The following statement may or may not be correct as to the constitutional validity of 'pairing' the Speaker of the House of Representatives, however I remain uncomfortable with the notion of the Speaker having anything but the casting vote set out in The Australian Constitution Part III s40 Voting in House of Representatives.
In one scenario predicated on the statement below:
Pairing the Speaker would nullify the vote of another member of parliament and if a deadlock was the result of such a pairing the Speaker is required to deliver a casting vote - in effect the Speaker's position would be expressed twice in this instance while all other MPs (except the paired MP who would have no vote) would have only been able to express their position once in the same division of the House.
ADVICE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PAIRING ARRANGEMENT OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
22 September 2010
The Government has today been provided with advice by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General on a question pertaining to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Forty-third Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The advice considers whether there is any constitutional impediment to a pairing arrangement between the Speaker of the House of Representatives and another member from an opposing political party. The advice deals with a possible arrangement involving a pairing of members from opposing parties.
The Solicitor-General has advised that there are no necessary constitutional impediments in such an arrangement, subject to certain provisos.
One proviso is that the arrangement could not give the Speaker a deliberative vote nor deprive the Speaker of a casting vote. The arrangement entered into by the Government and the Opposition does not breach this proviso, as the Speaker would continue to exercise a casting vote only, consistent with the Commonwealth Constitution.
A further proviso is that adherence to the arrangement by the "paired" Member could only be voluntary. The pairing arrangements agreed to by both the Government and the Opposition are voluntary.
The Government notes the Solicitor-General's advice that there is no necessary constitutional impediment to a pairing arrangement between the Speaker of the House of Representatives and another member from an opposing political party.
The Solicitor-General's advice has been provided to the Opposition.
The Gillard Government remains fully committed to the "Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform" which was adopted on 6 September 2010.
Solicitor-General's advice In the matter of the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives [PDF 285KB]
1 comment:
funny how the coalition are deeply concerned about the constitutional implications of pairing but not of unconstitutional councils which the people of australia have twice voted against
Post a Comment