Page 167 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
other retrofits, that would be tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. What about if the ACT government had to comply with this through Housing ACT? What would be the cost then? The cost would simply be met by that particular renter, or, in the Greens’ fanciful world, the lessor would take on the cost and not pass it on. But not only would it be passed on to renters in those particular properties; the entire ACT taxpaying public would have to pay for the retrofit of potentially thousands and thousands of homes through Housing ACT.
We are not against encouraging or allowing for landlords to improve the quality of homes. But this is doing so with a stick, and that is not something that we will support. We support Canberra families that are already struggling with house prices that are seemingly out of control. We support Canberra families that are already struggling because of electricity prices, because of water prices, because of rates, because of the costs of car parking, because of the costs of public transport and much more. These people in Canberra are already struggling.
Here we have a very out-of-touch crossbench, in an election year, trying to impose even more costs on these Canberra families. We on this side of the chamber will not stand up for that. We on this side of the chamber will stand up for the Canberra families that are struggling as a result of this Greens-Labor coalition and the costs that it is imposing on all Canberra families.
Both owner-occupiers and tenants want choice and affordability. This bill delivers neither. This is an ill-thought-out bill, typical of the Greens, and we will not be supporting it today.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (12.10): I commend Mr Rattenbury for putting up this bill and I would like to speak in support of it and highlight a number of the issues that have led to this bill.
We have talked about the costs of living and I think it is worth making some points about issues, including social equity and health, that need to be considered and that have resulted in this bill.
On the cost of living, Canberra has the highest rents in the country, after the Northern Territory. Renters should not also have to pay more for energy bills—this is the whole crux of this bill—just because their house is not insulated properly. That is a really key issue. It is about that long-term affordability of housing for people, particularly people who are the most vulnerable in our community. We know that Canberra’s large temperature ranges make heating and cooling expensive if there are not appropriate energy efficiency measures.
On social equity in particular, people on low incomes who have the least capacity to pay for high energy bills are likely to be left to rent the most inefficient properties; we know that happens. It is unfair for renters to be paying around $450 a week when they have to live in one room in winter because they cannot afford to heat the whole house. We have heard stories from various groups about this and we know it is happening. The bulk of residential energy consumption stems from infrastructure that tenants cannot change—heating and cooling and hot water systems. In the face of increasing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video