Page 3309 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
regulatory assessment process happening right now to deal with those issues? That is the failure of their approach in relation to this bill.
The Minister for Planning has outlined a broad range of technical issues that are still required to be resolved, and they include issues such as how the technology is deployed to make sure it is effective and does achieve the outcomes that are needed. There will need to be measures in regulation, not just to deal with mandating certain types of hot-water systems but indeed making sure that they are performing in particular ways, as they are meant to perform. Those are all issues that ACTPLA, as the technical regulator, is working through and making sure it is in a position to implement.
At the end of the day, the argument really is: it is a difference between 1 October this year for new dwellings, that is what the Greens want, less than six weeks time, or 1 May next year, which will make sure that all industry is familiar with and ready for the change and has been properly consulted on it. It is really up to the Greens, and up to the Liberal Party, to say why they think a lack of consultation with those industry groups is acceptable. Why does Mr Seselja think it is acceptable to impose this change on retailers, on distributors, on plumbers, on builders and to say, “In less than six weeks time, this is what is going to happen”?
What is going to happen to people who have already purchased hot-water systems that are currently compliant? They might have spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on systems or on orders. What are they going to do, Mr Seselja? What are they going to do, Ms Le Couteur? Where was your consultation? Where is your commitment to working with people to make sure that they can make the transition?
That is the failure of this bill and that is why the government does not support it. The time frames are unrealistic and they are being imposed without any consultation with the people who have to make it work on the ground: the plumbers, the builders, the retailers, the distributors. That is the issue. It is all very well to impose a time frame but what about actually making it work on the ground?
This is the criticism that has been made of the government every day in this place from those opposite and those on the crossbench. Where is your consultation? Where is your willingness to work through the issues with the people on the ground? The boot is on the other foot. They are obliged to demonstrate how they have done something, and they have failed to do so.
I note that the Liberal Party are proposing that this bill will be supported in principle by them and that they have amendments. We are about to conclude the in-principle debate and there are no amendments on the table from the Liberal Party. Where are their amendments? If they felt that they were ready for this change and this was a very considered issue on their part, where are their amendments? Where are their amendments? They have no amendments. This is a disappointing response from the Liberal Party.
What we expect, what we want, from the Liberal Party is a bit of consistency. And what we want from them is a demonstration that they are engaging seriously on this issue by putting amendments on the table, when this bill has been around for some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .