Page 2315 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
got insulation standards and energy rating arrangements which are ahead of the pack.” And that is true. There is still much more to do but that is a recognition at the national level that the ACT’s performance is well ahead of other jurisdictions. But there is no reason to rest on our laurels, no reason not to do more. But it is also important to recognise where the ACT is placed. While the ACT will continue to encourage other COAG members to implement cost-effective mandatory disclosure schemes appropriate to their markets and climates, it is not the ACT’s role to call upon other governments to implement such programs, which Ms Le Couteur seems to be suggesting.
Although successive governments have committed resources to energy efficiency rating programs since 1995, given the extensive work currently being undertaken, the 2012 budget provides a step change in resources and commitment to continue to drive improvements in energy efficiency. The regulation of this sector, the assessors, the auditing of building work, the focus on building quality are all vital to drive improvements in energy efficiency and ultimately to achieve and contribute towards the government’s energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets.
So for all of those reasons, the government will not be supporting this motion today. I appreciate Ms Le Couteur’s personal passion for this subject, but I would also ask her to recognise that there are others, such as I, who have equal interest and passion in it but do not always agree on the approaches needed to get to the same place. The government will not be supporting the motion today.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.25): The opposition will not be supporting this motion either. I think it is fair to say that in the first part of Ms Le Couteur’s motion there are some reasonable points raised, some of which we agree with. There is no doubt that there is a need for improvement of the energy ratings scheme. Indeed, the opposition asked questions in relation to that during the estimates process. We asked questions of Mr Simmons in relation to that. There is no doubt that I think that the government needs to do more in looking at how it audits this scheme. We have put those concerns on the record.
We raised questions about government assessment auditors and members of the public having issues with inaccurate EERs. Of course, we took up the case of Gary Dixon during the estimates process. I think it was good that we could highlight those issues.
When we start to look to the Greens’ proposed actions, I think that is where we have a difference of opinion and a difference in approach. I think that if we are going to go down the path that Ms Le Couteur suggests, there are consequences. And we need more than just 24 hours notice of a motion to consider some of these consequences. I would have thought that a number of these things were worthy of a full debate by way of legislation. Some of this needs legislative change.
We can go to various aspects of the motion itself. It says that the government should amend the sale of premises act to require or at least permit the use of second generation software and cover additional residential premises such as those in educational institutions. If that is the view of the Greens, they are welcome to bring
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video