Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Oh thank you Mr Speaker and I assure the House I'll be very brief with my contribution. But I think when you consider the motion and you consider the debate that's occurred what the motion is asking for is for the House or the committee to have the power to consider and if it thinks fit to adopt amendments that are not within the scope of the bill.And in speaking to that point I want to raise a couple of points that you Mr Speaker made at the start of the debate—that you wanted after giving an urgent debate earlier the debate to be relatively concise. And if you had the opportunity to be listening to the debate it has been anything but and there have been some very wide-ranging contributions from members. I can think of Jan Logie raising the issue of the universality of the health system and the universality of the education system. I can think of the Hon Tracey Martin raising issues around the ease of engagement with Work and Income when one applies—Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 76/5 which says basically that matters that are one step removed or foreign to a bill cannot be introduced by way of an instruction; they can be introduced only by way of leave. I think both the motion moved by Mr Ross and now the debate are certainly one step removed and foreign to the bill.Mr SPEAKER: Yes I—Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Speaking to the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I don't think I need—I mean while I respect the member I don't think I need his assistance. I've been listening clearly to his speech and my view is that while he might've been come up to the edge of some problems I think as far as he went he was all right. I'm not saying that looking at that Speaker's ruling it would've applied to the two previous speeches.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. If I could finish by just quoting a member from Hansard on 16 November 2010. This member said the ability for the House to instruct the Committee is one that has been used on a number of occasions. It is a way of bringing things into scope that would otherwise be out of scope." This very sage member went on to say that "The Leader of the House and other … members have the ability to vote against the motion if they so wish and [that] is their right to do so but it is also the right of members to move such motions. It has happened at least two or three times in this Parliament"—and the member was referring of course to a previous Parliament—"[when] the House was considering a matter and before it was referred to the Committee." That of course Mr Speaker is yourself—the Hon Trevor Mallard as you were then pointing out—Mr SPEAKER: I thought it was very well put.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: And I must admit I had a huge number of examples from Hansard that I could've used all of which were the Hon Trevor Mallard taking the opportunity to widen the scope of a discussion in the committee stages. I have taken one that I think is succinct and to the point.Members have the right to raise this. At the end of the day it will at some stage in the evening or perhaps tomorrow after 9 o'clock be put to a vote and then the House will decide about the widening of the scope.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon—oh Dr the Hon? No—the Hon Dr Nick Smith."