First of all, it was referred at first reading. Therefore, very little is out of order because the principle of the bill has not yet been established, hence the advantage of a wider scope. That's your first point.
As to the second point, it is still subject to the rules of the royal prerogative. Had a government member moved a similar amendment, that likely would have been in order because it would comply, therefore, with the royal prerogative. I think in this instance it is out of order because it causes asking the treasury to spend money.