Page 3732 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
page 3774]. What this series of amendments does is make changes to the legislation which are reflective of our policy position, and that is that this legislation should apply to new dwellings, not to replacement hot-water systems in existing dwellings.
We believe that there is a fundamental policy approach whereby it is reasonable—and I think we are always cautious in imposing new things for new homes—that, when there is a significant outlay, we do look at cost. We are doing this in all areas. In building standards, we impose certain standards which, to a degree, add to the cost of building but which make for safer homes, make for more energy-efficient homes. We take that trade-off and some of the cost savings of course that come with that and the environmental benefits that come with that.
Likewise, in relation to hot-water systems, we believe it is reasonable to impose this standard on new dwellings. Where a family is building a home, they are making a significant outlay. This in many cases will be an extra outlay but one that is recovered through lower energy costs.
In the situation where there are particularly emergency replacements and urgent replacements of hot-water systems in existing dwellings, we do not want to see that cost burden mandated. Many people will make the decision, they will make the rational decision, based on their own financial circumstances; they will weigh it up.
But we do not want to put low income earners and others into a situation where they are forced to pay more at a time when they simply do not have the money. We know how stressful it can be when you need to urgently replace hot water. Living in a home with a family without hot water is no fun. And for those who struggle financially to replace those systems, we do not want to place an added burden and an added cost impost on them. That is what these amendments are about.
They also fulfil our election commitment about ensuring that, in new dwellings, we would see these standards imposed. We believe, though, it is reasonable to ensure that we do not go as far as the Greens wanted to in this regard and impose it on existing dwellings.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Planning and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (4.44): The government will not be supporting these amendments. They do represent what we believe to be a backward step, both in terms of the Greens’ bill and the Greens’ stated objectives, and the national agreements that the government is party to and is progressing.
I would signal that, should these amendments be successful today, then the government will have to bring in further legislation to meet our requirements under the COAG process, and we will do so. It amazes me that we have just got what I believe to be an indication from the Greens that they are going to accept the watering down of their legislation in this way. Again, that is a choice they make. We will obviously be back to debate these issues another day.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4.45): The Greens will support these amendments, admittedly with quite a degree of reluctance. The reason we are supporting them is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .