Pairing the Speaker

[Caesar]

Should it be allowed?

The Solicitor-General's advice indicates that a formal agreement would be unconsitutional under Section 40. However, that leaves open the avenue of an informal agreement, whereby the parties just agree to have someone abstain from voting opposite to how the Speaker would theoretically vote.

My take is that it's not appropriate. It's against the spirit of the constitution, and although the agreement is part of a set of reforms that are supposed to make the Speaker more independent I don't see how it has anything except the opposite effect.

That said, I really think that neither party should have signed up to an agreement like this in the first place. It's dodgy and borderline unconstitutional and counterproductive, it was patently designed purely to let Oakeshott take the job, and both parties were just chasing votes without thinking about the consequences. On the roll of the dice the Liberals lost and Labor won, and now Abbott is reaping the results of his gamble.

 

[jo172]

I think it's inappropriate for a number of reasons.

Namely we currently have 150 representatives of which one is the speaker. This means that on any one vote the most votes that can be cast is 149, thereby ensuring a result.

If you pair the speaker there are going to be 148 votes, leaving the possibility of a tie by which the speaker is obliged to give the casting vote.

There, by pairing the speaker you create a situation where the speaker gets to effectively vote twice and another member does not get to vote at all. It cannot be acceptable to have one representative having twice the power as another, particularly as this would occur on the most controversial of issues.

Also, the theory of the Speaker is that they are an impartial arbiter. Obviously we rarely see them completely impartial, but anecdotal evidence will show that the opposition will generally regard a speaker as relatively impartial.

If the Speaker is allowed to effectively vote on a bill it destroys any air of impartiality and makes the role politicization similar to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. The irony that the Super Friends deal could lead to further politicization and polarisation in parliament does appeal to me.

I think it was the height of irresponsibility displayed by the two parties in making the deal and showed the desperate attempts they were willing to sell out in order to secure government.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I'm somewhat confused.

Does this mean if a Labor MP is Speaker then the Coalition will always have one MP abstain (or vice versa)?

Seems dumb for any Opposition to stick with such an arrangement in a hung parliament.

 

[jo172]

I'm somewhat confused.

Does this mean if a Labor MP is Speaker then the Coalition will always have one MP abstain (or vice versa)?

Seems dumb for any Opposition to stick with such an arrangement in a hung parliament.

Basically whoever the speaker is will tell the leader of the house and manager of opposition business of their position on each bill and then a person will be found not to enter the division with the contrary view.

It seems an odd way of disenfranchising that particular member.

 

[Big John]

If the coalition was against it they shouldn't have agreed to it. I assume Gillard and co did get it in writing?

As for the actual arrangement, generally wouldn't make a difference, can see why it is necessary in the current situation.

 

[jo172]

If the coalition was against it they shouldn't have agreed to it. I assume Gillard and co did get it in writing?

They weren't against it if it meant they won

The gist of this deal was always going to benefit which ever party formed government and be to the detriment of the opposition.

As for the actual arrangement, generally wouldn't make a difference, can see why it is necessary in the current situation.

This I don't understand.

 

[MightyFighting]

A deal's a deal.

 

[evo]

Seems to me there isn't going to be much governmenting going on over the next few years.

Good times.

 

[MightyFighting]

Seems to me there isn't going to be much governmenting going on over the next few years.

Good times.

On the contrary, with multiple parties being able to get bills through the House of Reps, we may have more governmenting than you can handle.

 

[pazza]

Once you sign a document, then you are stuck with it.

As for the agreement, as long as the Speaker is paired with Abbott!!!

 

[Caesar]

I'd be curious to hear from the people who think it's a fair arrangement. Could they elaborate on why?

Thinking Abbott should stick to the agreement is one thing. But I find it difficult to justify any action that is specifically designed to circumvent the clear intentions of the constitution.

 

[Pessimistic]

The flip is it will be harder for the libs to take govt on the floor.

It seems they have little appetite to do that, rather play negative

 

[Nankervis brothers]

I am not entirely into the idea of 'pairing', but in the case of a hung parliament it possibly has some merit as it makes the process of actually governing/passing policy more doable. Of course, this is largely why Abbott is now opposed to it. Still, yet another 'backflip' by Abbott.

 

[Caesar]

I am not entirely into the idea of 'pairing', but in the case of a hung parliament it possibly has some merit as it makes the process of actually governing/passing policy more doable.

