Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The purposes of the bill actually go beyond that and they speak very clearly to giving children the best start in life. Actually if you read through the general policy statement of the bill and the explanatory note of the bill and the objectives of the bill it is very clear that the bill is around tax changes benefit changes and giving children the best start in life or a good start in life. It is an omnibus bill. It is intended to be very wide ranging and cover any number of initiatives that speak to those three purposes.My understanding of the Standing Orders in this respect is that when the purpose of the bill provides for an area like giving children the best start in life and when we have an omnibus bill then anything that members want to put up that speaks properly to giving children that best start in life is within scope. I think if your ruling is that it is limited only to the benefit system and the Income Tax Act then that is a misunderstanding or a misdescription of what the purpose of the bill is expressed to be and I would invite you to reconsider that ruling because on the wording in the general policy statement the purpose of the bill is substantially wider than that and this is a matter of some considerable importance to this side of the Chamber.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes I thank the member for that very eloquent point of order. However the bill has been quite cleverly arranged into two different themes: one is around income tax—not even particularly around the Income Tax Act I would say but around income tax—and the other around benefits. So any amendments that relate to those two themes are in order but if you go beyond that even given the description in the preamble to the bill it is still focused on the benefits system and benefits. So that is the ruling that that is deemed to be out of scope.Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I absolutely understand and accept the Chair's ruling in respect of the arrangement of the bill into parts and clearly amendments within those parts would need to reflect the subject matter of the parts. But where you have as you have in this situation an omnibus piece of legislation my understanding—and in terms of advice we have sought—is that it is entirely within the scope of the bill to insert entirely new parts. And I take your point that those two parts are arranged in those ways and are therefore restricted to those ways but where an amendment is made to insert a new part that is within scope of the broad objectives of the bill you are not similarly constrained to the content of those two parts. That certainly reflects the advice that we've had on this side of the Chamber.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I will take a point of order from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway but I just want to make the point that we're unlikely to get to be voting on this so I can give it further consideration.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just very briefly you've ruled obviously so I don't think there can be any further discussion about your ruling but secondly the purpose clause which is what determines what is in scope and is not is very clear. There is no scope for Ms Dowie's proposed Part 3 because it does not fit with the purpose clause. It is as simple as that. You have ruled and there should be no further consideration.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can I speak to that point of order Madam Chairperson?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look what I'm going to do is—as I say we're unlikely to get anywhere near a closure at this stage where we would have to vote that amendment out of order. I was simply informing the member before she spoke. I didn't have to. I could have left it until the voting. So I will consider it further and I give the member the call at this stage.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As you reflect—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hope you're not going to disagree with my purpose.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I'm not. I'm very appreciative of the fact that you're going to consider the amendment that my colleague is wishing to advance. But in that consideration the points that have been made both by my colleague Amy and members opposite I would ask you to reflect on the precedent that was set in the previous Parliament around the addition of new parts. What the previous Speaker ruled was that providing they were parts that the Government could have legitimately included as parts within that bill—there should be no difference in this Parliament as to whether it is a new part that's proposed either by the Government or by the Opposition—the test that should be consistently applied with those previous rulings of the Speaker is whether if the Government wanted to include the part that my colleague wanted in the bill that would meet the requirements of the omnibus bill. I do ask you as you make that ruling to consider on those previous rulings that were advanced by members opposite so that we're getting some consistency about new parts.Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Point of order Madam Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No sit down. I'm not going to take any more. I will consider that but I say to the member respectfully that the decision to rule it out of order isn't that you can't create a new part; it's whether it fits within the two themes of the bill. And that's what I will consider. OK. I call Sarah Dowie.