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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4866 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

with the wording in the Territory Plan. We have taken this approach to bring about consistency between the scheme that already operates for new dwellings in the ACT and the scheme we are proposing. The ACT home energy rating statement is already in place for new dwellings in the ACT. The power to prescribe that rating scheme is not in any legislation but in the Territory Plan. There is no full definition in any piece of legislation. What we are doing here is applying a similar scheme to existing dwellings. As we cannot amend the Territory Plan, we have used legislation to do this. While it would be possible to define the energy rating statement as the ACT home energy rating scheme, that does not present as much flexibility.

As I indicated in the tabling speech, I hope this scheme is improved over time. There is a review coming up, and I believe there will be adequate public debate about any changes to the scheme. The ACT home energy rating scheme was not something that was just whipped up by a Minister overnight; it was the subject of an extensive process. I am sure the same would be true of any changes to the scheme or of any energy rating statement that is prescribed under this legislation if it becomes law. If that is not the case, I will certainly use my powers of disallowance to amend or reject any scheme.

In relation to the comments about the definition of premises, I would like to point out that this definition is consistent with the Residential Tenancy Act. While I acknowledge there is some regulatory power, I think the definition we have provided is quite comprehensive, while still allowing for some flexibility if that proves necessary. Some members were unclear about the requirement under our Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill to have another rating if there were changes made to the dwelling. What the Bill says is that if there were structural changes which come under the Building Act it would actually be necessary. But what the Bill is primarily about is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I have listened to the arguments against this Bill, which range from the imposition of costs on landlords to how we do not quite have the rating scheme right or perfect.

Debate interrupted.

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mrs Carnell: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

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