The remote functioning of parliament is disproportionately undermining minor parties and independents, according to a new report, with one crossbencher describing current arrangements as “a political fix” for the major parties.
The latest Covid outbreak has again complicated the sittings of federal parliament, leading to an agreement earlier this month that members who are unable to attend can participate remotely via the official parliamentary video facilities and from an electorate office.
But members participating remotely are significantly restricted in what they can do. In the lower house, members are explicitly prevented from voting remotely, forcing them to rely on pairing arrangements.
Crossbenchers are allowed to indicate how they would have voted in a tabled document, but nothing more.
A new report from the Centre for Public Integrity says the arrangements compare unfavourably to remote voting mechanisms in parliaments in the UK, Spain, and Europe.
“While the practice may be available to members belonging to the major parties, it is unsatisfactory for the parliament’s legislative function to be dependent upon an unofficial practice [that is not available to non-aligned members],” the report said.
MP Andrew Wilkie told Guardian Australia that the current remote voting arrangement is “clearly designed as a political fix by the major parties, for the major parties”.
“Because they can pair, the relativities stay the same and their share of parliamentary power is unaltered,” he said.
“Crossbenchers, however, can’t pair or vote so our relative power is diminished. This disenfranchises our constituencies and weakens our national democracy.”
Wilkie said remote voting was not complicated.
He said he had raised the issue with both parties, who say absent member voting was dangerous because “voting under duress” could not be ruled out.
“This explanation is nonsense on many levels, for example any member of the House of Representatives could well be under duress when voting inside the chamber.”
In the upper house, senators are not allowed to participate in divisions, move motions or amendments, or participate fully in matters of public importance or urgency motions.
Senator Rex Patrick told the Guardian the limitations were easily surmountable and “all very easily solved” from a technical point of view.
“I think we are luddites or laggards … there are many things that I can’t do,” he said.
“Senators’ rights are being fettered by a conscious decision not to permit things to be done that could be done remotely.”
Patrick said while he can use pairing arrangements to vote, the current arrangements made it difficult for him to participate in fast-moving or dynamic situations, putting him at a significant disadvantage.
Patrick said on Monday he had wanted to oppose a move by the government to alter the order of business for the day. But his remoteness made it near impossible.
“I’m paired but for votes that are taking place tactically and dynamically, I’m at a huge disadvantage,” he said.
Anthony Whealy, the former judge and Centre for Public Integrity chair, said parliamentary democracy relies on all electorates being represented, including those who elected independents.
“The UK and the EU provide perfectly good examples of parliaments voting online,” he said. “There is no reason Australia should not follow suit, in fact our parliamentary democracy depends on it.”
