Where are ACT?
Listening to the votes, I’ve noticed that ACT are not casting any votes. Are Rodney and Heather in Wellington?
UPDATE: Heather has kindly posted a comment clarifying the situation. ACT were not voting for only a short period of the overall debate and made many good contributions opposing the legislation.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
David,
In the video interview of Rodney and Heather you posted about recently, they noted that in the previous Parliamentary term they were the “effective opposition”, however this term they are focusing on Policy rather than Parliament.
However I do concur with your sentiments and I do find it a little disconcerting that every time this year I have tuned into Parliament and heard the votes being cast when “Party Vote” is called for I never hear ACT having a vote cast on behalf of the people who elected them.
Can they not give their proxy to the Nats or the Maoris when they are not in the house??
October 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Heather Roy (I assume it was her) voted before. The same could be said for the Maori Party this morning.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Whiskey tango foxtrot, over?
How the fuck can any MP be absent from Parliament, given the magnitude of the issues being voted on today????
October 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
They can not pass their proxies to someone else unless they are a one Mp party. It is hard to be there for all votes – and many are unimportant.
I am surprised that on this issue, they are absent as this legislation does have significant constitutional ramifications. Good to hear Heather was there earlier.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
I’d love to know what they think is more important than being there for these votes.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Duncan,
If the numbers would go against their position with or without their votes it could be argued there is little point devoting their scarce time to sitting through Labour’s rorting legislation when they could be out talking to people about Policy and engaging the electorate to vote for ACT at the next election.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Umm – Heather roy is speaking right now.
What are you on?
October 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
You might learn a second thing about Parliamentary procedure today, DPF. I was in Parliament for some of the votes during the committee stage and Darren Hughes repeatedly cast the three votes of United Future on their behalf.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
If that is the case, standing orders must have changed since the election. Because in the last session the Progressives needed at least one Mp to be present to have their votes cast.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I myself was highly surprised, but that is certainly what was happening.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I find it interesting that one of the Maori MPs is abstaining, it would be interesting who it is
October 18th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
You really want unconstitutional?
Bush signs new law , stripping habeas corpus rights from 500 ‘pending cases’
via NY Times.
More than 500 habeas suits are pending in federal court, and Justice Department officials said Tuesday that they would move swiftly to dismiss them under the new law. That will inevitably spark a challenge by civil liberties lawyers, who regard the habeas-stripping provision as unconstitutional, a view shared by many Democrats on Capitol Hill.
“Congress had no justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus, a core value in American law, in order to avoid judicial review that prevents government abuse,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Maybe Helen could learn a few things from George.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
ACT missed a few votes on some of the amendments at the Committee stage (not that the numbers would’ve made any difference) but Heather did come back in at the same time as the Speaker was recalled to deal with Simon Power’s amendment.
As David said before, it’s hard to be there for every single vote. But Heather at least was there for the important ones.
I’d love to know the identity of the mysterious fourth Maori MP who wasn’t voting. I’m sure Tariana Turia spotted the confused look on my face everytime she said “three” instead of “four”!
October 18th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
I was there for today and will fill in the gaps.
ACT voted on each of the main votes (on the reading etc) but didn’t vote on all the ammendments National were putting forward.
All of these ammendments were losing by the same margin (71-48) and the two votes from act were hardly going to make a difference so I guess they went and did something more important.
They were then whenever they had a chance to speak and for the important votes. Heathers speech towards the end was quite good too…
As for the Maori Party, they sat there the whole way through voting against all the ammendments and saying they would vote agianst the bill. When the final vote actually came, Tariana Turia actually left. The final votes were 61 for, 50 against and 6 abstain… the Maori Party weren’t even included.
However over the last couple of days they have had some of the best speeches.
