❓ The Premier addresses concerns about the residential feed-in tariff scheme's cost overruns, denying claims of a 'thousands of per cent' blow-out and stating an internal review is underway to determine the extent of the overspending and potential maladministration.
AnsweredQoN 869Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ENERGY — RESIDENTIAL FEED-IN TARIFF SCHEME
I refer to the solar tariff blow-out. (1) Was the inaccurate Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee submission in which the Premier realised something was wrong with this scheme provided and signed by Minister Collier? (2) Will the Premier announce the final cost of the blow-out in his scheme in the midyear review after Christmas? (3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the solar tariff blow-out. (1) Was the inaccurate Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee submission in which the Premier realised something was wrong with this scheme provided and signed by Minister Collier? (2) Will the Premier announce the final cost of the blow-out in his scheme in the midyear review after Christmas? (3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(1) Was the inaccurate Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee submission in which the Premier realised something was wrong with this scheme provided and signed by Minister Collier? (2) Will the Premier announce the final cost of the blow-out in his scheme in the midyear review after Christmas? (3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(2) Will the Premier announce the final cost of the blow-out in his scheme in the midyear review after Christmas? (3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(1) Was the inaccurate Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee submission in which the Premier realised something was wrong with this scheme provided and signed by Minister Collier? (2) Will the Premier announce the final cost of the blow-out in his scheme in the midyear review after Christmas? (3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(2) Will the Premier announce the final cost of the blow-out in his scheme in the midyear review after Christmas? (3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(3) Is the total cost of the scheme now around $500 million over 10 years; and, if not, how much is it? (4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(4) Will the Premier hold an independent inquiry into the administration of his scheme to determine how it was blown out by thousands of per cent? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
(1)–(4) It was not blown out by thousands of per cent at all. Unfortunately, I cannot add any further information to the answer that I gave to a similar question that was asked a couple of weeks ago. Both Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are examining the history of exactly what happened. Again, restating what I said previously, at the time of the previous election, the then opposition, now government, matched what the Labor Party in government had proposed; that was a 40c gross tariff costed at $13 million over — Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr M. McGowan : It was $23 million. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It was $23 million—okay? That proved to be inappropriate. We came in with a lesser scheme. That caused a huge rush on it. It is a great credit to people that they are installing photovoltaics to reduce their electricity bills, contribute to green energy or whatever the motivation might be. Even when we reduced the amount of feed-in tariff, the scheme was still overprescribed and was running away. To bring a halt to it we brought in a policy that the scheme would be capped at 150 megawatts or end by 30 June, whichever came first. Clearly, the scheme went on beyond the 150 megawatts. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that. Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr M. McGowan : Hold a proper inquiry. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are doing it internally. As I said, there is no misappropriation, other than the fact that the scheme was not cut off when cabinet had decided it should be. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a matter of maladministration. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That may well be. It may be poorly administered in managing the cut-off. However, we are going back and trying to enforce a cut-off at 150 megawatts, while at the same time being fair to people who have applied in good faith. We do not know, for example, whether the sellers promoted the scheme and caused the rush, but there was a rush. That is being examined, and when it is examined, we will report publicly on that. There is a blow-out. I am not denying that. We do not know exactly how much it is. It is nothing like $500 million over 10 years, but it is significant. I again say that it is not as though this money has somehow been squandered or lost to the public. It simply means that more has been spent on subsidising home-based photovoltaics than was intended. There are more schemes out there—I think some 45 000 applications—and that is more renewable energy than we had intended to fund. I have to say that with the so-called carbon tax proposal now, these schemes are in question. I happen to think that people have made broad decisions that photovoltaics are a good investment. They can save money. They see it as a responsible thing to do. People are doing this and they will continue to order and install photovoltaics. Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr M. McGowan : When will you announce the blow-out? Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We will provide details when we have the answers. We do not have the answers at this point in time.
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.