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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 March 2004) . . Page.. 923 ..

some of the practical implications. The simple task of identifying whether something is a rainforest timber is probably beyond the capabilities of many in the community, including those in the building industry, because many timbers look similar in their presentation. This will create some problems for people but we think it is a start down the path of making sure that our building generally is of a much higher quality than it has been in the past.

While the opposition is generally supportive of the notion of having sustainability guidelines, we are concerned that those guidelines should not be constrained simply by sustainability being related to building materials. There is much more to sustainability than having the right sort of building materials.

Some of the issues of sustainability are addressed by a range of mechanisms—high quality sustainable design, the plumbing act, various aspects of the Building Act, building regulations, and all manner of similar things. It would be useful if all of these mechanisms could be brought together in one set of guidelines. If this were done, people who are thinking about how they will design their houses would be able to address the broader issues of sustainability and not merely the issues of whether rainforest timbers or timbers from old growth forests are being used.

While I commend Ms Tucker for moving her amendment, the opposition believes that this should be a much more far-reaching issue. We have resolved that we should attempt to amend Ms Tucker’s amendment by ensuring that we take into account much wider issues than merely rainforest timbers. I think all members of the Assembly wish to progress the process of sustainability in the building industry, and in other industries. I commend my amendments to the house.

MR CORBELL (4.48): Mr Speaker, Mrs Dunne’s amendments seek to broaden the coverage of the sustainability guidelines proposed by Ms Tucker’s amendment to include such issues as water efficiency. Unfortunately, the initiatives are, in the government’s view, not well formulated. It is our view that, unlike Ms Tucker’s amendment, Mrs Dunne’s amendments are not the best way of advancing this issue.

This is not to say that the government does not believe that the aims of the proposal have some merit. However, the vehicle Mrs Dunne has chosen is not, we believe, the appropriate one. The government believes that it is much more appropriate to deal with the broader issues covered by Mrs Dunne’s amendment in other legislation. For example, in relation to the water efficiency issue that Mrs Dunne clearly intends to include through her amendment, it would be more appropriate to make provision in the Water and Sewerage Act, rather than the Building Bill, for controlling the use of water.

I would ask members just to reflect on the reasons for this. The main reason is that water-using appliances and fittings and fixtures are required to be installed by licensed plumbers rather than by builders. Plumbers look to the Water and Sewerage Act for guidance on how to do plumbing work under their licence. They do not look to building laws for guidance on how to do plumbing work. Further, building work is required to be inspected and certified by building certifiers and they are clearly not the appropriate people to inspect and pass plumbing work. For that reason, the government does not believe that the vehicle chosen by Mrs Dunne is the appropriate one.

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