❓ Opposition Leader Ripper questions Premier Barnett on significant increases to household fees and charges in the 2010-11 state budget, particularly water bills, and the Premier defends the increases as necessary to align prices with the real cost of service provision.
AnsweredQoN 243Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE BUDGET 2010–11 — HOUSEHOLD FEES AND CHARGES
I refer to last week’s state budget, in which the Premier slugged WA families across a range of household fees and charges. (1) Why did the Premier support a 17.7 per cent increase in water bills for families in Western Australia; and why did he not decide on smaller increases over a longer period? (2) Does the Premier feel it is consistent with the pride and dignity of citizens that many will be forced to access hardship utility grant scheme funding every fortnight to assist them to pay the skyrocketing bills, including electricity bills? (3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to last week’s state budget, in which the Premier slugged WA families across a range of household fees and charges. (1) Why did the Premier support a 17.7 per cent increase in water bills for families in Western Australia; and why did he not decide on smaller increases over a longer period? (2) Does the Premier feel it is consistent with the pride and dignity of citizens that many will be forced to access hardship utility grant scheme funding every fortnight to assist them to pay the skyrocketing bills, including electricity bills? (3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(1) Why did the Premier support a 17.7 per cent increase in water bills for families in Western Australia; and why did he not decide on smaller increases over a longer period? (2) Does the Premier feel it is consistent with the pride and dignity of citizens that many will be forced to access hardship utility grant scheme funding every fortnight to assist them to pay the skyrocketing bills, including electricity bills? (3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(2) Does the Premier feel it is consistent with the pride and dignity of citizens that many will be forced to access hardship utility grant scheme funding every fortnight to assist them to pay the skyrocketing bills, including electricity bills? (3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(1) Why did the Premier support a 17.7 per cent increase in water bills for families in Western Australia; and why did he not decide on smaller increases over a longer period? (2) Does the Premier feel it is consistent with the pride and dignity of citizens that many will be forced to access hardship utility grant scheme funding every fortnight to assist them to pay the skyrocketing bills, including electricity bills? (3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(2) Does the Premier feel it is consistent with the pride and dignity of citizens that many will be forced to access hardship utility grant scheme funding every fortnight to assist them to pay the skyrocketing bills, including electricity bills? (3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(3) Why did the Premier refuse the far more moderate recommendation of 10 per cent put forward by the Economic Regulation Authority? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. (1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(1)–(2) As I said last week, the increases in electricity and water prices were large increases. That will not be replicated in future years. We acted in last year’s budget, and this year, on electricity; we have acted this year on water to bring the prices closely into line with the real cost of supplying the service. They are not fully there. There is still a subsidy but it is very much reduced. (3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
(3) As far as the ERA’s recommendation of around an 11 per cent increase is concerned, I think what we have to look at is the effect on about 300 kilolitres of consumption. The fixed charge for water fell and the consumption charge rose. We get a different figure according to which level of consumption we look at for households. We have taken a typical two parent–two child family home. We have calculated on that basis. Smaller households, which typically may be retired couples and pensioners, would not use that amount of water; in fact, some may have a relative benefit out of it. We took the decision to increase prices in one hit. It will cause hardship for some families but it corrects the imbalance we had in both water supply and electricity supply. It is now in place. Now the pressure will be more squarely on those trading corporations to make sure that they make economies within their operations.
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.