Page 1282 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
second-generation rating software and possible amendments to the Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act, which replaced the Energy Efficiency Ratings (Sale of Premises) Act in 2003, and the Residential Tenancies Act to allow disclosure at the point of lease. Implementation of these proposals will resolve any gaps in the regulation of energy assessment. However, as a number of these proposals require amendments to acts, it would not be appropriate to implement these without the required level of consultation.
The government also needs to be responsible in ensuring that the costs and benefits of the scheme are adequately assessed through a regulatory impact analysis. Given the imminent release of the discussion paper and the resultant amendment to the ACT house energy rating scheme, it would be premature to embark on an education campaign at this time. In the interim, practitioners will continue to operate under the current rules for the ACT house energy rating scheme. While energy assessors and other stakeholders will be kept informed of any changes to ACT legislation, there is, of course, some responsibility on practitioners to ensure that they are complying with their legislative obligations. Due to the length of time the second generation software has been available, it is not expected that there will be a shortage of trained assessors for building plan assessment. The key issue that needs to be addressed is the difference between energy ratings for buildings that have not yet been built, which are required under the BCA, and energy ratings when a building is sold, which are required under the Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act.
I know there are a number of amendments circulating and there is a considerable amount of confusion. The government cannot support the motion as it currently stands. It is certainly not my preference to have to vote against it today. I would suggest that, if other parties are agreeable, once people have given their initial speeches, we adjourn this debate today so that briefings can be provided to the Liberals and the Greens on these complex issues and that we might be able to resume debate on this either in the next sitting week or possibly in May, depending on the complexity of the issues.
There is no desire from the government to try and block the intent of Ms Le Couteur’s motion, but we just simply cannot support a number of the points in paragraph (1) that are factually incorrect. The actions that are required in paragraph (2) certainly we cannot support, and I understand that the Liberals are proposing an amendment. So a constructive way forward, Mr Speaker, through you to Ms Le Couteur and to Mr Seselja, might be that, once initial contributions have been made, we adjourn the debate today, we have some more detailed briefings on the issues and we will then be able to come back with a motion that everyone can agree to and an agreed way forward. There certainly is goodwill on the government’s part to complete this work. If there is support from other parties to do so then I think that would be a constructive way forward today.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.15): I am not sure what the Greens’ position is. Given it is their motion, I would like to hear first and foremost whether they would be amenable to the proposal from the minister, but we can have some further discussions as it goes on, and I am sure some notes will be passed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .