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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4864 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

showing their energy rating. As soon as they are advertised, people who are going through their first run of looking for a house will say, "Why do we not go and look at the one with the better energy rating or the one with the advertised energy rating?". So, the market forces will apply. I think that what will happen is that people themselves will determine that they want tenants and, therefore, will, because of the market, spend the $100 to get that rating in order to give themselves a better chance in the market. But there will not be a compulsion from us, other than when there is a change of ownership. I think that is a much more effective way to introduce this sort of legislation into the tenancy market without causing a major problem for people who are currently trying to manage their own superannuation income in a reasonable way.

Of course there are other landlords who are out there for whom this is simply a business. They run their business; and, yes, it will be a bit easier for them. They probably can afford to get a rating. But it is exactly the same as saying that there are also tenants who earn very high incomes, who are in Canberra perhaps for a relatively short time and who can easily afford to pay extra rental. The argument applies on both sides. But I think this is a much more sensible way to go with the legislation that Ms Tucker has put up. It seems to me that these two pieces of legislation can enhance, first of all, the way we deal with the environment and our consciousness of it; and, secondly, can enhance decision-making for people when they are either buying houses or, in the slightly longer term, as I understand the impact of my amendments will be, renting a property so that they understand the short-term costs compared to the long-term costs.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Housing and Family Services) (4.53): Whilst I have not had a chance to look at Mr Moore's amendments or a couple of the other amendments which are floating around, there are some significant costs in this which I think do need to be taken into account. I wait to see what the officers have told the Chief Minister in relation to the proposal on the first Bill - that it come into effect after 12 months. I think people have to take into account, though, the nature of properties in Canberra. It is a simple matter for any new house, be it in public housing or in private housing, to have a proper, state-of-the-art, as it were, energy efficiency rating. ACT Housing tries to get a very good rating on any new properties we build; we ensure that they are energy efficient. But the fact is that in Canberra a significant portion of the stock, both public and private, is old. Many houses were built prewar. The average age of a lot of the stock in Canberra is certainly well over 20 years. One just has to look around the suburbs to see this. Most of the houses people live in in Canberra are probably between 20 and 40 years of age. That is a very significant factor.

In terms of these Bills, there are certainly costs to ACT Housing. The estimated costs of rating ACT Housing rental properties is somewhere between $300,000 and $500,000 per annum which, unless it was separately budgeted, would perhaps result in a reduction in things such as housing maintenance. The costs of an energy rating and improvement works would be passed on to tenants in the public sector through increased rents. They are the group in most need of housing and are in poverty in some instances. I am concerned that the proposals may force lower-income earners to opt for a low energy rated dwelling and gain lower rents but incur higher energy costs.

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