Page 973 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is obvious that the commonsense measures that need to be taken are not being addressed because the less energy efficient option generates the most profit and the line of least resistance is the easiest path to follow. This Bill seeks to put energy efficiency back on the agenda, with a clear message that it is no longer acceptable to ignore all the best advice of government advisers and environmentalists. Canberra is also taking a great interest in the development of urban design guidelines and has given some commitment to AMCORD guidelines for residential development. AMCORD's sister model code, AMCORD URBAN, cites the need for insulation in the energy efficient house. While it recommends only a minimum rating of R2.0 for ceilings, its performance guidelines state that "building materials and insulation are selected to assist thermal performance".
It is universally recognised that there is a need to provide better insulation and thermal performance results from housing as one component of a greenhouse emission strategy. If the Government is serious in its aim to reduce greenhouse gases, making Canberra a more energy efficient place, and providing its residents with a high quality of life, then it has to get serious about energy conservation. If the industry will not lead, then it is the prerogative of the Government to do so, and, if the Government is reluctant, other members of this Assembly must identify needs and respond to them. Madam Speaker, this issue needs addressing in a positive and meaningful way, and I am pleased to support Mr Moore's amendment Bill to make insulation compulsory and effective.
MR MOORE (11.51), in reply: Madam Speaker, it was a refreshing change to hear an intelligent and well-prepared speech from Ms Szuty compared to the - - -
Mr Connolly: I take a point of order. Ms Szuty often gives such speeches, Mr Moore. You should not be so critical of your colleague.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, the interjection from Mr Connolly is affective and reflects the same approach that he had to his speech. He knows quite well that the lack of preparation refers to his speech, to that of Mr Wood and to those of other members. What they failed to do was to see anything other than a black-and-white solution.
The interesting point about the Bill is that, even before it has been debated at the in-principle stage, some of its purposes have been achieved. Madam Speaker, it is not within the power of any member other than a Minister to make regulations. I had heard Mr Wood on a number of occasions say, yes, he would do something about insulation and, yes, he would do something about energy efficiency but it would take time. In his speech we heard him use the word "time" some six, seven, eight or nine times, Madam Speaker. Out of sheer frustration, I felt that the only way I could try to get something done in this matter was to introduce legislation. In fact, I gave drafting instructions some two or three months before the Bill was tabled in November. Mr Connolly pointed out that it was on 3 December that the regulations were announced. They were gazetted on 17 December last year, some month after my Bill was tabled. That having occurred, Madam Speaker, I had achieved some of my aim in tabling this Bill.
That is emphasised, Madam Speaker, by the fact that this is an unusual Bill - I was surprised that Mr Connolly did not take the opportunity to comment on this - in that it has a Henry VIII clause in it. In other words, it establishes power and then hands the power back to the Minister to vary the regulations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .