Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that ruling Mr Assistant Speaker. I have just a couple of comments and a question. Firstly it is not my intention to disrespect the process of delivering the instruction to the Clerk. The Standing Orders do not prescribe a time but it is customary that it is done immediately after the Minister moves the motion at first reading. I am holding back just so that I can understand what the process is.In respect of the lifting of the House I am intrigued because in fact that is the function of a machinery that has not yet commenced and indeed it is quite possible—although extremely unlikely—for the House to continue to sit past 16 September which would be the date 4 months and 1 week from now. The law requires the election to take place I think by no later than the last week in November and the Prime Minister has signalled that it is likely to be 2 months earlier than that but the machinery of that has not commenced yet. Therefore I would have thought that at least at the first reading it was possible to indicate a report-back time that is within the period of the House sitting calendar that has been agreed by the Business Committee and confirmed by the House. It is a technical matter—it is almost unlikely to come up—but the failure to move a motion on the report-back date means that all bills are required to be reported back within 6 months and of course that would mean all first readings from now on would fall into that electoral vacuum.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes and it is unusual for the member to be more of a constitutional purist than I am and that is the angle that he is taking. I think though that the way that government works in New Zealand is that when the Prime Minister announces an election date and informs the country of it there are processes that must be put in place that mean that the House cannot sit. If the election is to be held on the date indicated by the Prime Minister the House cannot be sitting at the time that the member nominates. That means that I think that the Speaker is bound to take the advice of the Prime Minister as to the sitting of the House.I can understand that the member might have a slightly more parliamentary point of view than that but I think the practice up until now is that when Prime Ministers have indicated that there is going to be a general election on a specific date the machinery of the House takes notice of that.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I beg your indulgence. I was going to make two points and ask a question. I forgot to ask the question. Is it your ruling therefore that at the appropriate time the Minister has two choices: to either move the motion as he had signalled his intention to or to not move the motion at all—and therefore there can be no variation from those two options?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): If it were not for the overriding matter then my ruling would be that the Minister could move a motion in regard to the shortening without the others and have a non-debatable motion. It is pretty clear from the Standing Orders that it is only the addition of not sitting during the time of the House or on Fridays—that is the area that makes it debatable. On balance—and I do not want to make a ruling that will necessarily stand for all time because it is not considered—I think the Government could move a lesser motion if it so chose but as I indicated that is not an option that is open to the Minister in this particular case because of the matter of the general election being called. Does that answer the member's questions?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Absolutely thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right.