The Greens are also pretty incensed about some of the changes – particularly the rule that would allow Hansard not to record the names of MPs voting in favour of legislation if there are six or fewer members on one side of the chamber for the vote.

Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown has called it a “stitch up” that undermines transparency.

It gives Labor and Liberal MPs cover to hide how their MP’s are voting on important issues. Voters deserve to know how their representatives are voting.

Labor needs to explain why they want to hide their MPs voting positions from the public. Transparency should be a bare minimum in a democracy.

Among the changes are rules allowing members to be booted from parliamentary proceedings for a maximum of three hours, up from the previous rule of 60 minutes.

Another change would allow Hansard, the record of proceedings, not to record the names of MPs voting in favour of legislation if there are six or fewer members on one side of the chamber (ie, clearly in the minority) at the time of a vote. The new rule states:

If, after the doors are locked, there are six or fewer Members on one side in a division, the Speaker shall declare the decision of the House immediately, without completing the count. The names of the Members who are in the minority shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone -1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Huh? Can't you just assume that if they were a sitting member at the time and their name isn't in the 6 or less that voted nay then they voted yay?

Seems like a nothing burger ..

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 11 points 1 week ago (4 children)

No, you definitely can't. A lot of votes happen without everyone attending. Popular tools like They Vote For You look at the Hansard record of who voted to determine how they vote. If they don't show up as having voted, those tools aren't going to just presume they would have voted some way.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If someone didn't attend a likely majority vote then I most certainly will assume they agree with the majority, and will treat them as such.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Especially if they sat by and said nothing while their party made these changes to the standing orders.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can't even know if they were in Canberra at the time. Many politicians may have been in their home division, unwell, in in a meeting, or in a pairing arrangement with someone on the other side.

More to the point, as I said in the previous comment, most people aren't looking at individual politicians' individual votes and also cross-referencing how their colleagues voted in votes they didn't attend. Certainly tools like They Vote For You won't do that, and that's how most people are going to evaluate politicians' actions.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If they really wanted to be counted either not supporting or supporting a bill depending on where the minority sat, then they'd make the effort to get in and vote, otherwise it can be assumed they are sideing with the majority. They are voting with their actions.

load more comments (1 replies)