Page 974 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There was a comment on that from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that said that it is valid in this instance because this is the only method that a member has to change regulations. I felt that, as the Schedule could still be changed by the Minister, it was in fact reasonable, but at least we would have some action.
Interestingly enough, Madam Speaker, in the responses from Mr Connolly and from Mr Wood there was no comment on the third part of the Schedule on page 3 relating to the insulation of floors. Floors also are an awkward area to insulate. If you were going to accept the arguments put forward by Mr Connolly and Mr Wood, certainly with reference to concrete and masonry floors on the ground, you would expect that they would at least have made regulations in line with what is suggested in my Schedule or, failing that, move an amendment to this Bill. Similarly, Madam Speaker, with the Liberals, who say, "Yes, we support this in principle". They ran through the same arguments, and Mr Stevenson did as well; but they were not prepared to move an amendment to remove the area that they objected to - the roof and ceiling, and I will get to that in a minute. I feel that either there was not much attention paid to looking at what was involved in this Bill or, by and large, the Minister felt, "No, it is all right; we will do this and we will look after it". Madam Speaker, if the Minister would look after it we would be happy, but it has taken so long. As the Minister admitted, in a very casual way, he just has not been doing the job on this.
The Labor Party at the next election, no doubt, will attempt to appeal to the environment movement and say, "Look at all the wonderful things we have done". I will go back and I will say, "Yes, but you voted against compulsory insulation of ceilings". I think that people who are interested in the broad environmental concepts understand the importance of such a move. The response that Mr Connolly provided, and to a lesser extent, Mr Wood, because he recognised what Mr Connolly had pointed out, was that this is going to be much too expensive for young people trying to buy a house; that it would put up the price of a house by some $1,000. I think $1,100 was the figure he used. Of course, Madam Speaker, that is totally false economy.
I would like to reiterate some of the points that Ms Szuty made. First and foremost, there would be the benefit of scale. In the vast majority of cases we are talking about spec built houses - some 75 per cent of houses in Canberra. Builders have the advantage of benefits of scale to reduce those prices. That is a starting point. More importantly, if this $1,100 were financed as part of the mortgage, that would make the insulation much more accessible to people with less money and would give them lower interest rates. They lose the saving advantage in about four or five years.
People who are struggling to buy a house in that way are highly unlikely in three or four years to have that sort of cash on hand to be able to buy insulation. Effectively, Madam Speaker, they will be borrowing the money. They will be borrowing for that or they will be borrowing other money for the car. The effect will be the same. That being the case, it will mean that, instead of borrowing the money at mortgage interest rates, they will be borrowing it at much higher interest rates. People who can least afford it will be forced into a situation, in terms of their own savings for heat loss, Madam Speaker, of buying insulation at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .