Was talking about this at work today, the speaker should be one of the independants, or minor parties. There is some chance of them being bipartisan that way.
Was talking about this at work today, the speaker should be one of the independants, or minor parties. There is some chance of them being bipartisan that way.
Not necessarily as they still participate in the system where every man and their dog are incredibly similar.
I’m such a cycnical ■■■■■ 
In my workplace, if I got done falsifying expenses, I’m out the door, I don’t get moved to the office down the hall.
It’s bullshit
In my workplace, if I got done falsifying expenses, I'm out the door, I don't get moved to the office down the hall.It’s bullshit
Ask Peter Slipper what happens if you’re not on Tones side, and you rort far far less than Bishop.
Was talking about this at work today, the speaker should be one of the independants, or minor parties. There is some chance of them being bipartisan that way.
What happens to their vote then though?
Was talking about this at work today, the speaker should be one of the independants, or minor parties. There is some chance of them being bipartisan that way.What happens to their vote then though?
who cares? they get 800grand of free ■■■■
Unlikely to be an independent or similar, even though it probably WOULD result in a more functional parliament.
Firstly, why would the Libs appoint someone unbiased when they have the chance to appoint one of their own without losing anything?
Secondly, and less cynically, becoming speaker means you largely give up your regular role in parliamentary debate. I think it’s even convention that the speaker doesn’t talk about policy debate at all, isn’t it (correct me if I’m wrong…)? Indies and minor parties would be really unwilling to do that - in a House where one major party holds a majority in their own right, the right to speak, the right to ask questions, the right to introduce private members’ bills, and the right to sit on parliamentary committees is the only power and influence they have. These guys have issues and policies of their own to push, and much more than major party candidates then if they don’t perform visibly for their electorate they’re out on their ear. It’s a pretty big ask for them to give that up once they’ve finally got into parliament, just give it all up for a thankless job as a referee between two rival bunches of squabbling children.
Unlikely to be an independent or similar, even though it probably WOULD result in a more functional parliament.Firstly, why would the Libs appoint someone unbiased when they have the chance to appoint one of their own without losing anything?
Secondly, and less cynically, becoming speaker means you largely give up your regular role in parliamentary debate. I think it’s even convention that the speaker doesn’t talk about policy debate at all, isn’t it (correct me if I’m wrong…)? Indies and minor parties would be really unwilling to do that - in a House where one major party holds a majority in their own right, the right to speak, the right to ask questions, the right to introduce private members’ bills, and the right to sit on parliamentary committees is the only power and influence they have. These guys have issues and policies of their own to push, and much more than major party candidates then if they don’t perform visibly for their electorate they’re out on their ear. It’s a pretty big ask for them to give that up once they’ve finally got into parliament, just give it all up for a thankless job as a referee between two rival bunches of squabbling children.
thankless?
Unlikely to be an independent or similar, even though it probably WOULD result in a more functional parliament.Firstly, why would the Libs appoint someone unbiased when they have the chance to appoint one of their own without losing anything?
Secondly, and less cynically, becoming speaker means you largely give up your regular role in parliamentary debate. I think it’s even convention that the speaker doesn’t talk about policy debate at all, isn’t it (correct me if I’m wrong…)? Indies and minor parties would be really unwilling to do that - in a House where one major party holds a majority in their own right, the right to speak, the right to ask questions, the right to introduce private members’ bills, and the right to sit on parliamentary committees is the only power and influence they have. These guys have issues and policies of their own to push, and much more than major party candidates then if they don’t perform visibly for their electorate they’re out on their ear. It’s a pretty big ask for them to give that up once they’ve finally got into parliament, just give it all up for a thankless job as a referee between two rival bunches of squabbling children.
Don’t they also lose a vote for the person who sits as speaker? No way would they give up a vote.
Unlikely to be an independent or similar, even though it probably WOULD result in a more functional parliament.Firstly, why would the Libs appoint someone unbiased when they have the chance to appoint one of their own without losing anything?
Secondly, and less cynically, becoming speaker means you largely give up your regular role in parliamentary debate. I think it’s even convention that the speaker doesn’t talk about policy debate at all, isn’t it (correct me if I’m wrong…)? Indies and minor parties would be really unwilling to do that - in a House where one major party holds a majority in their own right, the right to speak, the right to ask questions, the right to introduce private members’ bills, and the right to sit on parliamentary committees is the only power and influence they have. These guys have issues and policies of their own to push, and much more than major party candidates then if they don’t perform visibly for their electorate they’re out on their ear. It’s a pretty big ask for them to give that up once they’ve finally got into parliament, just give it all up for a thankless job as a referee between two rival bunches of squabbling children.
Don’t they also lose a vote for the person who sits as speaker? No way would they give up a vote.
Yeah, but in a lower house that the coalition still controls with a comfortable absolute majority, Bronwyn or no Bronwyn, the value of an independent house of reps vote is kinda minimal at the moment.
Unlikely to be an independent or similar, even though it probably WOULD result in a more functional parliament.Firstly, why would the Libs appoint someone unbiased when they have the chance to appoint one of their own without losing anything?
Secondly, and less cynically, becoming speaker means you largely give up your regular role in parliamentary debate. I think it’s even convention that the speaker doesn’t talk about policy debate at all, isn’t it (correct me if I’m wrong…)? Indies and minor parties would be really unwilling to do that - in a House where one major party holds a majority in their own right, the right to speak, the right to ask questions, the right to introduce private members’ bills, and the right to sit on parliamentary committees is the only power and influence they have. These guys have issues and policies of their own to push, and much more than major party candidates then if they don’t perform visibly for their electorate they’re out on their ear. It’s a pretty big ask for them to give that up once they’ve finally got into parliament, just give it all up for a thankless job as a referee between two rival bunches of squabbling children.
Don’t they also lose a vote for the person who sits as speaker? No way would they give up a vote.
Yeah, but in a lower house that the coalition still controls with a comfortable absolute majority, Bronwyn or no Bronwyn, the value of an independent house of reps vote is kinda minimal at the moment.
Yeah but if you are an independent try selling that you can’t vote and can’t action anything for your electorate!
Vital in the previous House, unimportant in this one.
Anyhow, Bronnie, tell your story walking…to the helicopter.
If the rotor blades hit that hairdo, they’d snap for sure. There’s something about right-wing women that’s truly vile…as though you expect something better from them.
Unlikely to be an independent or similar, even though it probably WOULD result in a more functional parliament.Firstly, why would the Libs appoint someone unbiased when they have the chance to appoint one of their own without losing anything?
Secondly, and less cynically, becoming speaker means you largely give up your regular role in parliamentary debate. I think it’s even convention that the speaker doesn’t talk about policy debate at all, isn’t it (correct me if I’m wrong…)? Indies and minor parties would be really unwilling to do that - in a House where one major party holds a majority in their own right, the right to speak, the right to ask questions, the right to introduce private members’ bills, and the right to sit on parliamentary committees is the only power and influence they have. These guys have issues and policies of their own to push, and much more than major party candidates then if they don’t perform visibly for their electorate they’re out on their ear. It’s a pretty big ask for them to give that up once they’ve finally got into parliament, just give it all up for a thankless job as a referee between two rival bunches of squabbling children.
Don’t they also lose a vote for the person who sits as speaker? No way would they give up a vote.
Yeah, but in a lower house that the coalition still controls with a comfortable absolute majority, Bronwyn or no Bronwyn, the value of an independent house of reps vote is kinda minimal at the moment.
Yeah but if you are an independent try selling that you can’t vote and can’t action anything for your electorate!
Queensland have an Indep. as the Speaker, Peter Wellington.
Nice one Labor…one very, very expensive trip.
Labor’s chief lower house strategist Tony Burke has hit back at Government criticism of his decision to charge taxpayers more than $12,000 for a trip to Uluru with his family.
Can’t they just change it and make the speaker a public servant?
Or even a senator (longer terms and generally less flippant)
Not sure giving the position to a senator would help, so long as the person taking the role is still nominated by the governing party. You’d still have the spectre of Speaker Eric Abetz, or Speaker Cory Bernardi, or Speaker Bill Heffernan (remember that guy? Still there, somehow), or even Speaker Lee Rhiannon.
Same deal (if indirectly) with public servants. The govt would still choose which public servant it was.
Only possibly alternative I could see is having it be a current or retired judge, who one would hope are accustomed to being evenhanded regardless of personal political preferences, and who take a similar role, though much smaller and under vastly different rules, in the courtroom. Hmm, Speaker Middleton, anyone?
I’ll do it.
e.g. Stop grandstanding and say something substantial.
I said stop grandstanding and …
Right out you go. ■■■■ off. next.
cha-ching free million dollars please.
Liberals are going in hard, as you would expect. This stuff has been going on for years so there will be a lot of dirt thrown around.
Not sure giving the position to a senator would help, so long as the person taking the role is still nominated by the governing party. You'd still have the spectre of Speaker Eric Abetz, or Speaker Cory Bernardi, or Speaker Bill Heffernan (remember that guy? Still there, somehow), or even Speaker Lee Rhiannon.Same deal (if indirectly) with public servants. The govt would still choose which public servant it was.
Only possibly alternative I could see is having it be a current or retired judge, who one would hope are accustomed to being evenhanded regardless of personal political preferences, and who take a similar role, though much smaller and under vastly different rules, in the courtroom. Hmm, Speaker Middleton, anyone?
How does Cory Bernadi get elected in the first place? Completely baffling