Page 3300 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the MBA consider the bill “draconian.” They went on to say that they were “appalled that the bill was put forward without consultation with industry”.
I would like to quote correspondence from the Executive Director of the Housing Industry Association for the ACT. He wrote to my office, saying:
I also note there has not been any industry consultation, at least not with the HIA, on these proposed changes, nor has the HIA seen a cost-benefit analysis. This is important at a time when housing affordability is a key objective of the government.
It also seems premature to propose these changes when there is a national debate on a move to 6 star energy efficiency ratings with these requirements to be embodied under the BCA. I would also suggest there may be other initiatives outside of housing that could achieve good environmental outcomes including water conservation.
In addition, I would like to know whether any rebate or incentive scheme has been considered by the Greens to offset these costs to the consumer. The government is currently operating a commercial retrofit program on a voluntary basis that encourages good practice and perhaps this type of model should be investigated further for housing.
Madam Assistant Speaker, I am advised that the Property Council has a similar view. So how could a responsible government support a bill built on such weak foundations? I have sat in this place for three and a bit years. I, like many others, have listened over time to some sanctimonious pontificating from the crossbench about consultation processes. In a way that only the non-politician crossbench types can do, they seem to have perfected that art—
Mr Rattenbury: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker: under standing order 214 I would like the minister to table the documents he has just referred to.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): You can move that motion at the conclusion of the speech, Mr Rattenbury.
Mr Rattenbury: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MR BARR: We have all sat through those sorts of speeches time after time after time. I do find it quite odd that in bringing forward this piece of legislation none of the social impact or regulatory impacts—all of the various processes that apparently are a requirement for everybody else in this place before bringing forward legislation—has been followed.
But there is no doubt that this very poor process is one reason why the substance of the bill is so poor. Let me state categorically that the government supports the goal of phasing out carbon-intensive appliances in the ACT and introducing standards for energy efficiency where they are not already in place. As usual, though, the Greens party just does not get the big picture. It is an isolated nice idea but with no substance to support it, no connection to the wider environmental, social and economic context for the territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .