Speaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders

Honourable members, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) was drawn from the member’s ballot today. The bill has the purpose of ensuring that every rental home meets the minimum standards of heating and insulation. It requires the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to set the standards, and requires the landlords to meet them.

On further study, the purpose and effect of the bill are the same in substance as the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, which was defeated at its first reading on 18 March 2015. Standing Order 264 provides that a bill that is the same in substance as a bill that received or was defeated on its first, second, or third reading may not be proposed. In my opinion, this bill should never have been accepted for the ballot.

Now that the bill has been drawn, I need to find a way forward. The point at which a bill is proposed to the House is when the member in charge moves its first reading. If the first reading of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) is reached in the current calendar year, I will then rule the bill out of order. However, if it is reached later than that, it will not trigger the prohibition in Standing Order 264, and will be in order.

I have asked the Clerk to ensure that bills proposed to go in the ballot are scrutinised more carefully for compliance with Standing Order 264. In future, bills that are the same in substance as ones read or defeated in the same calendar year will not be permitted into the ballot.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I apologise for not getting up immediately, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that ruling. One of the questions that we on this side of the House would have is around what is a “substantive difference”. I do not propose to take the House’s time now to explore that with you, because you have ruled, but we do believe that there was a substantive difference in terms of the different departments that were managing the process, but that, perhaps, is something that can be taken up at a later date with you.

I am happy to make further comment for the benefit of the member. The interpretation of “substantive” will not be defined exactly; it will depend on particular legislation. It will be a discussion that I have with the Clerk at the time. In this particular case, the original proposal was scrutinised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, as I understand it. The new bill proposed is scrutinised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I do not believe that that is a significant difference and enough to warrant it having been included in the ballot on this occasion.