The “Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams was “42”. It was calculated by a supercomputer named Deep Thought over 7.5 million years.
The answer to a question in Parliament this week was “54”. But it looked like we might have to wait 7.5 million years before Health Minister Simeon Brown would let that number trip from his tongue.
The question was raised by Labour’s Ayesha Verrall, who asked Brown:
Is it correct that the net increase in Health New Zealand full-time equivalent nursing staff between the quarters ending March 2024 and March 2026 is 54 fulltime-equivalents?
The answer – you might think – is “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know”.
But Brown demonstrated he is a dab hand at ducking and diving by ignoring the specific time frame in the question and volunteering another set of stats:
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:38): In respect to the member’s question, all of this information is published, and I refer the member to Health New Zealand’s Health Workforce Information Programme (HWIP), which reports on the growth of our healthcare workforce every single quarter. I’m advised that it shows Health New Zealand now employs 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis compared with September 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents (FTE). There are more nurses working in our public hospitals today than in previous years. Those are Health New Zealand’s own published figures and they’re freely available. That work has not stopped. I’m further advised that as at 28 July 2026, advertising for Health New Zealand nurse roles was under way for 1,422 FTE, with a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.
A point of order was inevitable.
Labour’s Kieran McAnulty submitted that this was a primary question on notice that gave a specific time frame, but Brown
… deliberately chose not to answer that question and talked about something of his own choosing. The primary question on notice specifically asks between the period of “March 2024 and March 2026”, neither of which he responded to.
Speaker Gerry Brownlee said he thought the Minister had given “a very comprehensive address to the question”.
Comprehensive, yes. But it hadn’t addressed the specifics of the question.
McAnulty tried again.
Point of order, sir. The Minister talked about a time period before that in the question, and a time period after that in the question. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that for primary questions on notice, they should be addressed to a more correct standard than is required for supplementaries. If that were to be a supplementary question, then yes, indeed, it would have been addressed. But if we have a situation where Ministers can choose to answer whatever time frame they wish, what is the point in question time if they’re not required to respond directly to primary questions on notice?
Brownlee relented.
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll take this a bit further, but the question does actually state a specific outcome and asked him to confirm it. He clearly didn’t. The Minister may make a further comment on this answer.
And that gave Brown a second chance to avoid saying “54”.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in my answer, the number is publicly referred to and available in the Health Workforce Information Programme, which reports on the growth of the health workforce every single quarter.
Brownlee pressed Brown to answer the question:
SPEAKER: That’s not a—I would have thought that while you can’t be asked to give a yes or no answer, something more specific about the two dates that are mentioned there would be helpful to the order of the House.
Brown remained determined not to confirm the number was “54”.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, well, the answer to the question, as I said, the number is available. It is published in the Health Workforce Information Programme for the quarters ending 24 March and 26 March, at that number of FTE.
Brownlee was dissatisfied.
SPEAKER: You can’t give an answer that leaves the House none the wiser. None of us have that information in front of us, and I presume the Minister does.
But Brown remained resolute in saying anything except “54”.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: And I said the number is publicly available in the Health Workforce Information Programme for those two quarters at the FTE stated in the parliamentary question.
SPEAKER: I think that was a yes.
But the fun and games weren’t over.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well sir, with respect—point of order.
SPEAKER: The Minister just said it is as stated in the parliamentary question. Can’t get clearer than that.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred in his answer to the primary to HWIP data, which is not in a parliamentary question answer. That is published data by Health New Zealand, so it would be incorrect for him to refer us to a written parliamentary question answer, and I think the question remains unanswered for that reason.
SPEAKER: No, no. The way I just heard it is the Minister actually said that the number is correct as stated in the question.
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins entered the fray.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think maybe I could be a little helpful here. The Minister did appear to be quoting from an official document. Therefore, I’d ask that he table it.
SPEAKER: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? He appears to be not.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Then how can he claim that, then?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s published; it’s online.
SPEAKER: No, hang on—no, no need. Thank you.
At this juncture, dear reader, the question was answered less cryptically without Brown having to say “54”.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the answer to my primary question “54”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. [Interruption]
Hurrah.
The questioning continued without Brown once saying “54” (although he did slip “154” on to the Hansard record).
He said Verrall had been cherry-picking a set of dates” and contended that at the heart of the question was whether the Government was focused on recruiting the nursing workforce New Zealand needs.
He harked back to his primary answer: 1,422 nursing roles were currently being advertised, a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.
The number of vacancies in September 2023 had been 2,632. It was now 1,601.
The turnover rate had dropped from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent. The vacancy rate had fallen from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent.
The workforce is being strengthened under this Government.
Great. But couldn’t he have saved a lot of time by confirming at the outset that “54” was the answer in the context of Verrall’s cherry-picked time span and then bandying the numbers he would prefer we use to judge the Government’s performance?
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
The answer – you might think – is “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know”.
But Brown demonstrated he is a dab hand at ducking and diving by ignoring the specific time frame in the question and volunteering another set of stats:
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:38): In respect to the member’s question, all of this information is published, and I refer the member to Health New Zealand’s Health Workforce Information Programme (HWIP), which reports on the growth of our healthcare workforce every single quarter. I’m advised that it shows Health New Zealand now employs 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis compared with September 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents (FTE). There are more nurses working in our public hospitals today than in previous years. Those are Health New Zealand’s own published figures and they’re freely available. That work has not stopped. I’m further advised that as at 28 July 2026, advertising for Health New Zealand nurse roles was under way for 1,422 FTE, with a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.
A point of order was inevitable.
Labour’s Kieran McAnulty submitted that this was a primary question on notice that gave a specific time frame, but Brown
… deliberately chose not to answer that question and talked about something of his own choosing. The primary question on notice specifically asks between the period of “March 2024 and March 2026”, neither of which he responded to.
Speaker Gerry Brownlee said he thought the Minister had given “a very comprehensive address to the question”.
Comprehensive, yes. But it hadn’t addressed the specifics of the question.
McAnulty tried again.
Point of order, sir. The Minister talked about a time period before that in the question, and a time period after that in the question. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that for primary questions on notice, they should be addressed to a more correct standard than is required for supplementaries. If that were to be a supplementary question, then yes, indeed, it would have been addressed. But if we have a situation where Ministers can choose to answer whatever time frame they wish, what is the point in question time if they’re not required to respond directly to primary questions on notice?
Brownlee relented.
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll take this a bit further, but the question does actually state a specific outcome and asked him to confirm it. He clearly didn’t. The Minister may make a further comment on this answer.
And that gave Brown a second chance to avoid saying “54”.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in my answer, the number is publicly referred to and available in the Health Workforce Information Programme, which reports on the growth of the health workforce every single quarter.
Brownlee pressed Brown to answer the question:
SPEAKER: That’s not a—I would have thought that while you can’t be asked to give a yes or no answer, something more specific about the two dates that are mentioned there would be helpful to the order of the House.
Brown remained determined not to confirm the number was “54”.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, well, the answer to the question, as I said, the number is available. It is published in the Health Workforce Information Programme for the quarters ending 24 March and 26 March, at that number of FTE.
Brownlee was dissatisfied.
SPEAKER: You can’t give an answer that leaves the House none the wiser. None of us have that information in front of us, and I presume the Minister does.
But Brown remained resolute in saying anything except “54”.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: And I said the number is publicly available in the Health Workforce Information Programme for those two quarters at the FTE stated in the parliamentary question.
SPEAKER: I think that was a yes.
But the fun and games weren’t over.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well sir, with respect—point of order.
SPEAKER: The Minister just said it is as stated in the parliamentary question. Can’t get clearer than that.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred in his answer to the primary to HWIP data, which is not in a parliamentary question answer. That is published data by Health New Zealand, so it would be incorrect for him to refer us to a written parliamentary question answer, and I think the question remains unanswered for that reason.
SPEAKER: No, no. The way I just heard it is the Minister actually said that the number is correct as stated in the question.
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins entered the fray.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think maybe I could be a little helpful here. The Minister did appear to be quoting from an official document. Therefore, I’d ask that he table it.
SPEAKER: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? He appears to be not.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Then how can he claim that, then?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s published; it’s online.
SPEAKER: No, hang on—no, no need. Thank you.
At this juncture, dear reader, the question was answered less cryptically without Brown having to say “54”.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the answer to my primary question “54”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. [Interruption]
Hurrah.
The questioning continued without Brown once saying “54” (although he did slip “154” on to the Hansard record).
He said Verrall had been cherry-picking a set of dates” and contended that at the heart of the question was whether the Government was focused on recruiting the nursing workforce New Zealand needs.
He harked back to his primary answer: 1,422 nursing roles were currently being advertised, a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.
The number of vacancies in September 2023 had been 2,632. It was now 1,601.
The turnover rate had dropped from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent. The vacancy rate had fallen from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent.
The workforce is being strengthened under this Government.
Great. But couldn’t he have saved a lot of time by confirming at the outset that “54” was the answer in the context of Verrall’s cherry-picked time span and then bandying the numbers he would prefer we use to judge the Government’s performance?
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.