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

“What happens to the notion of accountability? How are virtual votes verified? Will they be open to potential fraud? Wilson Tuckey walked out of the chamber over the sorry vote to the Stolen Generations. How would that be recorded?”

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.

… that Sophie Mirabella, she of being absent during the Apology, is in fact expecting herself.

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!

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/nursingmothers/report.htm

Stop listening to this irrelevant twerp. I await his appointment to the opposition as a Spokesperson/scapegoat.

Post-modern Leftism Strocchism 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 ably is so often fulfilled by Howard the Attack of the Wet Lefty Luvvies!”

“*Materially-baaded status-seeking is an uphill task for arty types tinpot, busted-arsed autodidacts who are not very good at sums or handy with tools dealing 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.

Better the word “sucking” for that lad.

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”.

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 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……

Mmm … does this herald the end of the traditional ….�seeking a pair�…. or the beginning of it.

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.

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?

the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called “The Parliament,” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth. “

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.

This post is disingenuous in the extreme. What on earth does it have to do with Milne allegedly being hitherto blind to female MPs?

Mmm … does this herald the end of the traditional ….”seeking a pair”…. or the beginning of it. Just channelling Hugh Hefner, my auntys’ stepfather.

http://australianpolitics.com/articles/constitution/chapter-1-part-3-house-of-representatives
Section 39 – Quorum

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers.

Section 40 – Voting in House of Representatives

Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote.

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?)