ACC Debate on Parliament TV Right Now, 20:58, 23/2/2010

[p.dath]

On channel 22 on Freeview (Parliament TV) they are currently (20:58, 23/2/2010) debating the ACC changes.

[p.dath]

Every time I watch parliament I get disenfranchised with it, and this time was no different.

It seems there is a rule that requires you to address the chairman of a select committee as "Mr Chairman". Of course, as the subject changes so does the relevant select committee (if there is a committee at all that is relevant), so the way you address them changes. The speaker of the house frequently interrupted members because they kept incorrectly referring to the ACC select committee chairman as "you" when speaking to him.
This detracted from the ACC debate quite a bit, and wasted a lot of time.

Another point of order was called during the debate over the seating position of one of the members, as he had moved when he filled his glass of water up. Once again, nothing to do with ACC.

An interesting point was raised that only 6% of the ACC "blow out" was related to the increase in services (such as physio). The remainder of the increase was related to an general increase in claims, and the cost of those claims. So the current bill to reduce the services may not have a great impact on ACC out goings.

Another member noted a considerable percentage that those long term ACC users who were being forced off ACC were simply moving onto WINZ benefits. So while we are reducing the ACC bill in that regard, the WINZ bill is increasing on the other hand. The net effect is we as the community are still continuing to pay. As a result, the implication was why bother.

The Maori party spoke and responded in Maori. Sure, that's there right. But if you speak in a language that few other members can understand, then how do you hope to sway them with your persuasive argument? Or are they just speaking in Maori to make a point that they can in fact speak in Maori.

Several points were raised about Motorcycles. Why do owners of multiple bikes who can only ride one at a time have to pay a levy on the other bikes? Why is their a CC rating scale? What about older larger CC rating bikes compared to newer faster higher power smaller CC rating bikes?
The point was not responded to.


But all in all, debating in parliament is completely useless with regard to a bill. Every who wants to have there say can. Then they call for the vote. Each party says either all its members are for or against (or abstain) for the bill.
They might as well save all of New Zealand the huge cost of running parliament, and cut to the voting. Each party has already made up its mind by the time the final reading of the bill is done. No amount of speaking is going to change anything at that stage.

[rainman]

...debating in parliament is completely useless...

Good summary.

[grbaker]

I thought labour's Moana Mackay spoke very well and pointed some very basic issues with Nationals ACC bill, especially the part were a person causing the accident won't be able to claim ACC for the injuries etc (so and accident isn't an accident anymore).... then some National tosser started talking and I couldn't watch it any more.

btw this 'Full Funded' bullshit idea really is rubbish. As pointed out above - only 6% of the ACC shortfall was caused by Labour over-committing ACC services. If we were able to see the books we would find that ACC lost shit loads in the Secondary Mortage funds like every investment house (and idiots) did. IF that bears out to be true then in the future when ACC is fully funded and there is another stock market melt down (or correction)... they will be back for more tax payers money!!! (even if they are partial privatised by then).

NATIONAL OUT (this slogan they would listen to)

[PrincessBandit]

But all in all, debating in parliament is completely useless

You forgot the prefix "mass-" Whenever I've watched the barely beloveds that "we" voted into power on tv it sounds like a whole lot of you-know-what to me regardless of what they're beating.

[Pixie]

Every time I watch parliament I get disenfranchised with it, and this time was no different.



But all in all, debating in parliament is completely useless with regard to a bill. Every who wants to have there say can. Then they call for the vote. Each party says either all its members are for or against (or abstain) for the bill.
They might as well save all of New Zealand the huge cost of running parliament, and cut to the voting. Each party has already made up its mind by the time the final reading of the bill is done. No amount of speaking is going to change anything at that stage.

Which is why we have a Parliamentary Democracy not a Democracy

The Swiss have had a good system:every proposed law change has 100 days in which the people can decide to accept it or not before it can be passed.
Effectively a referendum on every change.
It has worked for over 140 years.
Fat chance of our governing bludgers turning over power to the populace like that.

[p.dath]

Which is why we have a Parliamentary Democracy not a Democracy

The Swiss have had a good system:every proposed law change has 100 days in which the people can decide to accept it or not before it can be passed.
Effectively a referendum on every change.
It has worked for over 140 years.
Fat chance of our governing bludgers turning over power to the populace like that.

How do they tell the people about the issues? Do they use a lot of TV advertising or something?