Crikey Clarifier: what is the role of the speaker?
|
Today’s Crikey Clarifier comes after a reader sent in the following request:
There is currently a storm brewing in Canberra over who will be elected speaker, which side of parliament they will come from and whether their casting vote will be paired with the deputy speaker. Crikey went to the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and Queensland University of Technology constitutional law expert Peter Black for answers: What is the role of the speaker? According to House of Representatives Practice, the speaker’s powers, functions and duties may be categorised as “constitutional, traditional and ceremonial, statutory, procedural and administrative”. “The role of the speaker in the House is to enforce the standing orders, to maintain order and to preside over proceedings,” the Clerk’s office told Crikey. “The Speaker has power to interpret and adjudicate on the standing orders and the power to deal with any disorder in the house.” What does the Constitution say? Under the Constitution, the Speaker is charged with the following tasks:
Does the speaker get to vote on legislation? According to section 40 of the Constitution, the Speaker does not vote unless there is a tie and then they have a casting vote. In the current parliament, if the cross-bench votes stay as they are (keep in mind cross-bench MPs have only guaranteed to vote with the ALP on supply and no-confidence motions), that will leave the ALP with 75 votes and the Coalition with 74. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then
he shall have a casting votThe Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then
What happens when the speaker is absent? Who fills in? “Routinely, in the last parliament there was a roster for a number of members to serve and do duty in the chair,” the Clerk’s office confirms. “It’s not just the speaker and the deputy speaker, it includes a second deputy and a members of the speaker’s panel, which acts on a rotation basis.” How does the role of a deputy speaker work? Do they have a vote? The deputy speaker votes on legislation unless they are in the speaker’s chair. Then it’s the same situation as the speaker, in that they only have a casting vote. Furthermore, once a member has been elected to the speakership they can’t rejoin the benches and let the deputy speaker take over. “If the speaker is not in the chair, they’re not in the chamber,” the Clerk’s office told Crikey. How does the ‘pairing’ of votes work? Are they mentioned in the Constitution? ‘Pairing’ arrangements are not mentioned in the Constitution and they are not mentioned in the standing orders, they are simply an agreement between the parties. “The convention is that it tends to be if the minister or member is unable to attend parliament then someone from the other side of parliament would abstain from the vote,” Peter Black told Crikey. The parliamentary reforms proposed by the independents recently recommended the ‘pairing’ of the speaker and deputy speaker. How would that work? Who would get the casting vote? The casting vote can only be exercised by whoever is in the speaker’s chair. If there was some understanding about ‘pairing’ the speaker and deputy speaker, then the deputy speaker would not be able to vote on any legislation. This would offer an advantage to whichever party held the speakership, as it would remove a vote from the other side. Why is the opposition calling the ‘pairing’ of the speaker and deputy speaker “constitutionally unsound”? “There are two layers to that, the first is because the practice that evolved between the parties with respect to ‘pairing’ had never been contained in legislation or standing orders it was never subject to a constitutional challenge,” Black says. “The other is that the ‘pairing’ arrangement with respect to the speaker was only ever an understanding and an agreement for political purposes. It is obviously no longer politically expedient for Tony Abbott to agree with ‘pairing’ the speaker. “Also, I can see that if they were going to go down the path of trying to legislate or enshrine ‘pairing’ into standing orders, that does raise legitimate constitutional questions.” Here’s a hypothetical for you — assuming the deputy speaker comes from the opposition and their vote is not ‘paired’ with the speaker. If the cross-benches stay where they are and the speaker is elected from the government then the numbers on the floor will be 75-74. But if the deputy speaker is in the chair then the numbers become 75-73, offering legislative breathing space to the government. Could you see a situation where the government brings on a vote when the deputy speaker is sitting? “The government whip will decide when to bring matters to the floor of parliament,” Black says. “I can see that in a finely balanced parliament — and in a parliament when an opposition wants to be as obstructionist as possible — then that could be a method of getting legislation through. “I do think if they start doing that then they lose the moral high ground that they have claimed in the argument so far. But when push comes to shove, getting important legislation through parliament is more important than contributing to the new political paradigm.” |
|
|
|
25 Comments
I’m a mathematician, and this speaker-gets-no-vote business has me utterly mystified. I’ve looked at it from every angle, and it’s clear that the speaker actually has EXACTLY THE SAME VOTING POWER as every other MP on government legislation. Check this out:
Case 1. Votes are 75-74 on the floor. Speaker would have made it 76-74. Legislation passes either way.
Case 2. Votes are 74-74 on the floor. Speaker gets casting vote and legislation passes, just as if he had a real vote.
Case 3. Votes are 74-75 on the floor. Speaker would have made it 75-75, which is not enough to pass the legislation anyway.
Case 4. This is the ONLY case where it makes a difference. Opposition introduces legislation and it is carried 75-74 with the help of independents. Speaker would have been able to block it.
So the Speaker makes no difference, unless we’re talking about a non-government bill, which AFAIK would be procedurally blocked by the GG as a matter of course. What am I missing?
One thing you’re missing, Rourke, might be the matter of hat happens when someone is missing?
With regard to Peter Black’s comments on the matter, I’d suggest little was gained (especially when it’s coming from an academic who hopefully considers impartiality an aspect of the role) from his partisan comments re the alleged motives of those he was discussing.
Nope, no matter who is missing from the house, the vote result is exactly the same whether the speaker has a deliberative vote or not. Cases 1-3 cover every possibility.
However, if they had an independent speaker, case 4 can arise for government legislation: majority vote on the floor which the independent might have opposed. Which is why Labor is pushing very hard for Oakeshott and the Liberals don’t want him any which way, paired or not.
Sorry but all those calculations are wrong (if not the conclusions re Rourke): Katter cannot in any sensible count be included on the Opposition whose seats are technically and effectively only 72 not 74. In my comment last week (crikey.com.au/2010/09/14/gillards-ministry-of-unsound/) I said that and now with Katter’s statements today (abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/24/3020914.htm) it is even clearer.
Effectively, on most votes it is :
Government: 75 (3 indies, 1 Green, excludes speaker Jenkins)
Opposition: 71 (excludes deputy speaker Somlyay)
Unaligned: 2 (Katter & Crook)
What the Clarifier hasn’t clarified is what happens in votes of Confidence? Do both Speaker and Deputy-Speaker vote (I assume yes, so the count/margin doesn’t change.)
Effectively, on votes of confidence it is :
Government: 77 (5 indies, 1 Green))
Opposition: 72
Unaligned: 1 (Crook)
@ Rourke
“…no matter who is missing from the house, the vote result is exactly the same whether the speaker has a deliberative vote or not. Cases 1-3 cover every possibility.”
I don’t understand this comment, can you clarify? If an MP is missing from the House they have no vote.
As I read it Michael R. James, the person who is elected speaker will never have a vote unless it is a casting vote (“If the speaker is not in the chair, they’re not in the chamber,” the Clerk’s office told Crikey).
OK, it has been announced Somlyay will be the deputy speaker but will not pair with the speaker. So he has yielded to Abbott and the party heavies. But surely there is the opportunity for Labor to play dirty as well if it came to it: Jenkins could simply claim sickness and leave the chamber, thus forcing the Deputy into the chair; in this way Jenkins has forced the pairing (or cancelling of their votes). Of course then the Deputy-speaker, now speaker, could claim sickness and it could continue down the established order. All of this caused by the Abbott’s junking of 50 years of parliamentary protocol specifically designed to avoid this kind of disorderliness.
The Liberals need to accept that they lost the election. One wonders if there are not some Liberals who are beginning to wonder where this leads, or am I really underestimating how low all of them will stoop in desperation to gain government?
Michael R J,
You’ve summed-up the scenario neatly. What used to be an honourable and informal tradition has been trashed by an individual who has no concept of goodwill. I’m n0t a great fan of Gillard’s but she’s looking better by the hour.
This weekend I intend canvassing a few Liberal voters of my acquaintance to see if the scales have fallen from their eyes regarding slippery-as-an-eel Abbott.
Michael, for some, no one can be lower than those whom their prejudices deem to be ‘bad’.
The issue can be clouded by other factors. I’ve received extremely harsh attacks , for example, because I suggested that Santamaria was a principled man. Not to my face, which is hardly surprising; but what may seem surprising is that the criticisms [invariably made behind my back] came from people who over the years had been too scared not only to back my ultimately successful battle to virtually eliminate NCC influence in the Labor Party, but in some cases had even attempted [for reasons I understand] to block my efforts to remove NCC operatives.
I don’t look for logic so much as emotions whenever I’m trying to work out why one individual has been dubbed ‘bad’ etc. by another individual — - and more often than not, I found it proved to be an accurate guide.
Who cares, this is the most exciting thing that could happen in years (apart from Kevin Rudd’s stripper visit which was to him beautiful in it’s ugliest), so Joolia has to be on her game, she did say it was on from memory. What it highlights is the strategic nature of the Libs getting one over Joolia again - you never know, the Libs may just get a “mandate”within the next 3 yrs.
Norman, I shouldn’t bother trying to reply because, (as usual, I have to say), you wrote a bunch of words but the heck if I can see a point or an argument.
Are you saying that it is mere “prejudice” to support rules evolved over 50 (or is it 70 years?) of our parliament, by all sides (by definition) for orderly and fair (by definition) operation of our means of implementing democracy? In fact rules that Abbott and Pyne agreed to barely one week ago but which they now seem to find inconvenient. Is there something prejudiced in my “interpretation” (to me it looks like a simple bit of fact?)? When the parliaments constitutional legal expert claims there is no problem, and the Liberal party’s constitutional expert says ditto (and nooooo, I do not mean George Brandis, a former barrister in commercial law) but Abbott and Pyne claim otherwise, how should I interpret that?
Now if those independents had decided to go with Abbott giving his government 76 to 74 seats, I would have been in agony but would I have been shrieking that his was an illegitimate government. That even though Labor won the 2PP and with the Greens also the popular vote (50.6% last time I calculated it) that it was valid to obstruct in any way possible Abbotts attempt to govern? You know, throw every parliamentary convention overboard. No, I am pretty sure I wouldn’t. I would be disgusted with Australian voters (well the 43% that voted Coalition) and lamented the unfair electoral system (that denies the Greens the 17 seats they deserve but gives almost all of them to the Nats who got about one third the votes).
As for Santamaria, for me it is irrelevant whether he is principled or not. Though I do fail to see how the belief in his God mandated narrow view of the world should be imposed on the rest of us, is principled. In fact I am from the same stock — what I call the pig-ignorant poor Irish trash. The kind of thing that caused those troubles in Northern Ireland that persisted into the 21st century. The kind of idiocy that plagues America and works against good government everywhere, all because of a laughably fictitious superior being in their minds. But of course it is not irrelevant that you bring the old god-botherer up since he was a hero figure to the Jesuit drop-out; what more does a thinking person really need to know?
I know I should know (or could at least google it), but I think the clarifier needs to be expanded to include the meaning and difference between a deliberative and casting vote.
A deliberative vote is saying yes or no to whatever the proposition is. A casting vote is when the yaes and noas are a tie, and someone is allowed to cast a vote to break the tie.
Rules vary from one constitution to another. Sometimes the chairman has both a deliberative AND casting vote, sometimes a deliberative vote only, with all ties declared lost, sometimes there’s neither a deliberative nor casting vote for the chairman, with ties being declared lost.
As someone once didn’t say, constitutions weren’t meant to be too easy.
Michael, sorry I’d overlooked your comment. I wasn’t talking about the rules, per se, merely suggesting that HOW our species [whether consciously or not] interprets situations often depends more on our emotive predispositions than on any actual data.
As for Santamaria, I’d suggest that whether or not he was principled has zilch to do with whether or not you like those principles. If principles are to mean no more than whether you [or I, or anyone else for that matter] approve of something, the notion of principles ends up meaning nothing other than “I like”.
Like you I have no “belief in his God mandated narrow view of the world should be imposed on the rest of us.” I had no truck with most of his beliefs; but I could understand how someone might end up holding them, and I didn’t condemn everything he said, simply because he’d said it. Interestingly Santamaria had troubled thoughts about some aspects of religion towards the end, which left me (surprised as I was to hear about it) conceding he wasn’t quite as rigid as some of his critics.
If you insist someone is only principled where you agree with his conclusions, I’ll have a difficult time getting you to accept my main premise, which was that our species’ interpretations of what data means usually relies more on our beliefs than whatever data happens to be. Although I might try pointing out that the multiplicity of belief systems [many of them quite bizarre] to be found around the globe, does, on the face of it, seem the sort of world my approach would expect.
Here’s hoping I’ve responded reasonably appropriately. Best wishes, Norman.
ABC Drum News:
“Labor says it has secured the partial support of Liberal MP Alex Somlyay in its bid to end the deadlock over the role of the speaker in the new parliament. Federal Government sources say Mr Somlyay has agreed to back Labor in terms of supply and confidence if he is elected deputy speaker of the House of Representatives.
But Mr Somlyay has rejected the other element of Labor’s proposal - a guarantee on pairing votes. Earlier, a statement issued in Mr Somlyay’s name indicated the Liberal MP had rejected the entire deal. But Mr Somlyay’s office now says the statement was issued by the office of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
Earlier, Mr Somlyay, who was dumped as the Opposition’s whip in the post-election reshuffle, said he would contest the nomination for the deputy speaker position in the Coalition party room on Monday.”
………………………….
What I don’t quite get, is that Somlyay needs to get elected Deputy Speaker by his own party (apparently). With the hardliners ready to skin him alive — witness Joe Hockey all over the news tonight doing his faux outrage act — this doesn’t seem very likely? Oh well, Monday might be interesting.
It is premature but the adjusted numbers would be:
Effectively, on votes of confidence & supply:
Government: 78 (4 indies, 1 Green +Somlyay)
Opposition: 71
Unknown: 1 (Crook)
If Labor receives the support of a disenchanted Liberal, they have the numbers, which is all that counts when electing speaker AND deputy speaker, and he’s elected.
Over the years we’ve proved far more effective than the conservatives when it came to garnering a vital additional vote from our opponents’ ranks.
Michael R J,
Why would Somlyay need the support of his party if he’s decided to semi-defect? He has nothing to lose, it’s his final term and a good opportunity to take a swipe at Abbott (who chose not to appoint him as party Whip).
It sounds like Somlyay has adopted an independent mentality; that would be reinforced by Liberals such as Joe Hockey doing his enraged puffer fish impersonation on behalf of Somlyay’s constituents.
Zut, with the proverbial rats leaving a sinking ship scenario, they leave as a united group, ready to fight together for whatever territory they come across, and destroy members of any other rat pack they happen to meet.
Homo sapiens develop slightly more complex relationships than do rats, so Somlay simply wants to keep his (Liberal Party) cake, and eat his new (ALP) cake too.
The rest is easy.
Zut, I only queried his election to Deputy Speaker because he was quoted in the ABC report as above (and the last line of the quote I put in my earlier Post). But reading some stuff today it seems like it is the whole of the House that votes on these positions (which is Tuesday not Monday; I guess he will still get rough treatment in the Monday party meeting, and perhaps normally the party decides who to support for the position that the house votes on the next day).
I am not sure it is fair or correct to say Somlyay has “defected” or even become a rat. He will still vote on all day to day votes as a Liberal. In saying he would not block Supply or vote the government down in a Confidence vote, he is not far away from previous Liberal party policy. It is only Abbott who wants to junk all precedent and fair play. Which of course is interesting itself, and we’ll see if there are any ripple effects amongst other moderate Liberals.
Incidentally my numerical analysis (post @ 11.47pm) was more or less produced in today’s Oz (though if I recall they couldn’t quite bring themselves to put Katter on the government side in Confidence motions; well a bit of progress towards the truth but they find it hard to abandon the notion that it is 76:74 which in reality only existed for a few hours on that Tuesday afternoon between Katter declaring for the Coaltion, conditional on them forming government, and the others declaring later for Gillard, immediately nullifying (according to himself) Katters’ commitment to the Coalition.
Groan, I just caught up with today’s news: Somlyay has no backbone and has caved in to the party heavying. What a bloody wimp. He must have realized this would happen so it really reflects badly on him (even worse if he somehow didn’t think they wouldn’t try to destroy him). Now he just looks both gutless and clueless. Hey maybe he should retire immediately and his seat will be the first by-election!
Re Somlyay, I suppose we could use Tony Abbot’s language and say the faceless men of the Liberal party have knifed the Deputy Speaker in the dead of the night.
W could, aufozzy, provided we didn’t know much about how the respective parties work, or we did know, but didn’t let facts get in the way of what we’d like to believe was true. However, I realise you were being tongue in cheek, which sadly is an increasingly rare attribute in political discussions.
Whether or not he has kneecaps may be uncertain but one thing is for sure, Somlyay has lost all credibility and dignity on both sides of the house.
Michael R J,
I suppose if, amongst other things, a bloke received a phonecall from ‘the Devil’ it may be sufficient to put the frights on him.
Initially Somlay lost all credibility on both sides of the House, but had angered only one side. Now he’s angered both sides. Isn’t that sad for the poor fellow.
He’s at least fortunate, though, that while his own side may be angry, physical violence hasn’t been part of their core beliefs, and the other side hasn’t been too bad either, aginst those not part of their own ‘family’.