Page 975 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a much more expensive rate, and they will not be able to put that cost over the 20 or 25 years of the mortgage. That is an appropriate response to the issue raised by Mr Connolly and by Mr De Domenico. They have looked at it in black and white, or at a very surface level, and have been taken in by an immediate gut reaction which is based on false economy.
Mr Stevenson's argument - it was echoed somewhat by Mr De Domenico - does carry some weight; the argument that says, "We are not prepared to make it compulsory and will allow people to make their choice". I accept the strength of that argument. There are points at which we, as a community, are prepared to restrict choices for the benefit of the whole community, for the benefit of the people. In fact, it is not so much the people who are buying the houses that have the choices; money has restricted their choice already. This Bill was intended to set up a situation where the spec builder had no choice. If the spec builder has no choice and the insulation is in place at the time people go around to look at houses, they are still comparing one house with another, and, as I pointed out before, the insulation is part of the construction and as such is part of the mortgage.
Madam Speaker, I find it disappointing that I do not have support. I would not have found any difficulty had the Government, for example, decided to modify the Bill, or to come back to us and say, "There is no need to pursue this Bill; we will do what you are suggesting under regulation". I would encourage the Minister responsible to look at the insulation of floors in particular, the section that Labor has not commented on at all. Members of the Government should get off their bottoms. It does not have to take such a long time, Mr Wood - two years, or whatever you are talking about. The Government could put into regulation a compulsion in terms of the necessary R values for floors as well as for walls. To do so would be consistent with the arguments that you have presented.
Minister, in listening to the response here, even though this Bill fails today, I ask that you reconsider your approach in terms of the economics and how you can benefit young people who are buying houses. Consider also the benefit to the community as a whole in terms of energy usage, in terms of greenhouse effect, and take into account the issues raised to date. Reconsider your perspective and perhaps achieve the same goals by regulation, which is the most effective way to do it in the first place but is not a method available to members of this Assembly.
In summary, Madam Speaker, whilst people have indicated that they will vote against this Bill and that it will fail at the in-principle stage, I hope that the debate may bring about a reconsideration of some of those ideas, particularly when you take into account the very sensible words of Ms Szuty and the points that I raised, both in tabling the Bill and in response to issues raised by members.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .