van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe Adrian; Seymour David; Brownlee GerryTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a situation where unfortunately we didn't take the previous call. But as you are aware regardless the proportionality determines that we get a set number of calls. Now in this instance you have ruled that it is a split call. I propose what we do is follow the ruling Speaker's ruling 48/3 which states Actually when it is a split call it is an unusual arrangement. That is the member can speak for as long as he wants … for up to 10 minutes and then the next speaker gets the balance of the time." So Mr Bishop's time whilst you put five minutes on the clock has not actually expired. That was a ruling by Speaker Mallard actually. So he could continue for the full 10 minutes which is what I propose he does in this instance and then we make the next call a split call which returns to the proportionality we should have had.Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I don't need any help thank you. I made a ruling at the beginning of the call and I'm going to stick to that. As far as I'm concerned we're on call No. 10.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The previous call is not finished because as a Speaker's ruling clearly states that speaker on the first part of the split can talk for as long as he likes up to 10 minutes. Mr Bishop has not finished talking—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And as I've already said I made that determination at the beginning of the previous call.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I accept that you determined it was a split call but he has not finished his portion of the split.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes he has.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Well are you overruling the previous Speaker's ruling because it's very clear: Speaker's ruling 48/3 states that he can speak for up to 10 minutes if he wishes at which time he sits down. The second part of the split call may—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): We are on call No. 10 and if Mr David Seymour would like to have that call he can have it.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the spirit of trying to assist what you are saying and what Mr van de Molen is saying are completely consistent. Yes indeed you did rule that it was a split call. However what Mr van de Molen is pointing out—a very arcane part of the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings—is that actually the first member who has a split call technically is allowed to speak for as long as they like leaving the balance. So there's nothing inconsistent with you now allowing Mr Bishop to continue speaking even though that doesn't really help me.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): My ruling is that call No. 8 was missed. Willow-Jean Prime had the first—[Interruption] Yes I'll stand up then. Willow-Jean Prime had the first part of call No. 9; Chris Bishop had the second part. We are now on what would have been call No. 10. We have one 10-minute speech in balance. I asked at the beginning of that if the whips had any information for me. Neither of them did and neither has come to see me to ask or to inform me what your decision is. So after that there is a 10-minute speech. I suggest you sort out who's giving it.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does your ruling now mean that the Speaker has to be informed every time someone is taking a speech when there has been a decision that split speeches can be taken? The rules up to this point have been as my colleague Mr van de Molen has pointed out that a split speech means that the first speaker can speak for as long as they like within the allocated 10 minutes up to 10 minutes; and that the second part of the speech is the balance of any of the 10 minutes that might be remaining. Are you also ruling that a split speech now is strictly five minutes?—because these are new rules and we need to know exactly how we're operating.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'm ruling that I asked for advice from both whips at the beginning neither of which gave them to me so I made the decision.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Respectfully I did suggest that this was a 10-minute call for Mr Bishop—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): You did not.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —and you did not at any time of Ms Prime's call suggest that that was a split call. So you indicated at the start of Mr Bishop's call after you didn't feel there was a clear consensus between the Labour whip and myself that that was to be a split call—not that that was the second half of the previous call. It was very clear actually that the previous call had been a 10-minute call and it was only the start of this one that commenced the split call which enabled him to then continue for 10 minutes. Now I don't want to see the convention we have where we each take a five-minute split call change but in this instance due to the order of not taking that previous call Ms Prime stood up and took it. We're still entitled—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I don't think you've—TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —based on proportionality to our full allocation of calls. Now there are numerous ways we could do it. What I was proposing is to split that and to keep it in line with what we should have was to merely allow Mr Bishop to continue for 10 minutes.David Seymour: Mr Speaker—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No no—look the Standing Order says that there are 12 10-minute calls OK? And as I've indicated before there was one missed call. That call's still there. I'm saying to both sides please sort out—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sorry what was that?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There's one that was not taken. That was call No. 8. That call is still there and still available because we have not yet taken it. So what I'm asking you—[Interruption]—I'm asking you to sort out what you want to do between both sides of the House to determine who is taking that call.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Speaking to the whole point of order that is one issue but it doesn't solve the issue that we're trying to work through at the moment which appears to be an overruling of Speaker's ruling 48/3: Assistant Speaker Mallard at the time saying "Actually when it is a split call it's an unusual arrangement. That is the member can speak for as long as he wants"—and presumably "she"—"for up to 10 minutes and then the next speaker gets the balance of the time." that is unused inside that 10 minutes.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And the problem is—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And all we're saying is that as the first speaker Mr Bishop could use up to 10 minutes.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Well as far as I'm concerned he was the—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would still leave—if you don't mind sir that would still leave one 10-minute block unused and that should be allocated proportionately which would mean in fact the National Party gets another five-minute speech.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): In my opinion he was the second speaker. The first five-minute speech was from Willow-Jean Prime; he was the second.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a completely unreasonable position to take because speech time in this House is allocated proportionately to parties. And to suggest that somehow we are splitting a speech with the Labour Party is completely unreasonable. It is totally new and it is something that simply cannot endure either in Speakers' rulings or for that matter in the Standing Orders. The only way through this is to accept the standard convention which was articulated by Assistant Speaker Mallard in 2017: allow Mr Bishop to finish his 10-minute contribution and if there is any remaining space then that would be openly apportioned between the parties in the House on a proportional basis. We do everything on a proportional basis. Questions are allocated on a proportional basis places on select committees are allocated on a proportional basis and speaking times in this House are allocated on a proportional basis. We cannot have a ruling that upsets that.David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'm going to deal with this one.David Seymour: Well Mr Speaker I may be able to help.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'll deal with one point of order at a time.David Seymour: They're related honestly.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'm going to deal with one point of order at a time. Thank you. There are four 10-minute speeches. We've had—yeah we've got four 10-minute speeches left OK? Now we can deal with the proportionality for those speeches. All members have to—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): No one's arguing that—right? We're arguing firstly if that is conceded that is a great thing so let's deal with that. We're not upsetting proportionality if that is from this point on. The problem is that you've asked us to accept that Mr Bishop's contribution has to be split with a Labour member. We don't accept that; the 10-minute block belonged to the National Party. If we choose to have Mr Bishop speak for nine minutes and 30 seconds and one other member from this side of the House stand up for 30 seconds so be it. That's what the rules allow. That's what we started the debate with. Changing the rules part way through—and permanently it would seem as a ruling for the whole House—is completely unreasonable.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I agree with the first part of your statement Mr Brownlee. That's not the issue in this case. It's the fact that a member was supposed to be on call No. 8. It was not taken so I went to call No. 9. That's the issue. Proportionality isn't going to change. We've got four 10-minute calls left and it's up to the members to decide how that's going to work out. It's not my fault that for whatever reason members didn't stand to take the call.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. David Seymour: I was first.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): It is now 6 p.m. It has actually come time for me to leave the Chair. You're going to have to raise those issues after the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."