Greens take Speaker role

che said :

It seems a bit of a let down to go through 4 elections attempting to play this game and then when you turn up at the stadium choose to become the umpire.

good call

That’s a really good point – have the Greens settled for the “keep the bastards honest” role (ie always the third force)?

I just cannot see them getting enough votes to be a viable alternative Government – unless they take them from the labor party.

RE the tie: who cares.

Maybe showing a bit of neckline is what the greens mean by open government.

Re: the poll…
I don’t think he _has to_ wear a tie, but I also don’t think he should come into work wearing tracksuit pants and the shirt he slept in, but can we have some middle ground?

[i]So we’ve now got signs of real compromise from Labor.[/i]

Today’s CT made it clear: not compromise, just fear of a humiliating loss. Labor capitulated because of a threat from the Greens to support someone else from outside Labor.

I don’t think that would be cast as working together.

On the contrary, 4.3 looks like giving Private Members’ bills a little of the kind of assistance that Government bills routinely get.

NickD said :

sepi said :

I don’t really understand the benefits of becoming the speaker?

I presume that they get a pay rise and a nicer office. They also get to tell other members of the assembly to sit down and shut up and/or answer the questions they get asked.

Pretty much it, it’s normally used to put politicians out of the way where they can’t do any damage. Only problem now is that we will have John Hargreaves, the Minister for Incompetence and Mary Porter the Minister for SFA again. Though Labor had little option other than bowing to the Greens’ will, they chose the soft option of a Greens member over the Liberal minister as they had very little other choice, Mary Porter as deputy was obviously part of the deal.

“There has also been a lot of argument between ALP and the Liberal parties about the need to have a ‘government’ or an ‘anti-government’ Speaker. As a member of the third party in this Assembly I am confident I will be able to find a non partisan approach in managing the business in the chamber.”

I think we just got a third side. I love this idea that the Greens are so non-partisan.

Well bugger me! Whodathunkit! Not too small to say I got it wrong.

“Also Shane would appear to have been cast out of the sewing circle leaving the ladies free to undertake the politicking.” Chortle – yup!

and they get to chuck people out

sepi said :

I don’t really understand the benefits of becoming the speaker?

I presume that they get a pay rise and a nicer office. They also get to tell other members of the assembly to sit down and shut up and/or answer the questions they get asked.

It seems a bit of a let down to go through 4 elections attempting to play this game and then when you turn up at the stadium choose to become the umpire.

good call

I’m a little dissapointed. I was looking forward to seeing more from Shane on the floor. It seems a bit of a let down to go through 4 elections attempting to play this game and then when you turn up at the stadium choose to become the umpire.

Speaker gets invited to the swankiest of the rent-a-crowd events.

Staffing, right to put up a certain number (2 I think) of private members bills each year (?), ability to squash the bickering and smart alec ‘banter’ and sledging (here’s hoping anyway), ability to force government reps to actually answer questions.

It may actually be different from the question times we see on tele all the time, because the speaker isn’t from one “side” or the other, so hopefully the natural bias that results from that will not be there.

I don’t really understand the benefits of becoming the speaker?

Yes caf: 4.3 seems to give the CM an option to shut them down if they go getting all pesky and wanting to do “stuff” doesn’t it?

Copy of the Greens media release just received:

Rattenbury becomes first Greens Speaker

The ACT Greens have taken on the responsibility of implementing the agreed Assembly reform agenda with the election today of Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury as the Speaker of the ACT legislative Assembly.

“Clearly being elected as speaker is a great privilege and responsibility” Mr Rattenbury said today.

“We went to the election promising a more accountable government and a more transparent approach to facing up to the big challenges in front of us.”

“Our agreement with the ALP includes a commitment to make the Assembly work more collaboratively, and to strengthen the role it has in ensuring public access to information, policy development, and decision making.”

“I understand the role of Speaker is a demanding one, and it will be a fairly steep learning curve to start. But I am confident, with my legal training and recent experience in leading the Greenpeace delegation at the vital climate change negotiations in Bali, I will develop the necessary skills quickly.”

“There has also been a lot of argument between ALP and the Liberal parties about the need to have a ‘government’ or an ‘anti-government’
Speaker. As a member of the third party in this Assembly I am confident I will be able to find a non partisan approach in managing the business in the chamber.”

“I am also looking forward to building on the work of the past Speaker in looking to give the Assembly a stronger role on in public life.”

“The ACT Assembly is a small and flexible parliament and it is usual for the Speaker to also contribute to the development of legislation and debate. I intend adding to that record by taking an active role in pursuing key issues, climate change in particular” Mr Rattenbury said.

Gungahlin Al: I think the only pertinent points are:

3.1 Continuation of a full Private Members’ Business day.

and

4.3 Ensure access for Members to Parliamentary Counsel Office staff to assist Private
Members in the preparation of Explanatory Statements, recognising the resource
implications of this measure.

A list of Greens promises would be good too. And we could add in the Libs promises – just to feel sorry for them and everyone that voted for them.

I posted a complete list of ALP election promises before the election

Thumper, one of the ALP candidates left their tables of election promises (and some other stuff) behind at our meet the candidates night – includes funding years to boot.

So that will be an interesting thing for us to monitor!

I think the Greens have settled for far too little

As I said on another thread, I think one of the reforms the Greens should have pursued a major loosening up of private members bills. I can’t recall seeing anything along that line in the agreement, but havent studied it.

I could not conceive of any constraint on the number of Notices of Motion I was able to put up as a Councillor (usually successfully) being constrained in any way. To see the battle that even government back benchers have in ACT to get their proposals even to an airing (e.g. Mick Gentleman’s feed-in tariff bill) beggars belief. I heard Deb Foskey saying a memorable moment for her was getting a bill up – in the final sitting session of her term! I think the more issues are put up for debate the better. “Not invented here” syndrome is never good – less so in government.

Where is that list?

The Greens got some of their platform on the agreement, but not a lot of really solid stuff. The argy bargy over the data centre is a very good example: looks good on paper, but has little in the way of practical outcomes lining up with a Greens election promise. My only surprise is that this type of thing happened out so soon.

As for Labor policy disappearing – that’s easy for the motivated: just get hold of that Treasury election promises costings document and tick them off as they fail to show.

The Committees have less power than people realise. They can scrutinise, report and recommend, but the Executive has the choice over whether to adopt or not. It all sounds idealistic and nice, but in reality, it is all care and faux power without genuine responsibility.

Given Stanhope’s past performance in minority and majority government, I think the Greens have settled for far too little. The only question is how this will play out. Perhaps I’m more pessimistic about it all.

It will also be interesting to see what the Liberals can manage over the next short while, considering they won’t get to Chair any of the interesting / important committees.

Depending on how the Labor/Green alliance works out (eg if the Greens take an opposing stand to Labor on any issue), it could be worse than Labor majority government as the Liberals can be effectively sidelined in the committee process.

I understand from JR, who was watching the Assembly stream, that Mary Porter was put in as Deputy Speaker, and so the Liberals have come away from the whole process quite empty-handed. It wasn’t reported on the ABC as all news resources seem to be tilted towards the Obama win in the US.

Meanwhile, could this have been the slowest day ever for RA, as everyone’s been watching the US votes come in? I’m sure we’ll all be back at it tomorrow…

By the way, how will you measure Labor-policy-quietly-backburnered because it couldn’t get Greens support in this term?

It may be that some ALP policies would get up with Liberals support. After all, something that doesn’t get Greens support may be more to the liking of how Liberals think. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – a benefit of minority government is supposed to be having issues voted on their merit rather than the “it’s either a government idea or it doesn’t get up” outcome of a majority government.

There is more to government than the Executive – the Speaker and Committee roles are quite powerful in subjecting legislation and government actions to properly scrutiny, and the Greens have managed to get quite a bit of their platform at least notionally on the government agenda.

You are of course right to wait for more actual outcomes, but the election of a non-government Speaker is a pretty clear step in the direction of more Greens influence. By the way, how will you measure Labor-policy-quietly-backburnered because it couldn’t get Greens support in this term?

Nice surprise, but:

Cabinet will remain the same old bunch from last time

and

housebound said :

It’s a shame. I’d rather see [Rattenbury] out there in the debate. At least he might not do what Labor tells him to, I hope.

As for Green’s influence, the Speaker doesn’t have that much say – why else was Wayne Berry chosen last time?

Clearly a vote for Greens was a vote for Stanhope. I still say we have a Labor-GreenLabor majority government until I see some real outcomes on something that Labor doesn’t support.

Ahh, but the point is that the Greens have obtained real influence in the Assembly – it really isn’t the “business as usual” that people would have got had they voted Labor instead of Green. So it’s clear that a vote for the Greens was not simply equivalent to a vote for Labor (or anyone else).

caf said :

The events of the last week seem to have put the lie to the various claims along the lines of “A vote for the Greens is a wasted vote / vote for the Liberals / vote for Labor”, anyway.

We have a labor governemnt – A vote for the greens WAS a vote for labor. Unless there is a magical doubling of the Green vote then they can claim to be a stand alone party.That would require some substantial shifts away from one or both of the majors. I just don’t see it happening (but is more likely that the greens will be able to move labor voters into their fold than libs in the numbers required to be an real alternative Government in their own right) If they are smart they will make life very difficult for Stanhope (this MAY even bring green libs into the equation).

Yes, Caf, the Speaker has a deliberative vote (Standing Order 160) there is no need for a casting vote as a tied vote counts as a loss (SO 161)

Wow – surprising news, interesting news …. good news (I think).

The events of the last week seem to have put the lie to the various claims along the lines of “A vote for the Greens is a wasted vote / vote for the Liberals / vote for Labor”, anyway.

The Speaker still has a deliberative vote in the Assembly, right? I don’t think this is taking Rattenbury completely out of the equation.

Anyway, a good move by the Greens, and Labor throwing their support in was smart too – it seems to have wrongfooted the Liberals.

Looks like the Green’s dangerous maverick got the job :-). Another national first I believe – first Green presiding member in any Australian partliament?

A total washout for the Libs then, I assume Mary Porter was elected as Deputy Speaker. I doubt the Libs will even get a committee chair – they are really reduced to a rump.

So Parliamentary Convenor Hunter will get extra pay once the Remuneration Tribunal makes a determination on what the Leader of the Greens (who are now accorded Party status) should get. Shane gets a bulging pay packet as Speaker (and extra staff).Presumably Amanda Bresnan will get to be Greens Whip and pocket an extra allowance. Caroline Le Couteur will just have to make do with a Committee chair.

Well this is interesting…