Barker Rick: General Debates 
Barker Rick: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4207] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 That was the most disappointing speech I have ever heard from the ACT party. It had no passion no substance and no anything. I can explain why that is to members. It is because the ACT party is sinking into a pit of slime sleaze and controversy. The ACT party needs to front up to this Parliament and to say why its members are not prepared to do a full day’s work. The ACT party needs to front up to this Parliament and tell it why it is drawing nine salaries and nine sets of expenses but is not casting nine votes at all. 
I have examined the record from the Clerk and I shall go through the voting record of the ACT party. On the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill ACT cast five votes. That means that the ACT party had only three MPs in this House and was drawing salaries for nine. Again the record shows five votes and on some occasions— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are two matters that need to be considered. The first is that it is inappropriate for any member of Parliament to refer to the absence of members of Parliament at any point and that member should desist from doing so. The second is that he has alluded to matters that have been subject to an investigation from the Parliamentary Service Commission and that were part of a press release or of press conference information given by the Speaker this morning and they are ongoing matters in that investigation. It would be unwise to allow the member to continue with the nonsense that he currently wishes to perpetrate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I refer to the first part of that point of order. Of course members are allowed to refer to the voting records of the House. It has been a tradition in New Zealand for many many years that members have indicated situations where parties have been lazy and have not had their full complement of votes cast and issues like that. The other point the member was attempting to make was that we should somehow pretend that matters are not under investigation and that is not the case. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just make the point to everyone that there will be silence during points of order. Members cannot speak about the absence of a member from the Chamber but they can speak about the voting records as the member has said. Mr Brownlee’s second point was a debating matter. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It seems that all through the taxation bill the ACT party was casting five votes which meant that it had only three members in the precincts of Parliament. When we get to the Racing Bill we find the ACT party was a bit more excited about it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. The member cannot say that. He referred to the absence of members from the House. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you so correctly ruled the voting order is a matter of public record. Clearly when there is a vote in the House the whips are not entitled to vote beyond their entitlement. So mentioning the actual vote and the consequences of that—to wit the membership in the House—when no individual was named must be in order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I shall give members another warning that they should be silent while points of order are being made. I wish to rule on this matter. When the member called the number voting for ACT that did not necessarily mean that anybody was absent from the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While the comment you have just made is technically correct it is not out of order for members to indicate the effect of the Standing Orders which is that when a party casts five votes there may be as few as three people here in the House. For members to say that is not out of order. 
John Carter 
: There has been a long convention that the absence of members from the House is not referred to. If we get to the stage where members are using all sorts of convenient or devious ways in which to do so then I am afraid that the convention will go out the door. I suggest to the House that it may well be better to move on and not to refer to the absence of members because it is something we have not done in the past and it would be useful for us to continue to not do so in the future. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It may be all right but what Mr Barker actually said was that members had been absent from the House. I ask Mr Barker to keep to the spirit of not referring to members being absent. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could it be that Mr Barker has now had 5 minutes and his time has expired? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I want to carry on with the voting record of the ACT party and to say that the ACT party cast only five votes on the taxation bill. When it got to the Racing Bill the ACT party pulled up its pacers—it was obviously more excited about the Racing Bill—and cast six votes. On the Television New Zealand Bill the ACT party started by casting seven votes. In the 79 votes taken since the start of this session the ACT party has not once cast nine votes. It has cast five votes seven times has cast six votes eight times has cast seven votes 38 times and has cast eight votes 26 times. The ACT party is drawing expenses for nine MPs but has not cast nine votes. The ACT party should explain to the public why it is voting down below nine and still drawing the full amount for nine MPs. If one was in business and was being given payment for nine things but only delivered eight that would be deemed to be fraud. 
The political right in this Parliament is in terrible disarray. Not only does ACT have all sorts of internal problems surrounding it but it is the only party on the right that has a clear line on what we should do in Iraq. The ACT party asked this Parliament to vote on Iraq and even though unusually it got Parliament to vote on that ACT only cast eight votes. In comparison the National Party has now had three positions on Iraq within the matter of a week. Last week the National Party said that there should be a UN resolution. This week the National Party said that that does not matter now and we should simply support the US. But when pressured about whether that meant New Zealand should commit troops the National Party would not answer. The National Party goes any way that it thinks the wind is blowing or is to its convenience. 
That means the ACT party should be in a great position to fill the vacuum left by the National Party on the right of New Zealand’s political spectrum. But the ACT party is in no position to do that. Why would anybody vote for the ACT party if it cannot deliver in this House the number of votes it is given? Why would anybody give the ACT party its vote if he or she knew it would not deliver nine votes? If people decided to give the ACT party a greater mandate they could never have any confidence that it would ever cast its full log of votes. 
I think it is a disgrace that in terms of the 79 votes taken in this Chamber since this House has reconvened the ACT party has not once cast its full list of nine votes. The ACT party continues to take approximately $110000 per MP for all nine of them and does not cast nine votes. I want the ACT party to explain to the public what it is doing bludging on the taxpayer. I want to hear ACT members get up and say why they are taking all those expenses and all the support that goes with that but not delivering their nine votes in the House. All the voters in New Zealand—all two million-plus taxpayers—know that when they vote for a person or a party to represent them in this House they expect that person or party to be in this Parliament casting votes on their behalf. The ACT party has taken 145000 votes and is only using approximately 120000 of them in this House today. It is taking the full expenses—$110000—for nine MPs and is only delivering the work of sometimes seven sometimes six and sometimes five MPs.