Brownlee Gerry; McAnulty Kieran; Menéndez March Ricardo; Ngarewa-Packer DebbieSPEAKER: Well I've heard enough thank you. Look while firstly I have been watching this debate throughout the morning—watching the parliamentary proceedings throughout the morning—and while my opinion in this case about repetition or other such is obviously of guidance it's not particularly relevant because the Standing Orders have for a very long time made it clear that the sole judge of relevance and whether or not there is repetition or new material or otherwise is the Chair of the committee of the whole House. And I'm not about to overturn something that has been in the Standing Orders for a very long time.This is interestingly an argument that—well the arguments that I have heard this morning interestingly are arguments that I have made myself on a number of occasions over a long number of years. So Speaker's ruling 81/1 stands. The closure can be taken.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. We accept that ruling. There are two things I'd like to raise and we'd appreciate if you would reflect on that. Conscious that last night during urgency and today there have been a number of occasions where spokespeople haven't had the opportunity to make a call and there were questions that were simply not answered by Ministers—other questions were but there were certain questions that weren't; I suspect deliberately to play for time. I'm conscious that presiding officers are required to take into consideration a number of factors one of which is if Ministers answer questions. I think it would be useful for the House if you were to perhaps look over that and report back.But the other thing that I would like to pose to you is the situation where we have a formal Opposition but two other parties all three of which are contributing to a committee of the whole House stage debate. I haven't seen it done before but I would like your view—perhaps after some reflection—about the possibility of presiding officers indicating that a particular party have had their fair share while the other two parties in the Opposition can continue. The reason I raise this as my concern is that the Labour Party as the formal Opposition could potentially be deprived of an opportunity to contribute constructively at a committee of the whole House stage if other parties theoretically aren't contributing and meeting the requirements of a presiding officer. Given the particular make-up of this Parliament I think it would be useful for the House if that was something you reflected on.SPEAKER: I thank the member for that contribution. I think it's quite a valid point and it is a matter that I think would be best delt with by the Standing Orders Committee. At a number of junctures in the parliamentary process this situation where you not only have a three-party Government but a multi-party opposition is something that we are obviously having to wrestle with. If there needs to be guidance through the Standing Orders or Speakers' rulings that's something that the Standing Orders Committee can suggest and I'm very open to.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to unpack this as well in other spaces. But just for the place in which we are now the Speaker's ruling that you mentioned I mean it does cover relevancy and repetition but for example for my colleagues from Te Pāti Māori who didn't get a chance to ask that's not really covered in terms of that proportionality element. So while I totally understand that according to Speakers' rulings you will not reverse or interfere with the Chairperson's rulings on those matters I don't see anything that speaks about that other element around other parties being able to contribute to the debate. So I guess what I'm pointing to is would you be able to guide me if there are Speakers' rulings that allow you to on the basis of those arguments beyond the relevancy and repetition that you would be able to intervene to enable actually that fair contribution of parties that (a) for example didn't get a single call in Part 1 and others who only had one spokesperson.SPEAKER: No I'm not hearing any more on this because I have ruled. So I appreciate the point that Ricardo Menéndez March—look I'll tell you what Debbie Ngarewa-Packer I'll hear what you have to say.DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. Thank you e te Pika. I just want to remind in the Business Committee section of Standing Orders 78(3) that Before determining … the Speaker must be satisfied that having regard to the party [and parties] … does not discriminate against or oppress a minority party or minority parties." In this case we didn't get a word said and I think that's really unfair.In respect to what's before us it's so important—it's so critical for our communities that I do ask that the Speaker consider that ruling.SPEAKER: I will have a look at the Hansard record. I understand that there were 12 speeches before this closure motion was taken and I will see exactly how those were distributed and make a decision from there. But for now the ruling stands and the committee is resumed."