Regarding only voting with 3 members… The Maori Party was voting with 4 votes until Tariana received a phone call and then from then on they only voted with 3. As Tariana was the only member from the party present its hard to tell whats going on.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Good to see speculation is alive and well but this time you got it wrong guys. Perhaps I can help…
ACT voted to oppose the legislation at the first reading, the second reading and the third reading. Rodney spoke to the first reading and I spoke at the third reading and received a round of applause from the National party members present in the debating chamber at the time. My speech, for anyone interested, is posted on the ACT website – http://www.act.org.nz We also voted during parts of the committee stages. Maybe David just wasn’t listening at the right times?
When both ACT MPs are out of parliamentary precincts we cannot cast our votes by proxy. When one of us is present we can give our votes to another party to cast on our behalf. Standing Orders stipulate that a party with 3 or fewer members can cast their votes by proxy.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Good to see speculation is alive and well but this time you got it wrong guys. Perhaps I can help…
ACT voted to oppose the legislation at the first reading, the second reading and the third reading. Rodney spoke to the first reading and I spoke at the third reading and received a round of applause from the National party members present in the debating chamber at the time. My speech, for anyone interested, is posted on the ACT website – http://www.act.org.nz We also voted during parts of the committee stages. Maybe David just wasn’t listening at the right times?
When both ACT MPs are out of parliamentary precincts we cannot cast our votes by proxy. When one of us is present we can give our votes to another party to cast on our behalf. Standing Orders stipulate that a party with 3 or fewer members can cast their votes by proxy.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
ACT does sometimes give its votes to the Maori Party to cast.
“The Maori Party was voting with 4 votes until Tariana received a phone call and then from then on they only voted with 3″
It might have been an ‘Elvis has left the building’ call. Sometimes no vote was cast by the Maori Party during the committee Stage as they probably were not present in the Chamber.
It will be interesting to see why the Maori Party did not cast a vote on the Third Reading. They did give some excellent speeches.
I don’t put too much significance on ACT not voting during the Committee Stage. I doubt at any time during the Committee stage that National or Labour consistently had 50% of their Caucus present, although National probably had more MP’s present throughout given that they were on the hunt and have a number of new MPs still learning.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Must be Pita Sharples not voting, as Flavell, Harawira & Turia spoke on the first, second and third readings respectively – all opposed to the passage of the legislation.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
whether one’s vote makes a difference to the outcome or not isn’t the point about being present and voting. And one never knows.
However I read on another thread on this blog that ACT may have stayed away from the Committee Stage because National did not seek its support for its amendments prior to tabling them in the House. Brownlee announced last night that National had them but would not make them available until today. Thus National treated those parties sympathetic with its view on the legislation as it rightly treats Labour.
Oh dear. Did National not do the rounds? Labour had to lock in the votes of Anderton (a given) Winston First and UF and the abstention of the Greens and then declare the issue a confidence one – which means they were very confident of the numbers.
Did National meet with the Maori Party and ACT on it’s amendments to solicit support? This legislation provided the opportunity to test National’s approach to managing the Parliament to achieve its business in the future- its a good trial run to build relationships of mutual trust and confidence. And its civil.
I wonder whether this had anything to do with the Maori Party not voting on the Third Reading?
October 18th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Heather, are you saying the only time you can vote via proxy is when you are in the chamber anyway? That seems a little odd or at least unnecessary.
innocentill, Tariana was the only person i saw in the chamber from the Maori Party for the whole of today. She was voting with 4 votes one minute then 3 votes the next. The phone call occurred in that minute.
It certainly is disappointing if National didn’t talk to any other parties. Will they ever learn?
October 18th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
petermcc – I understand Heather would be saying that you can cast your vote by proxy if at least one member is within Parliament grounds.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
What do you expect from a couple of losers like Hide/Roy!
I believe Hide is so full of himself, he wouldn’t get his head past the doors of the debating chamber.
And as for Roy, well whats there to lose! She can still feed from the taxpayers trough for the next 2 yrs, before she and Hide finally get the push.
The Dancer & the Soldier what a joke!
BTW, with Roy being in the territorial Army is she heading away overseas with the rest of them? She may as well no one would miss her!
November 9th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Hello to all. This is my first day on the Internet. What should I do?
John Pillband, 22 y.o.