I know that, but I haven't seen how they deal with people speaking.
In New Zealand and Australia, they have a similar.... I have seen them in operation. They have benches instead of seats, or instead of desks. At least for the front bench in Australia they do. They actually have desks for those who are further back. I don't know how they deal with that. I think you have to have a more informal method of catching the Speaker's eye when you want to ask a question. That is my guess. I don't know.
For voting, they deal with it in Britain by just saying that you have to walk through a door. You get counted when you go through a door. That's their way of dealing with it, and they have to deal with the other MPs who are in a different room as well.
Those are problems that are not ours, but that leads me to the next item, which is:
We will look at other ways to make Question Period more relevant, including the use of online technologies, and will work with all parties to recommend and bring about these changes.
To make the obvious point here, I don't think it would be legitimate for the minister to be saying, “We won't let the other parties have a veto on this part of our election platform when it was explicit that we would work with the parties to recommend and bring about the changes.”
For what it's worth, I don't think that's the sort of thing anyone would want to act on unilaterally anyway. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that there is a specific mention of online technologies.
When I first read this, I thought, oh, electronic voting. I'm also not sure that requires a change to the Standing Orders either, to be honest. It might be helpful, but I'm not sure it's essential. If no one challenges the legality of a vote that takes place by means of people pressing a button on their desk, then I suspect it would simply become the way we do things, although I would want to get an opinion on that first.