Page 888 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
core. It does not attempt to make dwellings livable in heatwaves without air conditioning. It is debatable whether it should or not, but I do not think that that is what it sets out to do.
The original motion suggested that the EER requirement is being undermined by weak planning laws and that the ACT should adopt rules similar to those in the New South Wales state environment planning policy No 65, SEPP 65. Upon further examination we learnt that the government is going down this path, and we support that.
The original motion noted that air conditioning is a solution for some people but that many low income people cannot afford air conditioners; that people who live in apartments can be limited in the types of air conditioning they install; and that tenants are not able to install them. I was a tenant in this town for 20 years, up until December of last year. For the last 10 years, we were living in a house without any air conditioning. Although we were not going to install a split system, we did purchase a whiz-bang portable air-conditioning system which did the job. It certainly did the job. I would reject that renters do not have the ability to use air conditioning in some way, shape or form.
The original motion also suggested that the government review the EER system, investigating minimum energy efficient standards for rental properties. I have to say that the EER is exactly the same whether the property is for rent or whether there is an owner-occupier.
Mr Rattenbury: What is the point of saying that?
MR PARTON: The point of saying that, Mr Rattenbury, is that the motion called upon the government to review the EER system, investigating minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties. The standards apply to all properties; we do not have separate standards for rental properties. That is the point that I am making.
We were concerned about the call for the investigation of potential expansion of the energy efficiency improvement scheme to cover more options, just because we do not know what options were being talked about, and also about investigating how the government could improve the performance of the EER system and, instead of waiting for national changes, perhaps go it alone. Having different standards across different jurisdictions means that local builders would need to develop different house plans for the ACT and New South Wales, and we have many residential builders who work across the boundary. I think that would make it difficult.
In short, upon reading the motion initially, we were quite pleased that these issues were raised, because it is obviously causing some distress for some people. Since that time, I have seen some of the examples that arrive in the email inbox of Ms Le Couteur and there seem to be concerns. I am just not convinced that this is the way to deal with it. We support the Labor amendments.
MS ORR (Yerrabi) (5.26): I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and I support Minister Ramsay’s amendments. Members know that I am a passionate advocate for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video