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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4863 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

My understanding of the Greens' amendments is that that is not the case; that the landlord needs to get a rating once for that property; that if they make changes to the property that affect the energy efficiency of the building, either positively or negatively, they need to get a new rating; but that they do not need to get a rating every time they let the property, only when they make changes to the property. I think the Government's argument on that case is simply not correct. I think it shows perhaps an unwillingness to put into practice the very important principles that the Minister for the Environment stated when he announced the Government's response to greenhouse.

When it comes down to it, the Labor Party is prepared to support, certainly in principle, both the residential tenancies Bill and the energy efficiency Bill. I will leave some of my other comments in relation to the raft of amendments that are before us to the detail stage, but I would like to indicate my party's support for the Bills.

MR MOORE (4.47): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on both pieces of legislation. I will be supporting the Energy Efficiency Ratings (Sale of Premises) Bill 1997. I think the legislation to ensure that, on the sale of premises, an energy efficiency rating is applied is entirely appropriate. It seems to me that the issue that was raised by Mr Corbell is one that I need to look back at and double-check on. He commented that, where an energy rating has been obtained, it can then continue. That part I agree with. That is correct; his interpretation is correct; and it was not correct on the part of the Government to say otherwise. He then went on, though, to say that, of course, if the house has been modified or changed you would expect another rating. Yes; you would expect another one. I do not think this is in this legislation.

Mr Corbell: I was referring to residential tenancies not - - -

MR MOORE: But I do not think it is in the residential tenancies legislation that when the house has been modified a new rating is required. Let me say, though, that the Government did make what I thought was a valid point when they said that, for the most part, fixed income superannuants are the owners of many of the rental properties in Canberra. Certainly, I am familiar with a number of people who are in this category. They do not have large incomes, but they are trying to ensure that they continue to look after themselves as they have taken responsibility for themselves all their lives. When we are dealing with people like that, we have to be very careful that we do not undermine their livelihood as well; just as we must be careful to do what we can to protect people who are renting the properties from them.

It is for those reasons, Mr Speaker, that I have circulated three minor amendments to the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill. The impact of these amendments is that, where an energy rating exists, it must be advertised and must be in accordance with the legislation that Ms Tucker has put up; as opposed to the suggestion that these fixed term superannuants must get an energy efficiency rating. What I perceive will happen if my amendments are accepted by the house - and I hope they are - is that, in the initial instance, whenever a house is sold and used for a residential tenancy, under the Energy Efficiency Ratings (Sale of Premises) Bill there must be an energy efficiency rating. As soon as that exists it must be advertised and made available, so that people can see what the energy rating is on the house when they are renting it. The impact of that will be that after a very short time there will be houses advertised on the rental market

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