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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4871 ..

MR CORBELL (5.13): Mr Speaker, when reading the Government's amendment No. 1, members really should also read it in the context of the Government's proposed amendment No. 4, which adds a new clause 8, which is a sunset clause. It says that, if all of the provisions of the Act, other than sections 1 and 2, have not commenced before the end of the period of five years, the Act as a whole is repealed. It seems to me that, if you look at that provision along with the provision that the Government is providing for in its amendment No. 1, what it is basically saying is: "We do not really want to do anything at all with this Bill". What the Government will do is put up some regulations, which it has the option of enacting; and, if it does not enact them, then they just do not occur, and the Bill ceases to have effect after a period of time. The Labor Party does not believe that that is a very appropriate way for the Government to be going.

The Government has already demonstrated that it really did not want this Bill in the first place; but it knew that it was going to lose that vote. So, now what it is trying to do is amend this Bill so that it has no effect anyway. That is not an acceptable response from a Government that has come out and said, "Greenhouse gas emissions are an important issue and we want to address it". They are not addressing it in this context, because what they are saying is: "We do not believe that there should be energy efficiency rating schemes for residential properties". It is really nothing more than rhetoric from the Government about greenhouse and an unwillingness to put that rhetoric into concrete action.

Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will be supporting the amendment to Mr Humphries's amendment moved by Ms Tucker because what Ms Tucker's amendment says is that, if after one year no regulation has been made in relation to energy efficient rating schemes, then that provision comes into effect and the ACT home energy rating scheme comes into effect as the appropriate rating scheme. That is entirely appropriate. I think the Greens need to understand that, if they are wanting to introduce a Bill one week and have it passed the next week, there are certain people in the housing industry who are going to be concerned about that and who are going to want an opportunity to assess what it means. Fortunately, the Greens have responded to that by saying that there will be a 12-month period in which the Government can go through the process of making assessments about alternative home energy rating schemes. They can introduce those schemes within a 12-month period; but, if they fail to do so, there is a fall-back provision. We think that is a sensible amendment. We believe that it is an appropriate amendment to make sure that we have energy rating schemes for residential properties.

Mr Speaker, we believe that this is an appropriate amendment. We believe that it is important that the Government act, and not just spout the rhetoric about greenhouse. We believe that the Greens' amendment achieves that. We will be supporting it.

MS TUCKER (5.16): I would like to speak again to the amendment. I can see how the numbers are going here. I think that, by suggesting this amendment to Mr Humphries's amendment, we are actually offering a compromise. As our initial Bill stood, it was six months. So, I think it is quite reasonable that we do stick with this and that we give it 12 months.

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