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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4878 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

These two amendments to clause 5 - and I will explain my third amendment as well - have the effect of ensuring that instead of, as the current legislation applies, every residential tenancy that is advertised requiring an efficiency rating, where premises already have an energy rating, where the house has been sold or modified and therefore has an energy rating, then that must be advertised and must be made available. The import of this modification is to ensure that superannuants who have looked after themselves in this way, who may have owned a couple of homes, are not forced by this legislation to go out and get an energy rating. I think I explained in my in-principle speech what would happen instead. I think members do understand that. This is the import of these amendments.

MR CORBELL (5.38): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will be opposing Mr Moore's proposed amendments, simply because we believe that they create a loophole in the legislation. What they do is create a situation where anyone can say, "I am renting a property. I do not need to get an energy assessment of this property done". We believe that that is inappropriate. We believe that that does not accord with the general direction that this legislation should be going in, which is to require people to make available information on the energy efficiency of the property that is being put out for rental.

I appreciate Mr Moore's concern about the incomes of some people who are letting properties. He has made reference to fixed-income superannuants. What we would say in response to that is that what needs to be understood, first of all, is that the cost of the energy assessment is a one-off cost. It is not a cost that you can be expected to incur every time you let the property, unless every time you let the property you have made some form of renovation to the property. That is not exactly a common occurrence. So, I think it is fair to say, first of all, that this is a one-off cost to the landlord. The second thing is that the landlord can claim this cost as a tax deduction. So, it is not a cost which they cannot recoup further down the track. Admittedly, they do not recoup it immediately. They have to wait until they put in their next income tax assessment; but they can make it a tax deduction.

Finally, Mr Speaker, it would be fair to say that the cost can be recouped over a period of time. With increased rentals, if you look at recouping it, not over six months, but over 12 months, 18 months or two years, the cost can be recouped. It is a one-off cost. It is appropriate information that someone letting a property should make available to a prospective tenant because those prospective tenants are also potentially on low incomes and need to know whether or not the property they are renting is going to cost them a lot of money to heat in winter, for example. It is fair information that should be made available. Whilst I am sure that the intention of Mr Moore's amendment is good, it does provide a loophole which effectively means that an enormous number of properties will not have that sort of assessment of their energy efficiency made. As such, we do not believe that it should be supported.

MS TUCKER (5.41): I too am disappointed in these amendments. We will not be supporting them. But I do understand Mr Moore's concerns. At least it is the beginning of improving the energy efficiency of rental accommodation in the ACT. So, I am acknowledging that at least - that it is a step in the right direction - but I am disappointed, because I believe that this is such a critical issue that we really do need to take a stronger stance.

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