Page 1270 - Week 04 - Thursday, 10 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
exclusion zone is absurd. Why should proposed changes or developments of public space and community facilities be exempt from community appeal merely because they are in the same geographic region as many businesses? On what basis does ACTPLA and the government consider that their views and their interpretations of what is desirable for community facilities make up the unchallengeable truth?
Intelligent responses to climate change will require big changes in the way the construction industry operates. It is inconceivable that we will go quietly and enthusiastically down that path. It will require strong regulation and a firm political will. In the absence of strong legislation, competitive pressures work against developers who want to do the right thing. That is the situation today. These regulations should contain provisions that require developers, architects and builders to raise their standards. As an A V Jennings spokesperson said recently, without regulations from government, developers who want to do the right thing have no way of persuading their clients to build a less energy-guzzling house et cetera.
Above all, government must actively shape the parameters in which market decisions are made which impact on the rate of climate change. The act does not do that and, as a consequence, these regulations do not do that. The government’s own climate change strategy states that integrating climate change related actions into existing plans and strategies is an effective means of delivering actions by government agencies. It also states that early action is more cost effective than late action. No arguments there, but between the rhetoric and the action falls the shadow.
These regulations do virtually nothing to impel or compel environmentally responsible decision making. In fact, their net effect may be to take us backwards. I hope the government proves me wrong by bringing in far-sighted environmental building and construction material standards, suburb design and DA processes that encourage ecologically responsible decision making. A number of provisions and omissions in these regulations do not provide much reassurance in that regard.
Under the previous regime there was a requirement that a minimum four-star rating for all new dwellings be achieved, and evidence that the minimum star rating was achieved was required to be attached to the DA. This requirement has disappeared. On the surface, ACTPLA can say that imposing the minimum star rating at DA stage is now obsolete, because there is a minimum energy rating standard to be achieved for every new dwelling under the Building Code of Australia, and that rating has increased to five stars. But what they fail to accept or possibly grasp is that the energy rating is largely determined by the design of the building.
The primary design elements that determine the energy rating include building orientation, roof form, floor plan including location of glazing, and dimensions of external, internal and separating walls. Over a multi-residential development these can be averaged out over the whole development, meaning you can have some incredibly energy-inefficient apartments balanced out by some that are more energy efficient. Secondary elements such as insulation, glazing treatment and heating and cooling surfaces can be tinkered with to improve the energy rating, but not to a significant extent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .