So it's Friday (apparently)

and social media manager rules say that means we have to do something 'fun'

We couldn't find pics of pollies in their PJs, so we weren't able to do cute #WFH content (sorry @portraitau - yours were great, though!)

Also OPH was *super* not built with social distancing in mind...so lots of our fun archive photos just kind of make us miss human contact

Photograph by Robert MacFarlane. Department of the House of Representatives. 1988

BUT 'fun' can mean different things to different people! Campbell keeps abusing the Microsoft Teams chat function to tell us all facts about government and social distance...

...so if you're into that sort of thing, boy do we have a Twitter thread for you...

#MuseumFromHome

Parliaments aren’t generally designed to operate at a distance. Remember, parliament was created at a time when the journey across England took weeks. It wouldn’t have been practical to have reps from York send their vote by donkey cart to London!

(that could be a preferable alternative to awkward video meetings, though)

Could you run Parliament remotely? Can politicians Skype/Zoom/House party into Parliament?

The answer is complicated (Campbell isn’t known for his *short* twitter threads), but boils down to: It can’t, but it could.

The main ruleset that governs parliament actually isn't the Constitution - most of the rules of parliament (like dress codes & voting practice) are made up by parliament itself, in the standing orders.

Both @AboutTheHouse & @AUSenate have their own standing orders, made by the members& interpreted by the Speaker/President. But the Constitution explicitly says that for a quorum of the House of Reps, 1/3 must be present. With current numbers, that's 50.

Interestingly though, the standing orders say only 31 members are needed, which is only 1/5.

Why the difference? The section of the constitution that allocates the 1/3 quorum also says that parliament itself can change that rule. So, apparently, they did.

The quorum rule is how parliament can sit with reduced numbers. At the last sitting before August, a reduced House sat with only about 90 of its members present, 2/3 the usual number. Because this is well more than the quorum, everything it decided is legally valid.

But is a member 'present' if they aren’t physically in the chamber? Until recently it's never come up. But a strict reading of the quorum rule & the standing orders suggest they aren't.

The rule doesn't specifically say they must be in the actual chamber, but it doesn't suggest much wiggle room.
In any event, voting in the chamber would be pretty hard for an MP who wasn't there.

Again, the standing orders outline that during a vote, the 'tellers' (vote counters) count up the number seated on either side of the Speaker. Ayes on the right, nos on the left. Hard to do that if you're in your own home.

Would a loud "AYE" shouted into a webcam, broadcast from a wheeled TV in the chamber, count during a voice vote? Campbell says he has absolutely no idea. That MP better hope they’re not accidentally muted again.

So the answer is: it can’t operate remotely, at the moment. But it could change its standing orders. There would be a lot of work involved here, because there are a lot of variables & issues to work out.

BUT government isn’t just Parliament. Lots of important decisions are taken by Cabinet, which isn’t recognised in the Constitution (& its meetings don’t actually have any legal impact).