12 hours isn't a lot of time. I fear for a situation in which two legislators deliberately utilize a 12 hour timepoint with few members to sink a bill that they aren't in favor of while the majority of South Pacificans would be.

Reply

12 hours isn't a lot of time. I fear for a situation in which two legislators deliberately utilize a 12 hour timepoint with few members to sink a bill that they aren't in favor of while the majority of South Pacificans would be.

That is possible, just as it is possible that two Legislators may preempt thorough debate on a controversial bill by motioning to waive the debate time. In both instances, it is dependent on the Chair to make a sound judgement as to whether this is the case.

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply

12 hours isn't a lot of time. I fear for a situation in which two legislators deliberately utilize a 12 hour timepoint with few members to sink a bill that they aren't in favor of while the majority of South Pacificans would be.

What if we require people who motion for the cancellation to provide a reason which should be determined to be sufficient by the Chair?

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

12 hours isn't a lot of time. I fear for a situation in which two legislators deliberately utilize a 12 hour timepoint with few members to sink a bill that they aren't in favor of while the majority of South Pacificans would be.

What if we require people who motion for the cancellation to provide a reason which should be determined to be sufficient by the Chair?

That is a sound requirement. I would also then suggest that a similar stipulation be mandated for waiving the debate time, for the sake of consistency in our law.

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply

I'd argue that it's much more difficult to find a dead 24 hours than to find a dead 12 hours.

Reply

I support a 24-hour timeframe as, otherwise, a diligent legislator who checks the forum once a day could miss the motion entirely.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

I have reverted back to a 24-hour window and the amendment will now require people to provide reasons for motioning to cancel voting, waive two-week legislative restrictions, and waive debate time.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

What if this objection is raised truly at the last second? I think that there should be an extra sentence going something along the lines of "If the vote ends within the 24 hour period after the motion is made and seconded, the vote cannot pass until the aforementioned 24 hours have passed"

Reply

What if this objection is raised truly at the last second? I think that there should be an extra sentence going something along the lines of "If the vote ends within the 24 hour period after the motion is made and seconded, the vote cannot pass until the aforementioned 24 hours have passed"

Under standard parliamentary procedure, legislation is not passed until the Chair declares it so. So, a prohibition on the chair declaring legislation passed until ruling on the motion would make sense. 

I also will note that also in standard parliamentary procedure, once a piece of legislation is put up for a vote, it is no longer the authors to do with as they please.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

Please review the changes I made to the bill to address motions made within the final 24 hours of voting.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply