the current interpretation of the rules. Currently, you can ask as many questions as you want in a "question," and no other members of Government are permitted to comment or supplement answers unless the questioner asks. This means that we've gotten times when there are eleven-part "questions" and where multiple members of the Opposition want to -- in their words -- "hassle" a minister in turns. 86 questions so far -- far more than a question a day -- shows that the system already allows abuse.
I am in agreement with this.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 20, 2023, 08:32:28 AMlol, I will definitely not support this under the current interpretation of the rules. Currently, you can ask as many questions as you want in a "question," and no other members of Government are permitted to comment or supplement answers unless the questioner asks. This means that we've gotten times when there are eleven-part "questions" and where multiple members of the Opposition want to -- in their words -- "hassle" a minister in turns. 86 questions so far -- far more than a question a day -- shows that the system already allows abuse.
Lol. Democratic oversight, government transparency and "concerned citizens" legitimately asking questions to the Government, that should always be accountable to the elected representatives of the people, are considered an abuse of the system? So much has changed since the elections.
(By the way, I have a Terp ready for the FinMin, I was waiting for him to come back)
Quantity has a quality of its own, as Napoleon once said. The sheer amount of time we've had to spend answering questions is astounding, just given their volume -- again, more than a question per day! Say it takes three minutes to read, consider, and compose a reply. Maybe it's a little more than that, maybe it's less, on average -- some are very quick, while others required detailed discussions about policy. The elected government has had to spend more than four solid hours answering these terpelaziuns so far, by those lights. We're proud to do it, but it's far in excess of any other government by an order of magnitude.
I'll note that we have faithfully answered every single one, despite their profusion, and we've still managed to get a ton done. Overall, I'm not actually even unhappy, since I think it's good for the country... but I'm definitely not inclined to exacerbate the practice!
The TNC used to pride themselves on their effective use of TERPs. Now they're absolutely furious behind closed doors that the Free Democrats are doing it even better.
Still, that kind of embarrassing sore-winner stuff isn't relevant to the issues. Firstly, this amendment would not change the quantity of Terps in any way; it would make Terps easier for the public to follow, by allowing a "thread" to be maintained around a particular topic. There is no positive defence as to why I had to start a new Terp thread to pursue a line of questioning started by cxhn. Tärfa. It's just: "FreeDem Terps are doing their jobs, we resent that, so we're going to be nasty and petty."
Secondly, I draw your attention to El Lexhatx H.2.3 and H.2.6, which apply no limit to quantity of Terps and only a "Túischac'h's discretion" limit to supplementary questions. If that is an issue, let's hear it.
I would characterize our response as "bemused you decided the key to success was an oceanic volume of terps," rather than "furious."
It's like we ran a footrace, and our folks spent months training, eating a healthy diet, and staying hydrated. But the morning before the race, you guys saw us eat a carrot. And just... came to an unusual conclusion. So now to prepare for the rematch, you're slamming carrot smoothies by the gallon, jamming orange chunks into your nose, and mainlining carrot puree. It's a little funny and kind of weird to be around, but it's not making us furious.
So while your Orange Rush strategy takes a lot of time, and we're not eager to make it worse, I wish you luck with it :)
I'd kind of like to revive this one
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 19, 2023, 05:11:45 PMWHEREAS El Lexhatx H.2.6, dealing with Terpelaziuns, reads as follows:
Quote2.6. The Minister must answer the question in the same thread or its equivalent as the original question and the questioner may ask a reasonable number of supplementary questions (as determined by the presiding officer), in which the provisions of H.2.[r 14] apply, with the seven days starting from the date each supplementary question is asked. [709]
AND WHEREAS it may actually be beneficial to full and frank debate in the Ziu to allow other members to "chime in" with supplemental questions in a single thread;
AND WHEREAS this is the practice in other Parliamentary systems (https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/delving-deeper-supplementary-questions/), with the condition that the original questioner gets "first go";
THEREFORE El Lexhatx H.2.6. to be amended as follows:
Quote2.6. The Minister must answer the question in the same thread or its equivalent as the original question and the questioner may ask a reasonable number of supplementary questions (as determined by the presiding officer), in which the provisions of H.2.[r 14] apply, with the seven days starting from the date each supplementary question is asked. [709]
2.6.1. If the questioner does not ask a supplementary question within 24 hours, or waives their right to ask a supplementary question, any other Member of the Ziu may raise a supplementary question on the original topic, under the same conditions. The Túischac'h shall be the sole judge of "on topic".
Such a change would still be prone to abuse under the current interpretations of the other rules. Reminder: currently, questioners may ask essentially unlimited questions in a single post. Members of the Government are legally bound to answer every single one in some fashion. Their answers are subject to charges of perjury if they are knowingly or negligently false, and so each question takes some significant amount of time. Meanwhile, the rules do not permit anyone other than the named official to supplement or assist, and put a short time limit on when a response must legally be provided. After this past term, when at times the system was so enthusiastically used that Government officials were being demanded to answer questions at a pace of a question a day, it would be irresponsible to increase the burden by allowing other questioners to "pile on" the same thread.
I would be supportive of this change if other changes were made to limit the burden otherwise. For example, each "question" could be limited to one actual question. That would balance out this change nicely and make the whole thing more legible.
Well, I do not support criminal charges for a Minister giving a wrong answer, that's not how it works in other countries. A Minister may be disciplined by the Speaker in my country for "misleading the House", but that's not a criminal affair. We should change the perjury statute.
Perhaps we should look at wholescale TERP reform, with reference to international practice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_time).
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 03:11:12 PMWell, I do not support criminal charges for a Minister giving a wrong answer, that's not how it works in other countries. A Minister may be disciplined by the Speaker in my country for "misleading the House", but that's not a criminal affair. We should change the perjury statute.
Perhaps we should look at wholescale TERP reform, with reference to international practice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_time).
I think it should probably continue to be a crime to give false testimony to the Ziu, although I don't feel strongly about it. We just should be judicious about when we demand such testimony. Your proposed change would be fine with me if we just made one question a "question."
But if you'd like to propose broader changes, that's fine.