First vote in today's Parliament: 72 to 72
aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_doc...Posted May 8, 2012, 4:59 AM UTC
2833
aph.gov.au
Can someone explain in plain English what a "notice to suspend sessional orders" means?
6
Ordinarily, it means that a member of parliament wants to raise a matter that isn't part of the posted list of business for the day; they get a chance to explain why they think it's so important, they get someone to agree with them, the other side of the house gets a chance to say why they think it isn't important, and then a vote is cast.
At present it's being used to allow the Opposition to give an uninterrupted 15 minute speech right before Play School cuts off the Question Time broadcast.
12
(Note that live minutes will not reflect today's proceedings tomorrow).
The motion was that Harry Jenkins resume the duties of Speaker, and without a majority to carry it, the Deputy Speaker abstained and the motion was lost.
5
As well as trying to get Craig Thomson suspended from Parliament for 14 days.
3
Albo – “it’s called the separation of the state from the judiciary. It’s what people stand in front of tanks for”
katter (and another lib indi) just walked out, dumb lib stunt 72-70
4
Huh? Why did they walk out?
1
Libs wanted to become a star chamber, stooge takes MP to court or run a trial by media campaign, parliament pre-empt decision by suspending the MP
that or he had the runs
1
So Wilke voted with the Coalition. Interesting, must be trying to put a bit of pressure on the government.
4
That is interesting. Have to say he's a hard one to read.
2
A motion without notice to suspend sessional orders requires an absolute majority, that is, 76 votes. The vote was never going to pass, and Wilkie's position is part of his ongoing endeavour to demonstrate he's not going to vote with the government. It will be more telling when the vote is for appropriations bills.
PDF of standing orders: http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/StandingOrders/fullreport.ashx
Page 32, standing order 47 (c):
(c) If a suspension motion is moved without notice it: (i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and seconded; and (ii) can be carried only by an absolute majority of Members.
Page 6, definition of "absolute majority":
absolute majority is a majority of the membership of the House (including the Speaker).
Just a colossal waste of time.
8
I figured he would've done the numbers although i didn't realise the vote would need an absolute majority. One thing to remember is if this government is somehow brought down he will get precisely zip from the Coalition, so it is in his best interest to have them(ALP) around.
5
Just a daily colossal waste of time.
FTFY :P
3
Pairs
Mr Swan Mr Hockey
Ms Rowland Mr Robb
Wouldn't the pairs have counted in that situation? That takes the vote to 74 all; getting rather closer to the absolute majority.
2
Wouldn't the pairs have counted in that situation? That takes the vote to 74 all; getting rather closer to the absolute majority.
No. A simple majority is one in which more than half of present votes counts, an absolute majority is one in which more than half of total possible votes counts, including the Speaker's vote. Pairs don't count as votes cast, they count as uncast votes that by courtesy to each other cancel their effect on voting in regular business.
Suspensions of sessional orders are supposed to be extraordinary events, not an everyday occurrence, so they have a higher requirement for motions being carried than motions on the notice paper do.
6
Maybe, but since this was basically another go by the Coalition to have the House's Standing Orders suspended, it's entirely possible that he knew from the start that it didn't really stand a chance of passing. The real test will be when it comes time to vote on the Budget tonight.
2
FFS.. wouldn't it be nice to have a government where our elected officials voted because they thought something was a good idea, not just because it was their parties line. You know, doing the right thing because it's the right thing?
4
I used to think the same sort of thing, but as I learnt more about politics I realised two things:
-
Even though a member personally might believe something, in general if they were elected as a member of a party, then the party line better reflects the will of their electorate more often than their own personal beliefs. There are exceptions, of course, such as if a member specifically said during the campaign that they would fight for/against a particular policy, or if they were elected as an independent or minor party member. Remember, politics is about what the people want, not that particular individual who the people get to choose only every few years.
-
In practice, in systems where people vote according to individual view instead of down party lines, you simply end up with a situation where people make deals to support one another rather, rather than actually vote for what they believe. So if you and I are both independents and we need each other's support to get something passed, I might vote yes on your bill even if I thought it wasn't the best, provided you vote yes on my bill even though you may not think much of it. The end result is not much different from just having a party system, except that the party system tends to create more stable Governments.
Of course, in occasional circumstances, a member might cross the floor rather than support a motion they were completely opposed to. But that occurs rarely and should only be something done when a politician feels strongly enough to cross, and not just a tool used for political gain.
12
[deleted]
3
That's BS and you know it.
Get all of the party members together and interview them separately on a list of 10 issues, I GUARANTEE they won't agree with each other.
Perfect example is Tony Abbott and his "oh, a simple way to put a price on carbon is a carbon tax" then 'back flip 5000 now with 50% more backflip' as soon as he's in opposition and a carbon tax is mentioned as policy.. oh and his entire party agrees with him.. what a coincidence.
The reasons independents don't "achieve much" is because they don't have the weight of 30 yes men behind their choices. Their vote, irrespective of whether it's voting based on reason and evidence, their voice is outweighed by "the party line" which isn't based on anything other than "I declare all your opinions to be X, now vote that way"
2
[deleted]
1
Which is exactly the sentiment my comment was against. I hate that doing the right thing is sidelined by "doing anything even if it's not the right thing because there happens to be a structure in place that supports bad ideas being put through by lots of people".
1
Have to note that although this looks close it could be closer. The opposition have managed a simple majority in some of these votes in the past but as dhask has pointed out they need an absolute majority, and they're four votes off here. These suspension of standing orders motions aren't about anything substantive, they're about getting a nice chunk of free association rant time, usually just before the ABC broadcast ends.
3
As Albanese once said "Just in time for play School"
1
Awwwwww, fuck.
Seriously, nobody can honestly say this parliament hasn't been eventful. (For better or for worse.)
2
I didn't realise Sidebottom was a real name.
Would you believe Steele Sidebottom?
Sid Sidebottom used to be my neighbour. True story.
They are a great footballing family
Indeed, Gary was one of my childhood heroes when he was at Swan Districts.
my brother plays soccer with a robbie sidebottom