It's Time To Scrap Parliamentary Pairing

Why is it necessary in a modern parliament for each member to be present in the chamber for their vote to count?

Why should an MP who is absent due to personal illness or family reasons, or even work related travel not simply be able to register their vote by proxy? This could be done either in writing, or via a secure email login, much the same as shareholder votes on company resolutions are now conducted.

In fact, absent MPs could use exactly the method employed in deciding corporate resolutions: appoint a proxy to vote either according to pre-arranged instructions or as the proxy decides.

Instead, we maintain the absurd anachronism of the “pairing” system, whereby for each MP who is absent for the vote, a member of the opposing party agrees by convention to abstain from voting. As we’ve recently seen, this arrangement can lead to farce or abuse and disingenuous point scoring, as in the current matter involving Labor MP Michelle Rowland.

The pairing system can only possibly work where parliament is dominated by two parties, which vote along party lines. Most MPs in Australia vote along party lines anyway, so what is the difference in outcome between proxies and pairing?

What happens when independents are absent, or in the Senate if one of the Greens is absent? What if we end up with a parliament similar in constitution to the UK’s, with three large party blocks, or more, as in Israel?

Do we rely on the formation of a governing coalition, which pairs with a de facto opposition?

The whole system is ridiculous and needs to be immediately scrapped in favour of members’ proxy votes.

MPs are elected to represent their constituencies. They can adequately do this without needing sit in a special chair.

Update: Ministers certainly should not be drunk in the public areas of parliament. However, NSW Finance Minister Greg Pearce would not be facing calls for his sacking if proxies were allowed for parliamentary votes, although it now appears that he should be sacked anyway (and possibly charged) for making false claims on his parliamentary expsense account.

The Greens have no credibility lecturing people on drinking or any other such behaviour. Who is going to accept being preached at by some soft shit like David Shoebitch or John Kaye, an oily spiv like Jamie Parker or a boot faced old harpie like Lee Rhiannon? Out of these four, she's probably the only one who could manage more than a couple of drinks without tottering about and falling over on the carpet.

As for John Kaye's comment that the public expect their laws to be made by people who are 100% sober: we also expect they will be made by people who are 100% sane.