Not that I consider that justification for something that is against the spirit of the constitution, but how so?

I would have thought it would make the process of government even more difficult, by creating a situation where a split chamber is possible. The only thing it does is give the government an extra vote, which hardly seems fair.

 

[Chops_a_must]

I'd be curious to hear from the people who think it's a fair arrangement. Could they elaborate on why?

Thinking Abbott should stick to the agreement is one thing. But I find it difficult to justify any action that is specifically designed to circumvent the clear intentions of the constitution.

Well... what are the constitutional allowances for the Speaker voting?

 

[Caesar]

Not permitted unless the chamber is tied, then he has the casting vote.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Not that I consider that justification for something that is against the spirit of the constitution, but how so?

I would have thought it would make the process of government even more difficult, by creating a situation where a split chamber is possible. The only thing it does is give the government an extra vote, which hardly seems fair.

I don't belive that is so. My understanding is that both the parties would have one less vote through pairing, rather than only the govt. having one less, thus mantianing the current 2 seat majority and subsequently making the process of government more 'doable'. But perhaps i have it wrong.

Whatever the case, Abbott agreed to it and predicatably reneged when politically convienient. THis sort of thing has become a predictable pattern w/ him.

By the way, isn't it only the coalitions legal advice that says its unconstitutional, in the same way their outsourced accounting firm said their costings added up.....

 

[Chops_a_must]

Not permitted unless the chamber is tied, then he has the casting vote.

Not sure what difference it will make then.

 

[jo172]

If anyone thinks the ALP would have stuck with this deal they're kidding themselves.

Consider this (not entirely unrealistic) scenario.

The government currently has 75 votes on the floor of the lower house assuming they provide the speaker.

A Windsor or Wilkie gets disaffected with the government and joins a vote of no confidence.

This in theory should give the Coalition a 75 seat majority on the floor, enough to form a government (until they're placed in the tricky position of finding a speaker).

However, under the deal, assuming the speaker still supports the government a coalition member would have to abstain from the vote leading to a 74 all tie.

The Speaker then has the casting vote which presumably would stick with the Labor Party.

Effectively the Speaker gets to vote twice, and another member doesn't get to vote at all.

This deal is contrary to the Constitution.

 

[Caesar]

Not sure what difference it will make then.

By the way, isn't it only the coalitions legal advice that says its unconstitutional, in the same way their outsourced accounting firm said their costings added up.....

A negative vote is essentially a vote, which would contravene section 40. The Solicitor-General's advice makes it pretty clear that you couldn't formalise anything for that precise reason, and it's got a lot of caveats around an informal arrangement as well.

Even if an informal agreement is possible, I'm not comfortable with an agreement deliberately designed to go against the intention of the constitution. I mean, it's not like it's even an ambiguous clause. The Speaker's not supposed to be able to influence the vote unless a tiebreak is needed.

I wish nobody had ever dreamed up this stupid agreement.

 

[MightyFighting]

If anyone thinks the ALP would have stuck with this deal they're kidding themselves.

Bull.

Abbott is a particularly dishonourable man. Many politicians would have kept their word.

 

[jo172]

Bull.

Abbott is a particularly dishonourable man. Many politicians would have kept their word.

Oxymoron.

To put this discussion another way.

How would people feel if Abbott, Gillard, the independents made a deal that we don't need to hold elections anymore, or we don't need to have legislation pass through the Senate.

I really don't see there being an incredible amount of honour in a deal that should never have been made (and probably couldn't be validly made) in the first place

 

[MightyFighting]

How would people feel if Abbott, Gillard, the independents made a deal that we don't need to hold elections anymore, or we don't need to have legislation pass through the Senate.

Strawman.

I really don't see there being an incredible amount of honour in a deal that should never have been made (and probably couldn't be validly made) in the first place

If he didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have made it.

 

[jo172]

Strawman.

If he didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have made it.

I agree. It was a stupid, desperate, unconstitutional move by both parties somewhat Machiavellianly orchestrated by Oakenshott.

However, that in it self is not grounds for spending the next 3 years pretending the Constitution doesn't exist.

 

[Caesar]

Bull.

Abbott is a particularly dishonourable man. Many politicians would have kept their word.

Oh come on. Gillard's just backflipped on the carbon tax. They're politicians - you don't rise to lead a major party without learning to be expedient.