Parker David; Brownlee GerryHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is: where is the authority for a select committee to consider amendments to an Act or a bill before it that are beyond the scope of the bill?I've looked up the index of the Standing Orders that are before me and if you go to scope of amendments it refers to select committee" and the only reference there is to "308(1)(2)". There is no Standing Order 308(1) and (2) so there's obviously a problem in the referencing of the index of the Standing Orders and I thought issues as to scope were for the Clerk to determine and that if there was an amendment to legislation that is outside of the scope of the bill it is beyond the scope of the select committee to hear it and there are a number of reasons for that. This is an important point of order.Off the cuff those reasons—and other members may be able to contribute here. But the reasons for that include the fact that the bill as advertised will only receive submissions on matters that are obvious from the bill that goes to select committee and so out-of-scope amendments are not permitted because people to the select committee select committee staff—members of the Opposition and submitters don't have the opportunity to submit on those things because they're not obvious to them because they're beyond scope. So I'd be most surprised if it is in order for a purported remit of this kind to allow out-of-scope submissions to be heard.SPEAKER: Well that's an interesting point of order—an important one as the member has said. He'd also be aware that as recently as last Tuesday or perhaps the one before one of his own members was seeking permission for a bill to be expanded out of scope at the Business Committee. Essentially what I can inform the member is that instructions of the House trump any other consideration. The instruction that has been voted and passed this afternoon does enable the out-of-scope additions to the bill. We've got to remember that the House is the master of its own destiny in that regard.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Speaking to the point of order with respect—SPEAKER: No you're not speaking to the point of order; you're now wanting to question something I've said in my ruling. So it'd be better if you phrased it that way.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well sir I think you're incorrect because I do not think it is within the remit of this House to for example say we're going to meet tomorrow on Sunday. Now if you were correct in your ruling that you just gave the Government could now move that we did that. Those things can be done by leave. The member could seek leave of the House to allow the select committee to consider things within scope and I might give consideration to that; I'm not sure that even that would be possible. Maybe that would be a possible route. But no one in this House can stand up and say "We're now going to meet tomorrow." SPEAKER: I think the point though of the House today voting in favour of the instruction is in fact to give the select committee the authority and I think if you—Hon David Parker: Well—SPEAKER: No sorry if you're going to make a case to me that I should accept that somebody other than the elected Parliament of New Zealand can make a determination about what can be considered in a bill then I don't think I can accept that. Hon David Parker: Well Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: I'm not going to accept that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have asked for a precedent from the Clerk. I have never seen this in my time here—not that I remember everything that's ever happened while I've been here. But I have been here 22 years and I have never seen an instruction which effectively says you can put a bill that says "This bill is about agriculture."—if it were—and then have amendments to it that are unrelated to the scope of that bill and have it do something completely different. That is something that I can find no reference to in the Standing Orders. I've asked for a reference from the Clerk as to where the Standing Order is and I haven't received it.SPEAKER: Look I acknowledge your 22 years of engagement in this House—mine is slightly longer—but my positioning has always understood that the House can make an instruction to a select committee and I'd refer the member to Standing Order 298(1) which deals with the instructions to select committees. Can I further say that when the member asks for precedents there is always always—all precedents start with a decision at their initial stages and if we're at that stage that's where we're at. Hon David Parker: Point of order—speaking to the point—SPEAKER: This will be the last comment I hear on this matter from the Hon David Parker. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Hon DAVID PARKER: Well with respect sir I think that is surprising. But speaking to the point of order I have now discovered Speaker's ruling 115/2. This matter has just been thrown upon us and I'm on the fly here doing my best. Speaker's ruling 115(2): "An instruction [under Standing Order 298]"—instructions to a select committee—"can relate only to that bill. It could not extend to any other business before the committee." I know it's not directly on point but none of these references are. How can it be right that a bill about one thing can be amended at select committee without submissions to another topic? That would be without scope. That is the very purpose of limitations as to scope and I am still at a loss to understand how this can be. The Government is under urgency. If they want to write another bill now they must know what the scope is about. If they've got another area of scope they can just while we're in urgency say "Bill No. 3 going to select committee with the scope of"—whatever. They could do something like that but they can't change the scope of a bill that is going to select committee like this.SPEAKER: Well that's a submission that you're making but I would at this point disagree with you."