Brownlee GerryURGENCYHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill will allow the extension of special housing areas—Denis O'Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is very unusual but on this occasion a point of order has been called. I will hear it.Denis O'Rourke: The reason I am calling a point of order is that this bill has been introduced as an omnibus bill under Standing Order 263(a) when it is not an omnibus bill.The reason I say that is that it meets neither of the two requirements in Standing Order 263(a) and the first point is this: the topics of the two amendments are not interrelated and the term interrelated" according to the dictionary means "reciprocally or mutually related". That means each of the amendments must demonstrate either some reciprocity within a purpose or some mutuality of a purpose and in fact these two measures do not do either of those things. One deals specifically with time limits for special housing areas and the other deals specifically with offer-back provisions when State housing land is sold so there is neither any reciprocity in purpose nor any mutuality of purpose.The second reason is that the other requirement is that it should implement a "single broad policy" according to the Standing Order and in fact one purpose in this bill is the development of land for sale and the other affects social housing policy and especially the sale of it. So one policy relates to the development of land for sale and the other to the sale of State housing land. Neither thing is related to each other at all in any policy context.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: I need no assistance and I do thank members for offering their assistance. My office and I had a good look at this earlier today. The bill does two things in order to increase the supply and the affordability of housing. It makes amendments to the Special Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and secondly it amends the Housing Act 1955 to clarify how the Public Works Act 1981 applies to the disposal of State housing land for use for housing purposes. Both relate to the stated purpose of increasing supply and affordability of land. It is in order and it does comply—[Interruption] Order! If I hear an interjection like that again I will be asking for someone to leave. I am ruling that it does comply with Standing Order 263(a).Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Just before—I need to clarify that I have ruled quite categorically on whether this bill does comply. The member is absolutely free to raise any point of order on another matter unrelated to this. But if the member rises to his feet and continues now to argue when I have given such a categoric ruling on this matter that in itself will lead to disorder and I will consider very carefully whether I would be asking the member to leave.Grant Robertson: It is a new matter regarding whether or not a bill that is introduced under Standing Order 263(a) can be considered to be "implementing a single broad policy" when there is in this bill in Part 2 in fact an amendment that relates largely to the Public Works Act and does require no obligation for land freed up under that to be used for housing. So there is no obligation—so the outcome of this is not even related to housing in the end. There is no obligation for that land to be used for housing so the only way in my view that this can be seen as an omnibus bill is to create such a wide definition of "a single broad policy" as to be meaningless.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I think the two previous speakers failed to understand the interaction between—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I hear that member interjecting on a point of order again I will be asking him to leave the Chamber.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Standing Order 263(a) requires that amendments deal with an interrelated topic. I would deal for instance very specifically with the very first special housing area in Weymouth which is also exactly the land that is affected by the Housing Act provisions that are covered for in this bill. If we take one of the largest housing developments in Auckland in Hobsonville—actually the largest housing development currently in Australasia—it is both a special housing area affected by this bill and it is also affected by the Housing Act. In fact that interrelationship applies to over 30 of the special housing areas. So I think the reason for the points of order is that members have not understood the connection between special housing areas and the Housing Act 1955.Mr SPEAKER: I have spent some time on this matter. I have given a ruling. It is not a ruling I gave lightly. Although I accept that members do not agree with what I have stated we are moving forward. I have accepted that the bill does comply.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think in that exchange there has been ample demonstration of the particularity that might be required to support the motion. What I will say though is that this bill extends provisions for affordable housing that have been very successful to date and I look forward to members of the whole House who have concerns about affordable housing offering their support for it but I of course recognise that given the previous exchange there are likely to be spurious reasons why people will not support it.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House has set down a procedure for a Minister moving urgency to describe the nature of the urgency and why it is urgent. It does not allow for the Minister to then use that as an opportunity to pre-empt what Opposition members may say and to take a flick at other members of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No there is certainly no need for the last part of the Minister's statement to be given. What this is is a chance for the Minister to explain the reason for urgency. He has done that. It is no longer a debatable motion and I will put the question."