«12. . .262263264265266267268. . .285286»
I recognize what you are saying and understand the bill you are referencing applies to all Ministers.
However, the purpose of thie current legislation is to setup a regular interval in which the Prime Minister must answer at most 6 questions. The PMQ Act would be less of a discourse in the Senate RMB, and more of a written set of responses to questions handed in to the Senate Clerk.
Instead of having to go through the process of voting to call a Minister to hearing every two weeks, this process would allow Senators to simply put forth any questions they, their caucus or their constituency have.
I don't believe we should have a weekly interval for asking the PM questions, because the PM doesn't actually do alot especially not on a week to week basis there won't be enough change for new questions to be asked. If we are to do this a Monthly basis would be more reasonable.
Also having a scheduled PM questions in the way you wish to do it does undermine the already established process where we can call any Minister to answer questions. And actually there is more questions that can be asked to the other ministers than can be directed to the PM who let's be honest doesn't actually do much. We could agree as a Senate to call each minister to answer quesions one by one each week and rotate them on that basis so we can properly answer the public's queries to the government. If you really dislike the established procedure you can ammend that bill.
It's a nice concept inspired by IRL politics but it doesn't translate so well applying to the way the NWA functions.
This bill is a serious clash of procedure and I won't support it regardless if it is ammended to a more reasonable schedule.
The proposed piece of legislation actually describes the PMQs as occurring every other week, not every week. This is due to the fact that the PM is either very busy or has an excess of time. As such, it serves the dual purpose of not overwhelming him and not asking too many questions when there is not much to be asked. Due to the quick moving nature of the NWA (such as the Pirate party, T&P and election controversies that all occurred in the spam of 2 weeks), it was determined that 2 weeks would be an appropriate amount of time between questions.
Having an established set of Prime Ministerial Queries in no way undermines the ability of the Senate to call Hearings. If anything, it makes the process of holding the Government accountable more expedient as the PMQs would occur regularly and would not need to pass a majority of the Senate to be brought into being. Hearings can not be brought to the floor unless the ruling coalition agrees to them (or a sizeable portion of the majority coalition defect to the proposed minority vote). The PMQs would allow members in the minority to have their questions answered in a public forum, without the assent of the Majority; a measurable step toward greater transparency within the NWA.
This bill can be easily translated into NWA politics. I would love to see proposed amendments, though I must question why the honorable gentleman did not propose said amendment prior to this instance, as I have been discussing and reaching out to Senators for the past month in regard to the bill. Only now that it is on the Senate floor, am I hearing his concerns.
I fully agree with this. This bill isn't necessary due to the Ministerial Hearings Act (L.R. 81), which allows us to call ministers to the Senate to be questioned. The Prime Minister in fact does not do much at all, so there's no need for these queries to be so frequent, I find it much more fitting that we simply call the Prime Minister to the Senate when something does happen. Instead of asking the Prime Minister questions when we don't need to.
To reiterate, the purpose of this bill is so that Citizens and Senators can ask questions of the Prime Minister specifically, in a more formal and regular fashion.
Ministerial Hearings have both a connotation of being investigative in their basis, as well as having the requirement of a full majority of the Senate to be put forward. This proposed piece of legislation would allow Senators to put forth questions, without having to have the assent of the Majority of the Senate to do so.
This proposed piece of legislation is all about communication and transparency. It allows us to question the Prime Minister on a bi-weekly (as in every other week) basis. As can easily be seen in the events of the past two weeks, the rate at which issues effect the NWA can change drastically. It can be quiet for two weeks and then busy for three weeks straight. The two week interval is meant to be a reasonable compromise.
Furthermore, no individual or caucus is forced to ask questions of the Prime Minister. The bill sets up a bi-weekly formal process so that we can, if we so wish. It's a wonderful way to increase communication between this body and the Administration.
If anyone has a proposed amendment, compromise to any issues currently seen with the resolution or would just like to give their opinion, I'd welcome any thoughts on how we can make this amenable to everyone.
I don't see the problem of this bill considering that if no one has any questions for the PM, then nothing happens. While if you do have a question for the PM, you can ask it through this instead of having to try and get a full consensus of the Senate and drag the PM down here just to ask one person's question. Less annoyance for the PM and more transparency for us, its a win-win in my eyes.
Also I like how we're acknowledging at this point the PM is pretty much useless.
Also also, this may be against protocol, but I will be having very shoddy internet access the next week and a half. I will try my best to vote and participate but I am not the wi-fi god so if I can, I would like to state my intentions of voting yes on this bill and for it to go on record if I am not able to make it on voting days.
I suggest opening it up to all ministers, so we can have greater government transparancy across the board rotating between the ministries allowing for more questions to be asked and giving time for things to happen inbetween each query for a single minister to address when it comes to their turn again.
