Robertson Grant: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6326. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I understand the point that the member is making but I think he has slightly missed the point I was making which was that it is not a matter of who was or was not here at the time. Minister Parata began this bill. She moved what is specifically required under Standing Order 287 and that is my concern. I am not sure that we had even completed that. We are now going to have a different Minister stand up and I think we could be outside of Standing Order 287. I perhaps invite you to consider a ruling on this matter. I am not sure whether it has been considered before but clearly we have a specific Standing Order that requires the member moving the bill—that member was Minister Parata who is no longer here.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any further comment? All right. I am sort of slightly lucky in that I was aware of the fact that this possibility would occur. If members will stay with me for a short time—Hon Ruth Dyson: We don’t really have a choice!The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well the member if she interrupts again will have no choice but not to. Ministers are generally entitled to act in the House on behalf of absent Ministers. It is long established in McGeeat page 175 and also in Erskine May so it is a tradition in Westminster parliaments.In this instance the Minister moved the first reading of the bill on behalf of the Minister in charge of the bill and that speech was interrupted. The same event arose in the House previously. In 2007 there was a Minister who moved the third reading of a bill on behalf of the Minister in charge of the bill the debate was interrupted and when it resumed in fact a third Minister continued the speech. It was the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Whether members might like to think about the success of it—but we will leave it at that. People can see Hansard Volume 641 at pages 11251 and 11298. However this event went unchallenged. Other than giving the call to the Minister there were no Speaker’s rulings on it.So I think the first point that has to be ruled on is whether the Minister acting for the Minister in charge had in fact started her speech and Mr Robertson was marginally incorrect in that she had completed the paragraph with regard to the reference to the select committee and the restrictions. That is all she had done. So she had moved the bill and indicated the committee and the conditions with regard to the report back and speaking times that the Minister in fact was recommending to the House. If one does look at Standing Order 287 it is very clear that the Minister had started her speech because it says that the member moving the bill’s first reading must do so on the commencement of that member’s speech. So as to the question of whether the speech had started yes it had started.The next ruling that is necessary is whether a Minister can complete a speech that has been started by another Minister. It is not a matter that is referred to in the Standing Orders or in Speakers’ Rulings or in McGee or according to the relatively quick research that I have done in Erskine May. Strictly speaking having the Minister complete their speech is not necessary. The required motion and the conditions have in fact been put before the House. The Minister who started the speech could complete it but that would require the ridiculous situation of the Minister in charge of the bill having to leave the House. Another option available to the Government and a more likely one would be for the Government to abandon this speech or the rest of this call and the Minister to take a call later in the debate.A Minister’s speech in moving a first reading is something that is very important. Speakers have traditionally treated leniently such matters as reading out speeches because it is a matter of getting things on to the record of Hansard on behalf of the Government—probably more so than any other speech. There is also the question of what is before the House now. The question has not yet been stated as Mr Macindoe had pointed out and that occurs at the end of the speech.So the question of whether a Minister can complete a speech started by another Minister is one that I think should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. I think it is something that we at least need a Speaker’s ruling on and possibly some clarity with McGee and/or Standing Orders. But in the interim I am not prepared to rule that Ministers cannot act for each other in this way and therefore the Minister effectively acts for himself in completing the speech started on his behalf by another Minister. I call Roger McClay.Hon Members: Todd.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh Todd McClay; one of them.