Cullen Michael: Standing Orders 
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22353] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix B to the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled  
Review of Standing Orders 
 to be deemed to be amended by Supplementary Order Paper 387 dealing with split party votes and by the typescript amendments in my name amending Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 240A for the purpose of the consideration of Government motion No. 2. The typeset amendments relate to a technical amendment adding the term “expiration” after the term “dissolution” in the relevant Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I move  
That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix B to the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled  
Review of Standing Orders 
 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper No 387 (dealing with split party votes) and the typescript amendment in the name of Hon Dr Michael Cullen (amending Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 240A) be adopted and take effect on the day following the dissolution or expiration of this Parliament 
. These are nearly all I think very minor changes. They primarily relate in the first instance to changes that arise from the Public Finance Act in a purely technical sense in terms of the language used—the definitions used—to line up the Standing Orders with the new definitions used in the Public Finance Act; otherwise the Standing Orders are no longer appropriate in that respect. 
Secondly in terms of proceedings relating to the opening of Parliament the changes deal with an amendment to the Constitution Act that has been passed which provides that instead of having a motion—which we would normally in the past have dealt with tonight—to carry forward business the new Parliament deals with a motion for the reinstatement of business. That is constitutionally more appropriate because it is really a matter for the new Parliament to determine what business it wishes to pick up rather than for the old Parliament to tell the new Parliament what business it might wish to pick up. 
And we have a Standing Order amendment relating to what happens at the end of a sitting of the House particularly in terms of the House being in Committee. If we are interrupted 5 minutes from the end time it provides quite clearly that the House is adjourned at that point and does not move on to any other business. Again the reinstatement of business is dealt with in those Standing Orders. 
The new matter dealt with—and I thank the House for the leave granted—is a matter raised by Mr Peter Brown and quite properly I think. The habit has developed of leave being granted for split votes to be taken. Mr Brown raised the issue of whereas where there is a party vote it is normally clear that everybody has voted in favour or against—people can be assumed to be voting in favour or against according to the party vote—in a split party vote where say Labour votes 44 for and seven against it is not clear who the “fors” are and who the “againsts” are and the public should have the right to know which way members have actually voted in that respect. That therefore raises the further issue that at the moment split party votes are taken by leave. It seemed appropriate with that change for split party votes simply to be a norm within Parliament. 
I think that actually covers the changes that are dealt with in this first motion as opposed to the second motion that I will be moving in relation to members’ pecuniary interests.