I also suggest having a clause repealing L.R 81. Because I stand behind the belief that this fundementaly undermines the procedure establishrd in that Act and will not be voting for this legislation with the clashing legal similarity of these two bills.
This bill clearly establishes a new procedure for calling the Prime Minister for questions where there is already procedure in place. I believe that only one procedure should be in place for any given action and for me the previously established process takes precedent.
The PM in the NWA simply just does not do enough to warrent a regulary scheduled queries only pertaining to that position. such a thing would more fitting, with more things happing allowing more questions able to be asked, to the RP Director than the PM and as such I will not support the creation of such a proceeding only in place for one of most inactive posts we have.
I ask for more or not at all.
This is my position on this subject.
Voting to get the PM to answer questions may seem silly but there is an even simpler alternative to that process and that is to ask the PM yourself directly via Telegram or DM.
If we're going to be honest forcing the PM to answer our questions at all is silly when they have no problem answering any queries that we might ask to the PM directly.
To further illustrate a point I have attempted to make previously: It seems that the purpose of LR 81 was to establish Hearings. These Hearings are multi-day, require a majority vote by the Senate and also imply an investigative nature to the questioning. The purpose of this bill, is to set up a separate occasion in which caucuses may simply pose questions to the Prime Minister on a regular basis. The key difference between these two being the investigative nature of the Hearings and the informational nature of the proposed PMQs. This method is simply meant for all caucuses to pose questions to the Prime Minister in a public forum. It is meant to increase communication and transparency, not to serve as a means for investigative intentions.
I simply don't understand the "more or none at all" argument here. The Prime Minister serves as the Head of Government. The purpose of this resolution is to increase communication with and transparency of the Administration. They are the Head of the Administration and it seems only logical that we should pose any of our questions to the PM, as they are the individual who oversees the entirety of the Administration.
To illustrate the wording of the resolution in another manner, the purpose of the legislation is to increase transparency and to make all answers available to the entirety of the public. It is meant to allow Senators to ask and the PM to answer all of these queries in a public and easily accessible format.
That is not transparent though. If we were to run this region on pure simplicity, the Senate could be run through Discord perfectly fine and we could all just DM each other like a couple of high school teens. This bill allows a compromise, ask questions that are pertinent enough to warrant an official response while not having the PM's main job basically be answering questions for the Senate via formal hearings or constant stream of telegrams by single Senators.
I would support an amendment that allows all Ministers to be questioned, obviously not forced though. Either way, I believe just the PM is enough to warrant this bill.
L.R. 81 establishes a hearing, which is a formal meeting. Yes, you could drag the PM's arse here ever few weeks or so to ask a couple of mundane questions or his/her opinions on a bill or something. However I am sure at least a couple Senators here would eventually call these constant hearings unnecessary and an improper use of them since in real-life, we don't call Senatorial hearings to ask if the President/Prime Minister prefers one bill or another. I don't see how these two can't coexist together, one handles the serious tasks and another allows a closer bond between us and the PM. I would agree if we bombarded the PM with constant questions and also drag his/her lifeless body to the Senate for constant hearings over the same questions, that would constitute as redundant and a burden, but that is simply not the case.
Chancellor Ormantum and Co-Chancellor 
Josephtan
I will be hereby temporarily replacing Senator 
Wentsworth from today (march 12th) to march 19th. He will be going on a trip and the Unity Party wishes to keep our good history of always voting on legislation. As Senate Clerk I will be updating the overview factbook to include this temporary change. Being the Deputy Chairman of the Unity Party, and the organizer of my party's primaries and senate seats, I think it's pretty obvious that I have the authority to do this and it has already been confirmed by Wentsworth of the senate channel in the NWA discord.
Suternia,
General Secreaty of the Unity Party
Senate Clerk
Senator
Wentsworth and Mukolayiv
As for my opinion on this bill, I am generally supportive of it, just disagree with a few points, but will ultimately back it as it was supported by Wentsworth.
My small disagreements with this are:
1- I don't like the idea of the PMQs being weekly, considering the PM doesen't even do stuff every week, and would prefer if they were monthly. However I talked with the author about this, and he notified me that the PMQs are actually once every two weeks, I still feel like sometimes the PM won't have much to answer to be honest, however I feel like it's an acceptable amount of time.
2- I believe the PM should be encouraged to consult the ministers to answer questions which are more based on the government as a whole. The PM by itself unfortunately does not do much on day to day operations, however he does still preside over the Cabinet, so I think having this PMQs encourage a contact between the PM and the ministers to answer the questions would be quite nice.
Wentsworth, Baconbacon123, Ravennog, United cascadian peoples, and 1 otherCommunaccord
In our favorite rocketship!
(just confirming that this did indeed take place).
Mukolayiv, Suternia, and Communaccord
By voting against the "The Establishment of Prime Minsterial Queries Act" this government opposes open dialogue and thus transparency. I can't say I'm surprised when my party and particularly senator Ghan have been looking for answers on the co-chancellorship question for clarity's sake, and we have yet to get a straight forward answer from the members opposite. Truth is even they don't really know. That is why this government has had 3 cases and counting against it. A declaratory judgement too. At this point, I really do think they will have more court cases on their record than passed legislation.
The Establishment of Prime Minsterial Queries Act L.R. 110 - VOTE
Author: United cascadian peoples, Harmonious people,
Sponsor: United cascadian peoples, The thin white duke, Ravennog, Communaccord, Josephtan, Wentsworth, Bennisia, Tavalo, 
Bergonnia, 
Calponia, Torhaven, Zatanga, Ghan
Authors: United cascadian peoples, Harmonious people
Sponsors: United cascadian peoples
Preamble:
Acknowledging that transparency creates a greater sense of trust in the regional governing bodies,
Recognizing that there can be a disconnect between the average citizen of the New Western Atlantic and the individuals who govern the region,
Believing that further efforts can be made to increase government transparency and the rights of the general citizenry to actively participate in the politics of the NWA,
Article I - Establishment:
Section I:
Establishes the Regional Transparency Initiative; an initiative aimed at increasing communication and transparency between the differing levels of Government, and the general citizenry of the region.
Section II:
The Regional Transparency Initiative shall encompass
Article II - Frequency:
Section I:
The Regional Transparency Initiative will publish questions and answer on the 16th of each month, unless the scheduled date happens to fall on an NWA holiday in which the Senate does not assemble. Should this be the case, the Regional Transparency Initiative will be rescheduled for the day immediately following the intended date.
Section II:
Due to the international structure of this region, there will be no set time in which the Queries must be posted. Instead, only a stipulation that they must be posted by the specified date in which they are scheduled to occur.
Article III: - Selection of Questions:
Section I:
Recognizing that the Prime Minister holds a demanding position, they are hereby obligated to answer no more than 12 questions submitted to the Regional Transparency Initiative. Should the Prime Minister be unable to participate in a set
Section II:
of which no caucus should have more than one question. Should a caucus fail to submit a question by the deadline, they shall forfeit their right to an answer until the next scheduled date of Prime Ministerial Queries.
Section III:
Should a caucus submit more than one question, the Senate Clerk will reach out to the caucus leader to determine which question they would like to be answered.
Article IV - Submission of Queries to the Minister:
Section I:
All queries are to be submitted to the Senate Clerk through Telegram.
Section II:
Senators are not obligated to submit a question, but are encouraged to do so.
Section III:
Should a Senator wish to submit a question to Prime Ministerial Queries, they should do so no later two days before the scheduled date of PMQ release.
Article V - The Senate Clerk:
Section I:
It is the duty of the Senate Clerk to collect and compile all questions from Senators.
Section II:
Following the collection and organization of Senate questions, the Senate Clerk is to forward questions to the Prime Minister.
Article VI - Release of Prime Ministerial Queries:
Section I:
The Prime Minister’s responses are to be published on the Senate RMB and the Senate Discord channel on the date in which Prime Ministerial Queries are scheduled.
Section II:
The Senate Clerk is hereby obligated to keep a factbook in which the Senate’s questions and Prime Minister’s responses will be recorded. Questions and responses are to be organized by the date in which the given Prime Ministerial Queries occured.
Article VII - The Monarch:
Section I:
The Monarch shall submit a statement to be included with each occurance of Prime Ministerial Queries. It is at the Monarch’s discretion what statement they wish to make, whether that be a comment on the state of the region, a clever simile or anything in-between.
Non-Senator Citizen Signatories:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yea:
Abstain:
Calponia (CON)
Communaccord (ACT) Josephtan (LIB)
United cascadian peoples (BLOC)
Grand rebels (NP)
Mukolayiv (UNI)Suternia (UNI)
Trade federations (CON)
Grey rose (ACT)
The thin white duke (LIB)
The 3rd swedish empire (NP)
Tavalo (NP)
Dependants (CON) Bergonnia (LIB)
Ravennog (ACT)
Somner (CON)
The united dark republic? (ACT)
Tetros (CON)
Republic of amercas (ACT)
Zatanga (CON)
Baconbacon123 (CON)
Torhaven (ACT)
Ghan (ACT)
Bennisia (BLOC)
Please let me know if there are any errors or issues.
The vote has begun.
Calponia and The thin white duke
AYE to L.R. 110
Wentsworth and Calponia
I'm kinda split, thought about abstain, but aye nevertheless
Calponia and United cascadian peoples
Aye.
Calponia and United cascadian peoples
«12. . .262263264265266267268. . .285286»
Advertisement
