This week Green MLA Kerrie Tucker will introduce her plastic bags legislation. This comes at the time the energy-efficiency rating system for existing houses is coming into force with an array of practical difficulties unresolved.
The aim of the plastic-bag legislation is to make supermarkets charge shoppers for plastic bags. At present, of course, shoppers do pay for plastic bags, but the cost is amortised across all grocery items so shoppers feel the bags are free. The aim of the Green legislation is to make shoppers pay for each bag, so they might be discouraged from using them and thus contribute to a better environment.
The aim may be laudable, but the means are not ideal. Indeed, the means smack of radical economic rationalism. That theory hold that the price mechanism is the best way send signals to the market to promote the best allocation of resources. If something is free or subsidised, the rationalists argue, it will be overused. If it is given its correct price according to cost, it will not be overused. The trouble is that the price of a plastic bag is so small that the price mechanism will not work as a significant deterrent.
A better deterrent is already in place — fines for littering. Moreover much of the problem is solved with the use of biodegradable plastic bags.
As to the energy-efficiency rating, many Canberrans who now have their dwellings on the market are hoping to sell before the rating system becomes mandatory on December 24. If they do not they will have to take their houses off the market until they get one. Moreover, no dwelling can be advertised for sale without stating the rating. The legislation does not make it clear exactly how the rating is to be advertised. This could add to advertising costs and will virtually put an end to speculative advertising by people who are not fully committed do selling but want to get an idea of the market before getting serious.
True, The Canberra Times has an interest here. On one hand it will cause inconvenience to our advertisers. On the other hand it could add some revenue through the increased space required to advertise the rating.
It is quite apparent, though, that the real-estate industry is not prepared for the change and that many private sellers will be caught having to take their homes off the market on December 24 while they get a rating.
This would not be so galling if the energy-efficiency rating achieved something. As it is, it will just add costs to home-selling and give assessors fees. The actual energy efficiency of the house remains unchanged. The money would be better spent on subsidies for insulation or solar panels.
The information value is likely to be dubious. The sort of people alert to the fine detail of energy-efficiency are likely to look for those features and might make a decision to buy based on them. Most people will decide to buy on the basis of many factors, energy efficiency being just one: locality, price, closeness to facilities, structure, room layout, condition and so on.
The publication and distribution of a general pamphlet on what to look for and how to check energy efficiency would be preferable to this scheme, especially as new construction has to comply with energy standards. The money saved by no having to get a rating could be spent on insulation or other energy features in the home that the buyer would probably buy in any event, irrespective of its energy rating.
The rating scheme is also flawed because a rating is only as good as current conditions. If an owner puts in new energy features, a new rating will be required. If a neighbour builds or plants out the northern sun, again, the rating will change. It will be especially galling for some owners to be forced by government to get an energy rating but then find that government does nothing to prevent the construction of higher density dwellings or extensions next door that shut out the northern light.
More thought needs to go into schemes that look like good ideas at the time. He flaws in the energy-rating scheme should exercise the minds of MLAs voting on the plastic-bags legislation.