Page 1722 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
issues that Ms Le Couteur initially raised, but which has done so now in a very constructive way.
A range of discussions were held between my office and Ms Le Couteur’s, and I understand that a representative from Mr Seselja’s office was in attendance for some of these meetings, that went to address the issues around the perceived weakness in the auditing of EERs for existing properties, the lack of hard data on physical and desk audits of energy assessors undertaken by the government, some confusion in the public’s mind as to who administers which part of the energy efficiency rating system and some understandable industry confusion about time lines for the shift to second generation assessment software.
It is pleasing to note and to be able to report to the chamber that we were able to reach agreement on what is a forward looking, grounded in the facts and practical way forward. The wording of this amended motion, I understand, accommodates the concerns of the opposition, except perhaps for a call that Mr Seselja made for one department to audit another. The government do not support that. We do not want more red tape. What we want is the practical way forward that is outlined in this new motion. So I am very pleased to support it, and I encourage the opposition to do so as well.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.53): We will not be opposing this motion but I suppose we do not support it with any particular enthusiasm, it might be said. I suppose when you are getting the government to act on something, you are always a little bit concerned when they are particularly willing to comply. It often indicates that what you are asking them to do is something they were planning on doing anyway or is really not all that onerous. So that is, I suppose, the first thing I would say.
The initial motion certainly had some flaws, and we identified some of those in the discussion. One of our major concerns was that the five per cent figure seemed arbitrary. We had no indication as to what this would mean in terms of costs, so we were not going to support it as it was. We have seen it watered down significantly and, as I say, there is nothing here that one could particularly oppose. We certainly do agree with the Greens that the energy efficiency rating system does need some work and that we do need to throw some light on that process. To the extent that this does that, we are happy to support it. Whether it goes far enough, I suppose only time will tell.
When we look at some of the issues with the energy rating system, I know that a number of us have been approached by one particular company which is looking at the issue of air loss, how that is taken into account in energy efficiency ratings and whether that is done properly. They have various equipment for measuring that. They also have infrared equipment which can take a look at wall insulation and the like which is not otherwise easily able to be accessed. There are some concerning things that they are bringing forward. Of course, that is the view of one company that is selling a product, but no doubt some of the concerns they are raising are legitimate.
Some of those concerns are that houses with five-star energy ratings maybe do not have the insulation that they think they have, and that there is under-insulation of a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .