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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3774 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I pick up the point made already, namely, that we need to show what benefit there is in those circumstances from having that kind of information. Exactly how many tenants will actually use that information to their benefit? The best illustration of the weakness of the position that is being adopted in this amendment is in respect of public housing tenants. I am advised that a public housing tenant, if they are on the waiting list, is offered two houses. They are offered a house that meets their requirements as they have indicated, presumably, on the form that they fill in. If they do not like that house they are offered a second house. If they do not like that house I understand that they go back to the bottom of the queue.

What is a public housing tenant going to do, or potential tenant going to do, if they are offered a house with a low energy rating on it, particularly if it is their second house? If they do not accept that house they go back to the bottom of the queue. In that circumstance the energy rating is going to be completely irrelevant to them; they are going to want the house. They are going to take it even if there is a low energy efficiency assessment attached to it. It may even be the case with the first house that they are offered; that they are not prepared to knock that back because the second house might be much less desirable for other reasons, even if its rating is better.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate what is being attempted here. The information will certainly be of value to some people, and forcing landlords to confront the energy efficiency of their house is probably, over a period of time, a productive thing to get them to do. But to impose this scheme only on the rental market, public and private, and to ignore all the other people in the ACT who also have houses, whose understanding of the energy efficiency of their house is not being addressed at all in these provisions, I think, is not appropriate. The extra regulatory burden which is imposed - $3m to $6m as far as the private rental market alone is concerned - is likely to be sufficiently great that it would be a disincentive for some private lessors to be in the rental market at all. That would be unfortunate because not being in the rental market means that there are fewer places for tenants to take up, and that would not assist those who are seeking rental accommodation in the ACT marketplace.

MS TUCKER (5.55): I thank members for those comments and I would like to respond to some of them. I think the responses from Mr Moore, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Humphries are a very good indication of why we have a problem in this country with our environmental record, particularly our performance on greenhouse. What I am hearing is that it is going to cost the private sector $3m. What I am hearing Mr Howard say is basically the same kind of argument on the national front for the Kyoto conference.

The issue here is not just about whether or not it is going to cost individual landowners $100, or $3m across the sector, which is going to be an impost on their viability and profit. The issue here is about how we change our behaviour in relation to energy and space heating. The issue here is not about the fact that an ACT Housing tenant has very little choice. We already know that. We know that ACT government housing tenants often find it very difficult if they are on a low income to stay warm in winter. We know that the standard is not very high in government housing in the ACT in terms of energy efficiency.

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