Asked what he thinks about ACT's decision to allow split voting just moments ago, the Prime Minister said ( thereabouts - I will post a link when it becomes available)
It risks sending a very confused message. If three of them are voting one way and two the other, what does ACT actually think or stand for?
Update; Here is the link (22:54). His exact words were "...what is ACT's position actually on something."
Sir Bob Jones: The death of democracy
7 minutes ago
5 comments:
ACT MPs have never been whipped – there is nothing new in this story. It also accords with a classically liberal view about the role of MPs (they owe both representation and judgement)
In reality the ACT Caucus will consider its view and where it is unable to come to a broad agreement about which way it will vote, MPs will be able to vote differently. In the vast majority of cases (both procedural and legislative votes) they will vote together but in a few legislative cases they won’t.
What is the drama about?
The only risk ACT runs is that its being truthful – even MPs from the same party can occasionally disagree on the approach to substantive policy issues.
If you listen to the interview I linked to yesterday it opens with the host saying this is a political first (rightly or wrongly) but Rodney agrees and says it was his proposal because there needed to be a rule established.
And Muriel Newman used to be the party whip.
"If three of them are voting one way and two the other, what does ACT actually think or stand for?"
Freedom of speech and independence of mind!
Lindsay
It is certainly a first for a party with a confidence and supply aggreement with another a bigger party in Government.
It isn't a first for ACT - it is how Richard Prebble ran the Caucus; its in the Caucus Rules. Donna would frequently vote diffently from the rest of Caucus on Maori issues for example.
It is also a first for a leader to make it so publicly explicit. Preb never made a big deal about it and it wasn't particularily newsworthy because ACT wasn't supporting a Government except the tail end of the Shipley Government.
There is a difference between having a whip and being whipped. The first is a role within parliament to assist in the conduct of the business of the House. The second is a approach to internal discipline that requires all caucus members to vote in accord with Caucus majority decisions unless they have permission of the Caucus or its a conscience vote (as determined by the Speaker).
I think we can fairly assume that if John Key is getting snarky about it, then it must be a brilliant idea. He just doesn't like the idea of having to count votes instead of giving Rodney a tug every once in a while.
Post a Comment