❓ Mr. Ripper questions the Premier about rising electricity prices and fuel poverty in WA, proposing a price freeze, earmarking GST revenue for relief, and removing a tariff increase assumption. The Premier rejects the proposals, citing past debt and advocating for a user-pays system, while also criticising the opposition's stance on carbon pricing.
AnsweredQoN 635Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTRICITY PRICES — “FUEL POVERTY”
I note that respective commentators are talking of the emerging issue of fuel poverty, a situation in which a household spends 10 per cent or more of its disposable income on energy. (1) Given that a recent study in New South Wales shows that nationwide increases in electricity prices will see a fifth of consumers spending almost 10 per cent of their incomes on energy by 2015, will the Premier now undertake to freeze electricity prices for three years? Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I note that respective commentators are talking of the emerging issue of fuel poverty, a situation in which a household spends 10 per cent or more of its disposable income on energy. (1) Given that a recent study in New South Wales shows that nationwide increases in electricity prices will see a fifth of consumers spending almost 10 per cent of their incomes on energy by 2015, will the Premier now undertake to freeze electricity prices for three years? Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(1) Given that a recent study in New South Wales shows that nationwide increases in electricity prices will see a fifth of consumers spending almost 10 per cent of their incomes on energy by 2015, will the Premier now undertake to freeze electricity prices for three years? Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(1) Given that a recent study in New South Wales shows that nationwide increases in electricity prices will see a fifth of consumers spending almost 10 per cent of their incomes on energy by 2015, will the Premier now undertake to freeze electricity prices for three years? Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Vasse would have to ask the people in New South Wales. (2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(2) In accepting that the dramatic spike in electricity charges in this state will deliver a GST windfall to the government, will the Premier undertake to quarantine a proportion of that increase to fund relief for low-income earners in Western Australia facing fuel poverty? (3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(3) Will he guarantee that in the midyear review he will remove the assumption of a 22 per cent electricity tariff increase in the next financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
(1)–(3) The proportion of household budgets that is spent on energy has risen. That is a global trend as the price of energy rises, and it is inevitable. The suggestion that this government impose a freeze just reminds us of the short-term thinking of the previous government, which left this state with an energy debt of about $1 billion, something this government had to address. No, we will not do that. It is a ludicrous proposal. As I have said, we have had very substantial increases in energy charges, particularly for electricity, over the past two years. That has been necessary. While I do not rule out future increases, I have said repeatedly that they will be modest; they will not be of the order of previous increases. What this government is doing is acting responsibly on a user-pays basis. Indeed, I would be interested to know where the Labor Party stands on federal Labor’s proposal for a price on carbon. That will mean a very substantial increase in electricity prices. We do not support a price on carbon. I assume the Labor Party does, so the Leader of the Opposition can explain the impact of that on the energy poor.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.