Mallard TrevorMr SPEAKER: Right. This is a complicated set of matters and I might just deal with a couple of the latter points first. The fact that something has been looked at and considered by the Standing Orders Committee and the Standing Orders Committee has decided to stay with the status quo is in fact something which I will take into account because it's an indication of the view of the House and is important. In fact if other suggestions put to the Standing Orders Committee last year had been accepted the Government would not be allowed to have urgency in this situation.On the question of raising matters immediately this is not like a point of order for disorder or a question. This is a matter which is currently before the committee and at any stage while it is before the committee it can be raised and the fact that things have been on the Table for a period of time and not been raised does not exclude members raising them. It is not new to rule out an amendment on the grounds that it should have been raised in an earlier part. It's something that my predecessor has done or it has been done in the time of my predecessor and one of the reasons that bills are grouped in parts—and I just want to say you know in brackets that I actually think our arrangements for having things in parts in the way that we debate them is unfortunate.I might sound like someone living badly in the past but I think the quality of debate when bills were debated clause by clause and people actually debated the clauses that were important to them and debated those ones well where they had positive suggestions and we had better cross-floor discussion using the proper role of the committee—and the role of the committee is that once the House has decided to proceed with the legislation which is what the second reading has done the House has accepted the principle of the legislation and all we're debating now is the details of how to do it. Previously there were I think much better-quality debates because Opposition members got the opportunity to make positive suggestions. They could say Well we don't like this legislation but it would work better this way." and it held the Ministers to account in a much better way.While I'm on my feet saying how things should work in Speakers' Rulings there's a very good Speaker's ruling from one of the previous Assistant Speakers in the last Parliament on how Parliament should work during the committee stages. What that says is effectively if reasonable questions are asked the Minister should answer them. That will not lengthen the debate; that will shorten the debate. My view is that if Ministers had done that this debate would have finished on Tuesday and we wouldn't be here in this situation now. So having got that off my chest I'll now go to the essence of the matter to reinforce the previous rulings that have been made that it is not new to rule out an amendment on the grounds it should have been raised in an earlier part. It has happened in the last Parliament and for that reason I have a suggestion and that is that Mr Hudson's new part and presumably the amendment to it which should be part of Part 2—my suggestion is that the House grant leave to return to Part 2 for the purpose of voting on that part on those two amendments. If a member wants to seek leave to do that that will give the chance to the House to express its opinion on those but I make it very clear that it will be for the purpose of voting. On Jami-Lee Ross's amendment it is my view that that is outside the scope of the bill. It brings matters into the bill which were not previously in the bill and it is properly raised as an issue—as an amendment. But I will say to the Government that I feel very strongly for my colleagues because I think there probably have been three of them in the Chair during the period that these amendments have been sitting on the Table of the House. My view is that it's the role of the Minister in the chair and the Leader of the House and the Government whips to constantly review the amendments that are on the Table and to bring them to the Chair's attention as soon as possible—not days afterwards—in order to get their rulings and stop the House wasting its time which has happened as a result of their tardiness. So is a member prepared to seek leave for Mr Hudson's amendment and the amendment to that to be voted on by the committee?"