Page 965 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The initial cost of putting the batts in the roof is higher because it is a larger area. That is about $1,100. Again you get a good recoupment of savings - about $280 a year. The cost is recoverable in about the same period - three to four years. But it is a significant additional cost to the new home buyer, and one that we think is not justified to make compulsory. We would prefer to allow the new home buyer to do that a couple of years down the track when they are a little more financially secure. The modification to the building code that we put in place by regulation on 3 December, and tabled in this place on 17 December, does just that. That came about as a result of quite considerable discussions between Mr Wood, who is responsible for planning and building approval matters in the ACT, and me as I am responsible for the Building Control section.
Mr Wood has announced a range of initiatives in the ACT in relation to promoting more energy efficient houses. It is a goal of this Government not just that we have better insulated conventional houses of the styles that have been traditionally built in Canberra but that we have energy efficient houses. We have houses like the house down at Banks that a number of members went to see opened - the ACTEW energy efficient model house. There are the houses that the Housing Trust is putting up in Gungahlin, embracing heat wells, extensive use of passive solar materials, and brickwork of a different style to give long-term savings in energy to the tenants. There has been Mr Wood's announcement about a rating system for houses, so that consumers can easily see whether the style of house that they are being shown by a builder is energy efficient in the long term. All of those initiatives are moves in the right direction.
Mr Moore's proposal is clearly a move in the right direction. It is right for governments to say that there are cases where you should go beyond just encouraging better energy efficiency and make it compulsory, but we do not think it is necessary to do it by legislation. It can be done by regulation which is tabled in this chamber. We do not think it is necessary to make full insulation compulsory at new construction stage. It makes a lot of sense to make the insulation of inaccessible areas such as walls and inaccessible ceiling areas compulsory, and that is what we have done.
We think it is appropriate to impose that burden on new home buyers but leave the additional burden of the ceiling insulation as a non-compulsory item, in the hope that new home buyers, when they become a little more financially secure a few years down the track, will invest in energy saving ceiling insulation. There is no doubt that the investment of that $1,100, on the model that I have for the 100-square-metre brick-veneer house, giving a saving of $280 a year on energy costs, is a sensible investment for home buyers to make. It will recoup very big savings for them over the years. It is a decision that they can make when their finances allow it, and they can either install it themselves or get a tradesperson to do it.
Madam Speaker, we are not supporting Mr Moore's Bill - not because we do not support the policy thrust of more energy efficient houses, not because we do not think that the Government should make certain forms of insulation compulsory, but because we think that we have struck an appropriate balance by the regulations that we tabled in this place on 17 December.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .