Rurawhe Adrian; Upston Louise; Hipkins ChrisSpeaker RecalledThe CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the member the Hon Louise Upston has asked that you be recalled about a closure motion that I have accepted. I believe that there were a number of points of order that were repetitive and trivial relitigating the same points that I thought I had dealt with. The member's disagreed and so has asked that you be recalled.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. There are a number of points that I wish to put on the table for your consideration sir. The first is around points of order that as well as myself others were raising regarding amendments that had been tabled in the latter part of this debate. One sir in my name had been tabled at the start of the day and I had not been given any indication—Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to refer to the particular Standing Order or Speaker's ruling she's asking me to uphold or change?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'll come back to that point sir. In terms of my understanding of the order of the House members have the ability to raise points of order and in this instance points of order were being raised very close to 1 o'clock. The presiding officer at the time ignored multiple members that were raising different points of order and moved further in the proceedings. My understanding of the House's procedure is that at 1 o'clock the bells ring and the House lifts. At the point in time that that was happening there were multiple members with different points of order and given the House is in urgency sir I think it is important given this is the only opportunity for scrutiny—Mr SPEAKER: Right. I think the member's made her point. Is there anyone from the Government who wants to add to it?Jami-Lee Ross: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I will call Jami-Lee Ross but I'll remind him that I've watched the television.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): Sir I'm glad you watched the television because there are a couple of points of order I wish to raise. The first point—Mr SPEAKER: No no. The only thing that the member can do is to address the question before the House—sit down please—on the reference made by Louise Upston. There is nothing else before the House.JAMI-LEE ROSS: I will raise the other matter with you later then. Standing Order 58 Effect of urgency" says when the House sits till and it says that the House will suspend at 1 p.m.—the committee will suspend at 1 p.m. in this instance. The committee must suspend at 1 p.m. unless the committee is in the middle of a vote. Whilst we have disputed the reasoning we must accept that the Chair did accept a closure motion. However that was not voted on. We were not voting and at the point when we got to 1 o'clock there were members who were seeking to raise points of order and there were members who were seeking to have a ruling from the Chair. We are very unhappy that the Chair was not willing to entertain any points of order. We also dispute the Chair's decision to continue to go past 1 o'clock when the Standing Orders are very clear. We were not voting—Mr SPEAKER: OK thank you. Thank you. Is there any other member who wishes to make a point on this?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to raise that relating to the point of order raised by Louise Upston once a vote has been commenced is it in order for a member of the House to scream at the presiding officer through the conduct—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I did indicate that I had been watching the television and am aware of the behaviour in the House at the time. This matter is a very simple matter. The question of the closure is something that is at the discretion of the Chair. I have not known ever of any circumstances where a Speaker has overruled a Chair in accepting a closure and I'm certainly not going to do that. Speaker's ruling 61/3 is the one that is very clear on that.The question then becomes: was the closure accepted before 1 o'clock? It was clearly accepted before 1 o'clock probably around 5 to 1 and members will be absolutely aware—members will be absolutely aware—that it would totally defeat the purpose of having closure motions if they could be indefinitely delayed by points of order. My ruling is that the closure was properly accepted before 1 o'clock. The motion will be voted on now and voting on amendments and the substantive questions will continue until they are completed. Thank you."