Standing Orders for Parliament - Discussion Thread

[Barnes]

A chamber's Standing Orders determines the amount of time given over for debate, but not what is being debated, of course.  Again, that's the Leader of the House's job. 

I don't wish to seem churlish, but here's a description of the role of the Leader of the House in Australia just for the benefit of everyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Foucaulf]

I'm not disputing that a House Leader decides how to prioritize government bills, but it's not true that it's the House Leader who writes Parliament agenda. For example, the Speaker manages the ordering of private member's bills (which aren't as much a thing in Australia compared to other Commonwealth countries).

But this is getting too nitty-gritty. I'm just not a big fan of having a government minister controlling the order of things, and thinks a Speaker should be elected that maintains a degree of impartiality. The choice is between a US Congress Speaker versus an Atlasia Speaker, to use an analogy more people here will get.

[Blair]

A Westminster speaker isn't as oppressive as an American speaker, but they also are members of the governing party/coalition. Either way, the rules will be agreed upon by the House before business is done..

IIRC the Speaker is completely neutral, and doesn't have to be a member of the governing party. Betty Boothroyd was a labour MP and Speaker from 1992-2000 when he had a Conservative Government for 5 years of that.

The Speaker can end the debate, as seen when the condom of purple paint was thrown onto Tony Blair. However the government has large control of the Agenda, and set's the various motions. The Speaker is largely powerless 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A whip is an internal post. It would make sense for the parties here to have them (of course) but don't tangle their role with formal parliamentary procedure.

[Хahar 🤔]

If we're doing party-list PR (which is what we're doing) then we're not having a Westminster system. It's silly to base things off of that.

[Barnes]

If we're doing party-list PR (which is what we're doing) then we're not having a Westminster system. It's silly to base things off of that.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? I mean, New Zealand uses MMP afterall...

Regardless, no one said we had to use a Westminster system, but I do think it's about time for us to figure out what we're doing here.

[Simfan34]

I think I speak for many when I say I want to have a Westminster system and would be disinterested in some Scandinavian-style system or something.

[Barnes]

I think I speak for many when I say I want to have a Westminster system and would be disinterested in some Scandinavian-style system or something.

As we're working (for the time, anyway) as a system without a single, codified constitution, these things are organic and flexible.  I'm very much excited to play in as Westminster style, but let's see where this goes, perhaps we'll get there.

However, this discussion has rather digressed.  The main objective of this conversation is to establish the rules and procedures we want for the normal operations of Parliament.

[Foucaulf]

Now that the election is over, bumping this up would be a good idea. Here's what I've gotten from discussions:

-The government should play a decisive role setting the legislative schedule (which I admit is how it works in real life). This is a natural incentive for entering government.

-We agree on limits to debate times. I'm in favor of a first-reading/second-reading system: a bill is introduced on first-reading, at which time people may comment on it in debate. No vote is taken, and the bill is defeated if not seconded by a MP. Second reading is when debate is actually scheduled, concluding with an up-or-down vote on the bill. As in Atlasia, there are caps on how many bill threads exist simultaneously.

-A question time thread offers a more active place for opposition to act and criticize the government.

I think the two biggest questions are:

-How freely are members allowed to motion for amendments? Is there a cap on the amount proposed at each time, and how much? Do members have to sign up beforehand? Are amendment quotas allocated to different opposition parties by size?

-What triggers a vote of no confidence? This will decide if we cling to a Westminster system or something else. Right now there is no budget bill that necessitates a vote of no confidence during Parliament, so when can you?

I'm not going to propose ideas for those two questions, because that's something for the next government to decide. A speaker must be elected soon, and somewhere down the line he has to respect some new rules of order.

[Barnes]

Very happy to see this bumped again!  Obviously, we can't elect a speaker until the newly elected Parliament is assembled for the first time.  I assume that would be done by the Interim President on the advice of the (future) PM.

On to the questions:

1. There should definitely be a cap on the number of amendments tied to a quota of the number of seats that an opposition party contains.  Perhaps between a first and second reading, MPs would be given the opportunity to sign up for amendments to be introduced in the second reading?  This gives each party time to plan about what to propose, who to move it, etc.

2. We haven't resolved whether or not we want to do appropriations bills, so until then, I would suggest keeping confidence motions to a simple: "This House has no confidence in the government," etc.  I would certainly advocate for a limit on how often that motion could be moved.  Perhaps also restrict it to being moved by the leader of a parliamentary party?