Wood Michael; Shaw JamesMICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just as we approach voting on Schedule 2 of the bill I just draw the Chair's attention to Standing Orders 307(4) and (5) and ask for your consideration and views about the appropriateness of grouping together and testing some of the amendments that have been put forward in this schedule given the similarity of many of the amendments. It's my view that the committee is unlikely to support them and that testing might be helpful in terms of the committee understanding whether they do have the support of the committee.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look I thank the member for drawing that Standing Order to our attention. I can say that I have given that some consideration. The difficulty that we have is that some of the amendments—well the amendments in themselves cover quite different areas of the country and projects and types of projects and we might find that there is a difference around the committee of support for different projects. The difficulty of trying to group any of those projects in a meaningful way might obviate some of that support. So I am ruling that I will not be grouping them.Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Well the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker said earlier during the debate that the Labour Party would not be supporting any of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that contained additional projects to be inserted into the primary legislation. And given the numbers in the committee that would suggest that all of those SOPs are going to fail. So I would propose actually that what Mr Woodhouse is—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There is no Standing Order that would support the Chair taking such a position. Actually Parliament makes the decision. That's the difficulty. OK let's get on with it.Michael Wood: Speaking to the point of order if I may—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There is no point of order. You raised a point of order; I've ruled. That was not a point of order because there is no Standing Order that would cover that.MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order in that case and I accept the previous ruling and the point that you made in that previous ruling was a valid one which is that many of the projects are in different parts of the country so this may attract different support across the Chamber. That being the case one way through which is consistent with Standing Order 307(4) would be for the amendments to be taken by member noting that the amendments that have been put by members do tend to be concentrated in a particular area. So they're taken member by member; that would deal with that point and I ask for your consideration.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Again I understand that and I have given that some thought. For some members it's easier than others but again there is a variety of types. You know normally the Standing Order refers to where you can literally group something together that is similar so we've talked across horticulture whether it's stone fruit walnuts you know; you can get a logical grouping. It seems a bit unfair and not quite covered in the Standing Orders to then take it by member even though there might well be a geographical correlation. I think we're better to get on with it and see how we go.