Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of Mr Ross in his motion to give the committee of the whole House greater ambit for discussion and potential amendments. Look I would never stand here and seek to in any way sound like I was giving advice to a member who has much more experience in these matters than I could hope to at this stage. But I do think it is important in talking about why we should do this to acknowledge that the circumstances we find ourselves in today with a bill that is a Government bill and introduced under urgency in no way obviate the right or stand in the way of the right of Parliament to determine its own proceedings and destiny. If I might offer just one simple example: although urgency meant we moved immediately from first to second reading—Mr SPEAKER: I am going to interrupt the member and ask him to come back to the very narrow subject matter of it and while I'm on my feet I'm going to ask Jan Logie for the second time—thank you.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Mr Speaker. The simple point I'm making is it is right for Parliament to determine whether or not the committee of the whole House should look at a wider ambit for its discussion debate and potential amendment in the committee of the whole House stage to come because if we look at the ambit of the bill itself and the way it explains its objectives it is very broad—about low and middle income families about child poverty in particular also about assistance—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to refer members now to Standing Order 176 in particular paragraph (5) Any debate on the question for an instruction is restricted to the subject-matter of the motion. It may not extend to the principles objects or provision of the bill …" which the member is now doing.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Mr Speaker. So the point that I think could also be raised—not to traverse areas that Mr Ross has—that is relevant to the matter in front of the House is for instance the area of digital inequality. I raise a comment that the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media made recently in a public speech that the lack of home internet access is the highest factor in social deprivation—a matter that we are considering this evening. Now a little bit earlier this year in her role as an MP—but obviously not as a Minister—she was even more clear in a statement that "Digital inequality is going to be the new measure of poverty."So that's a matter that's very relevant to the discussions in the House tonight. It's something I think that members on both sides of the Chamber may wish to debate. That member who raised that comment in her capacity as a member of Parliament for Dunedin South and indeed at the time as the Labour Party spokesperson for ICT also made comments at the meeting where she made that comment that—and I can't quite quote but I can remember the substance of it. It said "We don't need any more research. We know what needs to be done."Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is now—I think it's the second of the three-strikes warnings. The member will refer to the subject matter of the motion.BRETT HUDSON: The point I simply make is that members have an interest in the elements that contribute to poverty and that by giving the committee of the whole House the ability to have a broader discussion it allows members on both sides of the House to raise matters that we might know that me personally or other members—my colleagues—may have an interest in but also that through their public utterances other members have also acknowledged some level of interest in.So the point I'm simply trying to raise for the House and for you Mr Speaker is that by us saying that we think this is a good thing for the House to consider there are at least some utterances in public that suggest that the elements that we think could be covered are matters that members have shown some interest in in public. So we're not simply stating a hypothetical—that they might have an interest in something. I'm merely trying to reinforce that there is some matter of public record that the things that we are mentioning are not simply a figment of our imagination or our own personal desires.But I do think that if the House were at least to consider and possibly grant this leave or motion to broaden the debate it does allow the House to consider matters that are of import to the bill.Mr SPEAKER: OK. We've now hit repetition."