Brown Peter: Standing Orders 
Brown Peter: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22355] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not think I will take my full 10 minutes because basically I want to talk on only two matters. New Zealand First will be supporting this motion but the two matters I want to speak about—and I urge the Government members who are listening and paying attention to this and indeed my National Party colleagues who may or may not be in Government next time depending on who we choose— 
Simon Power 
: And that’s the reason you won’t. 
PETER BROWN 
: We are ending on a lighter note. Honourable members might like to look at page 15 of the report where it refers to the part by part consideration of bills. There is a small little sentence. We would have liked its wording to be stronger and more definitive but it is there. It states: “The committee hopes that the new provision will result in more Government participation in debates.” Speaking seriously on this issue for a moment I have to say that it really gets up New Zealand First’s nose—and that is putting it bluntly—when we pass legislation in this House and few if any Government members speak and on many occasions no members of small parties that support the Government speak at all. This was highlighted to me when we passed the Electoral Amendment Act I think it was some 3 or 4 years ago. Then no contribution was forthcoming from the Greens who supported the bill and there were very few contributions from Government members. Yet that night on TV after the bill had passed through the Committee stage we saw the young man from the Greens whose name escapes me—the cannabis guy. What is his name? 
Hon Member 
: Ian Ewen-Street. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is he the cannabis guy? No it is Nandor— 
Rod Donald 
: Short-term memory loss—too much rum in your youth. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh they are all cannabis users. Rod Donald has just told us that. Nandor Tanczos was on TV explaining why a clause in the bill should go through yet in a sitting not long afterwards the Hon Dr Cullen was embarrassed because Gavin Ellis the editor of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 told the Prime Minister I believe or told the Labour Government that if they pushed the bill through with that clause in it his newspaper would not report the Government again—or some such language. So Dr Cullen was in the embarrassing position—he looks as though he does not remember it but I know that he remembers it well—of reversing and bringing that bill back to the Committee stage so members could take that clause out. The Committee took the clause out pretty promptly and then the bill proceeded. All that legislation went through with not one contribution coming from the supporting party in particular and with very few contributions coming from the Labour Government. That told members of New Zealand First that the standard of debate in this House is not adequate. 
Yesterday when I listened to the Hon Roger Sowry saying that the standard of debate under the first past the post system—which was before my time in this House—was much higher I tended to believe him. I say to list MPs in particular that if they want to be told that the first past the post system produced a better standard of debate and a more comprehensive debate then they should take note of this one little sentence: “The committee hopes that the new provision will result in more Government participation in debates.” That is what it says. That is an admission by the Government and by Dr Cullen who approved that little sentence that Government members do not participate as fully in debates as the public would like. The public who are listening out there are entitled to know the Government’s view and the Opposition’s view. I tell Government members to take heed. We in New Zealand First have supported this part by part consideration of bills on the basis that we got that sentence in the report because debates in this House leave a lot to be desired on many occasions. 
 I want to refer now to the Supplementary Order Paper that Dr Cullen has produced. He has very kindly given me credit for initiating the idea and indeed Simon Power the senior National whip has concurred with that view. Well it is not particularly my view; it is the view of New Zealand First. We are here because we believe we are serving democracy and it is only right and proper that when we vote in this House the public knows who voted which way. 
We have heard of occasions where MPs—not from my party I might add—have gone out and said; “Well we didn’t all support that.” and curried favour with whoever they were talking to and if it was in the individual’s interest to say he or she supported it then he or she did and if it was not in the individual’s interests then he or she did not. I have to say that ACT has been as consistent as New Zealand First on this. When we have split our vote we have always declared quite openly who voted for and who voted against. We think it is only right and proper again in the interests of democracy that when a party takes advantage of the split party vote it records who votes for who votes against and if necessary who abstains. We are accepting on that basis that it should not be by leave. It should be an automatic right for each party to say: “We want to split our vote.” and go this way or that way or part of the team this way and part of the team that way and now that their names are going to be recorded in  
Hansard  
we are more than happy. 
I do not want to say any more on this. New Zealand First supports this motion. We have concerns about the motion coming up shortly but we support this one.