Woodhouse Michael; Hipkins ChrisHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 302(3) and ask that you rule this amendment out and end the debate on it forthwith on the basis that it is outside the scope of the bill. I understand that this is an omnibus bill and that there are parts to it that are quite disparate and therefore the scope of debate and the amendments that can be tabled will be necessarily broad. But this is an amendment effectively to a tax measure—a revenue measure. It has been suggested to me that the reason this could be in scope is that the intention of that measure is to improve the affordability of housing but I have checked very carefully and in the time available I could not find any reference to the fact that the brightline legislation the Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill when introduced in I think about May 2015 and then passed into law had any reference to affordability as that bill's goal. The goal of that bill was to ensure that the right amount of tax was paid in the right circumstances and on that basis I would suggest to you very strongly that this debate is completely out of scope with the bill that we are considering in Committee.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): The Standing Order that the Minister just quoted Standing Order 302(3) refers to local and private bills. It does not apply to Government bills.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Speaking to that point I would beg the Committee's indulgence on that. Without wanting to throw the Clerk's Office under a bus that was the reference that I had. But I know as does the member—who raises a sage point—that the Standing Orders are very clear about what the Committee can and cannot debate and the amendments which any member of the House is able to raise need to be in scope.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Speaking further to that I say the point of order that the member has made—he may have another Standing Order he wishes to rely on but that Standing Order he quoted does not relate to this bill so we are happy to continue the debate while he does a bit more homework if he wants to. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members I have considered the point of order raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and those points in reply by Chris Hipkins. My view is that it does appear to me—and sorry I have also taken some advice from the Clerk's Office—that the intention of the brightline test is to stop the turnover of houses so quickly and to maintain a level of control on housing prices. I am prepared to allow the debate to continue at the moment and rule it as in scope but I do have alongside that a parallel issue to raise with the House and that is that the scope of this particular part as introduced is very narrow. So I am not going to allow members to carry on effectively just rephrasing the contributions of other members. I cannot see this debate on this part lasting very long at all. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Firstly I would like to make a clarification and an apology to the Clerk's Office actually—the reference to Standing Order 302(3) was mine. The correct Standing Order is Standing Order 302(2). While I am on my feet can I just seek a clarification that your ruling then means that it is your considered opinion that the purpose of the brightline test legislation was indeed around housing affordability and therefore the amendment is within scope? The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Knowing that that was not a challenge to the ruling but a seeking of clarification my ruling is that the amendments are relevant to the subject matter of the bill and are consistent with the principles and the objects of the bill.