Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3771 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

doing is making the marketplace operate more effectively by providing consumers with information. I would also like to add that I have consulted both landlord and tenant groups about the proposal and both are happy with both this amendment and the amendment in relation to water efficient appliances.

Members will be familiar with the home energy rating scheme which applies to new houses in the ACT. The problem is that this information is never passed on when houses are rented or sold. A second problem is that, while new houses are required to meet a minimum standard of energy efficiency, there are no incentives in place for existing housing stock to become more energy efficient. Anyone who has lived in Canberra for any time will be aware that our housing stock is very poorly equipped to deal with our climate. The ACT Government's submission to the Grants Commission makes quite a big deal about the need for the ACT to have special consideration because of the high rental cost. One of the major points that were made was the high heating and cooling costs for low-income renters in a harsh climate. About 60 per cent of the ACT's non-transport energy is used in space heating, and 20 per cent is used in water heating. This gives some indication of just how important improving the energy efficiency of our buildings is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I think everyone recognises the problem, so what we need is a few solutions. What we need to do is build in systems that will, over time, encourage more energy efficient housing. The enhanced greenhouse effect is potentially the most devastating environmental problem facing the human community. While I hear Mrs Carnell say - I think she said it yesterday - that we are responsible for a very small amount of Australia's overall greenhouse gas emissions, I do not believe that that is a reason for us to think that we do not have to integrate best practice into our city. In fact, I believe that if we did do that - we could, in the ACT, turn Canberra into best practice in this way - it would be to our economic advantage as well as to the environmental and social advantage, because I think this is obviously the way of the future. If we see ourselves as a best practice city we will gets lots of tourists in and lots of businesses in. I will not go on, Mr Speaker. I can see you are groaning over there. This is very important stuff. Australia is one of the largest per capita emitters of energy-related carbon dioxide in the world.

Mr Speaker, this amendment will, as a precontractual agreement, be only prospective; that is, it will apply only to tenancy agreements entered into after the commencement of the Act. ACT Housing, obviously, will not have to go out and get energy ratings for all its properties all at once. I think it will be very interesting to see, and I hope this amendment will encourage ACT Housing to improve the energy efficiency of its housing stock.

Mr Speaker, I am expecting the Government to raise the issue of costs. Currently a freestanding house costs, at the most, $100 to be energy rated. We have been informed that with increased demand the cost should come down, and for bulk ratings and ratings of blocks of flats the price could come down to below $50. There should be lots of jobs in this amendment also, obviously in conducting the audits, but also over time in installing energy-saving equipment as we create a more informed market for energy efficient housing in the ACT. We have been arguing for some time that saving energy creates a lot more jobs than producing energy does. I commend this amendment to the Assembly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .