Was there a plan for a digital parliament?
Printable View
LOL - you got him there, me thinkth!
But it is unbelievable that Cindy thought she can, with the ever ready $300k+ taxpayer paid legal fee Mallard on the ready, shut down Parliament so she does not have to answer to we, the People via our MPs.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...OOWT433EQWDIE/
"How can the Prime Minister meet with a dozen journalists in her daily press conferences but then claim it is unsafe to answer questions from MPs?
The New Zealand Parliament website states: "The Speaker's first duty as Speaker is to lay claim to all the privileges of the House, especially to freedom of speech".
When Mallard shut parliament MPs lost their freedom of speech."
The Speaker closing Parliament was outrageous. Having sat in Parliament and participated in Zoom meetings as a director, a virtual meeting is no substitute for an in-person Parliament.
Our Parliament has never before been unilaterally shut by the Speaker. Open Democracy reports that 31 authoritarian governments have used Covid to shut or limit parliaments. Now the list is 32 countries.
Trying to implement a video conference for a large number of participants with varying levels of technical skill & connectivity in an adversarial environment is challenging at the best of times, let alone without a plan during a pandemic. A plan should have been developed by now, surely? If not, it's time to get one.
Why her?
Surely it is job of the government’s & Trevor ‘freeloader’ Mallard to effectively set up and manage a proper system?
Critical point you have completely missed is that Cindy is happy to front to a dozen or more reporters everyday but is not prepared to front Parliament? Hypocrisy & spin management at its most obvious - and you support it?
It's not that simple. When you have large numbers of people streaming video concurrently the potential issues are magnified. You need to ensure that each member has adequate bandwidth and a low latency connection, that the equipment being used to access the service is secure and capable of maintaining the connection, that the software being used is the same version across each member accessing the conference, that remotely provisioned tech support is available and can connect to a members device should an issue arise, that there are processes and policies in place for managing the video conference in the same manner as an in-person session of parliament is conducted (e.g. how do you discipline a member on a video conference? How do you terminate their connection if they go overtime?) These are just a tiny few of the huge number of issues that can arise.
Providing remote tech support is no walk in the park either, let alone in real time, remotely, in a high pressured environment.
They need a plan first.
It shouldn't be that difficult, and certainly watching on Parliament TV yesterday it was obvious that zoom could have catered for the proceedings perfectly well. Collins was just playing politics. I'm surprised that the usually sensible David Seymour sided with her. As the attached article asks 'could an in-person parliament accomplish anything that a digital parliament can't?' The article's author concludes the answer is more or less it would not.
Digital committee meetings should not become common-place, but in circumstances where travel or p to p meeting is difficult they can be very useful. You lost a few points and gained absolutely zilch there Judith.
Attachment 12914
1) Isn't the reasoning around switching to a Virtual Parliament about not bringing MP's in from all over the country, i.e. the movement of MP's around the country during Lockdown ?
i.e. the PM fronting journalists who are already in Wellington irrelevant.
2) Govt departments already do this during Lockdown, using Zoom meetings & conference calls daily instead of even senior management flying to Wellington for meetings etc.
3) Whats the problem re the technology or the planning ? They already use Zoom with multiple participants without any problems.