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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 736 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

included in the Energy Efficiency Ratings Act. Clearly, the amendment that deals with the exclusion of caravans and mobile homes is a sensible one. Clearly, the different requirements in relation to not providing a false statement in relation to energy and an energy efficiency rating or providing information that may lead to the preparation of a false or misleading energy efficiency rating are important measures.

I am concerned that the Government have only just brought forward their amendments to this Bill. This Bill has been debated for quite some time. It has been around in this Assembly for some time, but the first I saw of the Government's amendments was about 10 minutes ago. I am concerned that they have chosen to do these at the last moment. However, the one in relation to demolition, from what I can see of it, is a sensible proposal. Obviously there is not much point in getting an energy efficient rating if you are purchasing the building purely to demolish it, and I do not think we would have any difficulty with that proposal.

The other one relates to the change of the penalty for failure to provide an energy efficiency rating. The Labor Party has considered this issue, and we have also had representations from a number of parties on this matter, including the Law Society. I thank the Law Society for their advice in relation to this. We are not of the view that it is appropriate to change it to the proposal advanced by the Minister. We are concerned that this does, in effect, create a loophole. The fine, obviously, would vary, but on average it would appear to be around $500 for a $100,000 house. That is the lower end of the market. Obviously it is more the higher you go. It may be that a person seeking to sell their home is concerned - I do not believe they should have this concern - that an energy efficiency rating may mean that the value of their house diminishes if they disclose that, and they may choose instead simply to be prepared to pay the penalty rather than suffer, perhaps, a more dramatic reduction in the value of their home.

Obviously we, the Labor Opposition and this Assembly as a whole, have taken the view that there are many benefits to be gained from the provision of energy efficiency ratings. Certainly, the Labor Party does not accept that argument about it having an overall detrimental effect on the value of a home price, but that concern has been raised in the community. It has been pointed out to me that there are other fines for failing to provide an energy efficiency rating certificate.

Mr Moore: And to advertise without one.

MR CORBELL: And fines if you fail to advertise it also, as Mr Moore interjects. However, the enforcement of that is entirely a matter for the Government. I think the importance of the clause as proposed by Ms Tucker is that it essentially puts the requirement very clearly on the householder, the person selling the property, to ensure that that documentation is provided. I have not had any really strong reason advanced to me as to why a solicitor would fail to do that. For that reason, I do not see any reason why we should be accepting the Government's suggestion as to what the penalty is for failing to provide an energy efficiency rating as part of a sale contract. It should be a straightforward process. It should not be a complicated process. The weakness in the Government's proposal is that it potentially provides a loophole which could be exploited. For that reason, the Labor Party is not prepared to accept that amendment.

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