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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4873 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The object of this amendment is not to add significantly to the cost of selling a house. This scheme needs to be simple to administer and cost effective for home owners generally, Mr Speaker.

MS TUCKER (5.20): I am concerned about basically what is happening here, because I think it is quite unnecessary. If you look at the drafter's amendment that I will be putting in a minute, you will see that there is plenty of scope in that for something other than the ACT energy rating scheme that is in existence now. If the Government wants to develop this alternative, it is quite possible within our Bill with this amendment that I will be putting.

MR CORBELL (5.21): Mr Speaker, there is certainly no reason why the Government cannot produce its own energy rating scheme for existing properties. If they wish to proceed with developing such a scheme, then that is a step to be commended. I do believe, however, and the Labor Party does believe, that if the Government is unable to produce such a scheme then the Bill should be specifying what should be occurring in its place. That is why we are not going to support the Government's amendment but will instead support the amendment to be moved by Ms Tucker, because Ms Tucker's amendment also ensures the retention of paragraph (a) about what "energy efficiency rating statement" means, and that is entirely appropriate.

Again, we are seeing from this Government all sorts of little manoeuvres trying to get itself out of having to actually do something concrete in the development of a regime for energy efficiency rating of buildings. That is not an acceptable attitude for the Government and the Minister for the Environment to adopt. If the Government wants to go ahead and produce its own scheme, that is fine; but, if it does not, it should not have an excuse not to do it at all. That is why we are wanting to support the retention in the original Bill of a scheme designated under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act. I do have to say, Mr Speaker, that my advice indicates that the existing scheme which is specified in the Land (Planning and Environment) Act, which is also specified in the Greens' Bill, does take account of things like the siting of vegetation around existing dwellings and the siting of neighbouring dwellings. So, there is no reason why that scheme cannot be used. But, if the Government wants to develop another scheme for existing dwellings, that is a quite appropriate step to take. We welcome it; but we do not believe that there should be an out for the Government in this situation.

Amendment negatived.

MS TUCKER (5.23): I move:

Page 2, line 13, paragraph (b) definition of "energy efficiency rating statement", omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph:

"(b) if the regulations make provision for energy efficiency rating statements - a statement prepared in accordance with the regulations;".

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