Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSAddress in Reply Debate—Maiden SpeechesSPEAKER: It was my intention at this stage to call the Māori Party but I think it is worth outlining to the House my response and some of the things which have led up to the situation we faced. The actual technical Standing Order issue that occurred earlier when I interrupted the speech from the co-leader of the Māori Party when he was attempting to move a motion is very simple: when there's a motion on the floor you cannot get up and start moving another one. There are processes to go through and that's very clear. There has been through this week an ongoing discussion around whether or not the co-leaders of the Māori Party could have two speeches each in the Address in Reply debate. It's been made clear that the current rules don't allow for that. It was a matter that was discussed at the Business Committee and the offer was made to the Māori Party for each of the co-leaders to have 15-minute speeches starting now recognising both their maiden status and the fact that they are leaders of non-specified parties. That was the approach that was taken I think with David Seymour in 2014 so there's precedent and prior precedent for that. It's become clear that that was not acceptable and therefore I presume that is the reason that the members walked out. I think it would be of value because there is not long but some important correspondence around this matter for me to seek leave to table the correspondence between the Clerk's Office myself and the co-leaders of the Māori Party on this issue. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Behaviour in the Chamber—Dress CodeSPEAKER: There's one further matter that I want to refer to and it was referred to or alluded to by the Hon James Shaw yesterday in his comments of congratulations to me. It goes to dress codes in the Parliament which are set out on page 151 of McGee and also referred to in Speaker's ruling 17/7. The essence of the rules for dress in this Parliament is that they should be business attire and while they've been expressed in different ways over the years—and in fact when I was first a member the rules applied to male members of Parliament and not to women because the earlier rules didn't anticipate the possibility of women being members of Parliament even at the stage when I was first a member of Parliament. But they have been changed to this—to business attire". In the 1980s when I was first a member and before we had air conditioning in this Chamber it was the practice for gentlemen to be allowed to remove their jackets when it was warm. That was later rescinded because it never quite—well while the political temperature might have got hot the physical temperature didn't reach the heights that it used to before the air conditioning. But in my opinion what has changed since 1984 is the interpretation in most businesses in New Zealand as to what business attire is and for those reasons I think it is appropriate to review the interpretation that Speakers have been taking. I intend to do that over the summer break and I want to invite members to write to me individually with their views on that. I'm not going to take a poll on it but I'd like to hear reasons and reasoning. People will also be aware that with permission traditional dress—most often from Pasifika communities but sometimes from others—has been worn during maiden speeches and at other times and we've managed to adjust our rules for that. I am prepared on an individual basis to extend that a little bit for the maiden speakers but I do want to make absolutely clear that until we have a substantial interpretation I'm not going to allow change by attrition. So there's an invitation to respond to me but until then the rules should be obeyed. Thank you."