Points of Order — Voting—Proxy Votes and Presence of Members Unparliamentary Language—Speaker’s RulingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Voting—Proxy Votes and Presence of Members Unparliamentary Language—Speaker’s Ruling[Sitting date: 30 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5503. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderVoting—Proxy Votes and Presence of MembersCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last night in the House a vote was corrected after it became clear that a member for whom a proxy vote was being cast was not present within the parliamentary complex. In this particular case the result of the vote overall would not have been affected by that reduction but there have been instances—and there are regularly instances in this House at the moment—where in fact votes are carried by one person and one vote. There have been instances where members have requested a personal vote in those cases and it has been declined. I would like to seek a reassurance from you that where members have reason to doubt whether in fact all of the members for whom votes are being cast are present a personal vote can be called for and will be allowed by the presiding officers. It is very clear in this case that votes were cast for somebody who was not present.Mr SPEAKER: This is an important matter and I will look at it further. A personal vote can be called for and may be granted in very extraordinary occasions if a Speaker thought that it may make a material difference to a vote. What is important here is that we have a party vote system that is respected internationally and in fact envied by many other democracies. It works on the basis of the integrity of whips who cast that vote so it is absolutely essential that we trust the integrity of the whips as those votes are cast.I have been dealing with a particular member this morning to make sure that that person understands very clearly the rules as to absences from this House. The purpose of seeking leave from the Speaker if it is a smaller party is so that that person is granted leave legitimately and that that vote can therefore be cast in good faith by the whip. I will look further at the matter but it is absolutely crucial that we all respect the position that every whip is in in this House when they in good faith stand to cast a vote on behalf of their party or another party acknowledging that leave may have been approved by a legitimate process whether that be by a larger party and therefore controlled by a whip or by an individual member of Parliament in which case the leave is controlled by the Speaker.Ron Mark: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?Ron Mark: It is the same point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. On this occasion because it is such an important issue I will hear from the member. I think I have made my position absolutely clear but I will hear the member.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you very much for your indulgence Mr Speaker. Being one such member who has on a number of occasions called for a personal vote in circumstances where the result of the vote cast was 60 to 61 and who has cited Standing Order 144 there is a developing perception that Standing Order 144 as it has been applied has effectively been negated and ruled out. I would like you to have a look at that because I do not believe that that was ever the intent of any Speaker. The second point is that having been a Government whip and a chief whip of my own party I would defend the whip who puts their vote because they cannot absolutely guarantee at that very instant that the information they have in front of them matches the reality. So I fully accept that the whip gave an honest vote on the day but unfortunately he was unaware of what was happening behind his back.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment. With regard to Standing Order 144 the fact that the House may divide closely on a party vote is not in itself a reason to hold a personal vote. Close party votes may very well become a pattern throughout the life of a particular Parliament and this one may be an example of that where a Government holds a relatively small majority. In order for a personal vote to be held there is a need for an element of confusion about the party vote and in that particular case last night I am not sure that that confusion existed.Unparliamentary Language—Speaker’s RulingRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this an absolutely fresh point of order?RON MARK: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear it.RON MARK: Before I start I am in a little bit of trepidation because—Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the fresh point of order please.RON MARK: Last Thursday a statement was used in the House. It was ruled unparliamentary and the member was cautioned and sat down. Having gone back through Hansard I see that on 4 March 2014 the Hon David Parker in a supplementary question used the same phrase. The Hon Damien O’Connor—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I please have the point of order quickly.RON MARK: I would ask you to please look at the Hansard for those dates and at the use of the term “stuff-up” and come back and tell us whether—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need anything further. It is my job to rule on those particular words and I will do so in the context in which they are used. If they in my opinion are creating disorder in this House then I may move to have them withdrawn and apologised for. But I am certainly not about to present to the House a list of words that I think are unparliamentary.