Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3773 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

If we are going to do this I think there are two ways to go about it. The first is that we as an Assembly, as a government, say, "Yes, we are going to have energy ratings on all houses in the ACT - the 100,000 or so houses - and we will pay for it". Perhaps we put an environmental levy on the rates for one year in order to do that. That is one possible way of doing it. The second is that we demand, by legislation, that everybody do it, or that everybody do it at point of sale or change of occupancy. It is not that I disagree with the sentiment. I agree with the sentiment. I think this is an inappropriate place to put it and an inappropriate time to do it. That is why I will not be supporting this proposal at this stage.

I should say that Ms Tucker did say to me that one of the problems that she has had is that it was some 18 months ago that she gave drafting instructions for a general way of dealing with this. I can understand her disappointment that it has not come through, and that is one difficulty that we still have not resolved.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Housing and Family Services) (5.49): I have a few brief comments to make, Mr Speaker, in relation to ACT public housing. I think the biggest problem would be with the energy rating system - Ms Tucker's amendment to clause 7. Probably the water efficient appliances would be less of a drama, although there are some problems there. I am advised by ACT Housing that, in terms of some of our existing properties, this amendment could cost about $500,000 per annum without any obvious benefit from doing it. We would have less of a problem if there was a real benefit in doing so and it really enhanced the property, the ambience of the place, the benefits to the tenants and, I suppose, the value of the property as well. I am advised that there really is no great benefit to a lot of our properties if that occurs.

I note with interest, too, one point which Mr Moore raised and which I think is very relevant, and that is the imposition on perhaps a lot of people in the private sector if they had to do that as well. Of course, ACT Housing is the ACT's biggest landlord and it relies on the public purse. It has considerably more resources than other landlords. For the small landlord, and there are quite a lot in Canberra with maybe just one or so properties, it would be a very considerable imposition in the case of a number of houses which might well be 20 or 30 years old. I think it is a very sensible point that Mr Moore raises in relation to that. Accordingly, I will be unable to support this amendment from Ms Tucker.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.51): I want to add a couple of comments, Mr Speaker. Assuming a cost of $100 per assessment, my advice is that the cost to the private rental market in the ACT in total would be something like $3m. We have something like 30,000 private rental dwellings in the ACT. It is obviously only $100 per residence, although it may be more, I suppose, if extensive changes occur in premises. If they are renovated or in some way affected such that they need or require an additional rating, I assume that that cost is additional to that $100 for an initial assessment. Assuming that it was only one initial assessment per private rental dwelling in the ACT, the cost would be at least $3m. My advice is that the cost would be higher than $100. It would be at least $150, with other costs that are associated with the paperwork and other things to do with such assessments.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .