But the stoush over Section 39 may yet pale into insignificance compared to another radical change that slipped through the parliament by agreement between the Government and Opposition whips on the same day as Turnbull spoke to Hughes’s advice, February 12.
Under the terms of this cross-party deal, “lactating mothers” – their term – will be able to vote by proxy in divisions if they are engaged in maternal duties at the time.
This is historic and potentially revolutionary. This is the first time in the history of the Australian Parliament that an MP can vote without actually being in the chamber.
Read on for how this may potentially lead to FRAUD! …and RADICAL CHANGE!
And the irony of all this if he’s criticising Labor using it, is that Sophie Mirabella, she of being absent during the Apology, is in fact expecting herself.
I liked his suggestion that fathers might apply for similar leave.
The answer to that is, of course – “Only if they’re lactating, Glen.”
Actually, I think this ruling goes back to the Kerfuffle when a Labor MP, Kirsty Marshall from memory took bub into the chamber and Breastfed it cos it was hungry.
I’m surprised Milne hasn’t blamed Brian Burke for it.
Kims post is quite disingenuous in substance. Most of the substance of Milne’s article raises perfectly reasonable questions about the dull, but worthy, subject of parliamentary process for absent MPs.
This is possibly unconstitutional because changes to standing orders exempt the ministry for the need to be on deck during extra sitting days. Likewise for absent mothers.
Hence Milne raises the perfectly valid point about accountability concerns for in absentia virtual voting. A bit of a concern because of things like hackers, spammers, viruses and such-like plagues of the cyber world.
But Kim’s post, like most of her posts, is really just another example of the self-conscious ideolgical styling that characterises the post-modern Left. Lipstick partisanship, one could say.
As I noted a while back, Larva Prodders really dont have all that much to talk about now His Howard-hatefulness has left the scene. They are really scratching about trying to find someone to fill the aching void left by his departure.
Post-modern Leftism is mostly about status-seeking by positioning oneself to take the high moral ground.* When its not about actually snaring well-paid undemanding positions in the bureaucracy.
To do that one needs to have a convincing bogey man with which to scare and titillate the public. That function was ably fulfilled by Howard.
Milne is a poor substitute for the real thing.
*Materially-baaded status-seeking is an uphill task for arty types who are not very good at sums or handy with tools.
There were nine different ways Milne could have covered this story but he lactate.
I dub thee ‘Tinfoil Glen’! Next week: ‘How to secure your Ham Radio from brainwashing broadcasts’
Kim,
Surely, as all ALP parliamentarians have signed the Pledge, none of them are really needed in there at all – except for one to introduce the Bill or motion and then vote in place of all of the ALP parliamentarians in favour of it.
How are virtual votes verified?
Oh I dunno, maybe we could just ask the MP? It’s not like anonymous mass voting where a vote can’t be tied back to an individual. MPs number in the hundreds and a small handful would ever be able to make use of the chance so, chill out Punchy.
Geez, Jack, can’t you even incorporate Milne’s meanderings into the Strocchiverse picture?
The “unconstitutional” thing has nothing to do with Ministers’ absence but the lack of the ability to call a quorum. No one, not even Milne, is suggesting proxy voting is unconstitutional.
For your information, proxy voting was long used in the Queensland Legislative Assembly, and has also been used in the House of Lords, as well as several American legislatures. The sky is yet to fall in.
Reminds me of the fuss, bother and hullabloo yonks ago when women were to be included in workplaces that didn’t have …..segregated toilets! Sort of like my house come to think of it tho’ the fellas do tend to piddle outside in the scrub and on the lemon tree to save flushing the toilet so frequently but thats a digression.
Anyway there are those who see problems, those who see answers and those who wonder what the fuss’n'bother is all about.
I’m sure parliament will cope…..better.
Mark,
In any case, s.39 is one of the “Until the Parliament otherwise provides” sections and can therefore be over-ridden by legislation. In theory, no-one need be “present” as the relevant law could be phrased to allow proxy, remote or any other form of voting that the legislation could provide.
Jack I’m an arty-type who ain’t handy with sums or good at tools and I get paid shitloads. I also give not a rat’s butt for the moral high ground.
>
Suggest maybe you mix a little more widely there old bean.
I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional one, but wouldn’t a vote on new standing orders by the House equate to “Until the Parliament otherwise provides”. And I can’t see anything written in S40 that states a member needs to be physically present to vote.
So conventions aside, what’s the problem with either of the issues? Can any lawyers assist?
Mind you, I think the Govt should release it’s advice in the interests of openness, but have Messrs Turnbull and Hughes released theirs? (Note, I haven’t trawled Hansard to see if Turnbull has stated why he or his father-in-law thinks there is a potential breach – does anyone have a link to his comments?)
“Under the terms of this cross-party deal, “lactating mothersâ€? – their term – will be able to vote by proxy in divisions if they are engaged in maternal duties at the time.”
Mmm … does this herald the end of the traditional ….”seeking a pair”…. or the beginning of it. Just channelling Hugh Hefner, my auntys’ stepfather.
Kim
This post is disingenuous in the extreme. What on earth does it have to do with Milne allegedly being hitherto blind to female MPs?
Oh, and for the record I am pro-proxy voting for lactaters.
Quog,
The important word in “…[u]ntil the Parliament otherwise provides…” is “Parliament” – s.1 defines the Parliament as
This means that all of them have to vote to make the change – which means it is beyond the power of the House of Reps, acting alone, to change the quorum requirements. It needs an Act of Parliament (i.e. legislation) to do it.
Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer either.
Hey this is 2008 – what is wrong with electronic voting? The many problems which can occur with electronic voting at elections where you need privacy and verifyability at the same time are not a problem where MPs have to be publicly accountable as to how they vote.
I do however not like the removal of quorum and voting (am fine with no question time) on Friday parliaments (is this like casual friday for MP’s?). The government has a pretty big majority and at a million dollars a day is it even worth having parliament sit if they can’t even get a quorum?
A pair is generally for a day, and usually for people who won’t be in the building at all. It seems that the idea behind this is that if an MP who is in the building misses a division because they are breastfeeding, then they can still have their vote recorded.
In the Senate, if someone misses a vote, then can request that the vote be held again so as to reflect the “will of the Senate”. Given that, this isn’t really that great a step. It’s about making sure that votes reflect the make-up of the Parliament.
As for Milne’s question about: “How do we know who voted for what if we can’t see them in the chamber?”
Here’s how.
Who mentioned electronic voting anyway? Can’t the mother be present in Parliament House somewhere, say the child care centre, and vote via microphone or such.
Until men are able to lactate, I see absolutely no problem with precedents.
I’d be glad to see the end of the pairs system. There are any amount of valid reasons that might require the occasional missing of a division.
I think the lactation thing is a bit disgusting because it assumes that breast feeding must be hidden away from decent people.
Now, middle aged men with prostate problems……
Parliamentary pairing, like the concept of the weekend, was basically formalised in practice, if not principle, in the UK under the premiership of Herbert Henry Asquith – a very keen golfer anxious to get away as early as possible from work on a Friday.
Hitting balls or sucking tits. Which can be less spared from conducting the business of a modern parliamentary democracy these days? Discuss. NB: Points will be deducted for gratuitous double entendres. Unless they’re a hole in one. Or the other.
I think it’s reasonable for the ALP to be able to muster a quorum on Fridays – the government whips are traditionally responsible for this, as I understand it. And I think divisions are necessary to avoid the sort of crap that happened last week, as I commented on my previous post:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/02/23/puerile-pollies-prance-in-parliament/
Possibly the objection to proxy voting actually comes from the belief that it might be extended so as to cover these Friday sessions. Otherwise, it’s pure nonsense and Milne’s degree of enlightenment on these matters is evident from his apparent puzzlement at the use of the term “lactating”.
“Otherwise, it’s pure nonsense and Milne’s degree of enlightenment on these matters is evident from his apparent puzzlement at the use of the term “lactatingâ€?.”
Better the word “sucking” for that lad.
Mark,
The government whips are responsible for ensuring there is a quorum when attention is drawn “to the state of the House”. The reason for this is that it is generally regarded that the function of an opposition is to ensure that as little as possible passes the House, with the assumption being that anything the government does should be stopped, if possible, by the Opposition.
If the whole Cabinet is not there it is almost impossible to muster a quorum from the government benches alone.
While I believe that breastfeeding is a perfectly natural and healthy thing to do in public, I think it’s wise to put provisions in for a woman absenting herself while BFing. Some babies simply won’t feed in a noisy, active environment: they keep popping off and looking around, which is physically uncomfortable. Some babies are spewy after a feed. Some do explosive poos after a feed. And if you have a pair of hungry twins that want to be fed at the same time (and they often do), there is NO way you can do it without exposing a fair amount of skin, especially if you are big-busted, and not everyone would want to do that in front of, ahem, the less modern kind of parliamentarian. Breastfeeding is sometimes painful, especially when the baby is tiny. By the time the baby has been brought to the chamber, it will probably be squawking anyway. These are all good reasons for having a place for lactating mothers to go to. Though the thought of a baby crawling around the floor of the House is rather sweet!
“…
Larva ProddersJack Strocchi reallydontdoesn’t have all that much to talk aboutnow His Howard-hatefulness has left the sceneanymore.They areHe is really scratching about trying to findsomeonesomething to fill the aching voidleft by his departure.Post-modern LeftismStrocchism is mostly about status-seeking by positioning oneself to take the high moral ground….To do that one needs to have a convincing bogey man with which to scare and titillate the public. That function
was ablyis so often fulfilled byHowardthe Attack of the Wet Lefty Luvvies!”“*Materially-baaded status-seeking is an uphill task for
arty typestinpot, busted-arsed autodidacts who are not very good atsums or handy with toolsdealing with what happens when their floridly virtual theories,obsessively woven during too much downtime, meets actual reality.By the way Jack, will I see you at the AusBiotech/Small Technologies Alliance’s first working party meeting just before Easter? The discussions about developing homegrown connectomics capabilities and how best to tender for elements of DARPA’s Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics program should be a real hoot.
No? Well OK, I guess abusive sophistry commentary doesn’t write itself. But do keep up your own work if it makes you feel better about yourself, babe.
Ahhh, Glen Milne. Product of the sun king. Fast facing obscurity. Need to be heard. Burk/Kevingate don’t work. Lactating mothers might.
Stop listening to this irrelevant twerp. I await his appointment to the opposition as a Spokesperson/scapegoat.
I just like how on the ball Milne is with all this. When we consider that on Thursday 21 June 2007, the House Standing Committee on Procedure tabled its report entitled Options for nursing mothers.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/nursingmothers/report.htm
Frank Calabrese, this just caught my eye:
OMG as if one isn’t bad enough
On the subject of Milne’s piece…no-one else has picked up on this story it seems, which is a breathe of fresh air with the MSM. Finally, we can regard breast-feeding as normal, natural and to be encouraged.
Hence I think the Stunted One is a tad obsesssed shall we say? I have a hunch the story is more about his personal kink rather than a serious examination of amendments to Standing Orders. I think Rudd’s people would have thoroughly examined ramifications, including practices in other legislatures.
Next he’ll be trying to score interviews in the Mum’s Room…gah!
Does anybody else think Hughes’ role in this reminds them of the shade of Sir Garfield Barwick? I seem to remember he brought on a constitutional crisis that could have plunged the country into civil war if it hadn’t been for trhe good sense of Gough Whitlam? What is it about the Libs that makes them play with fire once they get into Opposition. Malcolm should know better. Or is this really part of his plot to make us a republic. As for Milne, he hass little credibility and I don’t even know why we’re giving him oxygen.
The point Turnbull (and others) make about whether or not it is Constitutional for the House of Reps to ‘contract out’ of having to maintain a quorum is a reasonable one to raise. (Turnbull’s full remarks to the House can be found here.) If someone calls a quorum and it doesn’t form within a set time, then I think it is dubious to suggest that Parliament can still validly sit – even if any formal votes on issues can be challenged via a call for a division (formal count of heads) and thus not be determined until the next sitting day when presumably everybody who wants to be can be present. If the government had approached the Coalition in advance about this whole idea of sitting on Fridays for general business, rather than just announce it as a stunt to try create the impression that the Rudd government is especially hard working, they might have found some cooperation. As Turnbull notes, there is already an understanding that no quorums be called in the 6.30 to 8pm timeslot. The same has applied in the Senate for years, where there is a general agreement that no quorums be called after 4.30pm on Thursdays so people can get back to their home states that night – this period is usually used for general (i.e. non-government) business. I presume someone could break that understanding if they wished and call a quorum, but it would serve no purpose other than to piss off the people who wanted to speak on a general business matter that afternoon. (which might be a good enough reason I suppose). Also, I’m not sure ensuring at least 30 people from the goverment are present on the Friday is that onerous a task – they have 83 seats IIRC.
As for the agreement to allow a vote by proxy, I don’t think it is very revolutionary at all. As has been pointed out, it is quite easy to still ensure it is recorded some way or other, in that same way that ‘pairs’ have been for decades through a completely unofficial but rarely breached arrangement.
And Glenn Milne’s concerns about
is just silly.
Wilson Tuckey’s walk out on the ’sorry vote’ was actually not formally recorded amd has nothing to do with voting – by proxy or otherwise. It was noted by the media as Tuckey obviously wanted to be, but it is not recorded in the Hansard or the Votes and Proceedings – Tuckey didn’t actually vote on the motion and abstentions are never recorded, unless someone puts them on the record via a speech, which Tuckey didn’t bother to do. If he had stayed in his room (as some others did) rather than pointedly parade his bigotry, it would barely have been noticed. Indeed there was no formal division taken on the ’sorry vote’ at all – it was passed by way of people standing to signify their assent (a week after the motion was first moved), with no names recorded – certainly not Wilson Tuckey’s who as far as I can see didn’t actually speak on the motion at all.
On another aspect, I think the stuff about it being essential for there to be a Question Time every single day to “hold the government/executive” to account is mostly blather. Question Time is usually the most meaningless, non-substantial period of the entire Parliamentary proceedings – it just provides good theatre, and hence good pictures and good (and easy) copy, which is why the entire Press Gallery turns up to watch its mostly empty hollerings, and ignores all the more meaningful and substantive work which occurs the rest of the time (as opposed to the Senate, where they ignore the Question Time as well as everything else). As the rather stale joke goes, if they were actually expected to give genuine answers, it would be called Answer Time instead of Question Time. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, and the government could cancel Question Time all together if they chose – which they’d never do, because then people might start paying attention to what they’re actually doing and some of the laws they’re trying to pass, rather than watching the vaudeville. It’s sort of a parliamentary version of the Chewbacca defence – encouraging people to look away from anything of serious significance.