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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 March 2004) . . Page.. 924 ..

The Water and Sewerage Act currently has some provisions that address water efficiency, such as requiring dual flush toilets. That legislative system works well in that plumbers know what kind of toilets are acceptable under that act and compliance with those requirements can be checked by government plumbing inspectors. It is clearly inappropriate to use building legislation to further the worthy aims of increased water efficiency when those aims could be so much better achieved through amending the Water and Sewerage Act.

In the government’s view, the sustainability guidelines in the Building Bill are appropriate, but it is important that the guidelines are within the scope of the bill. It is appropriate to deal with issues such as the sustainable use of materials, as the materials can be checked through the building certification process. But it is not appropriate to broaden the scope of the guidelines to issues such as sustainable design. Design issues that consider things such as energy efficiency are dealt with through the development approval process, and that is long before the provisions of the Building Bill apply.

Mr Speaker, the government cannot support the amendments as we believe they are better dealt with through other more appropriate pieces of legislation.

MS TUCKER (4.51): I am afraid I will not be able to support Mrs Dunne’s amendments to my amendments either, although I was certainly interested in doing so when I first looked at them. I think we all share the view that the construction industry could have a much lighter ecological footprint in respect of design and delivery.

My amendment is modest in that it addresses only the issue of building materials and it hinges on the building certifier carrying out his/her responsibilities under this act. But Mrs Dunne’s amendment shifts the focus away from “the material used in the building” to “the building work, or the building resulting from the building work”. The idea here is to allow the minister more flexibility and breadth in establishing sustainability guidelines. However, such guidelines would be likely to run across a development application process and would require significantly more consultation.

In respect of building practices, it is worth pointing out that some complementary work is happening through the building code and that this initiative could complement rather than duplicate. I am concerned that if Mrs Dunne’s amendments are passed, the building certifiers may find they do not have the capacity or responsibility to address contraventions of the guidelines. Under my amendment, the responsibility and the capacity of the certifier to make such decisions, while limited, is clear.

Mrs Dunne’s amendments to my second amendment again conceivably run across the HQSD and DA process, duplicating the work and potentially undermining the effectiveness of the regime.

Her final amendment, which introduces the example of water efficiency, seems to be a fairly stark example of an area of concern that fits best under other acts, such as the Water and Sewerage Act and the development application process.

I would like to reassure the Assembly, though, that I do not disagree with the intent of Mrs Dunne’s amendments. It is just that I am not reassured that it would work in the

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