Questions of Conscience for Members of Parliament
Questions of Conscience for Members of Parliament A Member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly questions the freedoms that Parliamentarians have to vote with their conscience.
Hon. Rob Pyne MP is an Australian
politician and Australian Labor Party Member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland since January 2015, representing Cairns. He serves on the Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee. Previously a two-term councillor for the Cairns Regional Council, he has also volunteered many community disability bodies. Mr Pyne is Australia’s first quadriplegic Member of Parliament.
The last state election in Queensland, Australia delivered numbers in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland which mean that every vote matters. Forty-five is a number firmly in all our minds in Parliament, but sometimes 44 is enough, with the Speaker’s casting vote. It is my hope that, through collaboration and good will, the close numbers we must live with, could be used to lessen the shackles of the party room and allow members more freedom to vote according to their conscience on matters of conviction. A finely balanced Parliament offers unique opportunities for legislators to seize the moment and take an activist role. Indeed the Legislative Assembly of Queensland is the one state Parliament that needs bold and active members in the legislature. This need arises from the abolition of the Upper House in 1922 which put more power in the hands of a powerful Executive Government and has resulted in a history of the Executive abusing this power. The concept of acting collectively is central to the Australian Labor Party (ALP), something that originated from the union movement from which we sprung. The ALP has not
280 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Four
been forgiving of members who ‘step outside the square’. We are a pretty ‘straight-speaking mob’ on our side of politics, hence the term ‘scab’ for a worker who crosses a picket line. It is a term consistent with a culture based on mateship and unity. Crossing the floor of parliament has likewise earned the endearing moniker of ‘rat’. Thus far, as a Member of Parliament, I cannot think of any legislation or issue that would cause me to cross the floor to vote with the Liberal/National Party. The values divide makes it highly unlikely, but surely one earns oneself greater merit, by having the opportunity and refusing to take it, rather than by ruling out any real opportunity to dissent? In a state that seeks to foster creativity and innovation, is it smart to ‘punish’ anyone who wanders from the herd? I would think not. Greater freedom on whether or not to support legislation is for me a more obvious need, when matters of conscience are concerned. It should not be ‘news’ when members determine they will cast their vote according to their conscience. This means casting your vote in a way that allows one to be at ease with our conscience and
to sleep each night at peace with ourselves. It is my hope we can conduct business in a way that will see those 85 of us, who belong to the major parties, able to cast our votes in a way that maintains our commitment to the core values, sacred our respected parties It is always good to see how other jurisdictions conduct their business. While the United States demonstrates many practices I would not like to see in our parliament, one thing they do have is a greater flexibility that allows elected representatives to vote with their conscience. At one extreme this has led to terms such ‘blue dog democrat’ or DINO ‘Democrat In Name Only’. In the Australian political context, a close tally at the polls meant that the Gillard Government had changed the way the ALP did business. This was articulated by Chris Oakshot in his insightful (if long) speech following the 2010 federal election, when he said of that new parliament “It’s going to be ugly, but it’s going to be beautiful in its ugliness.” I suspect he understood the politics would be painful, but the policy outcomes would be nothing short of best practice. I believe history will show this to have been the case.