Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill

I seek leave for parties to cast votes on the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill for the Ayes and the Noes to record abstentions, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is seeking leave. Would members say “Yes” or “No”.

I want to make sure we understand that. Is that seeking a split vote?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member Jill Pettis might like to inform the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to point out to you that at the Business Committee on 5 October all the parties present at that meeting agreed that we would take a split vote on this bill, and I think it would be something that would cause disorder in the House, if after the Business Committee had unanimously agreed on that action, someone was then to deny leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that, but that is not a point of order, it is a debatable point. I am going to invite the honourable member Jill Pettis to explain exactly what she wants so that members on the other side of the House are able to judge.

Mr Copeland from United Future has accurately relayed the decision that was made at the Business Committee on 5 October where unanimous agreement was given that we could record votes of a party vote cast by party whips, and also for abstentions to be recorded. That was the ethos behind the proposal I just put before the House. That proposal was to reiterate the unanimous agreement of the Business Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been a number of developments, as the members well know, since that was put to the Business Committee, and New Zealand First is not prepared to agree to a split vote unless we get agreement that the names will be tabled—who votes for, who votes against, and who abstains.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. There is no need to explain. The member has sought leave.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The mover may not know, but if she is prepared to extend that so that there is a disclosure as to who were the Noes, who were the Ayes, and who were the abstentions, then we will accept it. We will not oppose leave as long as that is a fact. But the member needs to get up and say it out loud so we all know what she means.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member Mr Peters has just asked that the names be divulged. We had a discussion earlier on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill that we have just finished debating, where it was agreed that a party may take to the Standing Orders Committee the situation that we now find ourselves in in this debate, about the disclosure of names. As the Standing Orders stand at the moment, under Standing Order 144(1)(b) there is no obligation on members in the House to disclose the names. However, as the senior Opposition whip said, if any member wanted to ring and find out who voted for whom and in which way, then we would be happy to disclose that. But there is no obligation on us, under that Standing Order, to disclose the names in the House. That was the position we made very clear, and National is comfortable to disclose the names if someone wants to ring.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members are well versed in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order are to be heard in silence.

If it is the intention of Mr Peters to have the votes disclosed in the House, then that is a different matter. I seek clarification from him, as to whether that is what he is asking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I want to rule on this.

I think it is quite a good idea to have a discussion on this matter. It raises some quite serious issues. Not all of us are on the Business Committee, but if the Business Committee is aware of the situation, then it is probably a matter that should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The point that is being made is quite a good one. It is saying that when we vote by party, then we presume that the whole party supports something. When we split the vote, at that point it does not support it. Surely the public is entitled to know, because the buck stops here, where the votes are. That is on the one hand. In that sense I am sympathetic to the point raised by Mr Brown.

On the other hand, we also have another principle. If agreements are reached by parties in the Business Committee, they ought to be followed. We have just had a split vote. I can speak with some disinterest in this matter because on this bill the ACT party will not split its vote. Everyone will know how every ACT party MP thinks. But it seems to me that there are two ways out of the present dilemma. One of them is for the senior Government whip to put the leave again, in the terms that New Zealand First wants, just to test the will of the House. For all we know it would carry, but it may not. If it does not carry, then my own view is that the Business Committee having reached this view, we ought to follow it through. But having said that, it has always been my view that the public is entitled to know how members of Parliament vote and that this matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

Of course if we are doing that, we should do something else, which we are all aware of but a lot of the public are not, and that is when a party like ACT gets up and casts six votes it could mean that there are two members away but it might mean that there is a dissent. That almost never happens in the ACT party, but if it did, the public is entitled to know. Of course, when I first came into this House every member, individually, had to vote and had to declare that vote in the lobby. I think it is an unfortunate development that the occurrence of secret non-voting is now possible under the Standing Orders.

My suggestion to the House is that firstly we invite the senior Government whip to put the amended leave. If that is denied, perhaps we could then think about whether we want to put the first leave again, New Zealand First having eloquently made its case, which I personally am sympathetic to.

This is a very important point. I think the Hon Richard Prebble has made some very significant points, but I just point out that the Business Committee is not paramount of the House’s business; the House is, itself. If the member is seeking leave we cannot be denied opposing that leave because the Business Committee has agreed to something.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I thank all members for their contributions. The issue does not need to be discussed. Leave can be taken at any time before the end of the debate. A discussion on a point of order is not likely to be productive of a complex issue. The whips should get together on this. As for Mr Prebble, he has raised a much wider issue that needs Standing Orders Committee attention. There is a proposal before the House for leave. If members object, then they should say so, and the House can get on with the debate.

Before you put the leave, are you putting the amended motion whereby we have asked for the senior Government whip to add to it, that there be disclosure in the Hansard as to which person voted which way? Is that the amended motion you are putting?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The leave that is being sought is the original one that the senior Government whip, Jill Pettis, has put to the House. That is what she is seeking leave on. It is up to members. They can either say “Yes” or “No”.

I have asked her whether she is prepared to amend it. She nodded and said she is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is up to the honourable member, Jill Pettis.

May I give a point of clarification. In this instance the Government has no opposition to votes being recorded. We know exactly and precisely how we are going to vote. It is up to the House now to decide whether it wants those votes recorded, in the instance of a split vote. That is what we now need to put before the House.

What the member has said is not really any more informative than when I first asked the question. I want to know whether she is putting the leave that the vote be split and the votes be recorded.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is that what the member is indicating?

I am very happy to assist the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please make it nice and clear so we can all understand.

I will put the leave again. I seek leave for a party to cast votes on the Animal Welfare (Restriction of Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill for the Ayes and the Noes, and to record abstentions, and for these votes to be recorded, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that apparently that does not add anything, because they would be recorded anyway.

I am sympathetic to what Mr Peters is suggesting. National is voting on this as a party, so it is not a problem for us. I just want clarification as to the position when recording votes. Are we talking about recording names? If we are recording names, the seeking of leave should mention that names would have to be recorded if there is to be a split vote. That is not what the senior Government whip said. That is where we need some clarification.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just suggest that this can be a rather complex issue. Why do we not start the debate, and the whips can get together and get this matter sorted out?

I am sure I can help you. I think it is quite simple. I seek leave of the House for the voting on this bill to be a split vote, and in the instance of a split vote, the names of the MPs voting for the Ayes and those for the Noes to be recorded.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave, and the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Can I ask that those who vote in the minority or abstain be named, because that will cut down the process.

The Hon Richard Prebble has sought leave, and it is up to members now whether they grant it. Is there any objection?

It has been drawn to my attention that there is a possibility that somebody may wish to abstain from voting. I therefore wish to amend the leave I sought so that in the event of a member wishing to abstain, the abstention be recorded and also the name of the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

First Reading