Macindoe Tim; Williams Poto; van de Molen Tim; McAnulty KieranHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I accept absolutely that it is entirely at your discretion as to when a closure motion is accepted. However I point out to you that while the member Mark Patterson was moving his closure motion my colleague Tim van de Molen sought to raise a point of order with you. He did that before you had indicated that you were accepting the closure motion. I was actually going to raise a point of order as well. It may well have been for the same reason but Mr van de Molen beat me to it. So my point of order is to ask you why a point of order would not be accepted before you came to a point of ruling on a closure motion which was being moved at the time that Mr van de Molen sought to take his point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member for the point of order. All I can say is that it was a matter of timing. I didn't hear Mr van de Molen's point of order until after I had actually accepted the closure motion. It may be that he was—because within the fullness of the seeking of calls members stand up and seek the call when closures are given and I didn't actually hear the point of order and I accepted the closure motion.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The question then for me became a matter of timing because as per the Speaker's Rulings any call can be taken before the completion of the words are used to put the question and I thought the eye contact of your acknowledgment was after you had started putting the question but had not actually completed putting the question. Therefore my call still should have been able to be sought during that point.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Actually I was putting the question. I was putting the question. So in my view I have accepted the closure motion. I am putting the question.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Madam Chair can you confirm then that you're making a new Speaker's ruling that overrules the previous one that says a call can be taken before the final word of putting the question is made?KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK I'll accept that.KIERAN McANULTY: Madam Chair this issue to me seems very clear: Mr Macindoe's point of order started with I accept that it is entirely your discretion"—that's where the matter should have finished in my view.Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Well we will take one more and then that will be it; I will rule.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I think Mr McAnulty is being disingenuous with that. Had we had the opportunity—or at least had I had the opportunity—to raise the point of order that I was going to put it was going to be that Mr Patterson had not used the correct wording for a closure motion. So while I absolutely accept that you have made your ruling and I don't wish to ask you to go back on it—that would be totally inappropriate—nevertheless I do point out to the committee that the closure motion was not moved in the correct terminology and therefore had you had an opportunity to rule on the point of order you might well have reached a different conclusion.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member. And just for clarity's sake for the benefit of the committee we keep very detailed notes of who is taking calls the relevance of those calls when questions are being asked in terms of being in a position to accept a closure. So I'm fully satisfied that I've taken sufficient debate on Part 1 of this bill. I am now seeking calls on Part 2.Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have been in this Chamber on a previous occasion when a member was asked to leave the Chamber by the Speaker for failing to meet the expected dress standard of the House. I would suggest to you that Mr Patterson's dress tonight is of the same poor standard and should not have been permitted for the considerable period of time he's been in the Chamber.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm sorry; I can't see Mr Patterson.KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The rules are very clear Madam Chair that members in this House are expected to wear business attire. It would seem to me that in the spirit of filibustering we are seeing some pretty poor choices—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK thank you. No that's it—that's it. We're not taking any more. We are either going to move on to the debate on Part 2—it is starting to move into areas of disorder—or we are not going to. We are going to continue with Part 2? Is that what the members wish?"