Page 1283 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, we certainly support part of the intent of this motion. In broad terms, we are prepared to support the first part of the motion, but I have circulated an amendment to the second part, and that is something that I will be looking to move. I am not tied to whether I move it now or later, but I understand that the Greens are looking at supporting the adjournment of the debate. I am getting some nods, so it is worth going into the substance of it first and then we can talk about adjourning the debate.
Certainly, energy efficiency rating systems are an important tool, and we see them used for all sorts of things at the moment—we see them for washing machines and televisions and of course for cars and homes. This particular motion relates to the energy efficiency ratings of new houses, particularly the first part of the motion, and I think it is critically important that we do look at this issue. We have got a rating system for new homes where they all need to be five star, and we are moving to six star. I think there are legitimate questions in the community about what that actually means and whether we are getting the benefit that we would expect from this rating scheme.
You still see in the new estates the black roofs, no eaves and sometimes very poor solar aspects. They are basic things which we should be getting to and which we should be going over and above. So I think it is legitimate to question how well this rating scheme is working for new homes at the moment. I think it is also legitimate to ask the question about how it works for existing homes which are being sold. We have certainly had approaches from industry in recent times as a result of some of the thermal imaging that can be done on homes. We are seeing issues around air loss, and we are also seeing issues around under-insulation where it is assumed that there is full insulation in the walls and the roof, but then when some of this imaging is done, particularly for wall insulation, it is found that there is not the insulation originally thought. So buyers are getting less than what they bargained for. I suppose that is a consumer issue where people are not always getting what they pay for. That is a concern, but it is also a concern from the point of view of houses not being as energy efficient as their rating might suggest. I suppose that is at the crux of Ms Le Couteur’s motion today. We certainly agree that that is something worth looking at, and looking at very closely.
At the same time, the second part of the motion is something we struggle to support. I think it is putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I think we need to do the review; we need to see this document which Mr Barr has informed us has not been published but which will be released soon. I think it would be a useful way forward to actually look at the discussion paper and look at what is now needed to reform this issue, of course, taking into account the need to work with our colleagues interstate.
That said, one of the targets set is to audit at least five per cent of ratings on an annual basis. I do not know how many houses that is; I am not sure the Greens do. I do not know how much that would cost, and these are all things that would need to be looked at. Is that the most effective way of doing it? We have suggested an auditing function that is actually done by the environment department. In fact, in discussions that I was having with a representative of the minister’s office earlier, it seems a little bit unclear
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .