Page 970 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (11.40): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party, once again like the Labor Party in this case, is totally in agreement with the policy goals as expounded by Mr Moore. There is no denying that. But, like the Government, the Liberal Party will not be supporting Mr Moore's Bill.
Madam Speaker, perhaps the three words that stand out in all that members have said on this issue are "education", "regulation" and, perhaps most importantly, "awareness" - an awareness by the ACT community about the benefits of insulation. I think that there is no denying that successive governments, and in particular this Government, I must admit, have done a lot to educate the community and the industry about the benefits of energy efficient homes. The Government needs to be congratulated on that point.
The industry supports the mandatory insulation requirements in areas which, after the house is built, are inaccessible, like walls and flat roofs. Going for walls, floors and roofs is a case of overkill, the Liberal Party believes, and it removes a significant element of individual choice from both home owners and builders. The Liberal Party's decision is based on the fact that making it mandatory to totally insulate homes would add significantly to the cost and therefore make housing out of the reach of many Canberrans. I think Minister Connolly quite adequately put that point of view to the Assembly this morning.
Madam Speaker, the right of every person to live in a warm, insulated home and the energy savings of insulation must be balanced, we believe, with the wider issues, like the added cost of building a house, which directly impacts on people entering the housing market. Once again Mr Connolly did point out very eloquently the fact that there are a lot of people out there, in Tuggeranong especially and in Gungahlin also, who have sheets on the windows. Mr Stevenson mentioned newspapers. I recall, from many years ago, when we first came out to Australia, the detergent called Bon Ami, which you would rub across the window so that you could not see through it. Basically, what we are talking about is a trade-off or a compromise, and we believe that a trade-off or any compromise makes sense.
The Liberal Party feels that people would be better served by giving them insulation in the inaccessible walls and ceilings and leaving the insulation of floors and accessible ceilings to the individual. Then people can have the house of their dreams with insulated walls, and can save up for insulation in other areas as they can afford it. We believe that that is simple and that it is commonsense. The Liberal Party also feels that it is a balanced compromise between increasing housing costs and providing people with more efficient insulated homes. Who are we, Madam Speaker, to decide where people will spend their housing dollar? Some people will say that carpet is a bigger priority and will spend $1,000 or more on carpet first. Next year the insulation is or may be a viable option. We are not discouraging people from putting insulation in; we are just advocating that people should be given a choice.
This small step, bringing in mandatory insulation in walls, may well lead to people looking at insulation issues when building and deciding that while they are doing the walls they may as well do the floors and ceilings. I think Mr Stevenson quoted some figures. On consulting with people like the Housing Industry Association and some insulation companies - I note that Mr Wood opened Just-rite in Mitchell - they all confirm the fact that there is a lot
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .