ACT MP Todd Stephenson has used his right to question government ministers in Parliament to toss a patsy about the Government’s response to the prospect of a fuel shortage.
He could be accused of squandering his right.
At PoO, we had hoped he would raise questions about the issue that has been bugging him and many citizens – and has won him media attention during the past week. It’s the disinclination of state service mandarins to bring common sense into the names and signage of their departments and agencies.
The common-sense approach which they shun calls for English names (understood by almost 100 per cent of the population) ahead of te reo.
Stephenson’s patsy question – alas – was on another matter. It was cravenly crafted to enable his party leader, David Seymour, to enthuse that the Government is taking a measured and careful approach to the fuel shortage.
Speaking for the Prime Minister, Seymour was prompted to insist:
We are being careful to preserve New Zealand’s future options, including our fiscal room and our children’s education, while also preparing for worse scenarios if they come about. We’re taking an approach of maximising the supply of fuel, including by increasing storage capacity and working our diplomatic connections, while being prepared to manage demand if and only if that supply fails or lessens significantly in the future.
Follow-up questions from Stephenson were similarly crafted to enable Seymour to bray about what a splendid job the Government is doing.
He asked:
The common-sense approach which they shun calls for English names (understood by almost 100 per cent of the population) ahead of te reo.
Stephenson’s patsy question – alas – was on another matter. It was cravenly crafted to enable his party leader, David Seymour, to enthuse that the Government is taking a measured and careful approach to the fuel shortage.
Speaking for the Prime Minister, Seymour was prompted to insist:
We are being careful to preserve New Zealand’s future options, including our fiscal room and our children’s education, while also preparing for worse scenarios if they come about. We’re taking an approach of maximising the supply of fuel, including by increasing storage capacity and working our diplomatic connections, while being prepared to manage demand if and only if that supply fails or lessens significantly in the future.
Follow-up questions from Stephenson were similarly crafted to enable Seymour to bray about what a splendid job the Government is doing.
He asked:
- Why is the Government taking this approach?
- What did the Government consider when making the decision on increasing mileage rates for home and community support workers?
- What did the Government consider when making the decision to deliver extra fuel storage for New Zealand?
- Are there any suggested initiatives the Government has considered but decided not to progress?
We remain open to ideas. For example, we’ve opened, at the Ministry for Regulation, a red-tape tip line because we believe that there are ideas out in the community that we may not have had. We don’t have a monopoly on wisdom, and that position . of humility, I think, is important for any Government to take at a time like this. We’ve seen other initiatives—such as unions, who are supposed to represent workers, actually campaigning for workers not to go to work and even taking legal action to avoid going into work. We’ve seen people suggest blanket subsidies for public transport, no matter how rich or poor the people benefiting may be, and no matter the fact that people who take public transport are not actually affected by fuel prices. In fact—
Hon Julie Anne Genter: It conserves fuel.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —people are moving to public transport in order to avoid high fuel prices. Julie Anne Genter says it conserves fuel, but what she doesn’t realise is that’s exactly what people are doing now. New Zealanders are moving to public transport at current fares in order to preserve fuel, and that is what prices do. That is how markets work, and that is the opposite of how communism works.
But Stephenson should be asking questions about the issue that bothers him and many voters – the reluctance of state service bosses to put English first in their agencies’ names and signage.
Fair to say, he has put a question to Public Service Minister Judith Collins.
But he put it in writing.
The NZ Herald reported:
Act MP Todd Stephenson wrote to Minister Judith Collins earlier this month, saying the party had been getting a “significant volume” of correspondence with “growing concern” that coalition commitments were not being visibly implemented.
The letter referenced the fact the Government’s main webpage had its brand in te reo Māori first.
“When Government branding does not reflect clearly articulated commitments, it creates the perception that either the direction is not being firmly driven or that departments are exercising discretion in areas where there should be none,” Stephenson wrote.
In a statement, Collins noted that in 2024, ministers agreed the coalition commitment between National and New Zealand First would be responded to on a case-by-case basis.
“This aligns with the Government’s priority that the public sector focus on frontline services. The Government expects agencies to be mindful of the fiscal environment and for taxpayer money to be spent carefully, including rebranding exercises,” Collins said.
The Act MP called for the Government’s own logo to reflect the commitment to have all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori.
Collins has requested advice on rebranding costs.
In a response letter to the Act MP, shared on social media, Collins wrote that ministers and agencies had been responding to the commitment on a “case-by-case basis”.
She added it aligned with the Government’s priority that public sector agencies focus on delivering more effective services, and making good use of taxpayer dollars.
Collins said she had recently become concerned at the cost of agency rebranding activities – a matter she had raised with Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche.
Roche reminded agencies of the need to be “mindful of the fiscal environment” and minimise unnecessary expenditure around rebranding.
Collins stated she wanted any branding changes to be made without incurring substantial additional costs.
Stephenson said his party did not support “costly rebrands involving consultants” or “flash new signage and stationery”.
But he noted that Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden’s digital-first rebrand at her agency cost $741.
In an interview with Newstalk ZB, Stephenson said a digital-first update was “completely feasible” and could be done quickly without significant cost: “I hope that’s where Minister Collins and the officials get to”.
“Departments have been slow in following that directive,” Stephenson said. He suggested agencies could start with digital assets and phase other factors in over time.
“It is a bit disappointing that things have been so slow,” he said.
PoO has some advice for Stephenson.
Leave the patsies to some other party hack and press on with the naming issue.
Paul Goldsmith is replacing Collins as Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government.
He also is Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.
Let’s see how he wriggles when some robust questions are put to him in Parliament about which language should come first…
The Act MP called for the Government’s own logo to reflect the commitment to have all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori.
Collins has requested advice on rebranding costs.
In a response letter to the Act MP, shared on social media, Collins wrote that ministers and agencies had been responding to the commitment on a “case-by-case basis”.
She added it aligned with the Government’s priority that public sector agencies focus on delivering more effective services, and making good use of taxpayer dollars.
Collins said she had recently become concerned at the cost of agency rebranding activities – a matter she had raised with Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche.
Roche reminded agencies of the need to be “mindful of the fiscal environment” and minimise unnecessary expenditure around rebranding.
Collins stated she wanted any branding changes to be made without incurring substantial additional costs.
Stephenson said his party did not support “costly rebrands involving consultants” or “flash new signage and stationery”.
But he noted that Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden’s digital-first rebrand at her agency cost $741.
In an interview with Newstalk ZB, Stephenson said a digital-first update was “completely feasible” and could be done quickly without significant cost: “I hope that’s where Minister Collins and the officials get to”.
“Departments have been slow in following that directive,” Stephenson said. He suggested agencies could start with digital assets and phase other factors in over time.
“It is a bit disappointing that things have been so slow,” he said.
PoO has some advice for Stephenson.
Leave the patsies to some other party hack and press on with the naming issue.
Paul Goldsmith is replacing Collins as Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government.
He also is Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.
Let’s see how he wriggles when some robust questions are put to him in Parliament about which language should come first…
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.