Page 890 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Le Couteur has made reference to the need for certain materials, such as shading and louvres, to be included in energy efficiency requirements. While I am supportive of such measures, it is also important to note that these are less about efficiency and more about design. Design that reduces the need for energy use is often taken to mean passive design. What should be noted, though, is that passive design buildings are not necessarily energy efficient.
If you want to talk about how we can build buildings to reduce the need for space heating and cooling and perform to a high energy efficiency, we actually need to be talking about energy productivity. In my opinion, it is energy productivity that we should be talking about, as this is where the most gains are to be made: gains which help not only the environment, but also the cost of living for people in our community. Essentially, energy productivity is using the same or less energy to do more. Energy efficiency is very much a part of energy productivity, but energy productivity also encompasses passive design, renewable energy sources and other measures that, when put together, provide a holistic approach to building design and performance.
Before I conclude, I would like to formally place on the record the fact that I believe this matter would have been best dealt with by a full committee inquiry by the planning and urban renewal committee. As members of this committee, both Ms Le Couteur and I would have had the opportunity to investigate this matter and hear from a wide range of industry stakeholders, community organisations and individuals.
In negotiations leading up to the debate on this motion, it has been made clear to me that Ms Le Couteur does not want to bring this matter to the planning and urban renewal committee, which is disappointing. I understand that she just wants to get on with it. However, “getting on with it” is difficult when the “it” is not clear, and the requests in Ms Le Couteur’s motion today demonstrate the confusion that sits around the EER scheme, passive design and energy productivity, and the way these approaches interact with our planning regulations and frameworks relating to the performance and livability of buildings and homes.
I believe the way we heat and cool our buildings should be thoroughly looked into so that we are not missing any potential options for improving the livability and performance of our buildings. I hold out hope that Ms Le Couteur—and even Mr Parton, based on comments he has made today—may consider the option of an inquiry in the future, as I note that the planning and urban renewal committee is yet to decide its future work program for the rest of the term. I look forward to working with Minister Ramsay and my government colleagues in delivering real outcomes for the environment and Canberra homes. I commend the amended motion to the Assembly.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.32): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. I am really disappointed that, despite everybody acknowledging that there is a problem, the big parties do not really want to get on to it and do something. If I were Better Renting, I probably would have been quite concerned or offended by Mr Parton’s comments. This motion was not written by Joel Dignam or Better Renting. As I mentioned in my speech, I moved a motion in the Seventh Assembly on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video