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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3772 ..

MS REILLY (5.44): I rise to speak in support of Ms Tucker's amendment because I think we need to encourage better energy efficiency measures in the ACT. One of the issues that Ms Tucker did not mention in relation to greenhouse emissions is that the ACT also has one of the highest rates of sunshine. We could use solar energy in a much better way than we do.

Looking at the matters that are before us in this amendment in relation to water savings, it is interesting to note that one of the issues that were discussed was the problem for ACT Housing tenants of excess water bills. Anything that we can do to reduce our use of water in the ACT is to be commended and to be supported, particularly if it assists people on low incomes not to get caught for using excess water without realising that they are going to have additional bills.

A second thing is that, for many people on low incomes in the ACT, one of the biggest costs after rent is the cost of heating. We have quite long, cold winters, and we have an amount of housing stock that does not fully reflect the needs of such a cold climate. This is particularly true of some of ACT Housing stock because, as the Minister has told us on a number of occasions, an amount of it is quite old. One of the things that may fall out from this is that ACT tenants, when they are taking on individual properties, will know what the likely heating costs are going to be through this energy rating. This may, of course, cause some reluctance to take up individual properties, but it may encourage ACT Housing to improve its stock more quickly. Obviously, this will also improve the value of these important community assets, which of course will assist the ACT economy. We support this amendment.

MR MOORE (5.46): Mr Speaker, in her speech in moving this amendment, Ms Tucker put all the arguments - it is going to improve jobs, it is going to improve greenhouse, and it is going to bring tourism. I must say that tourism is the one that took me most. I understand how it is going to improve tourism. The reason is this: Just like Goulburn has the Big Merino, and there is the Big Banana and the Big Prawn somewhere, we are going to have the world's biggest longbow, because what Ms Tucker has drawn is the longest bow of them all, I think, in going for tourism on this one.

The sentiment behind this amendment - I will apply this to the next amendment that Ms Tucker is to move as well, so I can give my position on both - is admirable, Mr Speaker. The costs are a concern. To inflict what at this stage would appear to be a $100 cost, and probably a $30 or $40 cost at least for the other one, although it depends on the appliance in that case, would be quite an imposition for some people, and I think we have to take that into account.

If we are going to use this kind of process, I think we ought to have an appropriate debate in the Assembly about doing this across Canberra rather than selecting one group of people on which we apply an energy rating system and say, "You have to do it". I have not done it myself, and I think for me there would be some hypocrisy. Granted, I am particularly conscious of such issues and, yes, I have put good insulation in my ceilings. When I did an extension I put big windows on the appropriate walls and followed a process because I was conscious of it. I have also improved the energy rating for my house in some other ways. Nevertheless, I think that to put on other people an imposition that I have not put on myself is questionable.

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