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

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The only problem with this idea is that it could result in people who would be very good politicians choosing not to go into politics because they can earn more money elsewhere. This is especially true of people who are coming from unprivileged backgrounds. If they don't have a partner who makes a huge amount to support them, and they don't have family wealth to rely on, but they do have qualifications that would allow them to make more than median wage, if politicians only made median wage, it might not be economically feasible for them to go into it.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Imo the best politicians are those who aren't monetarily motivated. Obviously earning enough to live comfortably should be provided, but if the median earner in Australia isn't living comfortably then that is a failure of our politicians. How can someone who earns over 100 000 dollars a year and is insulated from the hardships of the common Australian be expected to really take those issues seriously in parliament. Fill parliament with people who can't afford homes and the housing crisis would be solved tomorrow. The reality is politicians take the issues that effect them the most seriously. And the issues that effect them currently are the issues of the wealthy.