Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill

As far as New Zealand is concerned this is ground-breaking legislation—at least, that is the view of New Zealand First. I therefore seek the leave of this house to request that the parties that split their vote, table the split—in other words, who voted for and who voted against—so that this can be recorded in Hansard and so that the view of the public can be respected, in that a check can be made of the voting if they so wish. I seek leave for that request to be put to the party whips.

National is quite comfortable about giving people the names of those who voted for and those who voted against. However, seeking leave for that to be recorded is a dangerous precedent. It is not necessary under Standing Order 144. We are quite happy to give the names out—there is no difficulty with that—but we would oppose leave to have the names recorded.

United Future is happy to table how our voting record went.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought by Peter Brown for the votes to be recorded in some way. Is there any objection to that? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would I be correct in assuming—I could not tell exactly from the voices—that both Labour and National objected to the leave I sought?

The ACT party is quite happy to indicate whose vote went which way, but we do understand those who do not wish to see any form of precedent, whereby one party can, in effect, oblige disclosure by others without themselves seeking leave for that purpose. So I can understand those who said no. I wonder whether it might be better put, not as a leave matter, but simply as an invitation for each party to table its list.

I do not wish to extend this debate. The issue that Mr Brown has raised, and I respect the reasons for his raising it, has been laboured considerably at the Business Committee over a period of weeks, and it has been suggested that this is a Standing Orders issue, and that Mr Brown has been invited to write to the Standing Orders Committee, which is the appropriate committee where this kind of issue can be resolved. The Government voted 51 in favour. We do not need to declare who voted for it—we all voted for it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave was sought, there was objection, and there the matter ends. I do not see any way through it from our position here, but it certainly can be taken further at another time and be dealt with. I am sure those names would be volunteered.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to put on the record that I have written to the Speaker in respect of addressing this in the Standing Orders Committee. As yet I have not had a response, but I also want to advise the members of the House that although this might seem to be a petty argument as far as members are concerned, we are denying the public the truth of knowing who voted here and who voted there.

I understand from the Business Committee that it was agreed that the names could be tabled, which is different to having them recorded. I said, in speaking to the point of order earlier, that National is happy to table the names—I have them here. We are happy to table them, which is different from recording them. So I seek leave for National to be able to table the names of members who voted for and those who opposed.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek the leave of the House to name now the way in which our split vote was taken. I will do that verbally, if that is the will of the Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Shall I go ahead and do that? I was going to do it verbally.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry. I thought the member sought leave to table the vote.

No, to give the names verbally now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, to table the document.

That is not what I sought leave for. I did seek leave, and it was not denied. The two votes in favour were: Heather Roy and Ken Shirley. Those opposed were: Stephen Franks, Muriel Newman, Richard Prebble, Deborah Coddington, Gerrard Eckhoff, and Rodney Hide.

I seek the leave of the House to table the voting record of United Future on this matter.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.