Page 3305 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Regarding the Greens’ proposal in relation to new homes in greenfields, as stated earlier, we support the bill insofar as we support the use of low-energy systems in new developments. We acknowledge that electric hot-water systems are the commonly used systems and account for up to 23 per cent of the total greenhouse energy emissions from a home.
Importantly, we believe that there is a stark difference financially for families between the initial, planned purchasing of a home versus the unexpected and sometimes emergency replacement of an existing system. We have all experienced that from time to time. In fact, when we purchased our home, it turned out something was not disclosed when we were buying, and that was that the hot-water system did not work. We got a home, not a brand-new home, and the electric hot-water system did not work at all. So we needed an urgent replacement, moving in with kids, for bathing and all that sort of thing. For us, putting in the gas-boosted energy efficient system was able to be done and we took that approach.
For other families in that situation, they simply often do not have the cash flow. Our concern is that we impose too much of a burden on those families in those circumstances where it is already a burden and we are simply making a greater burden. That is our significant difference of opinion and our significant issue. That is why we have a number of concerns about the mandatory replacement elements of the bill, not least of which is the financial impost on families that are forced to unexpectedly pay out thousands more as a result of this bill, should it be passed.
The financial analysis completed by the Greens—and again I thank them for putting forward some detail—is simple and broadly acceptable in that the case study ended up, after using all subsidies available and an interest-free loan, producing a reasonable outcome for the consumer. However, this is contingent on the continuation of the federal subsidy.
Unfortunately, as we have already seen, this federal Labor government has form when it comes to the withdrawal of programs and subsidies in this area. Ironically, it was the withdrawal of the solar panel assistance that first alerted us to this problem. We believe that not legislating this issue and depending on federal Labor for financial security is a mistake on several levels, not least of which is the environment.
Last term, the Canberra Liberals released our environment and planning policies that included a requirement for the installation of solar or other low-energy hot-water systems in all new dwellings—gas, solar or five-star electricity. Our policy also took the issue further, with a policy proposal to commission the Canberra Climate Change Taskforce to introduce low-energy hot water into multi-unit complexes in cooperation with energy service companies which may enter the ACT market. The Canberra Climate Change Taskforce will be tasked to provide advice to building owners and managers on the savings that can be achieved in both public and private multi-unit complexes.
Energy service companies in other states have achieved considerable energy savings at multi-unit complexes, such as aged-care homes. The investment can be fully privately sourced, with the repayments coming from savings in water bills. This is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .