Power Simon: Standing Orders 
Power Simon: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22354] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I endorse the comments made by the Leader of the House. These matters were ironed out in the Standing Orders Committee. Far more time was spent on the next Government notice of motion than on the first one but we will come to that shortly. It is easy when looking at reviews of the Standing Orders and reports to the House such as this one to simply fob them off as being technical amendments and to say that some tidying-up is needed in order for the Standing Orders to operate more smoothly. But one or two things are worth saying about these changes particularly those in part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. The Leader of the House has covered the changes that follow from the enactment of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. That is not my area of expertise and I do not intend to spend a lot of time talking about that. However the second part of the report does raise one or two interesting points. 
Firstly I would endorse the Leader of the House’s view that a reinstatement of business motion is appropriate because the business for a new Parliament should be a matter for that new Parliament to determine. The motion should not be left to the Parliament that sat prior to an adjournment or I suspect a prorogue before a general election. So the amendment to the Standing Orders regarding the reinstatement of business is appropriate. Secondly although somewhat sadly we will see—or we have probably had—the last vote on a part by part motion heading into the Committee stage of the debate on a bill. Although I understand the common sense in doing that—and it is not a partisan issue because one would hope that whichever party was in Government would think that that was a particularly good provision to change in the Standing Orders—it does deprive the Opposition of a small tool under an MMP environment. It is a small tool to use on the odd occasion on a procedural issue—rare though it may be and I confess I have not come across it in my 5½ years in this Parliament—when the Government is unable to muster the numbers to deal with a bill in the Committee in the way it wishes even though its voting partner may agree with the substantive matter. But the change makes sense so the National Party will be supporting it. 
The other issue the Leader of the House has raised which the House has given leave to include tonight is Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. It relates to Peter Brown’s move to see split party votes recorded and the names lodged in  
Hansard 
 to depict the way a split party vote occurred and how particular members voted. Although initially reluctant to move in this direction we had an interesting conversation in our caucus whereby we formed the view that this particular issue was more about the public’s expectation of knowing how particular members of Parliament voted rather than a mechanism that may or may not suit a larger party on issues where that party has some members voting against the majority—or indeed on the odd occasion the numbers may well be even. So I say to Mr Brown that that is a fair rule to change. 
Darren Hughes 
: The Brown amendment. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is right; it is the Brown amendment. It will ensure that the public knows which way members vote on a split vote and their names will be recorded in  
Hansard 
. That change strikes those of us who are in the National Party as being fair to say the least. 
We will not add any more to the debate on this particular motion but we intend to support the Government in its passage.